EARTH'S OLD AGE EVIDENCE CONFRONTS THE YOUNG AGE MYTH - A DIALOGUE
            The MAZE method using multitude hypotheses
            ------------------------------------------
  A dialogue between C. Gordon Winder(CGW) and Rev. Robert S. Geddes(RSG),
  South Gate Presbyterian Church, 120 Clarendon Street, Hamilton, Ontario
 

Presented to the National Association of Geology Teachers, May 26, 1995
       Ontario Science Centre, Toronto.
  also Geol. Soc. Amer. Workshop for High School Earth Science Teachers,
       March 22.1996, Buffalo, New York
  Modified version to the Canadian Christian Festival, Copps Auditorium,
       June 25, 1994, Hamilton Ontario

CGW - A maze is an intricate network of pathways in which a choice must be
made at junction points. A wrong choice leads to a blind end, whereas a
correct choice will eventually lead to the terminus or resolution point.
Multitple hypotheses, a procedure commonly used in the earth sciences,
considers all the explanations or options, and then a choice is made.
Another working procedure is Ockham's razor - amongst competing
hypotheses, favour the simplest.

RSG - Our topic is the age of the earth and the simple basic questions are
-
 *** IS THE EARTH VERY YOUNG  or IS THE EARTH VERY OLD?

More specifically, is the earth about 10,000 years old, or is the earth
4,000,000,000 plus years old? This topic is a facet of the much larger
seeming conflict between science and religion, or more correctly
identified as science and Christianity, an argument which has raged for
centuries? Today -- we are considering only one facet because we adhere to
a succinct African proverb -- YOU CAN EAT AN ELEPHANT - ONE SMALL BITE AT
A TIME.
 
CGW - FIRST MAZE JUNCTION

Is there any hope that resolution for this long standing argument can be
initiated? It has been going on for centuries.   TWO PATHWAYS

1. Impossible to resolve -- just forget about it.

2. The topic is partly science, which is dedicated to resolving physical
problems -- and partly about Christianity, which is dedicated to resolving
metaphysical problems.

We reject the first pathway. The lack of success to resolve should not
deter our efforts to keep trying. That is a characteristic of science --
keep trying the experiment, varying the parameters with each attempt, but
recognize the time frame to initiate resolution may be measured in
decades.

Consider the benefits -- 1. it will cut back on the endless arguing. 2. it
would decrease the number of books, reports of special studies, symposia,
etc., using mountains of paper, filling library shelves, and several more.
[Please note our free manuscript is of minimal size, with no plans to
publish.] and 3. We suggest adopting our understanding opens the way for a
complementary relationship between science and faith.

Please note -- we have 50 minutes so discussion and questions will be
limited to this topic -- THE AGE OF THE EARTH.

In what sectors of knowledge is research done on the age of the earth and
what are the answers?
1. Research in astronomy and the geosciences concludes the EARTH, (and our
solar system, and the universe) IS OLD.
2. An analysis of Scripture generally, and Genesis specifically, can bring
the conclusion that earth is young. Bishop Ussher provided the most cited
date, that earth was created in 4004 B.C.
 
RSG - SECOND MAZE JUNCTION - What relationships exit between the
scientific and the Genesis explanations?  FOUR PATHWAYS

1. NONE!! - no relationship - one is science dealing with the physical,
and the other is religion dealing with the metaphysical. No attempt should
be made to equate and relate.

2. Genesis is right and geoscience is wrong. The VERSUS attitude.

3. Geoscience is right and Genesis is wrong. Ditto.

4. The geoscience and Genesis explanations have features in common, which
can lead to a compatible and complementary relationship.

Which pathway? We reject #1 because it leads to endless arguing. #2 and #3
are rejected because they also lead to endless arguing. We elect #4
because our analysis identifies a commmon interpretation, which can bridge
the gap between the two models, thus establishing compatibility. And that
is the objective!! Will everyone accept? HEAVENS NO!! We hope our
explanation will be considered seriously and eventually a sufficient
number will recognize, and start working for a compromise for this long
festering and aggravating problem.

CGW - THIRD MAZE JUNCTION -- Two questions!!

1. What is the valid evidence for an OLD EARTH?
2. What is the valid evidence for a YOUNG EARTH?

Consider the scientific evidence for an old earth

1. Analyses by professional astronomers bring the conclusion that the
multitude of galaxies and suns in our universe are older than the earth
and moon as determined by geoscientific research. The origin of the
universe was the BIG BANG, occurring billions of years ago. Neither of us
is competent to discuss. But the astronomers agree that EARTH, as an
integral part of the universe, IS OLD.

