At a Glance:
1. Learn:
Watch Video 1 (11 min)
Video 2 (25 min)
Video 3: (10 min)
Total: 46 min
2. Research (see further study ideas below)
3. Teach: Comment below with a question, thought or insight
"Getting Started" Reading and Assignments:
I was warned not to start with the age of the earth when bringing up alternate viewpoints to evolution. It is too unconventional and it turns people off. There is lots of other evidence against evolution that has nothing to do with the age of the earth. However, this sparked my interest so I am asking others to keep an open mind and look at some of these theories just to be aware that they are out there and that the evidence shows that they are plausible. Most of us believe that the Earth is very old. We were brought up on the evidence that shows it to be so. Maybe it is, but we tend to think that anyone who thinks otherwise is a little delusional or uneducated - at least that's what I used to think when I would hear such talk. I felt bad for those stubborn enough to look past the evidence and insist on a literal reading of the Bible.
Then I met some of these people in person. They were very intelligent, leaders in their fields, and passionate about finding truth and evidence. They were kind, respectful, and practical. I was forced to ask myself if they knew something I did not know. Given my scientific background, that was an easy jump to make.
I started looking at some of the books, videos and articles they referenced in their conversation... I was surprised to find that there is a world of evidence that I was never told about in school. I learned that the understanding of what it means to separate church and state makes it so that schools do not teach anything that testifies of a creator. Instead they teach evolution. And evolution requires a very old earth.
Since I want to have a balanced understanding of the evidence, and I want that for my kids and those I mentor, I started this study group for us to research it together. I hope others will join us in our journey.
I thought it would be best to start our studies with some information about the methods used to date the Earth. The reason for this is that it helps to open our minds to the fact that these dates may not be as accurate as we have been led to believe. Once we are open to that, we may be more open to evidence based on different assumptions.
1. Learn - Watch:
Video 1:
Video 2:
And Video 3:
2. Study - Do your own research about anything you want to study in more depth about dating methods or anything else mentioned.
Some Further Reasearch Ideas:
- Do a word study on "Rock" (look up the definition, look up scriptures and words of prophets, write your own definition that includes an application to how you live your life).
-Read or research more about:
- Radiodating-
- The history of skull 1470 (some info can be found in Complete Creation part 21 on Wazooloo)
- Mars Rock alh84001
- Dr Steve Austin- Mt St Helens Radiodating
- Analysis Calibration
- Paluxy river in Glenrose Texas (famous for dinosaur and human footprints)
- Analysis of Excess c14 in geologic record by Sanders
- Rate project volume 2
- Co2 Wells and c14 - deep Wells - deep time? By Daughty
- C14 in oil, coal, fossils, dinasour bones or diamonds
- Dinosaur Amber c14 by Miller et al
3. Teach: Post what you learned about below and any thoughts you had as you watched and studied. Be sure to share something that will be applicable to your life (someway you can live better because of what you learned - if you phrase it in the form of a goal or action item that's a bonus!)
That video is really interesting. One other point that I want to bring up that I don't think has been addressed is how God created the Earth. From the scriptures and revelation we know that God took other materials from different planets and matter that already existed to create the Earth. So maybe (although I think that a lot of radiodating is very inaccurate, and I agree with the video for the most part), maybe some of the rocks and materials come out as being millions and billions of years old because the orgin of the materials is that old (dating to before the Earth was formed). But yeah, obviously we don't understand everything about how God brought the materials together to create the Earth. I was also thinking, since time is different in heaven than here, I'm sure the "seven days" that the Earth was created in was a lot longer than seven actual days (seven is symbolic of completion/perfection; that's what that number means). So maybe those seven days actually took millions of years. We also don't know how long Adam and Eve dwelt in the garden of Eden (they could've been there for a long time). I'm really not sure about any of these by the way, I'm just throwing out some ideas off the top of my head. Just a few things to think about.
ReplyDeleteI love that. Those are cool theories. And good examples that you can interpret data in a lot of different ways based on your assumptions. The videos we will study later show how often data is thrown out and assumed to be faulty when it doesn't line up with basic assumptions (like the assumptions about the age of the earth).
ReplyDeleteI think they only measure igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks so they were essentially "born" on this Earth with heat, pressure and weathering. At least that's how I understand it. But I guess it could be an assumption that all igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks were born on the earth.
I wonder, was the Garden of Eden a place that was different than the rest of the earth? Because there should not have been death before the fall - so no dying Dinosaurs, etc. Was that true all over the world or just in the Garden of Eden? I wonder where we could look that up.
Also, the Bible is pretty clear that the "evening and the morning were the first day", "the second day, " etc. What evening and morning is it talking about?
Just some more things to consider:-)
Bit I do think there is a lot of evidence that the rocks were born here (the rock layers, formations, and how they are spread around the world)
DeleteI came across this scripture this morning that me nations death and the fall:
Delete2 Nephi 2:22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."
Yeah that's true. I wonder what the "evening and morning of the first day" means/represents, or if it's a literal day. But if it's a literal day, it'd have to be different than the 24 hour period of time that we know, because part of the creation was separating the light from the dark, creating the Sun and the moon, etc, which determines our 24 hour days now. So the days would've been different according to our time, unless God decided to reveal it to us through scripture according to our time (but that's a whole different topic, and something really interesting too, about how time works here and in heaven and eternally).
DeleteAnd then yeah, the Garden of Eden thing is pretty interesting too. I wonder what that means, "all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." It sounds like something eternal, like how things work in heaven or something. That's pretty weird to think about how that works scientifically in heaven too, because we mostly study things of the Earth in science (that's what science is), and it's different in heaven. I wonder how things can exist in a permanent state.
