Planets May Form in Hundreds, Not Millions, of Years

Seanasy writes "Recent simulations on the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center's Terascale Computing System suggest that planet formation may take a lot less time than previously thought. The results were published in SCIENCE."

Comments

Correction: gas giants & abstract

[MacAndrew]

The study actually looked at gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn. My understanding is that these planets formed by scooping up gas as they orbited the sun. The interior rocky planets of the inner disk probably took longer to achieve final shape, though their materials would have been the first to cool into solid form.

Neat stuff.

Here's the Science abstract:

A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns
Richard A. Kerr

On page 1756, a group of astrophysicists presents computer simulations of the nascent solar system that suggest a possible mechanism for the formation of the gas giant planets: runaway fluctuations in the density of the protoplanetary disk. In their model, gas giants of about the right size, number, and orbit condense from a disk of gas to look like very young Jupiters. The trick was to simulate the process in fine detail so that the gas's own gravity could take over.

Full Text

earth

[iamjim]

After checking out all of the articles I did not see a mention as to a possible recalculation or restatement of the age of planets in our solar system.

Is it a possibility that any of the planets, including earth, are much younger than previously thought?

If so it could offer some information on how quickly life actually "forms".

Re:earth

[MacAndrew]

I think they very recently discovered some sedimentary rock of an age close to the 4.5 billion figure, and that life has been believed to go back maybe 3.8 billion years for some time now. These estimates are based on radioactive decay and the like rather than theoretical models of solar system formation (or so I understood it). It would surprising if the estimates were off by much, but we've had surprises before.

When life forms must depend to a certain extent on chance, though to be the fact Earth has almost always had life suggests that maybe it's not that phenomenal a miracle, at least for simple single-celled creatures of extreme simplicity.

The universe's age is also a topic of speculation, based on the rate of expansion and current size, etc. Stay tuned. :)

More abstract

[MacAndrew]

Odd, they have a different abstract from the summary. Sorry, I don't have a full subscription to Science.... not that I would blow their copyright and post it here. :)

To wit:

Formation of Giant Planets by Fragmentation of Protoplanetary Disks

Lucio Mayer,1*dagger Thomas Quinn,1* James Wadsley,2 Joachim Stadel3dagger

The evolution of gravitationally unstable protoplanetary gaseous disks has been studied with the use of three-dimensional smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations with unprecedented resolution. We have considered disks with initial masses and temperature profiles consistent with those inferred for the protosolar nebula and for other protoplanetary disks. We show that long-lasting, self-gravitating protoplanets arise after a few disk orbital periods if cooling is efficient enough to maintain the temperature close to 50 K. The resulting bodies have masses and orbital eccentricities similar to those of detected extrasolar planets.

1 Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
2 Department of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4M1, Canada.
3 University of Victoria, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 3800 Finnerty Road, Elliot Building, Victoria, BC V8W 3PG, Canada.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lucio@physik.unizh.ch, trq@astro.washington.edu

dagger Present address: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland.

PSC

[Hadean]

Here's a direct link to PSC's article, which does -not- require registration (bah).

As mentioned by another post, we're talking about "Jupiter-like" gas giants, not Earths. The reason it can't take millions of years: "The problem with [the current model], however, is that if the formation process takes too long, nearby stars will, in effect, boil off the gas envelope."

Re:PSC

[Hadean]

Oops, for some reason I didn't realize there already was a direct link... Ah well, here's a copy of it in case it gets Slashdotted (gotta have a real reason to reply, right?):

"Planets May Form Faster than Scientists Thought"

Simulations at Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center show that planets can form in hundreds of years.

PITTSBURGH, December 11, 2002 -- Taking advantage of the computing capability of LeMieux, the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center's terascale system, scientists have determined that large, Jupiter-like planets -- similar to those observed outside Earth's solar system -- can form in dramatically shorter periods of time than previously thought.

The findings, published in SCIENCE (Nov. 29), challenge accepted thinking that it takes millions of years for such planets to form from the pancake-shaped nebula of gas and dust swirling around young stars.

"We used a new model of planet formation," said University of Washington astrophysicist Thomas Quinn, who led the research team, "that couldn't adequately be tested without this kind of computing power, and we found that these giant planets can form in hundreds of years, rather than the millions that the standard model predicts."

Using LeMieux, the most powerful system in the United States committed to public research, the researchers carried out a series of planet formation simulations. Because of LeMieux, the researchers were able to include roughly ten times more detail than previous similar work, and this increased resolution led directly to the new findings.

Nearly 100 extrasolar planets have been detected within the past decade, with masses that range from roughly the size of Jupiter to ten times larger. These discoveries prompted thinking about how large planets, similar to Jupiter and Saturn, form. Called gas giant planets, these planets have most of their mass in a gaseous envelope that surrounds the solid core.

