Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
Rocks Aren't Clocks: A Critique of the Geologic Timescale
by John K Reed

US $14.00
View Item
Geology by Design
by Carl R. Froede Jr.

US $15.00
View Item
The Age of the Earth DVD
by Dr. Tas Walker

US $13.00
View Item
The Dating Game DVD
by Dr Emil Silvestru

US $13.00
View Item
Rock Solid Answers
by Mike Oard and John Reed

US $20.00
View Item
Refuting Evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati

US $10.00
View Item
The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $15.00
View Item

Deep time doesn’t make sense!

123rf.com/Ruslan Kokarev

time

by

Published: 20 June 2013 (GMT+10)

The Bible rejects ‘deep time’ (see Did God create over billions of years?). There is no hint of deep time within its pages; it says the universe is thousands of years old, not billions. But deep time is the mental furniture of our age. Our culture automatically thinks in terms of ‘millions of years’. It’s just assumed that science has proved deep time.

But what if deep time is fundamentally an irrational idea? No matter how much ‘science’ seems to ‘prove’ it, the point would be moot because deep time in itself simply wouldn’t make any sense. Logic is more foundational than science—science doesn’t have to exist (since nature doesn’t have to exist), but logic does. We can’t talk or reason without logic. Not even science can save an illogical idea.

Of course, deep time is not obviously irrational. It seems to make sense. But how can we test its logical consistency? First, we need to know what sort of idea ‘deep time’ is and what it specifically says. Next, we must remember that deep time is an interpretation of data. Data does not speak for itself. It is always interpreted according to our starting assumptions or axioms. Deep time is no different; it is an interpretation of the data that rests on a few basic axioms. This provides us with the crucial test: if those axioms are false or don’t make sense, deep time has no logical foundation to stand on, regardless of how impressive the ‘science’ of deep time seems.

Not even science can save an illogical idea.

What is deep time?

The timeline of deep time

What exactly is ‘deep time’? It’s a historical framework—a basic history of the universe. Its basic features are practically unquestioned today (Ga = billions of years ago; Ma: millions of years ago; ka = thousands of years ago): c. 14 Ga origin of the cosmos, c. 4.6 Ga origin of the earth, c. 3.8 Ga origin of life, c. 600 Ma origin of animals, c. 200 Ma origin of mammals, c. 2 Ma origin of humans, c. 200 ka origin of modern humans, c. 10 ka origin of agriculture. Its absolute length has varied somewhat over the last 200 years or so, but the basic events and sequence have remained the same. It has always been couched in timespans far longer than a biblical 6,000-year chronology of the universe.

Deep time: science or history?

When we ask, ‘Is deep time true?’, what sort of question are we asking? Is this a scientific question? After all, the ‘science of geology’ supposedly proves deep time. Still, the answer is no. Science has to do with how nature works, and is studied by repeatable experiments and observations done in the present. Rather, it’s a historical question. It’s about events in the past. We can’t repeat them. We can’t observe them. We can’t do experiments on them. Science can be a useful tool in studying history (see CSI … and CMI), but it provides only secondary and circumstantial evidence.

Testimony has some unique advantages over physical evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is the primary source of knowledge about the past. It is where someone who was there tells us what happened, when, where, and even why based on what they saw and/or heard. Now, we all know that witnesses can lie or be mistaken. That is a problem in courts of law, but it is not a problem when the testimony comes from God, as with Genesis 1–11 (and the rest of Scripture). But it’s not just that biblical testimony is involved in natural history. Testimony has some unique advantages over physical evidence. It provides us with a conceptual context in which to understand what happened—something physical evidence can never do by itself. Evidence can’t speak at all, let alone for itself. When someone says ‘the evidence speaks for itself’, they are really saying that they think the evidence can only be reasonably interpreted one way. Rather, people tell us what happened, not the rocks or fossils. And when people tell us what happened, based not on what they saw or heard but on what they inferred from physical evidence, their story is automatically at the mercy of what they think could have happened—their axioms. But when different people have different assumptions about the past, they produce different stories from the same evidence. Testimony is the only independent way to test these stories. It is a unique type of evidence to history; it is not scientific evidence. Testimony can’t be tested scientifically; it has to be tested in other ways (internal consistency, consistency with other witnesses, credibility, etc.). Testimony repeated doesn’t give us new data. And it provides a conceptual context in which to interpret the evidence, and doesn’t just assume one. Testimony is a crucial difference between science and history. As such, science and history are not the same thing, so we must be very careful in the way we apply scientific findings to history.

