Old Earth + Young Earth = Stupid Question

The stupid, very dumb 'how old is the Earth' idiocy

Published by: Dan Calabrese on Wednesday November 21st, 2012

By DAN CALABRESE - God is smart. Idiots are dumb.

I know my Bible. While I write for a political site, my devotion is much more to God than to whatever it is that we talk about here. So most of the theological debates that find their way into politics make my skin crawl, because much of the time the conservatives are misapplying Scripture to suit their partisan purposes, and liberals who treat all expressions of faith as absurd by definition merely use these issues as traps for conservative politicians.

That's why this business about Marco Rubio, and his answer to GQ about how old the Earth is, represent such extreme idiocy all around.

First of all, Rubio's actual answer to the stupid question was not so bad. Here it is in full:

"I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute among theologians and I think it has nothing to do with gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the earth was created in seven days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."

Right up front, by mentioning its irrelevance to anything a U.S. senator actually deals with, he essentially says, "Why are you asking me such a stupid question?"

As to his actual answer, he doesn't claim the Earth is only 10,000 years old. He doesn't even outwardly say he believes the account of Genesis, although he seems to imply that he does, and he leaves open the question of just what the seven days of creation might have encompassed in terms of the passage of time as we understand it.

But here's why this whole thing is so stupid. First of all, it's a left-wing fiction that Bible-believing Christians everywhere believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old, and are obsessed with perpetuating this belief. I'm sure there are those who believe it and teach it, but the notion that this doctrine is a key tenet of American Christianity can only be believed by those who have never spent much time in churches. In my lifetime, I have been a member of Catholic, Baptist (two of them), non-denominational and Pentecostal Christian churches. I've never heard the age-of-the-Earth doctrine taught anywhere. Not a single time.

Genesis, sure. We believe the creation account of Genesis. But the 10,000-year notion is the calculation of a few people who apparently added up the years associated with biblical geneaologies and came up with an age-of-the-Earth theory. To them, if you think they're wrong, you deny everything up to and including the Genesis account and therefore the very Word of God, and you are a heretic.

Here's the problem with that. First, let's take a look at Genesis 1:1-2:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Let me ask you a question. How much time passes between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2? Study the text carefully. Look for evidence to support your answer. OK, now go ahead and answer. How much time?

You don't know. You can't. It doesn't say. It could be an instant. It could be billions of years. You have no idea and neither do I. Neither does anyone. The way the narrative is written might cause you to infer the transition was instantaneous, but it doesn't say that. Now let's move on to Genesis 1:3-5:

³ And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ⁴ God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

This is where we start getting into the passage of days. The cycle of light/day and darkness/night certainly seems to suggest that these were literal 24-hour days, and there's no reason to think God couldn't have done everything Genesis describes in six 24-hour periods (remember, He rested on the seventh day), because God can do whatever He wants.

Now, you ask, if God did all this in six days, then what's with the evidence that the process took billions of years? There are any number of ways to square the two, if you accept the supernatural powers of God. (If you don't, we really don't have anything to talk about so you might as well start tweeting about how Herman Cain has crazy people working for him.) It is not God's typical modus operandi to snap His fingers and perpetrate disruptions of nature. Rather, He uses nature to achieve what he wants to achieve. Genesis 1:11-13:

¹¹ Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. ¹² The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. ¹³ And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Seed-bearing plants and trees need roots, right? Vegetation grows from soil. Seed has to develop within fruit. If God did all this in one day, it stands to reason that He created the plants and the trees roots and all. That He tilled the soil. It could be that He just snapped His fingers and it was all there, in an instant. But given the way God usually deals with nature, my guess would be that He actually planted the seeds and let them grow. If they grew to maturity - to the point where they actually bore fruit - in a single day, then it would stand to reason that God sped up the process dramatically, sort of like time-lapse photography, and that he did the same with everything from rock formations to the development of continents and oceans.

Anyone examining the evidence would certainly find scientific backing to support the notion that they are billions of years old, and it's very likely that anything or anyone on Earth at the time (remember, mankind was not created until the sixth day) would have experienced it as if it was a passage of billions of years.

Am I arguing for the young-Earth theory? Not really. We know from 2 Peter 3:8:

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

However long the passage of time was for anyone or anything on Earth, what matters is that it was a seven-day expanse of time as God experienced it.

Christian fundamentalists who get this wrong simply make too many assumptions about the passages of time described in Genesis, and forget the lesson of 2 Peter 3:8. The creation story is written from God's perspective, not from ours. It doesn't matter how long it took for us to live through it. God can create a billions-years-old planet in a day if He wants to. God can speed up time for us while slowing it down for Himself.