The standard model holds that a core of solid matter congeals from the swirling disk -- called a protoplanetary disk -- around young stars, a process thought to take a million years or so, with another million to ten million years to accumulate the gaseous envelope. The problem with this model, however, is that if the formation process takes too long, nearby stars will, in effect, boil off the gas envelope. "If a gas giant planet can't form quickly," said Quinn, "it probably won't form at all."

An alternative model holds that giant planets form directly from instabilities in the protoplanetary gas, without the need for a solid-matter core. Until the recent simulations, this model hadn't produced convincing results. "The main criticism," said Quinn, "was that this model wasn't ready. Nobody was making predictions with it. But that's because they didn't have enough computational horsepower."

The recent simulations -- using 30,000 processor hours on LeMieux -- produced a distribution of masses and orbits comparable to observed extrasolar planets. According to the astronomical findings since the mid-1990s, these gas giant planets appear to be fairly common. "If these planets can't form quickly," says Quinn, "they should be a relatively rare phenomenon, and if they form according to this mechanism they should be relatively common."

Authors of the research, besides Quinn, are Lucio Mayer, a former University of Washington post-doctoral researcher who recently joined the University of Zurich, James Wadsley of McMaster University, Ontario, Canada and Joachim Stadel at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Established with an August 2000 grant from the National Science Foundation, LeMieux comprises over 3,000 Compaq Alpha EV68 processors, providing over six teraflops (six trillion calculations a second) of computational capability to U.S. engineers and scientists.

The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center is a joint effort of Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh together with the Westinghouse Electric Company. It was established in 1986 and is supported by several federal agencies, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and private industry.

Re:PSC

[Hadean]

Considering I'm at the max, why would I care what my karma is? Actually, let me rephrase that, why should I care what my karma is at all? If anyone, anywhere -cares- for karma, they seriously need to turn the computer off and go outside.

Re:This isn't at all surprising

[MacAndrew]

This is a troll, right?

God made the Earth about 6000 years ago so it couldn't have formed in millions of years.

Interesting logic. In other words, "Because CONCLUSION, then QUESTION must lead to CONCLUSION." I believe this is called a syllogism.

I don't care if oil forms in ten minutes, the Earth is not 6,000 years old to a 99.9% level of certainty unless God has a very odd sense of humor (possible). Personally I'm leaning towards 4.5 billion years.

Seriously, in defense of Christianity, and I am agnostic, scant few Christians subscribe to creationism or intelligent design, so whatever you may believe be careful not to stereotype Christians based on it.

Re:30,000 processor hours

[Seanasy]

Seti@Home couldn't handle this type of problem. This is parallel processing -- where nodes work on different parts of the problem at the same time. The catch is that the work done by each node affects other nodes so that super-fast connections between nodes is a must. Otherwise, nodes sit idle waiting for data. Doing this in a disributed manner on the Internet isn't even feasible.

Re:Geez!

[Teancom]

And in a desperate attempt to correllate this poster's comment with the story that it is attached to:

"I have not checked out those reviews, but they must have been written very quickly!"

Crap, that's not funny to me either :-(

Oh, well, I guess there is no way to make the previous poster's comment make sense in this context. Say lah vee!

Velikovsky (and James P. Hogan) would be pleased!

[TrebleJunkie]

Wow. And to think that Velikovsky was just about run out of the scientific community 50 years ago for putting forth a similar idea, among others -- that planets could form rather quickly, in years or hundreds of years, rather than the millions of years previously thought.

This is also sort of the subject of James P. Hogan's novel, Cradle of Saturn. If you've never read James P. Hogan, you should. Good, good stuff.

Re:This isn't at all surprising

[MacAndrew]

Unremarkably, you miss that the study suggests the gas giants formed quickly not recently.

6,000 years is a lot more reasonable-sounding ... why? A staggering amount of evidence point towards a time period much, much longer. "Reasonable" is believing things in reasonable accord with the evidence, and the estimate need never be completely proved to be accepted as fact. That's just not how people do things in real life.

Evolution, for that matter, is a fact under the same principle of overwhelming evidence. The debate or theory now centers on how it happened, which might be Darwin's theory or something else; if Darwin is disproved the fact of evolution will remain. You are free to believe otherwise, but won't change the real world any more than your refusal to believe in the fact of gravity will enable you to fly.

Is this disrespectful? Yes. I think it would be untenable to grant any belief a held by any person person with equal weight. I thought creationism, with its tenuous basis in the Bible, had been left by the wayside long ago, though I realize there will always be a core that will believe anything.

Re:This isn't at all surprising

[MacAndrew]

I wouldn't presume anything; as a scientific type I am obsessed with fact.

I'm not sure whether you think the % of creationists is high or low, and I don't have time to research the web. There are however various surveys out there; the question has been studied extensively because of the evolution v. creationism debate for public school classrooms.

I should add that by Creationist I intend the fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation of Bible (if such a thing is possible given its complexities, various translations, and internal contradictions -- this is not a criticism but an acknowledgement I hope most of us can make) that leads to the 6,000-year figure and so on. These are the most conservatives.

