Theologica

a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site

So I am dumb and don't remeber very much from geology if, in fact, I ever took a course on it...

So my question is:

Can anyone recommend a good book that explains the method by which geologists use in a simple and systematic way?

I'm really not interested in the YEC critque of their methods, I'm just looking to wrap my mind around the way in which geologists go about determining the age of the earth.

Thanks.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

Views: 8

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

God might say "Consider the awesomoness of my creation" or "Behold my creation which declares both my sovereignty and power" but I don't think He ever says "behold the creation and realize how old it is".
Rey Reynoso said:
God might say "Consider the awesomoness of my creation" or "Behold my creation which declares both my sovereignty and power" but I don't think He ever says "behold the creation and realize how old it is".
I don't think He does either. That is why I'm not saying that it's old because He said so. I'm saying it is trustworthy because He is. We can examine it and determine different things. We may not be able to figure out all of it, but we can start with an assumption that it isn't a lie.

D.

> but we can start with an assumption that it isn't a lie.

Actually, no we can't.

How many times does Scripture explicitly say that God sent forth a deceiving spirit? (1 Kings 22; 2 Chron 18)
Or that God hardened someone's heart/closed their eyes so they couldn't hear the truth and repent (Is 6; 39; Matt 13; Mark 4; Luke 8; John 12; Acts 28; Rom 1; Rom 11, etc).
Or that people would believe the teachings/lies of demons? (1 Tim 4)

Is there any real reason to believe that the results from any such earth-age testing is *not* the work of demonic activity?

Bizzare notion, I suppose, but if demons do have the ability to interact with nature (Gen 6), and if they can be sent by God with an express purpose to fool man so that God can harden man's heart, why should we as citizens of the modern age, discard the notion that the "angel of light" can wear a modern-looking lab coat?

(And if they existed for millions of years, why is it that fossilized skeletons were never found until about 200 years ago).

TIM
Mystefied by this comment:

"I'm not as old as you think based on what you see and don't really have a plan 'cause all this is just randomness"

To mention straw men here would be to insult straw men.

Another "huh????" for:

"But age is a result of trustworthiness. We can trust the creation as a work of His, or we can't. If we can't, we may as well all subscribe to Last-Wednesdayism. Reality can't be trusted. None of it."

Start with the assumption that God created the universe (which you won't find much in the halls of "science" as practiced in the world today)and that He jolly well might have done it (in fact we can be pretty dang sure HE did it) in a way that falls outside the usual behavior of matter and such...THEN you can begin as a theist I mean as a SCRIPTURAL theist to look at the universe and ask your questions about age. However, you'll find yourself at a disadvantage compared to non-theist, not-Sciptural, because you won't be able to make those handy little assumptions that they can.

To do your contemplation mixing the Scriptures on the one hand with on the other hand observation and inference from the cosmos on the basis unbiblical* assumptions is a species of syncretism.

*uniformitarianism, for example.
The problem with dating is the same as The man made climate change debate. Most people use dating based on an assumption they hold. Millions of years are required to support their belief in Darwinian Evolution. Just like those who want to stop CO emissions have to believe man is causing global warming therefore man made carbon is causing climate change. No one enters the argument following the evidence first they all start with there belief and then follow the methods to lead them there.

We Creationist do the same thing at times denying evidence because of our beliefs.

4christ
Lol, funny how far from the trail this thread has traveled... (i.e. what books would explain the current scienetific explanation of the age of the earth)

But I will add my two cents into this discussion since there seems to be a strong consenus that God could have (and I'm not disagreeing, I'm just asking the question) "just done it" or "make it look like He did it";

Why not just say the same thing with the resurrection?

Why posit "historical evidences" when God has the power to "just do it"? Again, I'm not saying that He didn't/couldn't I'm simply asking: if God just "does things" (in the sense being used in the above comments), why should we be looking/using any type of "evidence" to explain/justify the things we find in Scripture?

Again I am not trying to spark a firestorm, I'm simply asking a question as to what I see the logical result of the view of "God just did it" mentality.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh
TIM said:
> but we can start with an assumption that it isn't a lie.

Actually, no we can't.

