PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The Age of the Earth



Noblesurvey
Oct 31st 2008, 12:18 PM
Hey guys,

Just wondering how old you all think our earth is from a biblical perspective?:idea:

I am not sure and find it difficult to answer in truth, when questioned by a non-beleiver about carbon dating, dinosaurs etc.

So I wanted to ask all of you what you have learnt on the matter and what the bible says.

Looking forward to hearing from you all!

God Bless ;)

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 12:37 PM
The Bible doesn't date History, although it does contain much history, and genealogies. It's purpose is to tell Man about God and share the gospel of His Son.

Attempts have been made, but they aren't verifiable and at best speculative.

Noblesurvey
Oct 31st 2008, 12:47 PM
Ok, Thanks.

But do you think 300 million years etc. as the evolutionists throw around is likely?

Did man and dinosaurs co-exist? It seems that they must have from the account of creation in Genesis, I need to know more! :confused

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 12:52 PM
what is your starting point of basing truth?

1) Bible

or

2) What Scientists claim

Knowing this answer should determine how strong the foundation is.

Then build up on the foundation.

Noblesurvey
Oct 31st 2008, 01:06 PM
Ok,

So, Personally, I base truth on the bible obviously.

But how do you answer someone who doesn't when they ask you questions about dinosaurs and have been bombarded their whole life (through TV and culture) that the earth is 300(or something like that) million years old, but the genealogies of the bible (and my somewhat limited knowledge) would infer something around 10 000 years.

Does any one know the accuracy of carbon dating and like measures of time? Also, the ark wasn't big enough for dinosuars so would they have been extinct before the flood or what?

I just have to get some answers for some guys I have been talking to and don't know where to find them.

RJ Mac
Oct 31st 2008, 02:23 PM
I date creation to have happened 8,000 BC.
Adam to Noah is about a 2000 yr span, judging the genealogies.
The flood happened 6,000 BC, Tower of Babel 5,000 BC

First evidences of civilizations are found 3800 BC which makes sense
after man has been scattered with languages, its time for the populations
to grow and start building cities.

Using scientific dating methods is great but they cannot account for the
age theory. Everything was created with age, as stated by God, the trees
were full grown and fruit bearing on day 3. Adam had full vocabulary on
day 6 and gave names to the animals. He and Eve were told to go forth
and multiply. Everything was created with age, including the rocks and
stars.

It is not deceptive of God to do so, because He told us He did, therefore
the deception is in those who claim otherwise. But what about all those
dating techniques? How old was Adam on day 6 - minutes old, but using
dating techniques he would have to be at least 16 years old to accomplish
all he could on that day, according to science but not according to Truth.

God's Word is Truth, Jesus is the Word, Jesus is God. I believe in Jesus.
One day God is going to judge every man who has ever lived and send
them to their eternal reward, impossible says scientists, but as Christians
we believe.

You will never win the argument of dating the earth, there is no physical
evidence that points to the existence of God that will win the argument.
Ro.1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal
power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through
what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

May God give you the words, that will plant the seed, in the hearts of those
you love so much and are trying to introduce to Christ.

RJ

Noblesurvey
Oct 31st 2008, 03:03 PM
Many thanks RJ.

That confirms my "calculations" based on the genealogies and what you stated accounts for the apparent discrepancy with the age of things aqcuired through dating techniques, which I am comfortable to accept.

Has anyone else heard of dating rocks by the amount of helium in them? I read in a magazine (I think it was the "creation" magazine) that the amount of helium still trapped in some of the "oldest" granite known of, would confirm an age of around 10,000 years.

I can't remember if thats where I read it though, so If anyone else has heard this and can direct me to it or something like it, it would be greatly appreciated.

markedward
Oct 31st 2008, 03:10 PM
Sometimes Carbon-dating can be very accurate... sometimes very inaccurate.

Recently, Carbon-dating placed a piece of ancient pottery found in Israel to around 1000 BC, the supposed era of David. Christians clamor all over it and say, "Look, Carbon-dating proves the Bible!"

A few years ago, Carbon-dating placed a living snail to some ludicrously ancient year (I forget the exact number... but it was well before 1000 BC). Christians climb on this and claim, "Look, Carbon-dating can't be trusted!"

Basically... don't use Carbon-dating as your only method for dating anything, because it just isn't 100% reliable.

teddyv
Oct 31st 2008, 03:14 PM
Just wanted to jump in with a reminder that carbon-dating is only good to about 50,000 years. Other methods are used when dating rocks (K-Ar, U-Pb, etc.):)

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 03:16 PM
Ok,

So, Personally, I base truth on the bible obviously.

But how do you answer someone who doesn't when they ask you questions about dinosaurs and have been bombarded their whole life (through TV and culture) that the earth is 300(or something like that) million years old, but the genealogies of the bible (and my somewhat limited knowledge) would infer something around 10 000 years.

Does any one know the accuracy of carbon dating and like measures of time? Also, the ark wasn't big enough for dinosuars so would they have been extinct before the flood or what?

I just have to get some answers for some guys I have been talking to and don't know where to find them.

Why not simply be honest enough to tell them you don't believe that 300 million year old stuff; and you believe the Bible tells us that life on Earth is simply much younger than that...even though it doesn't go into extreme details on specific dating?

Maybe that will open the door to share the gospel with them; and if it doesn't or if they become hostile towards the bible being mentioned; then no amount of arguement or evidence is going to change their minds.

Romans 1:28 "even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself"

No amount of evidence, debate, or knowlege will win anyone to Christ; only through the working of the Holy Spirit to soften their heart can change come.

watchinginawe
Nov 1st 2008, 01:55 AM
Hey guys,

Just wondering how old you all think our earth is from a biblical perspective?:idea: This is a little off topic, but probably relevant.

Consider the following verses:

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

I think it is safe to assume that Adam was a gardener. ;)

Additionally:

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Cain was a farmer and Abel was a herder. So we have in the second generation of man both agriculture and animal domestication.

Calculating back in time using the Bible, scholars have generally aged the events of Cain and Abel as about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. There are different reckonings to come up with this, but just accepting the above for a moment, we also have the following agreement from science (the following from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318084.000.html ):
Among the herbivores, goat and sheep were domesticated first, around 9000 years ago, followed by cattle and pig. Domestication of the horse came last, chiefly in Ukraine, around 5000 years ago.Really, when you consider it, that is pretty coincident.

God Bless!

Levin
Nov 1st 2008, 10:20 AM
I personally think that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old...and I believe that scripture is inerrant.

Levin

Noblesurvey
Nov 1st 2008, 03:42 PM
Thanks for the resources guys, I will be studying them over the next day or so.

Levin,

How do you come to that understanding?

threebigrocks
Nov 1st 2008, 05:04 PM
But how do you answer someone who doesn't when they ask you questions about dinosaurs and have been bombarded their whole life (through TV and culture) that the earth is 300(or something like that) million years old, but the genealogies of the bible (and my somewhat limited knowledge) would infer something around 10 000 years.

Does any one know the accuracy of carbon dating and like measures of time? Also, the ark wasn't big enough for dinosuars so would they have been extinct before the flood or what?

I just have to get some answers for some guys I have been talking to and don't know where to find them.

Many times, these sort of people are looking to refute Christianity. If they do not have faith, most times (not all) we are left with scripture looking foolish. Discuss the gospel instead! ;)

This is best suited to the Apologetics and Evangelism forum, moving it there for continued discussion.

GitRDunn
Nov 1st 2008, 05:12 PM
Before I say what I want to say, I want to make it clear that I believe everything in the Bible and that it is 100% fact.

From my own knowledge and the studying I have done, I have come to the conclusion that I can't say whether Creationism or Evolution was the way the Earth was made. Obviously Creationism is supported by the Bible if you take the beginning of Genesis as straightforward, but as many other things in the Bible are, it could always be metaphorical. God is living in eternity, so a day could be any length to him, it wouldn't have fit with our concept of a "day". Also, as I plan on majoring in Chemistry in college I realize the arguments for and against Carbon dating, which is another reason I can't decide. In my opinion, with the knowledge available to us on Earth, from God and science and anything else, I think that the only fact we can be positive of in relation to this is that whether it was Creationism or Evolution, God controlled it.

watchinginawe
Nov 1st 2008, 05:55 PM
In my opinion, with the knowledge available to us on Earth, from God and science and anything else, I think that the only fact we can be positive of in relation to this is that whether it was Creationism or Evolution, God controlled it.Good luck in your academic pursuits! Chemistry is a very interesting field of study.

I have some suggestions for you in your studies: Conduct them through the lens of your worldview instead of letting them form or substitute your worldview. Always separate certain portions of science as a statement of an alternate worldview in your mind.

Let me see if I can explain. Scientific knowledge is a set of knowledge obtained through a philosophy which basically says: Setting aside explanations that could possibly invoke a God or other supernatural phenomena, what are the best remaining natural explanations for what we observe? There is more to it of course, but I am highlighting a major philosphy present in science.