As with most things, Americans cover the spectrum from Creationist to evolutionary-ist (?) with most kind trying to be accommodating. I don't count these accommodating Christians among the ones who claim their reading of the Bible is the end of all debate, and so the % who think maybe creationism should be discussed in school are not the hard-liners most folks think of when they hear "creationist." I personally think many of those who vote for creationism never had evolution properly explained to them -- note the correlation with less education. A poll may thus unfairly suggest their minds are closed to alternatives, as with the creationists. Better PR for evolution is part of why we've seen an upsurge of "intelligent design," a kind of soft-sell creationism.

Re:This isn't at all surprising

[gi-tux]

What if we reverse your logic?

The earth couldn't be millions of years old because God created it about 6000 years ago. If the creation of the earth about 6000 years ago is accepted as truth, then we use this to eliminate the question of the age of the earth being 4.5 billion of year old.

As to the second part of your posting concerning christianity, it is impossible to be a true Christian and not believe that God created the world. You MUST believe what is stated in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. If you do not believe the whole word of God, then you are not a true Christian. You might claim to be a Christian and profess to believe in God and Jesus, but if you can't accept him at his word, then do you truly belive.

Re:This isn't at all surprising

[MacAndrew]

If you look closely, I don't make *any* firm assertion of the age of the Earth. I just know that 6,000 is ridiculous, beyond the pale of scientific plausibility, and unsupported by anything but the palpably ridiculous reasoning of creationists who start out with what they want to prove and warp everything else to fit that initial prejudice. Stated differently, what would it take to persuade you creationism is in error? For me, I'll pitch evolution is that evidence comes along -- I'm not bound by faith to ignore the facts.

You are mistaken about real-world Christians, though perhaps you would arrogantly say they are not "real" Christians. But to the rest of the world they are Christians, and I don't think should have to share the burden of criticism targeting the subset who are creationists. There is a reason the latter are called fundamentalist Christians; they represent only a segment of all Christians, though some of them may believe themselves better than everyone else.

Is one a lousy Christian if one doesn't believe what a creationist tells them to think? No, I'd suggest looking to the Bible, not the creationists, and remembering the difference between the literal and the allegorical. If we must be literal we must start stoning adulterers and all the rest.

Re:Titan AE

[Dyolf Knip]

What pissed me off about that movie was that they formed an iron-nickel cored planet, complete with silicate mantle and biosphere out of nothing but dirty ice. Uh huh.

I can see some kind of generated gravitational field device (like an artificial black hole?) that would put a rubble field into a coalescent state of mind. But it would still take a very long time for the elements to sort themselves into something approaching the current layered effect, to say nothing of cooling down to the point of being habitable. And even then you've still got an atmosphere that would eat a hole in your carpet. It took billions of years for the self-maintaining oxygenating system we have today to develop, and it is dependant on far more than just having the right gasses sitting around.

Anyways, if you've got a Type II civilization with that kind of mega-engineering skill, what are you doing screwing around with ordinary planets? Dyson Spheres and Ringworlds would be a far more efficient use of your building material.

Good definition of cricularity

[MacAndrew]

Whether or not you believe, or believe in believing, it begs the questions of "what does it say?" Your definition addresses faith, not content. Reading "literally" supposedly promises some sort of absolute and unassailable interpretation, but such is impossible. Only some fundamentalists even accept the 6,000-year figure -- it doesn't appear in the text and was rather inferred by certain interpreters. Ultimately someone has to make the call.

Whatever the philosophical position, creationism is not science. Approaching a question with an predetermined result in mind is not science. The creationist doctrine has its place in theology, not science, because it is by its nature a rejection of science. My primary objection is the continual pitting of evolution against creationism when the two are apples and oranges, fact and faith, and neither can disprove the other.

Re:Good definition of cricularity

[EricWright]

It doesn't matter how you come to a fact, but once you do it is, well, just a fact.

How do you know it is a fact, and not a belief? Pre-reniassance Eurpoean scientists taught as fact that the Earth is the center of the solar system. Pre-Columbus sailors knew for a 'fact' that the Earth is flat. 19th century physicists knew for a fact that the Earth moved through the solar system in some sort of invisible ether.

Catch my drift? The more we explore, the more we disprove pre-existing facts.

Why should I believe that your ~2000 year old book (new testament) is fact, over, say, a ~1400 year old book (the koran), or a ~150 year old book (The Origin of Species). Human history tends to show that older writings are less technologically correct than more current writings. (Imagine that, our knowledge of the world around us is ...*gasp*... evolving!)

Go read A Canticle for Leibowitz by Arthur Miller. Then you'll have an idea how writings from 'ancient times' can be completely misconstrued as holy.

Arguments based solely on faith, as opposed to actual, provable facts will be summarily ignored.

Sure, but...

[Myco]

It takes much longer to get the fjords just right.

but...