The axioms of deep time

Testimony is the only independent way to test these stories.

Unlike the timeline of deep time, the axioms of deep time have not changed in over 200 years. So what are the axioms that are used to justify this historical framework?

The premise of prehistory

Every historical framework works from a basic premise about the past. For deep time ‘history’ this is the notion of prehistory: that there is a (long) history for the cosmos prior to the start of recorded history. There are only two types of evidence used in history: physical evidence and testimony. Prehistory rules out testimony by definition.

Matter’s all that matters

The premise of prehistory entails that physical evidence is all that matters for prehistory. It’s the only thing we can investigate! So we have to presume that matter (and energy) is all that matters in prehistory. Natural cause and effect is all that applies in our study of nature (see The rules of the game). And from this starting point we have to assume that matter behaves with absolute uniformity in time and space.

The supremacy of science

If matter is all that matters, then the study of matter’s behaviour, science, is the only method we can use to find anything out about prehistory. This means we must be able to inherently trust science to give us the right answers (when we have enough data, of course). This idea is called positivism, which says that science is the supreme way to know anything about nature.

Battle of Bunker Hill by Howard Pyle (1853–1911), circa 1897.

The Battle of Bunker Hill

The Battle of Bunker Hill, early in the American Revolutionary War, took place on 17 June 1775. We know about this event through the testimony of those present at the time.

The ‘clocks’ of constancy

In history we need a way to tell the time so we can know when events happened. With nobody in prehistory to tell us, how can we even begin to investigate? We have to assume the present is the key to the past—an idea called uniformitarianism. In other words, we assume the observed rates of certain natural processes are constant through time. A constant rate plus known conditions in the present provides a way to calculate a time. And when we measure current conditions and rates of processes like erosion, rock formation, and isotope decay, and extrapolate them into the past, we obtain an age for the earth much older than human history records. This supposedly justifies the premise of prehistory.

Deep time: coherent or confused?

It all sounds so nice and neat; a simple set of axioms to prove deep time. Do these ideas make sense? Do they hold together in a coherent way?

Is matter all that matters?

Three reasons are given for why matter is all that matters for prehistory: 1) physical nature is all there really is, 2) whatever is outside nature had nothing discernible to do with prehistory, and 3) matter is all we’ve got to go by in prehistory even if there were miracles in prehistoric times. Do any of these ideas make sense?

Naturalism

The first idea is called naturalism, and is the simplest starting point. If physical nature is all there is, then it follows that physical nature is all that matters for prehistory. However, naturalism is self-refuting. If physical nature is all there is, then a person’s belief in that idea is produced purely by the workings of inanimate nature. Their brain chemistry made them believe it; they didn’t reason to the belief—reason had nothing to do with it! So why trust your brain? Especially when someone else’s, by the same laws of brain chemistry, tells them that nature is not all there is. Again, your brain could just be fooling you to keep you alive, and you’ll never know the difference. If nature is all there is, we can’t know it, which means belief in that idea is self-refuting.

Methodological naturalism

The second idea is called methodological naturalism,1,2 which says that science can only explain what happens in the universe in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. It’s doesn’t tell us if nature is all there really is, but it does say that science operates as if nature is all there is. The upshot is that if there are any supernatural beings, they never interfere directly in nature, and especially in prehistory. This idea is common among theistic evolutionists; it’s seen as a way to avoid both naturalism and biblical creation.

What’s the real point? It’s not that nature is all that matters, but that the way nature behaves is ordered.