Now normally there isn't a lot of difference in what we consider. For example, the stoichiometry of chemistry makes sense regardless of setting aside a supernatural explanation. But when we come to things where something has never been observed (like the formation of life) then we must remember that the set of scientific knowledge has been developed by setting aside explanations that could possibly invoke a God or other supernatural event. In other words, Science has no option except to offer theories that exclude anything but a natural and spontaneous occurrence of life. However, that does not mean that life naturally or spontaneously occurred, it just sets the fence around what science can consider.

Extrapolating this to your statement that "God controls/controlled it", you would have to view science's opinion in the following manner: "The materialist worldview of science holds that God could not have had any control over evolution and that the occurrence and production of life on Earth proceeded completely naturally from the conditions and materials available in the environment."

Personally, I think it might be a good way to answer some test questions, etc. State the world view from which the knowledge is derived from.

Additionally, when considering the conclusions of your studies, do so from the point of view of your worldview. For example: "While there may be some valuable information to be learned from that viewpoint, something ultimately is wrong since I can not establish the fact myself and it contradicts my worldview. Perhaps an entirely different or supernatural explanation might be the truth."

Ultimately it is impossible to completely reconcile two worldviews that are incompatible in their philosophies. Therefore you won't be able to accept the entirity of the scientific worldview just by prepending "God" to it. I hope that makes sense.

By keeping these matters present in your mind, perhaps you will always return to what you stated as:
... the only fact we can be positive of ... God

God Bless!

Prosperity
Nov 1st 2008, 09:31 PM
You might find this site useful:






Is there a time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis? On this website you will learn about a controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. Commonly called the "Gap Theory" or Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation, it is a theology much older than Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. It is based on the Scriptural fact that in the second verse of Genesis, the Holy Bible simply and clearly states that the planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the creative process of the seven days even begins. Understanding this Biblical mystery begins with the precise wording of this New Testament cross-reference:



Complete article is here (http://www.kjvbible.org/)

Athanasius
Nov 1st 2008, 10:28 PM
There's no gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2:rolleyes:
See, this is the kicker (this is unfair of me to do)...

בראשית 1

1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
2 וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

That's Genesis "1:1-2". The chapter division doesn't exist, the verse divisions don't exist and these two verses, contrary to the poor translation we have in English, consist of one creative act.

If you look a the King James Version (which is what that site uses) of Genesis 1:1-2:

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

See that word 'and' at the beginning of verse two? It doesn't exist. It's a poor translation (I know, not the KJV!) of the phrase ura erets (I'm pretty sure, someone more competent in Hebrew can correct me if necessary). Unfortunately it's this 'and' that many base their Gap Theory on (then run to the New Testament to proof text). Well, if that 'and' shouldn't be there and Genesis 1:1-2 represent a continual creative act, then you can't run to the New Testament (or Isaiah, as some do) and if you can't do either... You really have no Gap theory.

Noblesurvey
Nov 2nd 2008, 03:51 AM
I must admit that I found the "Gap" theory a little difficult to rationalize, because I take the account in Genesis to be literal, and I think that If God waited to continue creating after "the heavens and the earth" then scripture would say so. Obviously I would be hesitant to dismiss the idea altogether because I just don't know enough.

I am far more comfortable with the idea that everything was created with "age" as this does not contradict any scripture (as far as I know) and I would even go so far as saying that it supports it in the sense that man and trees were created "mature".

I am so glad to hve so many poeple willing to help me with this and look forward to reading your further posts!

God Bless ;)

Lamplighter
Nov 2nd 2008, 04:13 AM
The Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah’s day).

Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible’s genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man’s ideas about the age of the universe.
And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either.



When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.
You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.
Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God’s Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man’s dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible’s authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.
So, the issue is not ‘young Earth’ versus ‘old Earth,’ but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?


A ‘young-Earth’ view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, ‘And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.’ Compared to what God knows, we know ‘next door to nothing!’ This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God’s Word.
It’s also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that ‘knowledge puffeth up.’ Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world’s fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.

ikester7579
Nov 2nd 2008, 07:39 AM
Hey guys,

Just wondering how old you all think our earth is from a biblical perspective?:idea:

I am not sure and find it difficult to answer in truth, when questioned by a non-beleiver about carbon dating, dinosaurs etc.

So I wanted to ask all of you what you have learnt on the matter and what the bible says.

Looking forward to hearing from you all!

God Bless ;)

6,000 years.

Ever heard of time dilation?

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

My opinion on how this works.

The faster you travel from point A to point B, time slows down. The verse above I believe is a formula for how fast you have to travel in order to reach achieve a timeline equal to eternity. And since the comparison is one day to one thousand years. Since it takes 365 days to make a year. You take 365 times 1,000 and it equals 365,000. The speed needed to acheive eternity.

The Bible states that the movement of the objects in space create segments in time.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

It's not just the light, it movement of the objects that the light shines upon. It takes 365 days for the earth to go around the sun. But if everything moves 365,000 times faster, everything would stand still.

What does this have to do with the age of the earth? The first six days were done in eternity time. How? Sin was not committed until the end of the sixth day. And sin is what causes death, correct? So time with no sin equals time with no death. Which is eternal time.

And since those six days were in eternal time, the laws in which that time worked were different from our own. Kinda like a parallel universe where people live forever.

Just so you don't misunderstand, it's not time that moves 365,000 times faster. It's the things contained within that time-line that do. That is why we cannot see the other 2 spiritual realms of good and evil.

Side note: Remember a couple of the Star Trek episodes where they came upon a planet that time moved much faster (could not see the people), or in some cases much slower (or the people appeared to stand still)?

In eternity, it's not the time that moves faster, it's the living things that exist in that time that do. And for them, to move that fast causes time dilation which allows them to live forever.

This explains why people in the old testiment lived much longer. Time dilation was not something you could just stop and be done with. Once man sinned, the time dilation effect had to slow down over a period of time until it became what we observe today.

Now because things cannot age in eternity, everything created in eternity had to have age already added to them. Why? If a sin-less created universe has to also work in a sinful one. It has to be created to break no laws in either.

Example: A 6 day old earth passing from a sin-less universe into the laws of a sinful one would destroy all life because the laws would require it to be still molten lava. But a earth created with the age required for it to have cooled down could pass from one universe unto another with different laws with no problem.

So an earth created 4.6 billions years aged, could pass to the universe that requires that age for it to be cooled down and support life with no problem. The same is required for the rest of creation.

For the sun to be in the state where it is mainly stable enough to not destroy life on this planet, it had to be created with a certain age so when it passed from the sin-less universe to the sinful one. It would not change and thus kill us. Are there verses to support this? Yes.

Psalms 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

How do you lay a foundation of something old? You use aged material. It's like building a house with material from an older house. If you built the house 6 years ago using material from a 50 year old house. How old is the house? Same way you would determine how old the earth is that was made 6 days ago using 4.6 billion year old material.

ps 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

What is the foundation of the earth? It is the exact material that it is made of. What is it when the Bible states the earth is out of course? Course is not only a direction, but is also a direction of time. Now if the foundations are out of course, then how are they out of course? Well if the Bible time-line says 6,000 years, and time dating says 4.6 years, is that not the earth itself being out of course of the actual time-line as stated in the Bible?

That is why that verse above never says that these people are wrong who do not agree with the Biblical time-line. It says: they know not, neither will they understand.

Now how does this work better that current theories? They cannot explain how everything can come from one object of origin in the Big bang. But every object date diffferently.

Example: If I take a huge boulder and blow it up into small pebbles. Now would those pebbles not date the same age as the boulder because the boulder is the source? Science claims that all matter came from one dot in which the whole universe was compressed into, but yet everything that came from that dot will not date back to it (the actual age of our universe).

So a universe created with specific ages so that everything is just so and works together just so, explains things much better than one that the ages of matter do not date back to any origin.

Problems with the Big Bang:

1) Where did the matter come from?

There are basically two answers.
a) A rip in the fabric of time and space. An answer that cannot be proven or disproven and has no evidence.
b) Matter always existed. An answer that cannot be proven or disproven and has no evidence.

You see, in order for a theory to remain a theory. It has to remain falsifiable. Once it becomes non-falsifiable, it becomes an absolute. So adding ideas that cannot be proven or disproven make the theory unfalsifiable by default.

2) How do you break all known laws of physics and compress all matter in the universe into a dot?

Answer: There were no laws in the beginning.

Problem: Claiming this type of situation is actually applying a God like situation where anything that is claimed can happen. And if no laws existed, what controlled what happened if no control existed to control it? They would have to come up with a step by step proceedure of how every law came into being and in what order and why. Basically, this claim is a god did it type answer where god is not being used. No laws govern the origins of everything is like claiming God created everything. But they cannot use God because God is not provable or disprovable. So invoking a God like situation to make a theory work would be considered intellectually cheating.

I hope that helps.

Noblesurvey
Nov 2nd 2008, 02:10 PM
WOW!