[Transcendent]

Where do you draw the line as when the process begins/ends?

You have a large number of events that need to be carried out before the actuall planet sphere begins to form...

1) Matter needs to be created

2) A vast ammount of gas needs to slowly collect together.

3) A stable center of gravity needs to be distinguished

4) That gravity needs to slowly (and exponentially) gather more mass around it to finally form the planet.

But when do you start the stop-watch? Step 1... or 4?

It's like saying "I can put together a ham sandwich in 30 seconds!" ...but how long did it take for all the parts to form like raising the pig or growing the wheat?

If you go back far enough, it took billions of years for that sandwich to be created... since the beginning of time...

Understanding the "hot Jupiters"

[Drog]

For anyone interested in more details, this story appeared here a week ago. An interesting comment pointed out that this theory has major implications in understanding the hundred or so "hot Jupiters" that have been found around other stars. Most have orbital periods of only a few days and orbit their star at a distance less than Mercury's. This new theory may suggest that hot Jupiters are actually newly-formed gas planets and perhaps even a transient phenomena.

Re:This isn't at all surprising

[dvdeug]

The earth couldn't be millions of years old because God created it about 6000 years ago. If the creation of the earth about 6000 years ago is accepted as truth, then we use this to eliminate the question of the age of the earth being 4.5 billion of year old.

If we start with the assumption that the world is 6000 years old, then given that assumption, it's 6000 years old. If you start without any assumption of Christianity's truth, it looks like the world is roughly 5 billion years old. If you start by assuming the Bible is true, and the information of our senses is true, then you have a fairly complex question, with different answers depending on the believer.

it is impossible to be a true Christian and not believe that God created the world.

No where in the Bible does it say the world was created 6000 years ago. I think the Bible has pretty good evidence that the Hebrews didn't view large numbers with the precision we did - notice the symbolic use of 70, 70 times 70, and 144,000 at various places in the bible. It would have been very hard to explain to them that the world was five billion years old. Christians* believe God created the world; but they don't necessarily believe that he felt compelled to give the exact blow by blow to the Hebrews, instead of giving them some version they could understand.

* Well, most Christians, at least.

About that syllogism...

[MacAndrew]

I'll try to wrap up one tiny detail....

The syllogism and its little brother the enthymeme date back to ancient Greece and are styles of argument. The reason the syllogism gets criticized to the point of being deprecatory is that it is easily abused.

Here:

Major premise: The universe is older than 6,000 years if some of its components took longer than 6,000 years to form.

Minor premise: The gas giants took less than 6,000 years to form.

Conclusion: The universe probably (more so than yesterday) took less than 6,000 years to form.

To me, there are several logical flaws there, and this has not a thing to do with religion. The main one is that the major premise is false; the theories concerning the age of the universe are not based on the sum of series of events. You may be making this false assumption because (to my understanding) the 6,000-year version of creationism is derived from how long various individuals lived, added to their descendants, and so on.

So the gas giants might never have formed, the estimates for the age of the universe would not change because they are indifferent to gas giants. Really, the formation of the planets is a bit trivia in the view of the universe, and the difference in formation time proposed here, mere millions of years, are the 0.01% insignificant blink of an eye to a universe thought to be over 10 thousand million (billion) years of age, and a solar system of a sprightly 4.5 billion (again with a "b").

Another trivial bit of semantics is that you misuse the word "hypothesis." Science really doesn't use hypothesis in this way, and when scientists speak of theories they don't mean educated guess, but a framework to explain a fact. So the age of the universe is a fact to a very high degree of certainty; it is older than 6,000 years by billions; and various theories strive to explain the nature of or refine the fact. But whether a theory of good or bad does not alter the fact, and the age of the universe is something so well established that it is inconceivable it will someday turn out to be 6,000 years. Besides the huge difference between the estimates, there's enough evidence on earth -- even the weathering of a mountain takes millions of years -- the pyramids haven't weathered much in that time -- and I won't even bring up the fossil record.

But again, even if these events happened faster than we can imagine, the age of the universe is judged by independent data.

The only remaining hope for a doctrinaire 6,000-year view would be that the universe and earth were created pre-aged, but I doubt the Bible supports that view. I don't care how many people believe it, the majority has erred often enough before, is the name of many causes. You acknowledge that truth isn't determined democratically anyway -- then turn around and say "I am being persecuted for what are mainstream beliefs in much of the US." No, you are being criticized (persecuted? that's a little much) not for relating "popular" beliefs but for your faulty logic concerning astrophysics, and science generally. Don't take refuge in "mainstream." And I am not claiming that God lies, just that falliable humans don't get the message right sometimes.

I would think it obvious that the Bible makes heavy use of metaphor, and that things like the 6 days of creation may not be at all literal. Of course I'm not the first to wonder about this. But I think more and more people will eventually accept that the Earth is old and move on to that evolution debate, or something else. The truth of the Bible is hardly imperiled.