That's why this argument is so stupid. It's stupid for theologians because we don't need to explain all these details to have faith in God's Word. His power transcends the limits of the natural world so it's no problem at all to accept all scientific evidence and understand that it merely gives us insight into how God did what we know He did. And it's incredibly stupid for politicians because, unless they are biblical scholars, they have no idea what they're talking about and they're dealing with an issue that is completely irrelevant to their jobs.

But I suppose the dumbest people in all this are the Christians who demand politicians accept their ill-conceived young-Earth doctrine. (After all, a government full of young-Earth believers will facilitate the accomplishment of . . .what, exactly?) And the most loathesome people in all this are the secular leftists - especially those in the media - who scorn all notions of faith, and simply use these dumb questions as a trap to take down anyone they can.

Question: "How old is the Earth, Senator?"

Answer: "That's a stupid, irrelevant question."

Memorize it.

http://www.caintv.com/the-very-very-dumb-how-old-is

Real Hope and a New Life

Psalm 119:147-149

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

¹⁴⁷ I got up before dawn, and I cried out for help.
My hope is based on your word.
¹⁴⁸ My eyes are wide-open throughout the nighttime hours
    to reflect on your word.
¹⁴⁹ In keeping with your mercy, hear my voice.
O Lord, give me a new life guided by your regulations.

Science Textbooks & Professions (A problem for the old Theory of Evolution)

Take a walk through the bookstore or library. Look in the science and engineering sections for the main categories: biology, microbiology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, materials, electrical engineering, mathematics, computer science, and so on. These are the true technical subjects that actually do things. People have professions in these areas to help make things happen....a continuum of works from basic research and knowledge to better production lines in factories to wireless networks to human genome mapping to oceanography to hurricane forecasting.

Today, in 2012, we have had about 150 years of exponential gains in science and technology since the industrial revolution kicked things off with gems like refrigeration, steel making, gasoline, telephones, elevators, reinforced concrete, pasteurization, radio waves, etc. In this same timeframe we also had Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species (1859). You've heard about it, but have you actually read it? Do you think it is a science book? Well is it not so much. It is foundationally a philosophy and religion book with some observations on living things like bugs and flowers scattered throughout. This famous book is only 243 pages in my Great Books edition. So read it! At least read the glossary where you will see six pages or so of biological terms....hardly a scientific foundation for understanding the entire world and universe and everything living thing we know and imagine to exist. That is the Theory of Evolution as commonly promoted today: the explanation for everything which is even touted as fact by many smart people.

Now with such an important book like this and over these 150 years of awesome scientific progress you would think that there would be science textbooks and professions on evolution. There are not. There are plenty of books on evolution but none of them show evolution (that is true macro-evolution: somethings from nothing, life from the soup), how it works, what can be done with it, etc. Most telling are the introductions to the leading evolution textbooks today which provide advertisements such as "Why evolution is true?" and "Why evolution is a fact" and so forth. Imagine these analogies: "Why are thermodynamics true?" or "Why is the law of gravity true?" The top textbooks on these subjects are not asking these questions and most of the real science subjects have been around for a lot less time. All the things in the hard sciences are true to some level, or not, because they are observed and tested over time. Not so with evolution. By now, if it were just a bit true (being such a big thing as it is) it should have led to categories of real science textbooks and professions. There are none. Zero. Oh, you can go off to college and find a major on "evolutionary biology" but these are rare, tucked under some other departments, and focused on studies and philosophical waxings. Again, just like Darwin's famoud book: more about religion than science.

Conflict, Confusion, and Atrocity

Resolution, intelligence, sensibility, trust, kindness, patience.

Clarity, purpose, direction, foundation, strength, energy, balance.

Faith and love and peace.

Yes, there is hope. Yes, there is a God. He is the author of all good things.

And yes, Satan is real and proud owner of all conflict, confusion, and atrocity.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. [1 Corinthians 14:33]

Main point

Exploring our world, one coherent thought at a time.

Creation and Evolution, Basic Q&A

I was recently asked the following questions:

What is your opinion and/or belief on....

1. How did the universe and earth come into existence?
2. How long has it been since the beginning of time until now?
3. What is your opinion on Creation vs Evolution?

Here is the response I gave to these questions:

Above and beyond any science-based or religious-based views, one’s world view is the key. So here are some initial thoughts from my world view which can be gleaned from this What's the point? blog.