That is a beauty! does NASA know your number? :lol:

What you have posted does make sense, I have heard of the idea that time is a dimension of its own, and there is scientific evidence to support this. Two atomic clocks at different altitudes measuring time pass at different "speeds" so I definitely think that your theory has merit.

Thanks for your post.

God Bless ;)

Athanasius
Nov 2nd 2008, 04:43 PM
6,000 years.

Ever heard of time dilation?

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


What would you say to those who claim that this is not a factual statement of the [relative] passing of time of eternity vs. "us". But that this verse is simply a reassurance that God is good and will fulfill His promises in His time (using the above metaphor, which is not a factual statement); the context of the verse?

ikester7579
Nov 2nd 2008, 10:26 PM
What would you say to those who claim that this is not a factual statement of the [relative] passing of time of eternity vs. "us". But that this verse is simply a reassurance that God is good and will fulfill His promises in His time (using the above metaphor, which is not a factual statement); the context of the verse?

Everybody is entitled to believe what they want.

Athanasius
Nov 2nd 2008, 10:28 PM
Everybody is entitled to believe what they want.

Not when it involves bad exegesis.

ikester7579
Nov 2nd 2008, 10:30 PM
WOW!

That is a beauty! does NASA know your number? :lol:

What you have posted does make sense, I have heard of the idea that time is a dimension of its own, and there is scientific evidence to support this. Two atomic clocks at different altitudes measuring time pass at different "speeds" so I definitely think that your theory has merit.

Thanks for your post.

God Bless ;)

Ponder this as well. Everything moving 365,000 times faster in the other universe would explain how God and all His angels can be anywhere at any given time to help us. This speed answers a lot of questions about some things in God's word that would seem silly.

GitRDunn
Nov 2nd 2008, 10:34 PM
Ponder this as well. Everything moving 365,000 times faster in the other universe would explain how God and all His angels can be anywhere at any given time to help us. This speed answers a lot of questions about some things in God's word that would seem silly.
This can also be described by the fact that God is all powerful and can, in actuality, regardless of time speed, be everywhere at once.

ikester7579
Nov 2nd 2008, 10:36 PM
Not when it involves bad exegesis.

You first would have to prove it, instead of imply it.

Athanasius
Nov 2nd 2008, 10:49 PM
You first would have to prove it, instead of imply it.

Fair enough.

2 Peter 3:1-9

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

As I said, the context of 2 Peter 3:8, which is discovered in reading 2 Peter 3:1-9 (and then beyond verse 9) is that Peter, in writing his [second] letter, is assuring "his audience" that God is not slow in His promises, but fulfills them in His (Gods) timing. What promise is being referred to in this portion of scripture? The second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Verse 8 is not stating a temporal fact (in the sense that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day), but using a metaphor to reassure believers that God's plan moves along according to God's timing. We want things to happen now, well maybe we'll have to wait a little bit, especially when people start mocking us.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but it's completely eisegetical and not supported by the text your using.

ikester7579
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:25 AM
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
You use a version of the Bible that supports your view of what you want to believe. Here is how it is worded in the KJV.

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Now unless you are going to derail the thread and start debating versions. My opinion of the earth's age is validated by what is said in the KJV.

One day being with the Lord, is being in His presence. Which is in Heaven. So the comparison is not about time as much as it is the difference between Heaven and where we are at.


I appreciate what you're trying to do, but it's completely eisegetical and not supported by the text your using.

It's according to whether you prefer to believe in the justification of faith through temporal evidence only, or whether you are willing to have pure faith in the ability of God's power to create.

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:40 AM
You use a version of the Bible that supports your view of what you want to believe. Here is how it is worded in the KJV.

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Now unless you are going to derail the thread and start debating versions. My opinion of the earth's age is validated by what is said in the KJV.

One day being with the Lord, is being in His presence. Which is in Heaven. So the comparison is not about time as much as it is the difference between Heaven and where we are at.

Hey now, don't accuse me of wanting to derail this thread and start debating translations when you're the one bringing it up (In case case the NASB vs. the KJV). Now, whether I use my version or your version it makes no difference. The KJV still renders 2 Peter 3:8 as a simile (notice that word: as?) and verse 9 is still going to mean the same thing (in fact, verses 1-9 are going to mean the same thing). The context is still the same and your application of the verse is still eisegetical not exegetical.



It's according to whether you prefer to believe in the justification of faith through temporal evidence only, or whether you are willing to have pure faith in the ability of God's power to create.

Not in this case it isn't. I really do appreciate what you're trying to do and good on you for it, if you can do it without using eisegetics, I'd fully support you. I'm not a fan though when you have to take verses out of context to support what's not inherently in the text.

ikester7579
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:49 AM
Hey now, don't accuse me of wanting to derail this thread and start debating translations when you're the one bringing it up (In case case the NASB vs. the KJV). Now, whether I use my version or your version it makes no difference. The KJV still renders 2 Peter 3:8 as a simile (notice that word: as?) and verse 9 is still going to mean the same thing (in fact, verses 1-9 are going to mean the same thing). The context is still the same and your application of the verse is still eisegetical not exegetical.

Here is what you said in post #18:
See that word 'and' at the beginning of verse two? It doesn't exist. It's a poor translation (I know, not the KJV!) of the phrase ura erets


Not in this case it isn't. I really do appreciate what you're trying to do and good on you for it, if you can do it without using eisegetics, I'd fully support you. I'm not a fan though when you have to take verses out of context to support what's not inherently in the text.

So now you are going to tell me how to worship, and what to believe, how to study, and what to read?

This thread is really getting derailed now.

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:54 AM
Here is what you said in post #18:
See that word 'and' at the beginning of verse two? It doesn't exist. It's a poor translation (I know, not the KJV!) of the phrase ura erets

So now you are going to tell me how to worship, and what to believe, how to study, and what to read?

This thread is really getting derailed now.

You're the one derailing it, ikester. The post you're referencing has absolutely nothing to do with what you've said but is in response to a different posters suggestion at the Gap Theory. In regards to the 'exegetic' you're applying to 2 Peter 3:8... Yeah, if you're interpreting the verse wrongly (and you are), someone's going to have to tell you. If that someone happens to be me - because you're posting in Apologetics and Evangelism - then I've no problem doing it.

Noblesurvey
Nov 3rd 2008, 11:30 AM
Hi Xel'Naga,

Thanks for your interest in the thread.

So how old do you beleive the earth is?

I still think it is about 10,000 years, and there have been a lot of ideas as to why the earth "dates" as being older. I can't say for sure which one has the most plausibility but I am leaning towards the idea that everything was created with age.

I am interested to know your thoughts though. (In an attempt to get back on topic ;) )

Thanks and God Bless

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 01:09 PM
Okay guys, let's play nice. :D We don't have to agree but we do have to show the love of Christ! ;)

God Bless!

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:33 PM
Hi Xel'Naga,

Thanks for your interest in the thread.

So how old do you beleive the earth is?

I still think it is about 10,000 years, and there have been a lot of ideas as to why the earth "dates" as being older. I can't say for sure which one has the most plausibility but I am leaning towards the idea that everything was created with age.

I am interested to know your thoughts though. (In an attempt to get back on topic ;) )

Thanks and God Bless

I'm a Young Earth Creationist, but at the same time I don't fully buy into the figure most use (6,000 - 10,000 years) as it was calculated based on genealogies and that to me is a bit sketchy. I don't see much of a problem with the idea that "everything" was created with age, even though it is theology by implication... Some might say it is God deceiving (creating false time) us, but I don't see it like that.

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:55 PM
I don't see much of a problem with the idea that "everything" was created with age, even though it is theology by implication... Some might say it is God deceiving (creating false time) us, but I don't see it like that.


Why don't you see it like that?

We know how fast the speed of light is, and we know how far away various stars are from Earth. What you are doing is denying the math.

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:25 PM
Why don't you see it like that?

We know how fast the speed of light is, and we know how far away various stars are from Earth. What you are doing is denying the math.

To come to the conclusion that I'm denying "the math" of the speed of light relative to the distance of various stars from earth (thereby extrapolating the "age of the universe") because I see no logical contradiction in the view that God created with age is non-sequitur, I have no made no such denial. You're reading into what I'm saying something I haven't said.

You know, though, since you want to pursue this I could definitely take the opportunity to learn, since you seem to be educated. Stephen Hawking (I believe) on the basis of quantum mechanics (in relation to the Big Bang theory) proposed what is known as 'imaginary time'. What are your thoughts on this? Does this in any way relate to the idea that God 'created in motion', as it were, then allowed the laws of nature and physics to take over?

Lamplighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:37 PM
2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Here Peter is simply saying, that time is of no consequence to God. This is why Peter says one thing and then reverses it right after. First off, Peter says that 1 day = 1 thousand years, and then he reverses it and says 1 thousans years = 1 day. Which is it? Neither. It's a superlative to show that man's time system is of no consequence to God.

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:43 PM
To come to the conclusion that I'm denying "the math" of the speed of light relative to the distance of various stars from earth (thereby extrapolating the "age of the universe") because I see no logical contradiction in the view that God created with age is non-sequitur, I have no made no such denial. You're reading into what I'm saying something I haven't said.