Re:About that syllogism...

[young-earth]

Your post is wonderful at describing and detailing the logic and flow of argument. Thanks for providing that clear explanation for those who are challenged in that arena.

None of us were around when the earth was formed, whether it be supernaturally or by an accretion disk or some other method. Therefore we must either infer or deduce to arrive at a belief of what happened. Since no reproducible experiment can absolutely tell us what happened in the past, there is no hard empirical proof. So we must make assumptions in order to arrive at a belief system, whether it be Biblical or the current scientific beliefs (and there are more than one of those).

One of the key assumptions for me as a creationist is that God does not lie, and if He says He made the universe in six days, then we (at least I) take Him at His word. A key assumption for most astrophysicists and astronomers is that the rate of radioactive decay is constant, that the earth was never inside the event horizon of a white hole, and that things are now as they have always been. In other words, that conditions are constant and that therefore tests made today will work the same tomorrow.

Did you notice that bit I threw in there about inside the event horizon of a white hole? If that did occur, it is absolutely possible for the earth to be formed in days while billions of years passed in the stars, due to time effects at the event horizon. This allows starlight to travel at current light speed to the earth and be visible even though the earth is relatively young. This "white hole cosmology" is a brilliant work by Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. physicist at Sandia National labs. If you're interested shoot me an email and I'll send you more info.

Re:About that syllogism...

[MacAndrew]

I appreciate the sincerity of your views. You may also be right.

What I have disliked about creationism is its claim to being scientific when it has but one view of the possible truth, and only looks for evidence to support that presupposed truth. Unlike proposing a theory, the investigator asserts that if experimentation does not prove the assumption, then the experiment is flawed. This is closed-mindedness incompatible with science.

By contrast, "white holes" and whatever else might support creationism, would be part of the scientific discourse. This is far better than the argument that the mere possibility of a flaw in a theory means that all views are of equal value. It is really a question of probabilities, and the current estimates of the age of the earth, using different approaches, and considered to be very, very probable.

The strictly hypothetical white holes -- proposed but unproven to even the satisfaction of their proponents -- will of course require theory or evidence. Most all of the arguments I have heard for 6,000-year creationism (the "young earth" subset) amount to negative "You don't know for sure" or "There seems to be an inconsistency here" rather than positive proof of a mechanism for such a radical alternative model. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it hasn't been done, and the faith of its proponents, however sincere, can not carry weight with the rest of us.

As someone who has spent much of his life reading, I also find untenable the view that there is one literal view of the Bible. I don't see, for example, any way of proving that the "six days" was six literal days (notice "literal day" means something quite different from "literal reading" -- does this mean there is no literal meaning of literal?) as we know them, and not a part of the metaphors and poetry so prevalent in the Bible. Indeed, I challenge anyone to prove that only one interpretation of any text is possible (if I tell you to "stop," do I mean stop what you are doing? to stop talking? to stop what someone else is doing? to hand me something to hold the door open? or hand me a part for my flute?). Maybe some readings are more faithful than others, but one sole literal one? There is a big gap between stating such an interpretation and proving it. The label "literal" is to me an attempt to squelch debate, like claiming to be a patriot in a political debate.

Dr. Humphreys presents an example of the indeterminacy of literalism. If you look closely at what he's saying, he is trying very hard to extract the "right" interpretation of individual words in the rather terse Genesis story that might comport with theories or future theories of physics. This is all the more tricky because the original words were not in English, are quite ancient, and lack precise translation. So he is interpreting, as he must -- but game over for literalism. Maybe he has it backwards and should determine what the words mean by looking to the natural phenomena that the words describe rather than insisting the "six days" is precise and the rest merely needs to be interpreted to suit it. Why are some words literal and others not?

If Dr. Humphreys can pull it off and dethrone the most brilliant physicists of the last hundred years, more power to him. It will be an enormous contribution to mankind, and a boon to "young earth" creationists. But it is much much much too soon to declare such a revolution.

I am not trying to answer any of these questions, and I am not addressing the infalliability or existence of God; rather harping on the oft-proven falliability of humans to get the message right. I'll bet even creationists misunderstand or disagree with one another from time to time, or there wouldn't be so much discussion among them of what Genesis means. And how has the understanding of Bible changed in the past, and how will it change in the future? If falliability infects science, why does it not infect the "literal" reading of the Bible? Humans are flawed and have imperfect knowledge, so any scientist who tells you science can not be wrong -- not ever -- is lying or deluded. Any creationist who says the same...?

But in any event -- I do appreciate your effort to approach the question thoughtfully. Keep an open mind, I'll do the same.

Re:About that syllogism...

[young-earth]

Wow. Your response was the most intelligent, well thought out, and supremely courteous one I've ever gotten. I thank you and admire you for that.

