Posted on 10/29/2010 9:53:29 PM PDT by skeptoid
Here's an audio excerpt from Thursday night's Alaska Public Broadcasting gubernatorial debate, in which Republican Gov. Sean Parnell and Democratic challenger Ethan Berkowitz respond to the moderator's question of whether Earth is closer to 6,000 or 6 billion years old. (Audio courtesy Think Progress.)
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
excellent point.
If that’s a fair question for a political candidate then this country truly is finished.
A possibility that God made the universe “with age” is valid. But something I doubt. Why have man, who he knew would increase in knowledge and reason over time, enter into a gopher hole with no way out? Why would the universe, the manifestation of God’s creative abilities, set us up for failure?
My $0.02 anyway.
As a matter of fact, the theory explains that all viewpoints, ( that is measurements made in different frames of reference ) are in fact reconcilable in terms of invariants, one of which is the proper time, along a world line, or the elapsed time shown by any physically calibrated clock subjected to any motion.
Universal constants, if they change, would result in observations of the universe we could validate. Hasn’t been validated as of yet. No data seen or test devised to discern this. Doesn’t mean it didn’t occur though.
Also, the way the equations are derived, these constants are often proportionality constants. The math doesn’t predict them as a function of time. Not to say it isn’t possible, but when you derive the constants as a function of time, the time rate of change should be detectable with fine enough equipment and decent design of experiments.
To detect constants that have changed enough so that a 6,000 year old Earth is valid, we have the equipment to do this, even if the change of constants is a negative exponential.
But science can never rule out a possibility, just that the probability of that possibility approaches zero.
A fundamentalist engineer/physicists thoughts anyway.
“The problem with (2) is that it presupposes we have evolved into smarter people now. Which I categorically reject.”
Not necessarily smarter, but possibly with more mathematical experience and tools.
Re the rest of your post, very insightful! Never considered those aspects. Rather I took that (1) view from my understanding of literature: Every author is in some sense a “creator” of a world, but all of those worlds have a past that existed before the events on page 1. So why would the ultimate Creator be any different, for we are all (very) imperfect images of Him. (Created in His image.)
On the other hand magnificent titles and many grandiose promises attract the natural curiosity of men and hold them forever involved in fallacies and chimeras, without ever offering them one single sample of that sharpness of true proof by which the taste may be awakened to know how insipid is the ordinary fare of philosophy. Such things will keep an infinite number of men occupied, and that man will indeed be fortunate who, led by some unusual inner light, can turn from dark and confused labyrinths in which he might have gone perpetually winding with the crowd and becoming ever more entangled.
Galileo, The Assayer
I will stipulate that the "confused labyrinths" include the popular conception of science, and that those "led by some unusual inner light" are as rare as ever. 'course, you never know where that light is coming from!
This is the one that gets me. Nothing created everything? The big bang theory is for me proof that intelligent design was in play.
“Not necessarily smarter, but possibly with more mathematical experience and tools.”
Right. Of course we build on each generations’ innovations. But that doesn’t mean 21st century man has a higher IQ than 1st century man.
“Why have man, who he knew would increase in knowledge and reason over time, enter into a gopher hole with no way out? Why would the universe, the manifestation of God’s creative abilities, set us up for failure?’
I don’t see why it would be a set up for failure?
The Genesis account, not to repeat myself, has God creating Adam as a full grown man. So, God himself tells us His creation is made with age.
It is a straight narrative. There is no ‘hiding of the ball,’ here.
He made, for example, the creeping things (insects) on day five as I recall. He didn’t make the eggs, later to turn into larva, etc. The were creeping already.
Same day he made the flying creatures (birds certainly). They weren’t all in eggs in a next. They were flying.
“But that doesn’t mean 21st century man has a higher IQ than 1st century man.”
Oh, I agree. In fact, a good argument can be made that as a society evolves, the average intelligence DECLINES. It goes something like this: When times are hard, stupidity is an evolutionary disadvantage. After all, stupid equals death when times are hard. However, as a society becomes more prosperous, it can carry more “dead weight.” That dead weight tends to breed more if for no other reason that it doesn’t know any better. Hence, the average intelligence declines. Now, there might be more tools, experience, and innovation for the top intelligences to reach heights that were previously impossible, but those gains are far outweighed by the mass of dead weight.
IOW, I can almost guarantee that the average 1st century man had a higher intelligence than the average 21st century man. That said, the most intelligent 21st century men are far beyond what any 1st century man could spend the time to even approach.
What’s the purpose of the question except for a religious test?
I think that just as God created man with age, he also did so with earth. Notice that God didn’t create a newborn babe to grow up, but, an adult male and female. The garden was fully stocked as well. If it wasn’t created with age, which I believe, then I think we’d have a few scriptures stating that God created a field and planted seeds. However, it doesn’t say that.
I think this is just a side issue and if God wanted us to know the answer, then he would’ve made sure it was in His Book. I think its more important that we believe in the CREATOR.
JMO.
You know, reading some of the things put down by both the learned and unlearned men of even centuries ago, as compared to the ridiculous scribblings of the so-called “enlightened” that we are today, I have to wonder if we all haven’t grown more stupid over the centuries rather than more intelligent. Can you imagine anyone, anyone at all, in any university in any country writing such a thing as that passage by Galileo? Read the old English poets. Read the writings of Founding Fathers of this country. Heck, read the average letter written by an eighteenth century hick in the Americas and you will find an expression and grace, not to mention an understanding of grammar and vocabulary, that puts even Phds of our day to shame. Are we actually dumber than our forefathers?
>>> Mr. Parnell is correct. Only atheists and agnostics believe otherwise.
Even the Vatican accepts natural science. Unless you are someone authorized to excommunicate a billion Catholics, your “atheists and agnostics” remark may not be a winner.
>>> Since when are planetary geology/astronomy questions appropriate for a political debate?
I’d agree, this isn’t an issue a governor really should be spending his time concerning. Unfortunately the candidate totally bought into the acceptability of the question. And in so doing made himself look rather ignorant.
That's why I posted.
The person who submitted the query and the host/questioner wanted him to answer 6,000 so they could brand him an extremist, but he instantly answered truthfully and they were quite disappointed.
The questioner was dead serious when she asked:
"You're the Governor, .. . - - . .. you really don't want to answer this?"
Parnell:
"I really don't know. For either one of us to do - is really quite speculative."
Three succinct words:
I don't know.
And I'd like to speculate that he doesn't care, either!
After all, what does it have to do with being Governor of Alaska?
I loved it.
“It’s 4.54 Billion years old, plus or minus 45 million years.”
Sure it is...until other evidence is found and the age will be changed. The presumption with fools who believe science is God is that all knowledge is known...
What man is there who can comprehend that wisdom by which God knows all things, in such wise that neither what we call things past are past therein, nor what we call things future are therein looked for as coming, as though they were absent; but both past and future things together with those actually present are all present.
Augustine of Hippo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.