But there’s no inherent reason why some such beings (like God) couldn’t or shouldn’t do miracles in prehistory … beyond our own personal opinions. Only if such beings told us there were no miracles in prehistory (and they were reliable) could we actually establish the point. But then it would no longer be prehistory! Hence, methodological naturalism is arbitrary.

It’s also a smokescreen. What’s the real point? It’s not that nature is all that matters, but that the way nature behaves is ordered. The two ideas have nothing to do with each other—if nature is all there is it doesn’t mean it’s ordered. It could be completely chaotic, for all we know. And as we saw above, we’ll never even know if physical nature is all there really is. So why operate as if nature is all there is? We don’t. We operate as if nature’s behaviour is predictable. Why is it predictable? Great question—to which naturalism is an incoherent answer, and methodological naturalism is a non-answer (see Why does science work at all? for the answer).

Miracles in prehistory?

Some believers in prehistory, such as old-earth creationists, believe that miracles were possible in prehistory. They reject the notion that we should operate as if nature is all there is, though they still believe that physical evidence is all they have access to for figuring out what happened (by the definition of prehistory). Rather, they strive to find the most likely explanation of the physical evidence, whether natural or supernatural. Types of events they typically label as ‘miracles’ are the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, and the origin of certain biological features in the history of life.

But precisely when did these miraculous events occur? Where? By whom? Do we even know if some of these events were performed by supernatural agents? They will readily attribute the absolute beginning to some supernatural cause,3 but that doesn’t tell us who or what that was, or how long ago it was. They will also invoke a miracle for the origin of life. It’s pretty clear that life basically can’t come from non-life without intelligent input in principle, but showing precisely when, where, and by whom this miraculous event actually happened without testimony is impossible. There is no historical context. There is no absolute timeline. There is no way to identify the ‘culprit’. Only testimony can provide such things in a non-arbitrary way, but that is ruled out by definition in prehistory. As such, they are completely at the mercy of their assumptions with no way to test them, which makes any assumptions adopted arbitrary.

In practice, the ‘where’ and ‘when’ of such events are ‘read off’ deep time history, and the ‘who’ is assumed by one’s own theology. But miracles in prehistory contradict other deep-time assumptions, which provide the only way to get all the information we need to reconstruct the prehistorical past. Without testimony the present is the only possible key to the past to date prehistorical events. Miracles however entail that the present isn’t always the key to the past. If a miracle affects the rates of physical processes used to date events in the past, we can’t trust the dates. Miracles in prehistory also undermine the reliability of science to tell us about prehistory. Once one miracle is allowed, where do we stop? That we should stop at some point doesn’t tell us anything.

Nature’s predictability is clearly essential for a working nature. What we can’t know and yet need to is precisely how many and what sort of miracles it takes to ruin a reasonable trust in nature’s predictability. But even this doesn’t tell us all the miracles that e.g. God might do, let alone what He actually did. Some miracles may have happened that didn’t leave easily discernible evidence behind (e.g. we have no physical evidence of Jesus turning water into wine). Or even if they did, perhaps some miracles were so large in scope that we might mistake them for natural events (e.g. events like Creation and Noah’s Flood). This is no better than methodological naturalism; it arbitrarily assumes what e.g. God did.

We can’t know precisely what God did when and where unless He tells us. But if He told us, it would no longer be prehistory.

We can’t know precisely what God did when and where unless He tells us. But if He told us, it would no longer be prehistory. So there’s no reason to trust in deep time history if miracles are allowed in prehistory. In fact, allowing miracles means there’s no way to say anything certain about specific events in prehistory (see CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement). This is hardly a solid basis for a historical framework.

The present: the key to the past?

The present is presumed to be the key to the prehistorical past. This uniformitarianism would be an ingenious way to tell the time without witnesses … if it worked. The idea assumes constant rates in various physical processes and uses these to date events (see How dating methods work). Secular geologists have largely rejected this idea—but not entirely. What they have (generally) rejected is dating by processes now known not to be constant, like erosion,4 volcanism,5 and rock formation.6 But they still use uniformitarianism to tell the time (See BioLogos and the age of the earth): radiometric dating is now the prime method, but that method is not objective (see How accurate is Carbon-14 (and other radiometric) dating?).