I'll answer the point you made about how Dr. Humphreys deals with what is the meaning of "days" (Hebrew yom) in Genesis. It's really a very direct principle, that of using passages where the context makes the meaning clear to determine the true meaning of the word. And the Hebrew yom is much like the English "day". Both can have three meanings - an indeterminate period of time ("in my father's day"). They can also mean the period from sunrise to sunset ("you can see better as you drive during the day"). And they can mean a 24 hour period ("the team can deliver that code in 23 days").

So from that, doing a detailed analysis on everywhere in the Old Testament that the word "yom" appears, there are two significant findings. First, any time a number is used with the word, it means a 24-hour time period. Second, any time "evening and morning" is used, it also means a 24-hour time period.

In Genesis 1, "yom" is used with both a number (the second day) and the "evening and morning" modifiers. So there is double evidence that it does intend to mean a 24-hour period. It's from that point that 6-day creationists tend to take its meaning to be what it appears to be.

And indeed Dr. Humphreys may be way wrong about while holes. My scientific background leads me to hope that he's right about them, since it would be such a nice answer. He has other interesting theories as well; his paper about the decay of the magnetic field energy is one I find quite fascinating.

I fervently hope that your openness to the truth will lead you to find it.

Re:Titan AE

[bobv-pillars-net]

Dyson Spheres and Ringworlds would be a far more efficient use of your building material.

Umm, we're talking FANTASY here. Get a sense of perspective, fer crying out loud!

If you want reality, calculate the tensile stress on the Ringworld structure and explain to me how something composed of ordinary matter could survive it.

This is not a comment on the age of the earth

[anomaly]

but one with respect to the beliefs of Christians....

It is inconsistent to call onesself a Christian and also reject God as creator - regardless of your interpretation of the mechanism or timing of the creation of life.

The Bible is filled with descriptions of God as the creator of the universe. It is not just Genesis 1, or John 1, but virtually every place that lists God's resume' lists Him as creator.

If I claim to believe that aliens have visited the earth, but hold to a belief that rejects the idea of interplanetary travel, I don't actually believe what I say I believe.

Along the same lines, if I call myself a Christian and reject God as creator, I am not really a Christian.

Jesus said something similar Himself. (Mt 7:21-23)
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers'

Going to church, maintaining a church membership, or doing good deeds doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.

I agree that there are a large number of people who might identify themselves as Christians in the world who reject God as creator. From a philosophical and logical point of view, I would agree with the previous poster that they are probably not Christians.

The other possibility is that they simply fail to understand the relationship of God as creator and redeemer of mankind to their belief in Christianity.

If a reader of this posting believes himself to be a Christian, and rejects the concept that God is the creator, please email me so that I can help demonstrate the rationale behind the importance of this concept to a Christian worldview.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

no no no no no no! :)

[MacAndrew]

if I call myself a Christian and reject God as creator, I am not really a Christian

Nothing I wrote goes to who is the creator. I simply take issue with adherance to a 6,000-year timeline that flies in the face of so much else that we know. I also find deeply offensive the idea that anyone who rejects the 6,000-year figure is not a good Christian.

The identity of the creator, if one exists (again, I do not reject or promote God here) goes to the origin of the universe, not its age. So nothing you have said about God as creator, however fervently you believe it, is relevant to the question here.

Yet perhaps you mean that to reject the 6,000-year interpretation, developed by creationists, is to reject god as the creator. That bigoted view I do reject wholeheartedly.

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[anomaly]

Are we just profoundly missing one another's points? I fear that may be the case.

We agree - we cannot use a time schedule as a test of orthodoxy. Many Christians adhere to an "old earth" creation, and that is consistent with Christianity. Many Christians do not adhere to an "old earth" creation and that is consistent with their world view.

I understood you to assert that a Christian need not believe that God is the creator.

My point was this:
If a person believes himself/herself to be a Christian, they must also believe that there is a creator, and that creator is the God of Christianity. If they reject either of those points, I don't believe that it is reasonable to identify themselves as a Christian.

In terms of the timeline, while I subscribe to the "young earth" theory, I recognize that this is merely my opinion. I don't think that within orthodox Christianity one can demand adherence to a specific calendar - the scriptures do not speak definitively on the schedule.

It is also true that I have some difficulty combining current scientific conventional wisdom with my opinion.

This is not specifically problematic for me because as scientific knowledge is quite fungible, it is likely that future dicsoveries will demonstrate that my ideas are in line with the evidence.

Over the last two years, significant discoveries have had dramatic influence on our understanding of cosmology.

Mankind stands on the shore of an ocean of ignorance. Science helps us understand the material universe. It is incompetent to answer the "why" question. That is *not* to say that science has no value - the scientific method provides immense value and I am a big believer in science.

I hope that clears up any confusion.

Regards,
Anomaly

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[MacAndrew]

Yep, I basically agree with your views, not in their particulars but their acknowledgement of ambiguity in either science or the Bible.