So what I'm trying to say is, there's an eternal state of things and a physical state of things (or whatever else you wanna call those), the eternal state is how things are in heaven, and the physical state is how things are on Earth right now.
(This scripture is kind of a description of that eternal state):
"all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."
So that's the state that the Garden of Eden was in before the Fall.
And when the Fall happened, it changed the state of the Earth to its current changing/physical state
(and one day the Earth will receive its paradisaical glory and return to that eternal, unchanging state)
So my point is, that if that's true, then all three of the hypotheses that I put in my first comment are invalid, because the state of the whole Earth changed after the Fall, and the Fall happened 6,000 years ago, so the Earth (or the state that the Earth is currently in) is 6,000 years old.
Is that even true? Does it even make sense? 😛 lol
But the most interesting thing to me is, that eternal unchanging state of things and how things are in heaven, I don't understand how that works scientifically. It's not of this world.
I just learned that they can't date sedimentary rocks- just igneous and metamorphic - had to correct what I said :-)
DeletePritty cool stuff that he knows. I've always wandered if Adam and Eve were a live when the Dinosars a lived?
ReplyDeleteI mean, they lived for who knows how long before they eat the fruit of Good or Eveil? And actually began to live.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey sorry, I just wanted to share something about the age of the Earth. President Eyring was talking in the Priesthood Session about a time when his father (Henry Eyring, who was a famous scientist) was asked by an apostle to write a note about his opinion on the age of the Earth. He didn't really go into detail about the note in his talk, so I did some research and I think I found what note he was talking about: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V15N03_89.pdf (on the pdf, the note is found on pages 89-90, or pages 3 and 4 of the document). Obviously this shouldn't be taken as the words of a prophet or anything, it might've been different if it was President Eyring himself, but Henry B. Eyring's father wasn't an apostle. However, he was a very wise and faithful member of the church, as we know from his son, who has talked about him multiple times in conference and other talks. But anyway, I just thought it was something interesting to read and learn about, taking it from the words of a well-known scientist who was also very in touch with God. It would also be interesting to read Joseph Fielding Smith's book about the age of the Earth and evolution, etc, which is talked about in this document. Just some other stuff to study and think about! Apparently this is a debate that has been going on for a long time.
ReplyDeleteThat was a cool resource you found. Really interesting reading. I am glad that Dr. Eyring helped people see that it was okay to disagree on science and still be good members of the church. The cool thing is that technology has developed so much since his time that there is a lot being discovered now that would cause him to stop and consider his stance I think. Many BYU professors are evolutionists though and don't have a problem believing in scriptures and evolution at the same time. What I believe to be most profitable, however, is to examine assumptions on both sides and to see the outcomes of those assumptions. It will help us be able to examine our assumptions a little more clearly and help us understand the assumptions of others that drive their conduct and ideals. I really want my kids and you guys to understand that science is full of assumptions, simply because it often claims not to be (that it is unbiased and purely empirical). If we begin to believe this lie, we can end up on some slippery ground as we try to reconcile two "truths" that don't seem to mesh at times. Thanks for finding this Isaiah! I hope everyone takes the time to read through it.
DeleteI agree with Isaiah a lot! The world was created of matter, so, everything here could be billions of years older then the earth is!
ReplyDeleteSome of the scientists I think need to examine things more and not just estimate all the time they need to put more work into coming up with things.
ReplyDeleteYa, they need to turn their brain on before they just talk because, it's like a car. If you have a 'car and the keys'(Scientists) but no 'gas'(Thinker/brain) then it doesn't make sense to have a car that you can't drive.
Delete😊 The scientists that come up with these theories are very smart men, but you are right in that they work really hard to make the evidence fit their theory. However, once they find ways to make lots of things fit - their theory becomes very convincing. That is why it's important to be aware that evidence is very adaptable to what you want to believentually and the assumptions that you hold.
DeleteIt's cool how Carbon 14 is acurute but it can change depending on how you estimate how old the world is.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't exactly change, but there are several unknowns when taking the measurements - we don't know what kind of atoms were present at point 0. This makes it so that the dates may be younger than what the dates we are given, but not older. It also means that Carbon 14 should not be in anything that is more than 100,000 years old, yet it is found in everything containing carbon that scientist have measured - including diamonds!
DeleteC14 is the most accurate dating method that we have so far. However, depending on the time that the organism that they test died (meaning when the clock starts) determines the amount of C14 there is in that organism. So, if the time rate for decay of C14 is about 100,000 years then that would mean that ANYTHING older then that would NOT have a Trace of C14 in it. Soooooooooooooo, How can "SCIENTISTS" get an "ACCURATE MEASUREMENT" using the Carbon 14 dating method to get an amount of C14 in an Organism... IF THERE IS NO CARBON 14. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion... The ONLY way to get the most accurate time and age of something is to either ask it for yourself (but if it's dead you really can't just ask it and you can't just ask the earth how old it is) or pray about it.
that's what I got from it.
The thing is that they ALWAYS find Carbon 14 in everything they measure that was once living. Some claim that the samples must all have been contaminated, but that'should hard to believe isn't it? Even the inside of a diamond (the hardest rock) has Carbon 14 in it - it's hard to contaminate the inside of the hardest rock.
DeleteI love this guys intro's... and humor:)
ReplyDeleteHAHA... I LOVE this guy!!
ReplyDeleteNot only is he weird, funny:)!!!
😊
ReplyDeleteIf C14 can't last more than 100,000 years, how do the scientists expect to be able to date anything at all? But it must just be 'contaminated' right?
ReplyDelete