1. How did the universe and earth come into existence?

I believe that there is God, a Creator God. God created the world and everything that we can see and cannot see. He could have created it anyway He pleased. If He is God and so powerful to bring into existence all the matter and intricacies of the universe, from very big to very small, then He could have created it in one instant or over a process of 1000000000000000000000000000000+ years. It makes no difference. But time itself was part of the creation, so the word "instant" has no real meaning, no context. The latest discoveries in microbiology, for example, show the extreme mechanical complexity of DNA and other sub-cellular elements....these complex machines could have popped into existence, over time, by accident, but it is shown by today's science that this would be much harder than the space shuttle popping into existence.

2. How long has it been since the beginning of time until now? 

On the order of 14,000,000,000 years, some say. On the order of 10,000 years, some also say. I don't know and don't think it is most important. I think it is fair to say that nobody knows. First, let's frame our context here. I believe in Creator God and I also believe in His Word to us, the Bible. The Bible is not a science book. It is not an answer book to this type of scientific question. On the other hand, to answer a science question requires some elements of observation and repeatability. It is a question of time. But prior to the beginning there was no time. The question can therefore not be fully answered by science. There is scientific evidence, however. And these evidences exist for an "old" earth and for a "young" earth. Most of the evidence for "old" appears based upon theories with layers assumptions of billions of years (indirect). Most of the evidence for "young" is based upon more direct information. As a scientist, I think the "young" earth has better evidence. As a Bible believer, I believe the "young" earth reflects a more accurate representation of God's message, His nature, the basic observations of life, and the testimonies of the heart. Back to my first opinion about this question: I don't know and don't think it is most important. But while it may not be important, a default acceptance of billions of years can be very damaging to person accepting and trusting God's Word as objective truth. Again, I believe in God and make the rational choice to trust my Creator.

Note: see 11/21/2012 blog "old earth + young earth = stupid question" for more details. It is a stupid question indeed and is usually just a trap for one "side" or another. I am on neither side!

3. What is your opinion on Creation vs Evolution?

There is quite an irony here. Evolution is more closely aligned with religion and Creation is more closely aligned with science. Darwin's books, On the Origins of Species and The Descent of Man, were at their cores philosophy books. Darwin was troubled over Christian religion to start with and then had a tragic loss of his young daughter, and other deep problems. The science parts of Darwin's books do address micro-evolution, the small variations, but does absolutely nothing for macro-evolution, the coming about of life and subsequent presentations of plants and animals and all the rest of the world. (Dark-gray peppered moths become light-gray peppered moths, but do not become giraffes!) Evolution has played into the hands of sociopaths and monsters like Stalin and Hilter in the last 100 years. Evolution is now steeped into all media and as the default philosophy or even fact. Evolution is a theory, a weakly supported one that is getting weaker by the minute (hello modern science!) Creation is well-reflected by the world we see and carefully study.

Answers in Genesis website is full of resources including technical papers and writings from all kinds of top-level scientists, medical doctors, engineers, and others. It is a good starting point: http://www.answersingenesis.org/. I like AiG because their core is a redemptive message to all people.

For a rigorous scientific approach visit RTB (Reasons to Believe). Hugh Ross has developed the RTB Creation Model which is very detailed and presented with point by point comparisons with other theories. His main point is that there is a Creator God and we can trust in God’s Word, The Bible. He also promotes having sensible and patient dialog among all camps: young earth Christians, old earth Christians, athiests, etc. His books really helped me to get off the question of age as being the main point and focus on the creative power of God and the multitude of ways it can be discovered through good thinking and observation. http://www.reasons.org/about-us/hugh-ross-testimony

I think that everyone, at least deep inside, is keenly interested in these these questions. What do you think? I hope that through exploring these questions are asking “What is the answer?“ that people would ask and find out “Who is the answer?” The Lord God, Creator and Heavenly Father, it is He.

Energy and Power

Energy is hot and cold, but God is Power! Power is the rate of "energy going." That energy must have a source.
Although the evidences of energy, as in the ability to do work, etc., are all around us all the time, the concept of energy remains abstract to us.
For sure, we do know that energy is not nothing going in no particular direction. It is definitely something going in some very particular directions as described by the physical laws of the universe including, for example, the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

What is the point?

What is the point? That is the first of many questions we will explore.

You Version is the best!

You Version is the best! Sign up and use it: all different versions (try the GWT, my favorite), bookmarks, notes, customized reading programs.

http://www.youversion.com/users/jamfez/notes

Happy new year and all the Best Wishes to you!

Here are two new blogs, each with different kinds of stuff:

1. Really? Does that make sense?  http://kryowhat.blogspot.com/

2. Energy Evolution: Create the Future   

http://kryofuture.blogspot.com/