Personally I think you'll have a long wait before science supports a young earth theory, and if it ever does it will be science that proved its existence not religion. Obviously faith skips the proof step, as it would be hard to believe in God in the first place if one insists on proof.

Any valid criticisms of current scientific fact and theory, regardless of the source, should be incorporated into science. My original objection, and a relatively small one, was to the logically flawed objection that have clouded debate over the history of the earth and origin of life -- to recap, that gas giants forming fast undermines theory as to the age of the earth of the universe. Let creationism stand on its own merits.

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[anomaly]

it would be hard to believe in God in the first place if one insists on proof
This may be splitting hairs, but I think that it's a question of how you define proof. I've seen enough evidence of God and His involvement in my life that I believe that I have proof.

Just curious...What evidence would be sufficient to prove to you that God exists?

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[MacAndrew]

Just curious...What evidence would be sufficient to prove to you that God exists?

That's a tough one. I saw Contact a few days ago, where you may remember Jodie Foster really fumbles that one. But the movie posed a thoughtful analogy: What amount of proof do you need to know you're in love? (Come to think of it, that popped up in the Matrix, too. No, I don't get all my philosophy from science fiction movies. :)

In terms of the bare minimum, I have no idea. For me it is a question of faith not proof, and if I believe something intangible is real, then it is real within the limits of rationality. In other words, no proof is necessary.

I am agnostic, and remain perplexed by, not disdainful of, the faith of others, including the sometimes rabid atheists.

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[anomaly]

Movies express a world view in story - so it's not surprising to see philosophy there.

Some movies are more worthwhile than others from a philosphical perspective. As an example, the Matrix does a good job of addressing the classic good vs evil constuct - as does LOTR.

If you ever decide that you are interested in learning about why I have faith in Jesus Christ, and believe that I can reconcile intellect and faith in the Christian world view, please drop me a line.

Regards,
Anomaly

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[MacAndrew]

Movies -- yes they have philosophy, but it tends to be of the McDonald's variety. Not that I mind: real philosophy would leave the audience drooling unconscious in their popcorn. It's nice to see authentic touches, though.

Reconciliation -- I know that it is possible, but not for me. I'm fundamentally hard-wired by experience, and accepting of same. But there is always room for self-improvement....

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[anomaly]

If you have an a priori commitment to reject faith as a concept, doesn't that prevent you from being open to faith as the most reasonable alternative?

(It is admittedly possible that faith is not the most reasonable alternative, but my point is that if you determine ahead of time what cannot be a possibility, aren't you being a bit closed-minded?)

The elegance of God's story is that we don't have to self-mprove because we simply are unable to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. God reaches down and pulls us out of the muck.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[MacAndrew]

a priori commitment to reject faith

No, no, just self-awareness, which is intellectually if not functionally different from closed-mindedness. I proceed on experience rather than presumption (the reason actually that I reject atheism). But I concede that people do change, and that someday you may reject your faith.... I'm being facetious, but that is a symmetrical possibility unless you have an "a priori commitment to accept faith." :)

While we're here, how do we pick which religion is best? There's a tough one. People usually pick the one to which they have the strongest familial, community, or cultural affinity.

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[anomaly]

I understand that you're being facetious about my rejection of my faith. It is a possibility, although I regard it as a very unlikely one.

I see your point about the a priori commitment to accept faith, but my faith is based on my intellectual assessment of the "facts" that I have gathered through life experience. I put facts in quotes because no one can collect data in a truly objective fashion - if nothing else, we bring the limitations of our pont of observation....I don't perceive that I have predetermined to accept faith.

But to get to your question about selection of religion - it is quite true that we tend to pick the one with which we have the most familiarity.

I submit to you that it is best to select a religion based on it's integrity and truthfulness.

When I refer to integrity I mean - can the followers live in a manner that is consistent with the teachings of the religion? Does the religion contradict itself? If it is possible to live that way, do they? Do some?

When I refer to truthfulness I mean how closely does it match up with what we KNOW to be true? What are the logical outcomes of people folowing that world view to a letter - and what is the outcome for them and society?

How well does it answer the questions:
1) Where did we come from?
2) What went wrong?
3) What can we do to fix it?

Do those answers match reality? Do they provide meaning?

Christianity's answers are:
1) God created us for the purpose of worshiping Him.

2) Man rejected God the creator because in his pride he believed he knew a better way.

3) We can do nothing on our own to fix it. God knew this, and reached down from heaven to reconcile us to Himself.

As far as I know, Christianity is the only world religion that does not depend on some form of works to "save" you.

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[MacAndrew]

I understand that you're being facetious about my rejection of my faith. It is a possibility, although I regard it as a very unlikely one.

Facetious -- not really, not with the negative connotation. Just pointing out that I might not be on the defensive about my beliefs any more than you. As for my future change, I agree with your second sentence. The future can always bring change, but our beliefs are not necessarily up for grabs. And most of us would not endorse coercion one direction or the other; these are things we're supposed to figure out for ourselves (my wife and I just a long car ride conversation about the interaction of gov't and religion, prayer in schools, etc. -- and no, we don't agree about everything; and our child will be baptised this coming weekend).