Please explain this notion of God "creating with age". How does this get you out of your dilemma regarding the speed of light?


You know, though, since you want to pursue this I could definitely take the opportunity to learn, since you seem to be educated. Stephen Hawking (I believe) on the basis of quantum mechanics (in relation to the Big Bang theory) proposed what is known as 'imaginary time'. What are your thoughts on this? Does this in any way relate to the idea that God 'created in motion', as it were, then allowed the laws of nature and physics to take over?

I won't pretend to know the first thing about Hawking's "imaginary time". What did you want to say about it?

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:01 PM
Please explain this notion of God "creating with age". How does this get you out of your dilemma regarding the speed of light?

I have no dilemma regarding the speed of light.



I won't pretend to know the first thing about Hawking's "imaginary time". What did you want to say about it?

Simply wondering if you were familiar with it.

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:05 PM
I have no dilemma regarding the speed of light.


So you agree that the light emanating from a star 10 million light years away from the Earth would take 10 million years to reach Earth? If not, wherein lies your dilemma?

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:12 PM
So you agree that the light emanating from a star 10 million light years away from the Earth would take 10 million years to reach Earth? If not, wherein lies your dilemma?

I don't recall ever questioning the speed of light... But to answer your question, yes I agree with you. Assuming there are no spatial anomalies which could potentially affect that speed of said light (so lets assume there isn't). How could light come to earth from 10 million light years away in less than 10 million years? Using the same phrase I used previously: God created in motion. I think I like that explanation until someone points out the philosophical difficulties of it.

crawfish
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:02 PM
Not when it involves bad exegesis.

I'm not a young-earther, and I even I agree with this statement. :)

GitRDunn
Nov 4th 2008, 12:12 AM
I don't recall ever questioning the speed of light... But to answer your question, yes I agree with you. Assuming there are no spatial anomalies which could potentially affect that speed of said light (so lets assume there isn't). How could light come to earth from 10 million light years away in less than 10 million years? Using the same phrase I used previously: God created in motion. I think I like that explanation until someone points out the philosophical difficulties of it.
Could you explain what you mean by God created in motion? By this are you saying that God created the universe far apart like it is and then let everything take over? Basically the creating the Earth with age, only applied to the universe?

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 12:16 AM
I don't recall ever questioning the speed of light... But to answer your question, yes I agree with you. Assuming there are no spatial anomalies which could potentially affect that speed of said light (so lets assume there isn't). How could light come to earth from 10 million light years away in less than 10 million years? Using the same phrase I used previously: God created in motion. I think I like that explanation until someone points out the philosophical difficulties of it.


But do you really think that is reasonable? And how is this not deceptive? If you are right and God made it appear that light had traveled a great distance when in fact it hasn't, then God is giving us a false impression.

By your logic, things like sonar would not be reliable, given the assumption that God could make it appear that a soundwave had traveled a certain distance when in fact it has not.

ikester7579
Nov 4th 2008, 12:19 AM
So you agree that the light emanating from a star 10 million light years away from the Earth would take 10 million years to reach Earth? If not, wherein lies your dilemma?

What is the speed of light in eternity?

Noblesurvey
Nov 4th 2008, 02:04 AM
Could someone please enlighten me why the speed of light matters?

From the posts I have read in this thread a lot of people seem to think that the speed of light varies with differences in gravity and position in the universe, so you only know the speed of light on & near earth with any accuracy, hence your calculations of distance and time would not apply to the whole universe.

It has been shown that time does pass at different "speeds" on earth alone, with atomic clocks at different altitudes.. so wouldn't that be magnified when applied over the whole universe. This would greatly affect your calculations with regard to how long it takes light to reach us from distant stars, wouldn't it?

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 02:28 AM
What is the speed of light in eternity?


I don't know what you mean.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 02:30 AM
Could someone please enlighten me why the speed of light matters?

Well, it matters because it proves that the universe is very old. The light from a star 10 million light years away from the Earth will take 10 million years to reach the Earth. Ya dig?


From the posts I have read in this thread a lot of people seem to think that the speed of light varies with differences in gravity and position in the universe, so you only know the speed of light on & near earth with any accuracy, hence your calculations of distance and time would not apply to the whole universe.


You might want to tell that to a physicist. The speed of light does not vary.

Rookie78
Nov 4th 2008, 02:59 AM
Isn't the universe ever expanding though? This could mean that the light we see from stars originated when they were way more closer to earth.

RJ Mac
Nov 4th 2008, 03:29 AM
In the beginning God created light on day one.
On day 4 God created the sun, moon and stars.

If God could create light without source then why question if He couldn't
create the light from the stars, 100,000 light years away on the same day.

To say God is deceiving is deception in itself. God said He created the stars
on day 4 to mark the seasons, so He would have created the light as well.
The stars are created with age as everything else was in the beginning.

Imagine the time it would take to create one star? Then for the time for the
light from that one star to reach us? The stars can't be counted, billions of billions
so when and how were they created at the same time, the universe has
to be eternal to explain all we see, but it isn't, 10,000 yrs old, impossible!!

Our God does the impossible - He even sent His Son to die for us. Incredible!!
In light of this, what have I done for Him today?
Sure am glad He loves me.

RJ

Lamplighter
Nov 4th 2008, 03:34 AM
I looked into this a while ago and studied the issue from a mostly biblical point of view. I did the calculations from Genesis 5 and 11 and came up with 13,000 yrs as the age of the earth. That's from a "biblical" perspective and not relying on human wisdom which is good for nothing anyways. Specifically the earth was created around 11,000 bc. The flood happened almost 7,000 yrs ago.

:eek: Human wisdom is good for nothing?

You mean 21st century man is not smarter then the Holy Spirit, who inspired all scripture?

You mean Moses knew more about the creation of the Universe due to the Holy Spirit, then 21st century scientists do?

I don't know about spreading this controversial theory? You may be scorned by college educated people for this view on scripture.:hmm:

Taking the Holy Spirit inspired word of God over 21st century secular science? This is radical stuff.

BroRog
Nov 4th 2008, 03:47 AM
Could you explain what you mean by God created in motion? By this are you saying that God created the universe far apart like it is and then let everything take over? Basically the creating the Earth with age, only applied to the universe?

Here's what I think he means.

Old Earther is saying that we can measure the age of the universe based on how long it takes starlight from very distant regions in space to reach the earth. Since the speed of light is a constant value and since we can measure the distance of far objects using parallax or some other method we can know that the earth must be at least as old as the time it took starlight to reach us.

It's like asking how long a foot race has taken. If we know the distance between the starting line and the finish line, and we know the speed of the runners, we can calculate the duration of the race. All we have to do is divide the track length by the running speed to get the duration (or age) of the race. Likewise, we would divide the distance to a star by the speed of light to arive at how long the light took to get here. To estimate the age of the universe, we pick the most distant star.

In reality, what we are measuring is how long it took for a photon, leaving the surface of a distant star to arrive here on earth and enter our telescope. It's like watching an athlete run the 50 meter race. The photon is like the runner. It leaves the starting line, the star, and races to the earth at a known speed to arrive here many thousands of years later.

The hidden assumption in this model is the idea that we are seeing a photon that actually left the surface of the distant star. But another alternative is possible, given that God can create stuff anywhere he wants.

In a relay race, for instance, we have at least four runners. The first runner begins at the starting line. The second runner begins at three quarters of the distance away from the finish line; the third runner is stationed half way; and the final runner is stationed within a quarter of the distance to the finish line. When the starting gun goes off, the first runner races toward the second runner until he (or she) has caught up to the second runner at which point he passes the baton to the second runner, who then races toward the third, etc. until the final runner takes the baton and races to the finish line.

Now, suppose the runners do something unique. Rather than waiting for the baton, what if each runner started to run at the gun? The last runner would reach the finish line in approximately one quarter of the time it will take the first runner to run the entire length of the track. Now increase the amount of runners to eight and place them each equidistant between the start and finish. When the gun goes off, the last runner will reach the finish line in 1/8th the time that the first runner will finally take.

By analogy then, what if God, placed a photon every few feet from the earth to the star so that space was filled with photons, all in motion toward the earth? If that was the case, it would have taken mere seconds for the first photon to reach the earth and appearing to have come from the distant star, a few more seconds for the second photon to reach us, a few more seconds for the fourth and etc. Since the apparent trajectory of these photons were as if coming from the star, it would appear as if the universe was quite old, when in fact it was quite young.

Now, this speculation is only meant to explain the mechanics of how such a thing might be done. It still doesn't solve the philosophical question concerning the fact that God arranged things to make the universe appear older than it is.

GitRDunn
Nov 4th 2008, 04:14 AM
Could someone please enlighten me why the speed of light matters?

From the posts I have read in this thread a lot of people seem to think that the speed of light varies with differences in gravity and position in the universe, so you only know the speed of light on & near earth with any accuracy, hence your calculations of distance and time would not apply to the whole universe.

