Life on Other Planets/ Age of the Universe

[brent]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:

With all this talk of intelligent design and evolution, it makes me think about life on other planets. I did a simple google search for some easy reading and got this. www.biblehelp.org/planet.htm

I read it a bit and have a few questions. The author talks about the Earth only being 8,000 years old. I cant say I know much about this area of biblical knowledge, Im curious if anyone could could give me some background on this.

If any of you care to read it, Im also really curious to hear what you think about it. Some of the ideas he writes about seem kind of compelling but some of them seem out of place.

Im very hesitant about reading articles on the internet and taking them for more than theyre worth, but this one really caught my attention.

Thanks folks.

[steve]

Originally posted Nov. 2005

Hello Brent,

We don't know each other. My name is Steve and I live in Germany, but I still belong to Aletheia. I skimmed the article that you referenced and found it unfortunately rather lacking in the area of scientific enquiry. The pinnacle of absurdity was reached when the other (to whom I mean no offense) said that the universe appears to be 8,000 years old. There is no credible area of astronomical science which holds this view and actually, there is a tremendous ammount of recent data which, more than ever, dates the universe to approximately 17 billion years old. The question is certainly not if God could`ve created the universe in a short time? (to merely believe in God is to concede His omnipotence), but rather did He?

The good news is that there is an extremely good argument provided strictly from a biblical perspective that suggests a very old universe. (See Josh for more details) The traditional Christian view of the young universe was actually established by a Pope in the 16th century and is not at any point before that dogma. For this reason, many Christians believe that they have to defend this point and therefore sometimes employ very unreliable scientific arguments.

Concerning extra-terrestrial life; at this point, the scientific community assumes that there is because of the desperate need for it in the "pan-spermia" theory. There is, however, no evidence for life in the sense of what we tend to call life. There are numerous account of extraterrestrial encounters throughout the entire history of man, but if one studies these closely, one finds that these "visitors" seem to be capable of breaking physical laws of our dimension, which would thus qualify them as extra-dimensional rather than extra-terrestrial. And if we want to speak about higher dimensions, we will be leaving (for the most part) the safe harbor of scientific enquiry and plunging into the spiritual or magical realms (which of course can't be physically observed or confirmed with anything other than sheer faith).

As far as physical extra-terrestrial life is concerned, I think it is quite possible. The man in the article mentioned that we haven`t detected any other planetary systems. This is life saying that Kennedy was never shot. It shows that he hasn't been keeping up with events. To my knowledge, several planetary systems are currently being observed. However, even if there is no other physical life out there, we don't need to hunt around for some pragmatic reason why God made the universe so big. God is an artist and sometimes He does things with wanton profligancy after the motto: Art needs no justification. Maybe He wanted to make a big impression on us.

Well, in the words of Forest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that."

Have a nice day!

[Josh]

Originally posted Nov. 2005

In regard to the age of the universe and earth, you'll find two camps within Christianity= those who argue for a 6,000-10,000 timescale and those who agree with Big Bang Cosmology's 13.7 Billion years.

I don't know how detailed of an answer you want here, but it's my contention that, contrary to what some say, the Bible doesn't mandate a young universe/ earth. The 'days of Creation' in Genesis 1 can be LITERALLY translated as either 24 hr periods or long eons of time. Saying that they are long epochs of time is not 'symbolizing' the passage, but is fully acceptable in the Hebrew.

"Young-earthers" are typically skeptical of scientific dating methods, but this skepticism is based more on misunderstood science and sloppy research than anything as far as I've seen.

Interestingly, those Christians who insist on a young earth/ universe are actually missing some of the biggest scientific supports for the truth claims of Christianity= Big Bang cosmology (starting with Einstein, Hubble, etc..) has vindicated several Judeo-Christian claims about origins that were routinely dismissed at the turn of the 20th century. For instance, the universe and even time had a finite beginning.

Check out my article Moses, Einstein, and a Time Before Time on our website for more on this, or I might recommend a book entitled The Creator and the Cosmos or A Matter of Days by Dr.Hugh Ross.