How many times does Scripture explicitly say that God sent forth a deceiving spirit? (1 Kings 22; 2 Chron 18)
But does Scripture tell us that these spirits show HIS attributes? That is my point. Unlike the activities of demons or wine that started out as water, we are told to look at the creation because it reflects Him. Does God point us to fake things and tell us it teaches us about Him? I don't think so. D.
I'm not sure what a "'God just did it' mentality" is. But the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. Interpreting evidence in such a way that doesn't seriously allow for the God we have revealed in the Scriptures is going to lead to conclusions different from interpreting evidence in a way that does.

Funny you would mention the resurrection. 1 Cor 15:12 refers to a very valid observation of "scientific" reality. "The dead are not raised" is what the evidence shows. Still we know God can/will do what doesn't happen according to the evidence.
Marv,

Thats what I'm getting at. There is no "science" to prove the ressurection; God just did it by His power.

And maybe I am just not thinking correctly (which is entirely possible lol), but what I was gettin at, was:

If we don't need to posit "scientific" explanations for the ressurection, why do so many (take your pick from YEC, OE, TE, etc) feel the need to explain other things (i.e. the age of the earth/universe) in that fashion?

It appears to me (and again, I am more than willing to be corrected on this) that we are "picking and choosing" what parts "fit" with our understanding (based on a "scienetific understanding) of what we see in Scripture and then placing others in the "mystery of God" category.

Perhaps I'm just confused is all.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh
4forchrist said:
The problem with dating is the same as The man made climate change debate. Most people use dating based on an assumption they hold. Millions of years are required to support their belief in Darwinian Evolution. Just like those who want to stop CO emissions have to believe man is causing global warming therefore man made carbon is causing climate change. No one enters the argument following the evidence first they all start with there belief and then follow the methods to lead them there.
I think there is a correlation, but not sure that yours is the right one. In the climate change debate, you have those that are say that man is killing the planet, some that say that the planet is changing, but it is not man's fault, and some that say there is no evidence of change at all. Far-left progressive environmentalists *need* climate change to justify all they want to do. And Darwinists require long ages in order to explain their position. But the difference is that (1) even with the current age of the earth, there isn't enough time for the Darwinist and (2) just like there are people that believe climate changes but it isn't man's fault, there are folks out there that believe the earth is old but don't believe in Darwinism/evolution. In other words, there are those in agreement with the facts of age or climate change that don't do so because of outside assumptions. And they reach that conclusion by following the evidence (both sides of it) and letting the chips fall where they may. It is an "evidence that demands a verdict" kind of moment for objective minds.

Based on my research and study on this topic over 25-30 years, it is not the old-earthers that start out with assumptions. It it the young-earth folks that cherry-pick their facts, offer ridiculuously illogical arguments, use circular sources that appear to give backup of their conclusions while not really doing so, and even continuing to sell (both literally and figuratively) young-earth arguments that they have, in other cases, recognized are not valid. In other words, they start with an assumption that their interpretation is the only one and if what God said, and in their sloopy and slipshod defense of that, they've brought both their interpretation AND God under ridicule. You ultimately end up with a conclusion that neither the world nor our God can be trusted. It has caused a lot of people a crisis in faith.

When one starts studying this with no pre-conception though and reads the evidence and positions of both sides, it leads to a strengthened trust in what we see as well as what we don't. A confusing God that is fooling us with what we believe to be real, is replaced with a God that didn't just speak everything into existence over the course of a few days, but spent a great deal of time setting things up and actually got His hands dirty making things. Speaking for myself here, I ended up with a better understanding of God and better appreciation of the earth and further realization that just because some "Christian" organization is coming out with it doesn't mean that it is fact....especially when it comes to some of the older and more fringe ones. If it was our opposition with diploma mill degrees and no real education in what they spout, we would be all over it. But because these guys profess to be on "our" side, we turn from being Bareans to sticking our heads in the sand.

D.

I don't know that we DO need science to explain or justify what we learn from the Bible. I'm actually finding that I am not completely sure I'm picking up your point of view from your rhetorical questions.

You are characterizing something as a "God just did it" approach (you say "mentality"). One thing we know from Scipture is that God does things we cannot explain by science. On the other hand the scientific method can and does quite often correllate with propositions of scripture.