It has been shown that time does pass at different "speeds" on earth alone, with atomic clocks at different altitudes.. so wouldn't that be magnified when applied over the whole universe. This would greatly affect your calculations with regard to how long it takes light to reach us from distant stars, wouldn't it?
First off, the speed of light doesn't vary, it is a constant throughout the entire universe (except in a black hole). As for the atomic clocks, that's not a problem because there is a Systeme Internationale (SI, standard scientific measures) standard that doesn't change and this is the measure we use, so it is constant throughout the universe.


:eek: Human wisdom is good for nothing?

You mean 21st century man is not smarter then the Holy Spirit, who inspired all scripture?

You mean Moses knew more about the creation of the Universe due to the Holy Spirit, then 21st century scientists do?

I don't know about spreading this controversial theory? You may be scorned by college educated people for this view on scripture.:hmm:

Taking the Holy Spirit inspired word of God over 21st century secular science? This is radical stuff.
You don't have to be quite so sarcastic. First off, no one is going to scorn him for his views, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Also, you don't have to choose one or the other (the Holy Spirit inspired word of God over 21st century (definitely not all secular) science), the two can work together with God controlled evolution, creation of the universe via Big Bang theory, and elsewhere. This contradicts not one verse in the Bible, it simply takes the beginning of Genesis as metaphorical rather than literal (God is in eternity, so why would his "days" necessarily be as long as ours? Why are we applying a human concept to God's time?), but not once does it contradict one verse. Science is not anti-Christian, there are many scientists who are Christian and science facts can actually be used to prove the Bible as fact to nonbelievers.

ikester7579
Nov 4th 2008, 04:16 AM
I don't know what you mean.

And that's why you won't understand creation and a 6,000 year old earth. You won't ponder what would support a young earth, right? Because age dating and light years support the old earth.

What if I told you that the earth was created in a parallel universe. One where time was eternal. Why? Sin was not committed yet. This made light travel eternal as well. How long does it take for eternal light being measured by eternal time to reach an eternal earth?

The laws of light travel and measurable light years did not exist until the laws of eternity were changed through sin.

It is the same exact situating that those who believe in the Big Bang reply when asked this question: How do you compress all the matter in the known universe into a dot when it breaks all the known laws of physics?

Their Answer: No laws existed.

Eternity is a situation very similar to that. A place where time has no meaning which would also mean that all laws that use time do not exist in the since that we understand it. Speed cannot be measured, age cannot be measured, distance becomes irrelevant, etc... One law cannot change unless the other laws are affected as well. Eternity would have to effect all laws govern by time. Or measured by time. Which includes speed, life (aging), and distance.

But "no laws existed" (their answer for big bang), brings up another problem. Chaos never created order. Which means a lawgiver had to be present and know what laws would bring order to chaos. If not, then there should be a law theory. One that explains how all laws came to be. And in what order, and why.

Lamplighter
Nov 4th 2008, 04:43 AM
And that's why you won't understand creation and a 6,000 year old earth. You won't ponder what would support a young earth, right? Because age dating and light years support the old earth.

What if I told you that the earth was created in a parallel universe. One where time was eternal. Why? Sin was not committed yet. This made light travel eternal as well. How long does it take for eternal light being measured by eternal time to reach an eternal earth?

The laws of light travel and measurable light years did not exist until the laws of eternity were changed through sin.

It is the same exact situating that those who believe in the Big Bang reply when asked this question: How do you compress all the matter in the known universe into a dot when it breaks all the known laws of physics?

Their Answer: No laws existed.

Eternity is a situation very similar to that. A place where time has no meaning which would also mean that all laws that use time do not exist in the since that we understand it. Speed cannot be measured, age cannot be measured, distance becomes irrelevant, etc... One law cannot change unless the other laws are affected as well. Eternity would have to effect all laws govern by time. Or measured by time. Which includes speed, life (aging), and distance.

But "no laws existed" (their answer for big bang), brings up another problem. Chaos never created order. Which means a lawgiver had to be present and know what laws would bring order to chaos. If not, then there should be a law theory. One that explains how all laws came to be. And in what order, and why.

This is my theory as well.

The laws of physics were eternal before Adam sinned. Then they went into chaos after Adam sinned. We have only been able to observe a universe filled with sin, and never observe the Universe before sin corrupted it.

When Adam sinned, corrupted time began.

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 07:40 AM
But do you really think that is reasonable? And how is this not deceptive? If you are right and God made it appear that light had traveled a great distance when in fact it hasn't, then God is giving us a false impression.

By your logic, things like sonar would not be reliable, given the assumption that God could make it appear that a soundwave had traveled a certain distance when in fact it has not.

As I said, until someone can point out a valid philosophical objection to the view, I think it's reasonable, I have no problem with it and I don't believe God is giving us a false impression.

Hawkins
Nov 4th 2008, 08:27 AM
Hey guys,

Just wondering how old you all think our earth is from a biblical perspective?:idea:

I am not sure and find it difficult to answer in truth, when questioned by a non-beleiver about carbon dating, dinosaurs etc.

So I wanted to ask all of you what you have learnt on the matter and what the bible says.

Looking forward to hearing from you all!

God Bless ;)

My take is like this, to me time is never a stable factor (speed is). In calculation, time is just a another space.

our calculation of time (Relativity, carbon-dating...etc) will have to rely on a paradigm for things to work at all. For example, we have to assume that 1) planet earth must be in its current position all the times from the very beginning, 2) everything must be confined in a 3-dimensional space which falls within our comprehension (as once it is outside the concept of 3D, we don't have even the concept to deal with situations of space and time). God, however, doesn't need to assume what we have assumed and have been assuming.

For example, if earth was originated from elsewhere till Day 4 in Genesis, it was then plugged to its current position, then our calculation of time (both from relativity and carbon-dating) will become meaningless.

watchinginawe
Nov 4th 2008, 09:50 AM
Well, it matters because it proves that the universe is very old. The light from a star 10 million light years away from the Earth will take 10 million years to reach the Earth. Ya dig?I am going to make a non-scientific observation for illustration. We look at distance and light and time and say "no way". But then someone tells us that all of the matter present in the universe inflated from basically nothing and we nod our heads and say "well, who would of thunk".

Many times in the Old Testament the description of "stetching" is used to describe God creating the heavens. Here is one for reference:

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

I know that imputed deception has been talked about in the thread. Look at verse 25. It isn't deception if God declares that he did it and then we foolishly insist by our knowledge that He is deceiving us based on our knowledge. Right?

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 12:07 PM
First off, the speed of light doesn't vary, it is a constant throughout the entire universe (except in a black hole). As for the atomic clocks, that's not a problem because there is a Systeme Internationale (SI, standard scientific measures) standard that doesn't change and this is the measure we use, so it is constant throughout the universe.Scientists are learning knew things and adjust their perception of truth all the time. Even what was once thought to have been constant may not be according to this article http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/astro/2001-08-15-speed-of-light.htm and much recent scientific discussion.

God Bless!

GitRDunn
Nov 4th 2008, 12:44 PM
Scientists are learning knew things and adjust their perception of truth all the time. Even what was once thought to have been constant may not be according to this article http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/astro/2001-08-15-speed-of-light.htm and much recent scientific discussion.

God Bless!
Well, that article is interesting, but it is a conclusion from one experiment in 2001, so until I see more evidence for it, I can only take it as an interesting theory, but not factual. Thank you for posting that though as it is interesting.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 04:35 PM
Isn't the universe ever expanding though? This could mean that the light we see from stars originated when they were way more closer to earth.


Think that through again, mate.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 04:40 PM
I am going to make a non-scientific observation for illustration. We look at distance and light and time and say "no way". But then someone tells us that all of the matter present in the universe inflated from basically nothing and we nod our heads and say "well, who would of thunk".


I really don't know what you're trying to say.



Many times in the Old Testament the description of "stetching" is used to describe God creating the heavens. Here is one for reference:

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;


Yes, this is clearly metaphor, as God is Spirit and doesn't have hands.


I know that imputed deception has been talked about in the thread. Look at verse 25.

Yes, v. 25 speaks to the fact that God's wisdom is foolishness to the world. But this is not the same thing as saying that logic and science are foolishness to God. The wisdom of the world, in Biblical contexts, always refers to illusory knowledge. Science and logic are the real deal.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 04:44 PM
If God could create light without source then why question if He couldn't
create the light from the stars, 100,000 light years away on the same day.


So you believe the universe could be 100,000 light years away? That's a start.

Don't you see what king of gymnastics you have to do to cling to a literal reading of Genesis 1?


To say God is deceiving is deception in itself.

Nobody here said such a thing. God is not a liar. If, owever, God created starlight in transit, than that would be deceptive on His part.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 04:47 PM
You mean Moses knew more about the creation of the Universe due to the Holy Spirit, then 21st century scientists do?

What details do you think Moses knew about the origins of the Universe?

The fact is that the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other in the details. However, once we understand that they are allegories, then these contradictions become unimportant.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 04:55 PM
And that's why you won't understand creation and a 6,000 year old earth.