Within and among religions there is such tremendous variation, perhaps the churchgoer chooses one more to be affirmed than changed. I sat next to a Methodist minister on a flight once who commented on his religion's political liberality, and the concern of some of the clergy that too many younger people were joining "for the wrong reasons" -- shared secular values rather than the God part. I do not personally accept that joining a church is a necessary step.

I think the framework of Christianity -- the open, loving version -- is beautiful. Some people's readings of certain parts of the Bible are deeply disturbing to me, and many just depend on what you believe -- kind of like some parts of the Constitution. What to believe, I don't know, and I don't think the world is holding its breath. I do enjoy thinking about it, which suggests I do listen, and my notion of God is that there's some patience. (I can't imagine tolerating mankind without patience.)

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[anomaly]

I think the framework of Christianity -- the open, loving version -- is beautiful.
Love and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Love is far more than just gushy feelings or niceness. God is Love.
He is also completely just. His love is real, but His justice is real as well.
A just judge must punish wrong. If He does not, He ceases to be just.

deeply disturbing
While I agree that some people are quite disturbing (some televangelists come to mind - and those who claim that Christ promised universal health and wealth here on earth)

I think that we must recognize that much of life is actually deeply disturbing. The reality of our inability to attain the standard of perfection set by a holy and perfect God is...well...disturbing is probably a mild word to use.

I can't imagine tolerating mankind without patience
Absolutely - God is slow to anger and ready to forgive - since He's already offered the gift to us and all we must do is accept it.

The thing to keep in mind is that there is a deadline for the decision. None of us know how many more days we have here, and in the words of a once-popular rock band "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[MacAndrew]

In all events, it's been nice talking to you. Now, about those gas giants (no, not the televangelists)....

Re:no no no no no no! :)

[anomaly]

I agree. Nice speaking with you, too. Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Anomaly

Re:This isn't at all surprising

[grylnsmn]

There is nothing whatsoever in the Bible that claims that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Instead, the chronology of the Bible only makes the claim that the Fall of Adam happened about 6000 years ago.

Genesis 1 only talks about the creation (and the term "day" can also refer to a period of time, not just a literal 24-hour period). The Fall doesn't happen until Genesis 3. The funny thing is that the Bible doesn't say anything about how much time went in between the two events. The age given for Adam when he died was measured from the time of his Fall.

It's funny how people don't read what it is saying because they only see what they want it to say.

Re:Titan AE

[Dyolf Knip]

Look, the whole point of scence fiction is to create some semi-believable technology and use it as a plot device. If it, or indeed any other plot device, is unbelievable, it ruins the effect. Neither of us would enjoy an action movie in which the Supreme Ultimate Head Honcho Bad Guy Bent on World Domination has a change of heart, surrenders to the hero, and retires to a peaceful cabin in the woods. It's blatantly unreal. It simply would not happen. Similarly, the widgets in a sci-fi simply have to not be stupid. How many times do you see a perfectly usable gadget being ignored in favor of more aesthetic (sp?) plot? I for one find it extremely irritating.

And anyway, the uber-high tensile strength is needed in _The_ RingWorld since it's 600 million miles around. _A_ Ringworld could easily be made much smaller and built around a smaller, dimmer, longer-lived star. Heck, given the amount of effort needed to build one, it probably would be. One can also build free-floating rings with dimensions in the mere thousands of miles. We could probably build something like that with current tech.

Re:This isn't at all surprising

[MacAndrew]

It's funny how people don't read what it is saying because they only see what they want it to say.

Amen. :) As long as we can agree to discuss, without calling anyone insane or bound for Hell, communication is possible.

Hmm. But if a day in Genesis is not necessarily a literal day, how do we know a year in Adam's 900+ year life is a literal year? (I know, I'm pushing my luck -- and I can see the appeal of rigid interpretation. And why did people live so long anyway?)

Re:Titan AE

[mindstrm]

You mean like an Orbital, a-la Iain Banks?

Rotating ring, you live on the inside surface, like a ringworld.. but it doesn't go around a star. it orbits the star like any other planet. The ring is tilted at an angle, though, so that part of it eclipses the rest, providing a day/night cycle.

Re:Titan AE

[Dyolf Knip]

Exactly. In fact, the Ringworld in the X-Box game Halo is just such a construct.

Re:Titan AE (off topic)

[Dyolf Knip]

Fantasy is pretty much the same, only instead of phasers, gravitic generators, and self-aware machines you have wizard's staffs, magical incantations, and elven swords. The use of those items has to be believable (via the initial suspension of disbelief, of course) and self-consistent lest it totally ruin the effect.

Oddly enough though, Douglas Adam's Hitchikers Guide books (I happen to have been reperusing them) violate these principles every other page and yet are still excellent reads. Shrug.