[hume]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:



Just a brief comment in an attempt to offer perspective:

"you'll find two camps within Christianity" -- that's almost offering too much significance to the "Young Earthers." They're a stone's throw from the Flat Earthers. I'd suggest that there aren't very many of these people left, other than folks who take no serious interest in science. (That's no slam against such folk -- I'm recalling my great great aunt, who lived through almost the entire 20th Century, but could speak of little other than bridge and social details about her friends -- it's just a personality type.)

[Josh]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:

I think, though, that evangelical fundamentalist America has seen an over-representation from this crowd- and I can think of a few "big name" holdouts on this, although if you look at the link below, you'll see how many who would even call themselves evangelical would describe themselves as "old-earthers" or at least open to it. But the very fact that Ross has this list shows that the "young earth" position is one that he has to contend with all the time-- as his lecture at Lewis and Clark would show as well.



Link: Notable Christian Leaders open to an Old Earth Interpretation:

www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

[nathaniel]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:

i heard recently that the young earth idea within Christianity is a somewhat recent development. i don't remember the exact time i heard, but it was somewhere between the 17th century and now. does anyone no the history behind this or if there's any validity to it?

[Josh]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:

Well, Steve speaks of some papal decision I am unfamiliar with (above on the thread), but I believe it was the early 1800's or so when an Anglican (I believe) Archbishop Ussher attempted to determine a date for the Creation by counting up the genealogical lists in Genesis from a relatively fixed date (I think from Abraham or perhaps the Exodus) back to Adam and Eve. He arrived at a date of 4004 BC or something like that for the Creation. But several assumptions went into this: primarily A) that the Creation days were 24 hr periods and not long eons and B) that the genealogical lists did not contain abbreviations and gaps (which, as I stated on the Matthew 1 thread, Bible genealogies do demonstrably have and which was a common and accepted practice in ancient Near Eastern record keeping).

[steve]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:

I have an atrocious habit of remembering things incorrectly and than repeatedly citing it for years afterwards as if it were the gospel truth. Somewhere in my head, I thought it was a pope who said that, and I thought it was the 16th century. I've always lazily depended on Josh for the more accurate versions of things. It's appalling. I know.

[Josh]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:

I finally have this in writing!

[steve]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:

Remember! Extortion is unbiblical.

[Josh]

Originally posted Nov. 2005:

In regard to alien life on other planets, I'll have to say my opinion is that we are probably the only life, unless it has miraculously arisen somewhere else as well. One can make a great case against life arising here from random, natural processes or being transported here via meteors or alien life.

There's a great book by Dr. Hugh Ross called 'Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men' that discusses UFO phenomenon and makes a persuasive case through math and physics (contra popular positions) that we should not expect life anywhere on other planets, and even if it does exist, the distances between worlds is so great that we should never expect to come in contact with it. I don't have the time to go into greater depth, but if you have more specific questions, I could supply more details.

[marc p]

I just stumbled upon this thread, and have a question for Josh:

Does Ross only comment on sentient alien life forms and/or animals, or does he discuss the possibility of plant life, or micro-organisms?

I ask because recent analysis of one of Saturn's moons seems to suggest that it may have supported life (in a time when the climate was warmer). The atmosphere is compatible for some forms of life. There has also been discussion within the scientific community regarding the water on the polar caps of Mars, and that it is possible there might be lifeforms frozen in them.

What do you think? I haven't done much research myself, so I don't have an informed position. These are just thoughts and questions I have.

[Josh]

There's a common perception that if a planet or solar system has some basic similarities with earth or our solar system (primarily a sun like ours, a planet with a stable orbit close enough to that sun, and the presence of water) then it's highly probable that life could exist on that planet (and could therefore have arisen spontaneously).

The problem with this thinking is that in fact there are more than 150 factors that arguably must be precisely fine-tuned for life to exist (let alone arise out of non-living material) anywhere in the universe.

www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml

So, a candidate-for-life site that having water is just a 'drop in the bucket' of what is demonstrably needed.

Ross does address the variance in factors needed for simpler as opposed to more complex life forms on this webpage, but the list of 154 factors applies to ANY KIND OF LIFE.