Er, let's back-track. You asked me what the speed of light is in ernity. I in turn told you that I didn't understand your question. You then come back with this comment? How is that conducive to the discussion?


You won't ponder what would support a young earth, right?

Wrong. I'm open to any sort of scientific evidence. I let the evidence lead me where it wills, unlike many YECs who refuse to let the evidence get in the way of their preconceived (and emotional) assumptions).


Because age dating and light years support the old earth.



At least you can admit it. :P


What if I told you that the earth was created in a parallel universe. One where time was eternal.

I would ask you to clarify your meaning, for I do not know what you mean. Are you talking about a universe where time is without beginning nor end?


This made light travel eternal as well.

That's not even proper English, so you'll excuse me for not grasping your meaning yet again.


How long does it take for eternal light being measured by eternal time to reach an eternal earth?


I think you should lay off the stuff.

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 04:56 PM
What details do you think Moses knew about the origins of the Universe?

The fact is that the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other in the details. However, once we understand that they are allegories, then these contradictions become unimportant.

Eh... That don't contradict, even allegorically.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 04:56 PM
The laws of physics were eternal before Adam sinned.


What do you mean they were eternal? What does that mean?

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 05:00 PM
As I said, until someone can point out a valid philosophical objection to the view, I think it's reasonable, I have no problem with it and I don't believe God is giving us a false impression.


According your logic, God could have created you last week and implanted a false memory in you. Think about it.

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 05:14 PM
According your logic, God could have created you last week and implanted a false memory in you. Think about it.

Red herring - we're talking about the speed of light relative to the distance of the furthest star from earth; not God creating 'X' and implanting false memories. It's a false comparison so let's stick to the topic at hand and not needless digress into seemingly (but unrelated) "philosophical" issues. A proper explanation of what I'm saying is this. Light is created at every point along a path of 10 million light years. That light which is created closest to earth exists only from that point of creation until it reaches earth. Likewise, light created farthest from earth (and closest to the star) exists from that point on until it reaches earth. This is true of the entire 10 million light year path where light is created at 'X' (some point along the path) until it reaches 'Y' (destination: earth). This initial light is then proceeded by light fully adhering to the laws of physics and nature which produce light from the source, that light wholly originating from the star whereas the light that preceded it being created along the entire path. This initial created light has the appearance of traveling the entire distance from the star but, as pointed out, actually hasn't and this presents no actual difficulty.

To address what you have said (briefly, just to correct); the logical conclusion of my 'belief' would be God creating 'X' of a certain age, thereby creating 'false years' previous to the age created. This, however, does not violate any known laws of logic and is thus not a philosophical issue (as those years aren't really false). The idea of 'false memory' is an unrelated issue.

RJ Mac
Nov 4th 2008, 05:35 PM
Old Earther states - So you believe the universe could be 100,000 light years away? That's a start.

Thanks I needed to do a little research on that and its amazing what I found.
The nearest star in our galaxy- Centauri is 4.2 light years away 20 trillion miles
Distances within a galaxy are measured in kilo light yrs - 1,000 yrs
Distances between galaxies are measured in mega light years - 1 million yrs
The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 mega light years away - 2.5 million years from us
The visible edge of the universe is measured in gigalight yrs. 1 billion
Quasars at the outer edge of the universe are 46.5 giga light yrs away ie 46.5 billion yrs away

Thats as far as we can see today! Therefore this universe according to
you scientific folk place it at least 50 billion years plus.
Now that's a start, since the universe has no end, it must be eternal
according to those fine folk.


Old Earther states - Don't you see what kind of gymnastics you have to do to cling to a literal reading of Genesis 1?

The gymnastics come in when one denies the Truth of the Word of God!


Old Earther states - Nobody here said such a thing. God is not a liar. If, however, God created starlight in transit, than that would be deceptive on His part.

God declares He created everything with age, it is deception to declare otherwise.
If God states He did it on one day, all the stars, which includes all galaxies
in one day, morning and evening, day 4, and it took 46 billion years for the
light we can see now to arrive, what must I believe?

Now we have to explain Jesus statement - In the beginning God created man.
How about - God spoke and it all happened? How does one speak a star
into existence, scientifically?

RJ

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 06:33 PM
The gymnastics come in when one denies the Truth of the Word of God!

The gymnastics he's referring to are the attempts to try and reconcile Genesis as a scientific document in light of new discovery. The account is obviously not complete from any standpoint; those who accept it as a literal account must fill in the gaps somehow to make it reasonable scientifically. The problem is, once those gaps are filled they are required to make the original assumption correct, and so become a sort of scripture all their own.

RJ Mac
Nov 4th 2008, 07:29 PM
But Crawfish that's the problem, why does it have to be reasonably scientific?
When dealing with the power of God, He can and does do impossible things
that no amount of science only faith can explain. And yet so many want
everything explained scientifically instead of standing on their faith which God
calls them to do.

Let's explain away the ten plagues. How about the death of 185,000 Assyrians was it a plague?
The infamous explanation of walking on water, He knew where the rocks were.
Where does one draw the line in explaining away the obvious miracles.

If God created the universe over and eon of time, why didn't He say so,
that would have impressed the Israelites just as much after all they just
witnessed the Red Sea parting, or did they? Shall we question everything
the Bible says that science cannot confirm? Like life after death?

If one begins explaining away the miracles of Genesis, then where does one
quit? And if it is only a matter of increasing our scientific knowledge, then
one day they will explain away the resurrection. The New Scientific Bible
with scientific explanations for every miraculous event.

Why didn't God just tell us the Truth?
I believe He did!

RJ

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 07:53 PM
But Crawfish that's the problem, why does it have to be reasonably scientific?
When dealing with the power of God, He can and does do impossible things
that no amount of science only faith can explain. And yet so many want
everything explained scientifically instead of standing on their faith which God calls them to do.

I fully believe that God can and does do miracles - things that fall outside of the laws of nature.


Let's explain away the ten plagues. How about the death of 185,000 Assyrians was it a plague?
The infamous explanation of walking on water, He knew where the rocks were.
Where does one draw the line in explaining away the obvious miracles.


There are two miracles in the bible that should have lasting impressions on science: the creation and the flood. Accepting that God just did it and made things seem otherwise is probably the best explanation you can come up with; but it's not what most Creationists accept. They want to try and interpret data to fit in with both narratives, oftentimes in such a way that does a disservice to both scripture and science.

Nearly every other miracle in scripture has something in common: an audience. They are performed through a human interceder, for the purpose of demonstrating God's might. We are God's main object; He wants us to choose Him. Miracles where there to accomplish that purpose.

Both the creation and the flood stand as unique entities. That is how I can justify separating them from the other miracles as allegory.


If God created the universe over and eon of time, why didn't He say so, that would have impressed the Israelites just as much after all they just witnessed the Red Sea parting, or did they? Shall we question everything the Bible says that science cannot confirm? Like life after death?

Because it wasn't His purpose to reveal it, or to impress the Israelites. God had a purpose behind the account that didn't require a rote listing of facts. Metaphor and allegory are powerful tools for communication, and would have far more meaning for ancient Israel than the "truth". I put that in quotes because the account IS "truth" even if it is allegorical.


If one begins explaining away the miracles of Genesis, then where does one quit? And if it is only a matter of increasing our scientific knowledge, then one day they will explain away the resurrection. The New Scientific Bible with scientific explanations for every miraculous event.


It comes down to literary criticism. Was the scripture intended to be literal or allegorical? You simply can't read the entire bible the same way - it has multiple genres and literary mechanisms that each express God's truth in a slightly different way for a slightly different purpose. I think that Genesis 1-11 can be read either literally or allegorically, and since we have quite a bit of evidence that the events of Genesis 1-11 conflict with reality, then the latter becomes the clear winner.


Why didn't God just tell us the Truth?
I believe He did!

RJ

I believe He did, too!

Here's an example that's been tossed about here. The term "40" appears quite a bit in scripture, always to describe something that takes a long time and has something to do with spiritual cleansing. So, we ask: did Israel wander for a literal 40 years in the desert? Let's look at this in a literary fashion.

To give an example, take the term "it's raining cats and dogs". Today you would know that the term means "it's raining a lot", but someone who interprets a document with that term thousands of years from now might not know the underlying meaning and think it was really talking about cats and dogs falling from the sky. In the same sense, what if an ancient Israelite, talking about a trial in his life that took a few months but let him to spiritual renewal, said "God made me hunger for 40 days and 40 nights" because 40 was the idiom used for that type of thing. Was he lying? Are we lying when we say it's raining cats and dogs? Of course not! It is our job to read things from their standpoint, not their responsibility to write things to ours.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 08:00 PM
To address what you have said (briefly, just to correct); the logical conclusion of my 'belief' would be God creating 'X' of a certain age, thereby creating 'false years' previous to the age created. This, however, does not violate any known laws of logic and is thus not a philosophical issue (as those years aren't really false). The idea of 'false memory' is an unrelated issue.