2. The geoscientific evidence which draws the conclusion that EARTH IS OLD
includes the following - a) conclusions by the first self-trained
geologists; b) rock outcrops and drill holes; c) government geological
surveys and publications; and d) teaching in universities and colleges,
and the public schools.

(SLIDES)

RSG - Starting about 200 years ago, amateur, self-trained geologists, who
went into the field to examine the rocks, concluded that EARTH IS OLD.
(Incidentally most of these individuals were Christians, some fervent
evangelicals.)

James Hutton, Scot(d.1797) medical doctor, published THEORY OF THE EARTH,
1795, with the famous cliche - "we find no vestige of a beginning, and
no prospect of an end" - translation - EARTH IS OLD>

Hugh Miller, Scot quarryman in the 1840's, authour and publisher, and
active churchman, authority on fossil fish in the Old Red Sandstone, in
modern geological terms named the DEVONIAN - convinced the EARTH IS OLD.

Adam Sedgwick, Englishman(1785-1873), Anglican cleric, first Cambridge
professor of geology, mapped rocks in north Wales, and named the Cambrian,
convinced the EARTH IS OLD. Charles Darwin was his field assistant for a
short period.

Sir William E. Logan, Canadian (1798-1875), first director of the
Geological Survey of Canada, 1842, made accurate geological maps, based on
the geological time scale, indicating that EARTH IS OLD.

Sir J. William Dawson (1820-1899), born on Nova Scotia, while travelling
in Nova Scotia as superintendent of education, he examined the rocks and
studied the fossil plants such that he became a world expert in
paleobotany. In 1855 he was appointed first principal of McGill
University, convinced the EARTH IS OLD. He was an evangelistic
Presbyterian.

James Hall, American(1811-1898), joined the New York Geological Survey in
1836, produced thirteen massive volumes about fossils, all his writings
and research indicate that EARTH IS OLD.

CGW -  SECOND REASON - The prime geological evidence which convinced
geologists that EARTH IS OLD, is the very thick, continuous sections of
rocks exposed at the surface.
slide - geological map of Nova Scotia to show the location of Joggins on
the Bay of Chignecto, viewed by Logan in 1843.

The section is over 14,000 feet thick of almost continuous exposure of
sandstone and shale, with numerous levels of upright tree trunks, and
numerous coal beds -- the most logical explanation is that the length of
time to deposit that thickness of rock must have been a very long time --
and thus the corollary - EARTH IS OLD.

slide - Face of salt in the Goderich, Ontario salt mine. 45 feet are
exposed and another 30 feet are hidden. The 62 layers might be interpreted
as annual deposits, thus representing a relatively short period of time.
But above and below this bed are six more beds of salt with an aggregate
thickness of almost 500 feet. And this bed of salt is about 1600 feet
below the surface. How long would it have taken to deposit? A short period
of time or a long period of time?

Slide of the Michigan basin - Consider the total extent and salt thickness
with an aggregate thickness in the centre over 1500 feet. To interpret a
long period of time for deposition should be the logical explanation,and
therefore EARTH IS OLD.

Slide of the geological map of Canada - Another salt basin in Saskatchewan
and Alberta, which is three times the size of the Michigan basin, and is
the world's largest producer of potash. The deepest drill hole in Canada
is located in the western sector of Alberta - 18020 feet - and it must
have taken a long time to deposit such a thickness of sedimentary rock
[Display the geophysical log].

CGW - FOURTH MAZE JUNCTION

With respect to the geological evidence, we have displayed -
1. In Nova Scotia, a thick section of sandstone and shale with upright
tree trunks and numerous coal beds.
2. A subsurface occurrence of several salt beds with widespread
 distribution across Ontario, Michigan, and New York.
3. Inferred an even bigger salt deposit in the subsurface of Saskatchewan.
4. A drill hole in western Alberta with over 18,000 feet of sediment

TWO PATHWAYS -- which is the more logical explanation for each of these?
-- deposition over a short period of time or over a long period of time?

We take the stand these rocks were deposited over a very long period of
time, as do most geologists -- which has the corollary - that EARTH IS
OLD.

Slide of Logan's map of eastern North America -- William Logan and James
Hall were associated with government geological surveys, which
produced reports, maps, etc. This is their map, published in 1865. At the
present time, all Canadian provinces except one, and most of the states of
the USA have a geological survey. In addition, both Canada and the USA
have a federal geological survey, as do most of the countries of the
world. All reports, maps, studies,  etc., for which it is appropriate, the
geological time scale is used because of its universal application --
which includes the inference EARTH IS OLD.

Slide of supersimplified geological time scale. The handout is the 1983
detailed version produced by the Geological Society of America. And even
this time scale has been revised. But the implication of this universally
used scale, is that the EARTH IS OLD.

