RE: [asa] 10 Evidences for the Age of the Universe

Bernie,

Thanks for the comments, I haven't done those sections yet, so haven't
nailed down their titles, although I have some ideas for some of the main
points in them. I may have some better ideas for titles of the two you
mentioned. No, I don't think it's necessary to discuss all the pros and
cons of various local flood theories and others at this particular point.
Even if it were done under the auspices of ASA, the point here is integrity
to what science currently says.

These summaries are part of a larger discussion that I'm putting together,
where I plan to later get into issues of Biblical evidence, creation and
flood theories, accommodation vs. concordism, etc., as well as evolution.
The point at which I'm inserting these summaries is simply to present what
science says about these various issues. The idea behind all these is to
give a decent survey of the scientific evidence that any creation science
theory must necessarily deal with. Even if you don't like the evidence, you
first have to know what it is to be able to formulate an intelligent
response to it. I know that YEC, OEC and others will have their own
interpretations of many of these things, which is to be expected. In fact,
I would encourage it - with the qualifier that they deal with ALL the
evidence in a coherent fashion, not just taking pot shots at a few parts and
snowballing their Christian audience who don't know any better.

From my own experience and from talking with others who are interested in
the subject, it's easy for those with minimal knowledge to throw out random
theoretical answers to one scientific "problem" or another, including
passing on answers given by popular organizations or writers. But once the
full scope of multiple and independent streams of evidence are considered,
it becomes much more difficult to simply dismiss the evidence in total. I
think it would become easier to then introduce them to alternate
interpretations of Genesis, because they will then comprehend the reason why
a more reasonable explanation is necessary. I'm not concerned with beating
them into acceptance of one theory or another. I don't care if someone
concludes that they will hold their beliefs despite the evidence, as long as
they are honest about not understanding how to reconcile the two. I'm at
that point with some things myself. I don't even fault someone who, after
considering the evidence, decides on "appearance of age" as the catch-all
explanation. My main point to that person would be to make sure they
understand and face squarely all the vast amount of evidence that God must
have intentionally (and falsely) laid before us, to make us believe the
earth and universe were old.

Jon Tandy

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:13 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] 10 Evidences for the Age of the Universe

"20 Evidences for the Fossil Record"

It isn't a matter of proving the fossil record, but interpreting it. YEC's
etc. accept the fossils. Your point is more specifically "20 Evidences in
the fossil record against young earth creationism" or something similar.
"20 Evidences for the Fossil Record" is like saying "20 evidences for DNA."
DNA and the fossil record is a matter of interpretation- no one doubts the
existence of them.

"20 Evidences against a Global Flood"

Also need?:
"20 Evidences against a Local Flood"

"20 Evidences against a Local or Global Flood (against Noah's Ark saving
animals)"

Since ASA is neutral, all these must be discussed?

.Bernie

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:33 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] 10 Evidences for the Age of the Universe

I am putting together some summaries of scientific evidences, possibly as a
PowerPoint, etc., as a quick summary of the most powerful evidences that
need to be dealt with by any creation science theory that wants to take
science seriously. Except for the first one, I don't have all the items
identified, so I'm not sure what quantity that I'll end up with. For
instance,

10 Evidences for the Age of the Universe

20 Evidences for the Age of the Earth

20 Evidences against a Global Flood

20 Evidences for the Fossil Record

20 Evidences for Common Descent

20 Evidences from Human History

For my "10 Evidences for the Age of the Universe", I have the following so
far:

1. Speed of Light - distance to objects much further than 4000 light years

2. Stellar Parallax - using geometry to measure distance, independent of
speed of light

3. Size of Astronomical Objects - another geometry issue, huge galaxies of
billions of stars that appear to us only miniscule

4. Star formation and death - time and space required for life cycles of
stars

5. Detailed history of stellar events - details of supernova explosions,
etc., indicate real history over real time

6. Light echoes from supernovas - geometry of space from reflections of
supernovas

7. Redshift of Galaxies - confirmation of expansion of the universe

8. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - confirmation of Big Bang theory

9. Age of moon rocks - radiometric dating of rocks from the moon

10. Age of meteorites - radiometric dating of meteorites agrees with moon
and earth rocks

Any other thoughts?

Jon Tandy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:00:04 -0500