I never said it violates any laws of logic. I said it violates God's character. To create "false years" is to deceive. And false memory is not an unrelated issue, as both "false years" and false memory entail a false history.

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 08:04 PM
I never said it violates any laws of logic. I said it violates God's character. To create "false years" is to deceive. And false memory is not an unrelated issue, as both "false years" and false memory entail a false history.

There are no false years, hence there is no comparison to false memory, ergo, no violation of God's character.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 08:07 PM
The nearest star in our galaxy- Centauri is 4.2 light years away 20 trillion miles
Distances within a galaxy are measured in kilo light yrs - 1,000 yrs
Distances between galaxies are measured in mega light years - 1 million yrs
The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 mega light years away - 2.5 million years from us
The visible edge of the universe is measured in gigalight yrs. 1 billion
Quasars at the outer edge of the universe are 46.5 giga light yrs away ie 46.5 billion yrs away

Thats as far as we can see today!

Amazing indeed! Let us praise His name!


Therefore this universe according to
you scientific folk place it at least 50 billion years plus.

Oh boy. Has this light reached the Earth? No. We can only detect them through the best of telescopes.



Old Earther states - Don't you see what kind of gymnastics you have to do to cling to a literal reading of Genesis 1?

The gymnastics come in when one denies the Truth of the Word of God!


These gymnastics come in when one misinterprets the Bible and denies science in order to uphold their interpretation of the Bible. Besides, Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other (order of creation).


God declares He created everything with age, it is deception to declare otherwise.


Again, your literal reading of the creation accounts in Genesis is unjustifiable. Your argument reminds me of the flat-earther who argues that because the bible speaks of the "corners of the Earth" this means that science is wrong andthe earth really is flat!

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 08:08 PM
There are no false years, hence there is no comparison to false memory, ergo, no violation of God's character.


But you just said the opposite:



the logical conclusion of my 'belief' would be God creating 'X' of a certain age, thereby creating 'false years' previous to the age created. This


What gives? Are you going to do a little dance for us?

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 08:11 PM
These gymnastics come in when one misinterprets the Bible and denies science in order to uphold their interpretation of the Bible. Besides, Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other (order of creation).There is no need to deny science! :o Scientific data is what we can see and measure. It is what one extrapolates from that data that is in question. You extrapolate one thing, I extrapolate something different but the scientific data does not change. There is no need for denial. ;)

God Bless!

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 08:13 PM
There is no need to deny science! :o


There is a need for the YECs. you see, the data is that it takes 10 million years for starlight to travel to the Earth from a star 10 million light years away. The YECs must deny this data, but in so doing they are denying the truths of science.

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 08:14 PM
But you just said the opposite:

What gives? Are you going to do a little dance for us?

I said the opposite if you don't quote me in full:


To address what you have said (briefly, just to correct); the logical conclusion of my 'belief' would be God creating 'X' of a certain age, thereby creating 'false years' previous to the age created. This, however, does not violate any known laws of logic and is thus not a philosophical issue (as those years aren't really false). The idea of 'false memory' is an unrelated issue.

If you do quote me in full, however, then I don't contradict myself, interesting how not taking ones words out of context works:rolleyes:

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 08:16 PM
If you do quote me in full, however, then I contradict myself


I agree.


To address what you have said (briefly, just to correct); the logical conclusion of my 'belief' would be God creating 'X' of a certain age, thereby creating 'false years' previous to the age created. This, however, does not violate any known laws of logic and is thus not a philosophical issue (as those years aren't really false). The idea of 'false memory' is an unrelated issue.


I'm sure you can see why I was confused by what you said.

So why aren't they false years?

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 08:27 PM
There is a need for the YECs. you see, the data is that it takes 10 million years for starlight to travel to the Earth from a star 10 million light years away. The YECs must deny this data, but in so doing they are denying the truths of science.That's the point. The data does not have a time stamped on it. The information is extrapolated to mean this or that. No need to be so adversarial here. We simply disagree on the logical conclusion to that extrapolation. ;)

God Bless!

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 08:40 PM
I agree.

I'm sure you can see why I was confused by what you said.

So why aren't they false years?

Yeah, you must not have read my entire post...:rolleyes: Only reason I can come up with, anyway.

As for why these years aren't false, simply, they don't exist. The appearance of years or age does not necessitate the requirement of those years or age to have passed. To conclude that because something is or appears to be of 'X' (age) and that it must display 'Y' (assumed years passed) but doesn't, and that this therefore constitutes false 'years', is logically invalid.

To use another comparison. If we assumed the YEC position on the creation of Adam (or Eve), we would assume him to have been created in what we would call 'adult' form. Would we then travel back to the Garden of Eden and accuse God of deceiving us because 'Adam' "had" 'X' years previous to his age that didn't exist? No, not at all. There's absolutely no issue (logically, philosophically or with God's character) with God creating a being of a certain (what we would call) 'age'.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 08:52 PM
The data does not have a time stamped on it.

I know.


The information is extrapolated to mean this or that.

I know.



No need to be so adversarial here.


Sorry if I've come across that way.


We simply disagree on the logical conclusion to that extrapolation.

Please explain.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 08:57 PM
xel naga,


Afterall, to conclude that because something is or appears to be of 'X' (age) and that it must display 'Y' (assumed years passed) but doesn't, and that this therefore constitutes false 'years', is logically invalid.

I'm sorry, but that isn't clear English. Perhaps you could express this thought in a syllogism?

So I take it that you don't think radars or sonars are accurate?

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 09:12 PM
xel naga,

I'm sorry, but that isn't clear English. Perhaps you could express this thought in a syllogism?

So I take it that you don't think radars or sonars are accurate?

If it's not clear refer to the example, says the same thing. As for your sonar/radar comment, red herring and unrelated.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 10:00 PM
As for your sonar/radar comment, red herring and unrelated.


Let me explain. If God could make it appear that light has traveled a certain distance when it has not, then God could do the same with sound.

Back2Front
Nov 4th 2008, 10:12 PM
I think the age of the earth is unknown.

The age of mankind since the fall in the garden though is about 5700 years give or take a hundred or so.

Prior to the fall, who knows how long things were around including Adam and eve.

People seem to miss the fact that Adams numbered years are only relative to the moment of the first sin not to the day he was created.

The days between Adams creation and the fall in the garden are unknown. 1 Billion years could have passed for all we know as Adam was created to be eternal. Death/numbered years of Adam are relative to the moment of the first sin, not the moment he was created.

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 10:16 PM
Let me explain. If God could make it appear that light has traveled a certain distance when it has not, then God could do the same with sound.

Let me explain the problem with your question: you're implying that I'm suggesting our measurements based on light, radar and sonar are inaccurate - I'm not.

watchinginawe
Nov 4th 2008, 10:21 PM
I really don't know what you're trying to say.I really didn't think it would take a lot of effort to figure it out. That is OK. Maybe we will connect later on some other topic.

God Bless!

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 10:26 PM
Let me explain the problem with your question: you're implying that I'm suggesting our measurements based on light, radar and sonar are inaccurate - I'm not.


How am I implying that?

If God could make it appear that light has traveled a certain distance when it has not, then God could do the same with sound. Do you agree?

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 10:31 PM
How am I implying that?

If God could make it appear that light has traveled a certain distance when it has not, then God could do the same with sound. Do you agree?

You're right, you just kind of came out and straight out said it.



So I take it that you don't think radars or sonars are accurate?

I agree with what you've said; I disagree with the pretenses under which you've said it and I more or less feel as if I'm spending too much time on nothing more than a sophist. I don't think I'll say much more on this topic.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 10:33 PM
I agree with what you've said;

You agree that if God could make it appear that light has traveled a certain distance when it has not, then God could do the same with sound?


I disagree with the pretenses under which you've said it

What pretenses?



and I more or less feel as if I'm spending too much time on nothing more than a sophist.


A sophist? Why do you feel that way?

Lamplighter
Nov 4th 2008, 11:10 PM
I think the age of the earth is unknown.


You are correct, it's unknown to mankind. Only God knows, since he created it all, whenever he created it.

But your theology on a young universe or a very old universe will effect your world view, and your views on scripture. This is why it is an important theological debate.

GitRDunn
Nov 4th 2008, 11:33 PM
Old Earther states - So you believe the universe

The gymnastics come in when one denies the Truth of the Word of God![quote]
No one has to deny the word of God to believe in an "old" Earth, it is merely how you interpret the scripture, no denial involved.

[quote]God declares He created everything with age, it is deception to declare otherwise.
RJ
Where in the Bible does God say he created everything with age?

Genesis 1:1-2- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness.

If the Earth was empty, a formless mass when God created it, then how did he create it with age? It sounds to me like when he created it it didn't have very much age to it.




Let's explain away the ten plagues. How about the death of 185,000 Assyrians was it a plague?
The infamous explanation of walking on water, He knew where the rocks were.
No one has claimed anything about Jesus' walking on water being false nor has anyone here tried to explain away the ten plagues.
Where does one draw the line in explaining away the obvious miracles.
Who says we're trying to explain away miracles? A God controlled Big Bang and thus shaping of the Earth and then controlling evolution would seem pretty darn miraculous to me.