We’ve seen this idea work in crime scene investigation. But there’s the key—we’ve seen it work. Timelines derived from forensic science have often been verified independently by testimony. By definition we can’t see if the ‘constant rate’ clocks of prehistory work (see CSI and evolution). Neither can we know they work without testimony because testimony is the only independent test available for such clocks. Therefore, if the present is the key to the prehistorical past, we can’t know it.

Nature’s constancy does not by itself guarantee that the present is the key to the past.

There is a common response to this: we can know that these methods (generally) work because nature behaves in a constant way. But this does not follow. Nature’s constancy does not by itself guarantee that the present is the key to the past.7 It’s not the only factor influencing how these ‘process clocks’ run. Even if the rates were constant, we could not tell how much time had elapsed because we would not know the initial reading of the clock. And also, conditions can change how the process runs, as can the scale of the process. The process rate can itself be rate-dependent. And what exactly is the ‘present’ which is supposedly the key to the past? Today? The last year? The last century? The history of scientific observation? Human history? All these ‘presents’ are miniscule in comparison to the alleged billions of years of cosmic history. How can we know they provide a norm by which to measure the rest of history? Without testimony, we can’t.

The problem is that uniformitarianism equates the behaviour of history with science—repeatably constant. But the objects of study in science and history don’t behave the same way. Past events are not repeatable because time is linear, and only moves in one direction. On the other hand, how nature behaves is testable by repeated observations or experiments because it’s not something time can change—only God can, since only He sustains nature.

And what happens when miracles get in the way? Miracles leave physical effects. Big miracles leave big physical effects—like a global Flood, or a six day creation of the whole cosmos. When miracles like these get in the way, the ‘process clocks’ can’t work because the conditions have changed, the scale is huge, and even the rates have likely altered. Apart from testimony, we can’t know what happened.

We even see different ‘process clocks’ regularly giving conflicting dates! That is, the same assumptions with comparable methods give different results (see Age of the Earth). This makes perfect sense because uniformitarianism makes no sense.

Science rules prehistory?

Science (see ‘It’s not science) is assumed to rule prehistory. This is usually a subset of the idea that science rules everything. It can be taken two ways: (1) science is the only way to know anything, or (2) science is the ultimate authority for knowing anything. The problem for both ideas is that they must be provable scientifically. But the idea that ‘science is the only way to know anything’ is not itself testable or repeatable scientifically. We can’t prove it using science. It’s the same with assuming that science has primacy. Even if science had primacy in 1,000 instances of knowing doesn’t mean it must have primacy in the next instance of knowing. Science can’t provide us with absolute truth, so it has no authority over methods that can, like revelation or logic. Therefore, both of the above ideas are self-refuting.

This applies even if we just try to limit science’s rule to prehistory. Science is never autonomous. Science is impossible without certain axioms derived from philosophy and theology. In fact, these axioms are biblical assumptions, like:

  • an existing God (to produce a real world) (Hebrews 11:6; Genesis 1:1)
  • a rational God (for a logical world and a rational man) (2 Timothy 2:13)
  • an unchanging God (reflected in nature’s constancy) (Malachi 3:6)
  • a faithful God (we can trust God to keep nature constant) (Jeremiah 33:25, 2 Timothy 2:13)
  • a free God (we can’t know how God keeps nature constant without testing it) (Psalm 115:3)
  • a sovereign God (God can keep nature constant) (1 Chronicles 29:11–12, Colossians 1:16–17, Hebrews 1:3)
  • a God who reveals himself (without which we cannot know anything about Him) (Romans 1:19, Hebrews 1:1–2)
  • a humanity put in charge of creation to rule it (so we should bother figuring out how nature works to rule it properly) (Genesis 1:28)
  • a charge to tell the truth (so we study nature and report our findings truthfully) (Exodus 20:16)

In other words, the God of the Bible is the only reasonable ground for science.

