A group of Phd scientists presented their evidence for the young earth in Roanoke. Sounds like they had some compelling data points to support their model.
I would love to see them make some predictions using their model and then evaluate those predictions against future scientific discoveries.
One thing that bothered me though. Russell Humphreys was quoted in the article.
"I want you to leave encouraged about this," he [Humphreys] told the audience. "It means you can trust the Scripture."
I am sure that was just a verbal slip. We could trust scripture before Humphreys presented his scientific evidence, couldn't we?
The other disturbing quote came from a 14 year old, bless her heart.
Others, like Becca Hubbard, 14, who traveled from Gloucester with members of her church, were not questioning what was presented.
"It's not really that hard to believe," she said. "As long as you have faith."
Kinda implies that faith means shutting your mind off, doesn't it? That is a popular misconception.
I doubt Humphrey's comment was a verbal slip. It was addressed at those people who doubt the straight forward interpretation of scripture when people try and tell them the earth was 4.5 billion years old.
Also, on predictions...the team made predictions about their theories before they tested those predictions...part of the presentation (of which I have seen a small amount) which was not covered in the article.
Posted by: Alan Grey | May 24, 2006 at 23:02
"I doubt Humphrey's comment was a verbal slip."
I think you are exactly correct about who Humphrey's comment was targeted at. What disturbs me is the implication that scripture is not trustworthy until science says so.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 25, 2006 at 08:17
"Also, on predictions...the team made predictions about their theories before they tested those predictions...part of the presentation (of which I have seen a small amount) which was not covered in the article."
Excellent.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 25, 2006 at 08:18
I would not be qualified to say anything about the scriptures, but those young earth people are wrong.
I don't know who they are, but 99.9 per cent of the scientists in the world who are qualified to comment would not agree with them.
Posted by: Maxine | May 25, 2006 at 08:37
I don't see how anyone could hike the Appalachian Mountains and not conclude that they are at least millions of years old. Their shape and soil indicate vast ages of weathering. The huge boulders, some the size of houses, that tower above the tiny streams that shaped them were surely once submerged by them in the days when the mountains were taller and the streams flowing from them larger.
Can anyone look at a globe and not think that Africa and South American were once conjoined? Can anyone look at the African leopard and the South American jaguar and not think they are related? Could these things have changed so much in so short a time?
Is there any such thing as a atheistic or agnostic young-earther?
Posted by: Rob Ryan | May 25, 2006 at 11:30
"Is there any such thing as a atheistic or agnostic young-earther?"
LOL! Great line, Bob!
I fall into the same spot as Maxine. I am not qualified to argue the points. I can only say for certain that God created the earth and everything in it and on it. I do lean toward an older earth. But not heavily. I figure that it is something that I will never know until Judgment Day, after which I'll probably not care very much. (I'll probably be a little distracted and the question will most likely slip my mind)
Posted by: Danny Kaye | May 25, 2006 at 13:19
Maxine:
"I don't know who they are, but 99.9 per cent of the scientists in the world who are qualified to comment would not agree with them."
Probably true. But Einstein's crazy idea of relativity was once in the minority too, especially in face of a giant like Newton. It is the nature of science to flip flop around as more data is gathered.
Truth is not always determined by a majority vote.
You are right tho ... as it stands currently, there is a lot of scientific evidence pointing toward an old earth. These guys have their work cut out for them -- but they are a determined bunch.
Rob:
"Is there any such thing as a atheistic or agnostic young-earther?"
I have never met one :) But who knows?
"Could these things have changed so much in so short a time?"
Interesting that you mention that. Some young earthers (not all, mind you) believe in a rapid evolutionary model. God started it off, of course, and he started a turbo charged evolutionary process to give us the variety we see today in horses, just to pick out one example. They would say that a proto-horse was on the ark ... and that turned into mustangs, appaloosas, arabians,
etc in a few thousand years.
Danny:
"I figure that it is something that I will never know until Judgment Day, after which I'll probably not care very much."
I echo your sentiments.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 25, 2006 at 18:27
Jeff:
I am sure that was just a verbal slip.
Not by your logic in our other thread. Like the teacher about whom you complain, there's an explicit "I belive this is true" at the end of his sentence, unless he explicitly says "just kidding." :)
Posted by: tgirsch | May 26, 2006 at 00:10
"Not by your logic in our other thread. "
You got me on that one. ;)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 26, 2006 at 09:20
If I wasn't very clear in my comment above, I'll just clarify.
There is lots and lots of scientific evidence for a very old age of the earth (eg greenland ice core isotope data).
These young-earth people don't have any evidence.
It isn't a question of agreement or disagreement between scientists, or opinion --- just accepting the evidence!
Posted by: Maxine | May 29, 2006 at 09:23
Maxine,
I wouldn't say they don't have any evidence. I would say the evidence they have faces a substantial amount of contra-evidence. I don't feel qualified to completely write off 100 percent of the evidence these PHds presented -- not until I have seen it and considered it.
BTW, if you don't mind me asking, are you a follower of Christ? Just curious (I don't recall seeing your comments before).
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 29, 2006 at 11:39
What disturbs me is the implication that scripture is not trustworthy until science says so.
Curious. I am not sure what you are really getting at...are you saying that if science disagree's with a clear scriptural understanding
1) we must modify our understanding of scripture to agree with science?
2) We must modify our understanding of science to agree with scripture?
If you choose (1), then aren't you saying that our understanding of scripture is not trustworthy, and that nature itself provides a clearer truth than scripture?
Posted by: Alan Grey | May 29, 2006 at 19:14
Humphrey's comments made it sound like he believed scripture was trustworthy once it lined up with current scientific understanding (which he argues points to a young earth position).
Whether the data points to a young earth position or an old earth position, Humphrey's should not put scripture beneath the authority of science.
That is what I was getting at.
Here is my own position, since you asked.
1) All truth is God's truth.
2) God is the author of the Bible and Creator of the natural order.
3) God cannot lie.
4) Man must interpret the words of the Scripture and the evidence of creation through his interpretative filter relying on reason and the Holy Spirit. His interpretation is affected by his worldview, his knowledge and his sin nature (i.e. the noetic effects of the Fall).
5) If there is an apparent contradiction between the Words of scripture and the evidence of creation, then the error is on our side, not God's.
6) To resolve the error, we must rely on reason and the Holy Spirit to see if the fault is in our interpretation of scripture or our interpretation of nature or both interpretations.
I think we ought to pursue harmony between God's revelations -- which may mean adjusting one or both interpretations.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 29, 2006 at 22:29
Hello Mr Dawntreader
"Am I a follower of Christ?" you ask. I do my best to live a christian life by the values taught by Christ. I bring up my children to those values. But I do not think I could honestly call myself a follower of Christ becuase I cannot believe the supernatural aspects.
I'm also a scientist. I was trained in science and a scientist for some years. Then I became an editor on a science journal (Nature) where I remain today.
Hope that explains it. There is more about me on my homepage linked to from Petrona my blog.
I came to your blog originally becuase I like, indeed love, Lord of the Rings, Narnia and Harry Potter -- and their ilk. They are one of the many bonds I have with my daughters.
Posted by: Maxine | June 01, 2006 at 10:55
"I came to your blog originally because I like, indeed love, Lord of the Rings, Narnia and Harry Potter -- and their ilk. They are one of the many bonds I have with my daughters."
As do I, with my daughters.
You have an interesting background. I look forward to more of your comments.
Have a great day!
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | June 01, 2006 at 18:19