Why didn't God just tell us the Truth?
I believe He did!
As do I, not once have I claimed that one word in the Bible is false, I believe it entirely truth.
RJ

RJ Mac
Nov 5th 2008, 12:05 AM
GitrDunn - when one understands that God created the world on day one
He spoke and it came into existence. Now scientists will date the rocks
and claim it has to be millions of years old, in order for the rocks to form,
for lava to cool etc. They date the rocks old but world is young. God
created the grass, plants and trees on day 3, along with dry land - soil.
It takes how long for soil to form? Evolutionists would claim things went
from grass to plants to trees, God claims all were done on the same day.
The trees on that day were fruit bearing, meaning they had age.

The animals created same day as Adam came before and were named.
Which came first the chicken or the egg? If your a scientist I guess your
answer would be the egg but a creationist knows it was the chicken.

Modern science doesn't go against the Bible, they agree. Its when scientist
try to write the creation story that they no longer are scientists but now
delving in religion. Takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution, a faith that
goes counter to Biblical teachings.

No I didn't say anyone here has come up with those theories that counter
God's miracles, but those theories do come from people who don't believe
the Bible for what it says and those theories are the ultimate outcome
when one begins explaining away God's obvious Truths to suit science.

Hey its cool if one wants to be an old earther. But realize this, there is only
one Truth and for some reason I don't line up with modern man who thinks
he knows the ways of God. I'll go with what God says and you can put me
down as a lowly foolish Israelite coming out of Egypt who needs childish
stories to make him understand because he's so simple. I like simple.

RJ

Noblesurvey
Nov 5th 2008, 12:29 AM
Where in the Bible does God say he created everything with age?


It says it by implication



"Gen 1:11-13

11

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
NKJV"


Notice that he made Trees, not seeds. This also applies to the animals and Man himself throughout the rest of Genesis 1 & 2.. He did not create an infant, but a fully grown man. Was it deceptive for him to put man on an earth already popultaed by fully grown trees & animals? Absolutely not.




Gen 1:3-5


"3
Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
NKJV"


Where is the deception if God creates his light wherever he wants it to originate from? You seem to forget that he is not subject to time or space, he made it, and he made light where he wanted it and it was good. Hedivided light from darkness, so you could reasonably assume he divided it in a way that it wouldn't conflict with the natural laws HE created, couldn't you? Was it deceiving to make light before the sun and stars?



I think the age of the earth is unknown.





The age of mankind since the fall in the garden though is about 5700 years give or take a hundred or so.


Prior to the fall, who knows how long things were around including Adam and eve.


People seem to miss the fact that Adams numbered years are only relative to the moment of the first sin not to the day he was created.


The days between Adams creation and the fall in the garden are unknown. 1 Billion years could have passed for all we know as Adam was created to be eternal. Death/numbered years of Adam are relative to the moment of the first sin, not the moment he was created.




Great thought Back2Front, I had also been thinking about this recently.



Keep the ideas coming guys this is great!




God bless ;)

ikester7579
Nov 5th 2008, 07:19 AM
Where in the Bible does God say he created everything with age?

When the animals were created, God said: Be fruitful and multiply. Babies are not of a reproduction age. Like Noblesurvey said. God created plants not seeds. Then there is the question: What came first, the chicken or the egg? Egg is a product of reproduction. So the Chicken had to come first. You cannot have a egg with out the egg layer. Just like you cannot have a creation without a Creator.

And there are baby animals that cannot survive without their parents to take care of them. Feed them. Give the milk. Etc... How many animals are there right now that cannot exist, after being born, without some type of care from there parents? Maybe 80-90%? How many can just leave their parent and survive by themselves once born? 5% maybe? Which proves that all creation of life was being created fully formed and mature. Or 90% of that life would have died.

Just like Adam and Eve. If they were created as babies, how would they:

1) Talk to God or each other?
2) Take care of themselves?
3) Be able to make decisions like eating the forbidden fruit?
4) Be able to have children shortly after being expelled from the garden?

So if life had to be created with age already added, why not the rest of creation as well?

Lamplighter
Nov 5th 2008, 07:44 AM
So if life had to be created with age already added, why not the rest of creation as well?

So, God created full grown animals in a day, and then they waited a billion years before they mated? And by the way, most full grown animals have a very short life span(dog years), and some full grown insects die off a few hours after they mature, so they have to reproduce very quickly.

God creating adult living beings has nothing to do with billions of years.

ikester7579
Nov 5th 2008, 09:12 AM
So, God created full grown animals in a day, and then they waited a billion years before they mated?

And where did I imply that?


And by the way, most full grown animals have a very short life span(dog years), and some full grown insects die off a few hours after they mature, so they have to reproduce very quickly.

The same thing that made people after creation live several hundred years also made the animals live almost as long as well.


God creating adult living beings has nothing to do with billions of years.

If you are trying to disprove creation, of course not.

Rookie78
Nov 5th 2008, 02:33 PM
Think that through again, mate.

What is there to think about? If galaxies are moving farther and farther apart from each other (expanding universe). Then it seems to reason that back in time everything was closer together and the light from distant galaxies would have originated closer.

BlessedMan
Nov 5th 2008, 04:23 PM
All things are possible with God. Maybe the Universe was created ,, oh I don't know, maybe 2 seconds ago, complete with memory. Then the question becomes why didn't I get a better deal.

Athanasius
Nov 5th 2008, 04:24 PM
All things are possible with God. Maybe the Universe was created ,, oh I don't know, maybe 2 seconds ago, complete with memory. Then the question becomes why didn't I get a better deal.

Yeah but see... That's unbiblical :P

Old Earther
Nov 5th 2008, 04:46 PM
What is there to think about? If galaxies are moving farther and farther apart from each other (expanding universe). Then it seems to reason that back in time everything was closer together and the light from distant galaxies would have originated closer.


Closer to what?

Rookie78
Nov 5th 2008, 05:21 PM
Closer to what?

The galaxies were closer to each other.

As an example, If I am 10 feet away from you and toss you a freezbie and then proceed to run away from you 10 more feet, a person who came in at the end when you caught it might assume that I threw it from 20 feet away when in fact it was only 10 feet.

Lamplighter
Nov 5th 2008, 07:20 PM
The galaxies were closer to each other.


Is this a theory, or do astrologers have photographs of the galaxies being closer together? Is there photographic proof? Or is this just speculation?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just is this something we are observing for ourselves,or is this speculation?

Studyin'2Show
Nov 5th 2008, 07:53 PM
Is this a theory, or do astrologers have photographs of the galaxies being closer together? Is there photographic proof? Or is this just speculation?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just is this something we are observing for ourselves,or is this speculation?We can still observe that the universe is expanding. Astronomers have been taking pictures for years so yes, there is evidence to show things farther apart. This lines up perfectly with scripture where God says that He is the One who stretches out the heavens. ;)

teddyv
Nov 5th 2008, 08:49 PM
Is this a theory, or do astrologers have photographs of the galaxies being closer together? Is there photographic proof? Or is this just speculation?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just is this something we are observing for ourselves,or is this speculation?
My bold. This is a bit of nitpick but it drives me nuts. Never, ever, confuse an astronomer with an astrologer.:)

Rookie78
Nov 5th 2008, 08:56 PM
Is this a theory, or do astrologers have photographs of the galaxies being closer together? Is there photographic proof? Or is this just speculation?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just is this something we are observing for ourselves,or is this speculation?

I'm not a scientist/astrologer, but the way I understand it is that now we can observe that distant stars/galaxies are moving away from us due to the observance of a "red shift" in the visible light spectrum from the light emitted from these stars. The red shift indicates that the object is moving away from us while emitting its light. If the object were moving toward us, we would observe a "blue shift". It is similar to the Doppler effect with sound.

Rookie78
Nov 5th 2008, 08:57 PM
My bold. This is a bit of nitpick but it drives me nuts. Never, ever, confuse an astronomer with an astrologer.:)

Lol, I had already submitted my response when I saw your comment.
My bad.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 6th 2008, 12:47 PM
My bold. This is a bit of nitpick but it drives me nuts. Never, ever, confuse an astronomer with an astrologer.:)I'd actually noticed that and meant to mention it! :D Astrologers plot horoscopes :eek: (BAD). Astronomers plot the stars. :) (Good)

God Bless!

Old Earther
Nov 6th 2008, 05:14 PM
As an example, If I am 10 feet away from you and toss you a freezbie and then proceed to run away from you 10 more feet, a person who came in at the end when you caught it might assume that I threw it from 20 feet away when in fact it was only 10 feet.


Once you do the math, you will see how silly your suggestion is. Do you know how far apart galaxies are from each other? For your scenario to hold true, the universe would have expanded from a singular point to is present size in a matter of several thousand years. Earth would have long ago stopped receiving light from galaxies moving so fast away from us. Think about it.