History confirms this. Science was born not in Greece, China, India, or Islam, but in Christian Europe in the Middle Ages. It blossomed in the Reformation, when the Bible’s ultimate authority and the Fall’s radical corruption of the whole of man were acknowledged. Science owes its origin to the God of the Bible.

But if the God of the Bible is the ground for science, the Bible of God is its constraint.

But if the God of the Bible is the ground for science, the Bible of God is its constraint. The Bible tells us not just what God is like, but what He has done. And He has done miracles—even some big ones. And since the God of the Bible can’t lie and knows everything, the Bible as God’s word is perfectly trustworthy. These miracles falsify a purely scientific history, so we have to take them into account when we use science to study history. The Bible rules science—both the science of present process and the science of past event.

Conclusions

The assumptions of deep time don’t make sense. If matter is all that matters, we can never know it. Even if matter is all there is, there’s no reason to think matter would behave in a predictable way. We can’t know if there are perfect ‘clocks’ for prehistory because to know we would need to see them work. However, the concept of prehistory rules this out. The very idea that science is supreme is self-refuting. So, with no way to justify prehistory, it’s nothing but an arbitrary assumption. Each axiom is incoherent. Attempts to marry them with biblical theism don’t improve them, and if anything only highlight the incoherence even more. The Achilles’ heel of the whole deep time enterprise is prehistory—the fact that it is history that must ignore testimony. No testimony means no history because without testimony any assumptions we adopt are arbitrary at best.

This of course is not a problem for biblical Christianity. It has the infallible witness of Scripture to what happened. God tells us his story, and so gives us a basis for understanding history. It is only from this basis that we can hope to know and understand history, and to be able to explore history further using physical evidence.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References

  1. Reed, J.K. and Williams, E.L., Battlegrounds of natural history: naturalism, CRSQ 48(2):147–167, 2011. Return to text.
  2. Doyle, S., Defining arguments away: the distorted language of secularism, J. Creation 26(2):120–127, 2012. Return to text.
  3. Rightly so, but atheists such as Leonard Krauss disagree. He posits that the universe came from ‘nothing’ by redefining ‘nothing’ to mean ‘a quantum vacuum’. This is clearly not a total absence of being; Krauss instead arbitrarily assumes the necessary existence of quantum mechanics. See Discovery Channel program: How the Universe Works for more information. Return to text.
  4. Reed, J.K., Three early arguments for deep time—part 1: time needed to erode valleys, J. Creation 25(2):83–91, 2011. Return to text.
  5. Reed, J.K., Three early arguments for deep time—part 2: volcanism, J. Creation 26(1):61–70, 2012. Return to text.
  6. Reed, J.K. and Oard M.J., Three early arguments for deep time—part 3: the ‘geognostic pile’, J. Creation 26(2):100–109, 2012. Return to text.
  7. Reed, J.K., Demythologizing uniformitarian history, CRSQ 35(3):156–165, 1998. Return to text.

The ‘new atheists’ claim that Christianity doesn’t have answers to evolution. This site begs to differ, with over 8,000 fully searchable articles—many of them science-based. Help us keep refuting the skeptics. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Michael T., Australia, 20 June 2013

Of course it's irrational!

Since when has time had 'depth' ?!?

Or is 'deep time' profound, unknowable?

Not so - the Word of God the Bible makes it clear that there are men who have "changed the truth of God into a lie", and 'deep time' is just that - a lie.

James T., United States, 20 June 2013

Good article Shaun .Might i add that materialism does not make sense either.Because they believe that our brains are just pretty much a bag of chemicals that are following the laws of chemistry.However notice that it contradict itself because than Atheist themselves did not logically come to their conclusions about God rather their brains could not help it and just was predetermined by brain chemistry.I know im kinda copying what Dr Sarfati said in one of his articles but what he said was very true.=]

Malcolm T., United Kingdom, 20 June 2013

I cannot see anywhere in scripture where we are told the universe or earth is thousands of yrs old.