However, for someone to suggest that God did not so something that He says He did (the resurrection of Christ for example) because our collective experience and reason tell us otherwise, is to fail from the start to have even a minimal understanding of Whom we are dealing with (eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign, and all that good stuff).

That being said, we also see that He has ordained a certain regularity to the created order. And so the scientific method can help us determine things like cause and effect, the most probable answer to a question, etc.

It is a useful method, but has limitations, and also is a poor, though popular, idol.

Marv,

Thats what I'm getting at. There is no "science" to prove the ressurection; God just did it by His power.

And maybe I am just not thinking correctly (which is entirely possible lol), but what I was gettin at, was:

If we don't need to posit "scientific" explanations for the ressurection, why do so many (take your pick from YEC, OE, TE, etc) feel the need to explain other things (i.e. the age of the earth/universe) in that fashion?

It appears to me (and again, I am more than willing to be corrected on this) that we are "picking and choosing" what parts "fit" with our understanding (based on a "scienetific understanding) of what we see in Scripture and then placing others in the "mystery of God" category.

Perhaps I'm just confused is all.
Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton) said:
TIM said:
> but we can start with an assumption that it isn't a lie.

Actually, no we can't.

How many times does Scripture explicitly say that God sent forth a deceiving spirit? (1 Kings 22; 2 Chron 18)
But does Scripture tell us that these spirits show HIS attributes? That is my point. Unlike the activities of demons or wine that started out as water, we are told to look at the creation because it reflects Him. Does God point us to fake things and tell us it teaches us about Him? I don't think so. D.

The verse that springs to mind is "the heavens declare the *glory* of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork."

If it said "the heavens declare the age of God and the firmament shows He did indeed do it 3 billion years ago. I mean 11 billion years ago. I mean 21 billion years ago", then I'd definitely be with you.

I'm focusing specifically on the age (the Bible is silent, but quite strongly hints, imho, at a young earth) and the process (evolution, as presented, is incompatible with Gen 1 & 2). For those two specific items (upon which "modern science" rests and accepts as fact) I'm more than willing to entertain the notion that demonic activity fools people into thinking they're too wise to need to listen to a bunch of 'old myths'.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsors

Linkologica

Blog Resources

Arminian Today

Anyabwile

Bock

Called to Communion

Challies

Classical Arminianism

Craig

Christian Answers For The New Age

Christians in Context

Conversation Diary (catholic)

Continuationism.com (marv & scott)

Desiring God blog

DeYoung

First Things

Fr. Stephen (eastern orthodox)

 

Internet Monk

KJV Only Debate (jason s.)

 

Köstenberger

Lisa Robinson - TheoThoughts

Mohler

McKnight

National Catholic Register (catholic)

Parchment & Pen

Pierce

Re-Fundamentals

Resurgence

Roberts

Roger Olson

Taylor

Team Pyro

The Apologist's Pen

Untamed Spirituality

WDTPRS (catholic)

Witherington

 

Theological Resources

BioLogos

Center for Reformed Study and Apologetics

Creeds and Confessions

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Council of Biblical Manhood and Womenhood (complementarian)

The Center for Bibical Equality (Egalitarian)

Evangelical Theological Society

Monergism.com

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Society of Evangelical Arminians

Theopedia

Theological Word of The Day

Tyndale House Bulletin

 

Church History

Early Christian Writings

Glimpes of Church History

 

Christian Traditions

Book of Concord

Catholic.com

Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox Catechism

 

Apologetics

CARM

Lennox

Reasonable Faith

RZIM

Stand to Reason

Tektonics

 

Bible Study

Bible Gateway

Bible Researcher

Blue Letter Bible

Bible.org

IVP New Testament Commentaries Online

 

Online Bible and Theology Education

Biblical Training

The Theology Program

 

Theology and Bible MP3s

Covenant Seminary

263 Theology Questions and Answers

Veritas Forum

 

Theologica Chat Room

MiRC Chat

Badge

Loading…

Get the Widget


Sponsor



Bible Options




© 2014   Created by Michael Patton.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

/*============================================================================================ /*============================================================================================