Slide of the University of Western Ontario campus in London Canada. The
earth sciences department has 25 faculty members. At the present time,
there are in Canada and the USA, about 800 geoscience departments at the
university and college level, including at least three which are
identified as Christian. The teaching in all is based on the EARTH IS OLD
understanding. All of the available textbooks used in these departments
recognize that EARTH IS OLD. To our knowledge, there is not a single
textbook in use, recognizing a young earth.

And incidentally the geology curriculum for Ontario secondary schools
specifies that the EARTH IS OLD. And if the federal and provincial
governments state that the EARTH IS OLD, then that makes it official.

CONCLUSION - on the basis of this accumulated scientific evidence and
government policies, we take the stand that EARTH IS OLD.

CGW -- LIGHTS

Now let us consider the direct geoscientific evidence for the
interpretation that the EARTH IS YOUNG, both geoscientific and
astronomical. Several young earthers have been asked, but the examples
they cite are better interpreted as indicating great age, for example the
Niagara gorge and the rocks exposed in the walls. [see Essay #4] A
common tactic which the 'young earthers' employ is argue that the
scientific evidence and the interpretation of the physical evidence for an
OLD EARTH is flawed, -- and therefore the earth is young. That is not a
logical deduction.

RSG - The ultimate source for a young earth is the Bible generally, and
Genesis 1 specifically. (RSG produces a Bible.) Let us reflect on this
document. WHEN was it written? WHERE was it written? WHY was it written?
WHO wrote it? They must have been exceptional individuals just because
they could write! What was the education of these individuals - they
could not have taken any courses in astronomy, biology, chemistry
geology, physics, mathematics, etc. We recommend that these and other
questions be considered when this issue is discussed..

The young age interpretation is based largely on the length of the 'days'
in Genesis. How long are those 'days'? Even some of the great teachers of
the church had serious reservations about the precise meaning attached to
the word 'day'. And many interpretations still exist to this "day"!!

In every day common language, the word 'day' has several meanings, such as
the time between sunrise and sunset, or the time for the earth to make one
rotation on its axis, or the hours of a work day (unless you are on the
night shift), or a period of time of unstated dimension, and others.

What are the meanings of 'day' as found in the Bible, and Genesis
specifically?
Generally in the Bible, a 'day' refers to the period from sunrise to
sunset. Psalm 136:8 - 'the sun to rule the day'; Ps.136:9 - 'The moon
and stars to rule the night'.

John 11:9 - Jesus said - 'Are there not twelve hours in a day?'

A day is also defined as the time for work. Exodus 20:9 -- 'Six days thou
shalt labour and do all thy work.' How long did the people work in those
days? This suggests they worked during the day, but not the night. This
verse is commonly cited as indicating the day is 24 hours. There is not a
single verse in the Bible which states - literally - the day is 24 hours.
If you are aware of one we would appreciate having the reference.

But a day can also indicate a time period of undefined and indefinite
length.

2 Peter 3:8 -- 'that one day with the LORD as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day.' This is considered a long period of time, and
not, specifically a thousand years. If a day is like a thousand years,
then it could be LIKE 10,000 years, or it could be LIKE 1,000,000 years,
or it could be LIKE 1,000,000,000 years.

FIFTH MAZE JUNCTION -- Three pathways

1. Are the 'days' of Genesis 12 hours in length?
2. Are the 'days' of Genesis 24 hours of length?
3. Are the 'days' of Genesis undefined and indefinite time periods of
great length?

Obviously, to argue that the 'days' are 12 or 24 hours in length
perpetuates the arguing. However the 'days' can be understood to mean a
very long period of time of undefined and indefinite length. If so, then
the period according to science - astronomy and geosciences - and the
periods in Scriptures, can be considered the same. The corollary of this
determination, is that the EARTH IS OLD, and therefore the interpretations
are compatible.

In conclusion, the MAZE methodology using MULTIPLE HYPOTHESES yields a
result which is rather AMAZING. Thus we conclude  with the SIXTH and
FINAL MAZE JUNCTION.

CGW   Along which pathway are we going to proceed? The divergent or the
same?

1. Do you agree with us the EARTH IS OLD?

RSG  2. Do we agree that the two sources are compatible and complementary
because each source can yield the conclusion that EARTH IS OLD?

CGW  3. Do we agree that the evidence from both sources indicates that the
EARTH IS OLD, and in the interests of resolving the long standing
argument, we will contribute positively to the discussion, with the
objective, characteristic of science --- RSG - and Christianity --
CGW  - of seeking resolution for this long standing problem?

RSG  The time has arrived to conclude with a appropriate  -- AMEN!!!