Don't misunerstand me, i do not accept millions of years but, the Bible says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Richard L., United Arab Emirates, 20 June 2013

When I started my timeframe perspective reorientation away from deep-time, I did wonder, “Haven’t too many **events** happened in history? Can they all be compressed into about 6,000 years?” Some people might still be staggered by the hidden curricular signal in the Geologic Column (GC)—99 age divisions within the Cambrian-onwards epochs in the 2004 version available online. “How will all those transitions compress? Are they real?” Answer: please read John Woodmorappe’s “The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods”, available from CMI. In his inspection of the technical literature, John provides this very revealing quote (p. 13), “There is a **minimal** spread of 40 MYBP… for the base of the Permian Period and 20 MY for the top of the Permian… and these figures are only obtained by omitting, with no objective reason, the much broader deviations” [original italics, p. 499, Waterhouse, 1979, see book for full reference]. Contrast that uncertainty to the official GC chart showing the Permian subdivided into 3 epochs and 9 ages, with an upper boundary uncertainty of 0.4MY and a lower one of 0.8MY. Please note, **even within the faulty assumptions of standard geological time**, there is here a huge lack of reporting transparency regarding their actual uncertainties in GC construction—the ‘backroom’ uncertainty quoted demolishing any supposed validity of those proposed epochs and ages, **even within their faulty appproach**. The known events shrink dramatically! A biblically shallower timeframe is indeed possible.

Please note this GC-pioneer sloppy complaint about Kelvin, "I am as incapable of estimating and understanding the reasons which you physicists have for limiting the geological time as you are incapable of understanding geological reasons for our unlimited estimates"

Bob S., United States, 20 June 2013

This article provides an excellent breakdown of how knowledgeable old-earthers rationalize their standpoint. Most old-earthers would not be able to articulate this, though. They just go with the flow of whatever crowd they are in.

Mapping out the logic in outline form makes it plain that every claim for an old Earth and Universe rests firmly on arbitrary assumptions. Calling them axioms doesn't make them any less arbitrary. This is why unbelievers react so violently when they hear anyone speak of how they were led by God or how God performed a miracle in the present. The Christian has real revelation of the power and presence of God. The unbeliever has arbitrary/irrational assumptions.

dean R., Australia, 20 June 2013

Yes I would like to see the rock & time walk free, they were set up on the basis of a false confession.

Carlton R., United States, 21 June 2013

The whole concept of 'deep time' is based on this foolish/unintelligble premise; that man beginning with himself as referrant can determain the age of the universe, earth or anything else that predates human history. It is philosophically a category mistake and a fool's errand! How does one calibrate the equipment/methods used to get these deep time numbers? How does one know when he actually has the absolutely true and final age? If Man stumbled upon the correct answer he'd have know way of knowing that he actually had it! Yet, science dogmatically insists that they have proved deep time ages," Believing themselves wise they became fools".

Tim A., Australia, 22 June 2013

Very disappointing to see the jumbled up , illogical writing trying to confuse uneduated readers of what science is about. Messy writing and thinking. Through the process of experimentation science has many dozens of ways to measure the passage of time. You won't change your faith even when a truckload is dropped at your door.

Reversal of magnetic polarity in rocks every 700,000 to 2 million years

Distribution of elements by the big bang and heavier elements

Spectral red shift (Doppler effect) in light from stars receding from us

The Tired Light Theory from Lannigan-Okeefe.

Decay of Carbon 12 to nitrogen-14 six thousand years for anything once living,

Geological radiometric dating The Geological Time Scale

Archaeological dating Relative dating

Animal fossil records Simple beginnings to complex organisms

Polar ice-caps cores The historical climate record

Bristle cone pine trees a 4,000 year climate record

Recorded Human History

Shaun Doyle responds

This is just a bald dismissal of the article (i.e. no arguments offered against it) and a mere restatement of the perspective refuted in the article. All the forensic dating methods in the world used to ‘establish’ prehistory can’t refute this argument if they are based on the assumptions this argument critiques. Why? It would be assuming what needs to be proved. And all the ones listed are either irrelevant for the notion of prehistory (e.g. recorded human history) or rest on the assumptions critiqued in this article (i.e. the rest). See our radiometric dating and geology Q and A pages for more information.

michael S., United Kingdom, 23 June 2013

Also we need to highlight the differences between fact and fiction. There are facts, and there are what I call, "ficts". Ficts are fictions.

Here's some ficts people just accept even though they only exist on paper;

A primordial lifeform

A primordial earth

A none-complete or none-viable organism

A transitional species.

Now some facts:

Complete, viable organisms

The earth as it exists, not a molten blob or whatever.

The none-existence of transitionals, given every species shows to be completely designed how it is meant to be designed.

Keep your eyes out for ficts, a lot of them exist inside the super-fict, we can call, "pre-history".

:-)

Larry P., United States, 25 June 2013

LP: Well , I am poorly educated , but here goes.

First , let's start with Carbon dating, which I have very little knowledge of , but could be relevant . It Assumes a constant rate , In Our Timeframe. I'll grant that.

Shaun Doyle responds: Please see Calibrating carbon dating and What about carbon dating?

LP: Next, let's move on , to the statement that the Bible records everything, from the Creation of our universe , to a frame of some 6,000 years.

Both things Assume Time is constant. For us, this may be true.

SD: Please see Time travel and moral implications.

LP: Given that there may be a Pre history, when all we have to make judgments on , is time's consistency, I can start to poke holes. Einstein comes into play here, with infinite mass at the speed of light, but it is an unproven theory, if I remember correctly.

SD: The article doesn’t really have anything to do with relativity theory. ‘Prehistory’ is just the span of time before recorded history. Whatever God’s relation to time is, it’s irrelevant for this argument because it’s about how long the history of the universe is.

LP: Has not quantum mechanics disproven part of that, with particles moving faster than the speed of light? Don't know, just asking.

SD: Please see Should creationists accept quantum mechanics? and Neutrinos faster than light?

LP: Lets move back to the Bible, and my faint understanding of what it says.

Does it say that God created Everything, in 6,000 of Our years?

SD: No. It says that God created everything in six ordinary 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. The question of whether they’re “our” days or years is rather irrelevant—what other markers of measuring time do we have? Please see The days were ‘God’s days’ not ‘man’s days’

LP: I ask this, because that would, if defined in our years, certainly seem to Limit God, and His Creation, to something that was/could be understood by man, at the beginning of recorded history.

SD: No limits are imposed on God. We’re merely saying that God created in the way He said He did. God could have created in countless different ways, but He has told us what He did in Genesis 1.

LP: If God is infinite, as, I think, has been said in the Bible, and is in the past, the present, and the future, are our time constraints His? Could man, a few thousand years ago, conceive a Billion? Was there even a word for it, in any language?

SD: Please see Genesis according to evolution. It would not have been hard to communicate billions of years to Moses’ audience.

LP: Could a Godly day not encompass a Billion of our perception of Years?

SD: What then does the word ‘day’ mean? Please see ‘In my father’s day … ’ and Distant starlight and the days of Genesis 1.

LP: If God is infinite , as must be , if I am to believe the Bible, why would our time restraints be His?

SD: He freely chose to set them up and operate within them. Did he have to? No. But if God’s interaction with us is to have any meaning for us, He must operate in time. The limit is not God’s; it’s ours. We have no hope of knowing God if He does not reveal himself in time. Please see Spacetime and the Trinity, especially the part concerning Luke 9:28-36 and God the Father.

LP: This allows the Bible to be True, and also allows Red-shift spectrum of receding stars to be true.

SD: Please see What are red-shifts and do they really support the ‘big bang’ evolutionary idea for the origin of the Universe? and the articles Does observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding?—part 1: the case for time dilation and Does observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding?—part 2: the case against expansion.

LP: I am sure there must be giant holes in my way of thinking, but perhaps others could enlighten me.

Thank You

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
9278
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.