PDA

View Full Version : How old do you think the EARTH is?



Bladers
Dec 27th 2008, 05:57 PM
This is the age old question, How old is the earth?

Many christians profess that it is 6 thousand years old, but dinosaurs, animal fossils and other evidence proves otherwise.

How old do you think it is?
Why do you think so?


All comments are welcomed....
:amen:

Psalms Fan
Dec 27th 2008, 07:27 PM
I have no dogmatic answer. Scripture gives no indication as to how old the earth/universe is. As to looking to the universe for the answer, our conclusions are based on what we're able to observe, which is a small fraction of all that is out there. There is far more that we can't observe than what we can observe. So it is what it is. If it's several thousand years, then so be it. If it's on the order of billions of years, then so be it.

Gulah Papyrus
Dec 27th 2008, 08:19 PM
The Earth has been in existance since the moment God created it... somwhere between 5K and a kabillion-zillion-flablousand years ago.

Since turning 40 I have become a big advocate of age being a state of mind.;)

Laish
Dec 27th 2008, 10:11 PM
I had wall ways thought that the Earth was older than dirt .:lol:
Seriously though I think the age is some where between where the scientific community places it an that which many Bible scholars place it , but more towards the older end . I do know that the Bible is the perfect word of God , I also believe that it is not a science book . Meaning we should not try to pull out scientific data from it when some scripture can be silent or up to interpretation.
Your brother in Christ
Bill

chad
Dec 27th 2008, 10:26 PM
I agree, the Scripture gives no indication as to how old the earth/universe is except that we do know the Earth has been in existence since the moment God created it. According to Genesis 1:1-5, it would be on the first day of Gods creation.

If you turn to science to look for the answer, when there is already one given in Genesis 1:1-5 - more specifically Geophysics and Geology, they will tell you it is 4.55 billion years old, using the theory of radiometric age dating.

This is done by taking the measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals.

But then we know with science, the age of the earth changes with each new theory they come up with.


Wiki – Age of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth)


Interestingly, Scientists also date the age of the universe to be between 13.6-13.8 billion years old under the big bang theory. So according to science, there is a gap of 9.25 billion years between the creation of the universe and the earth?

Wiki – Age of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe


I guess the question we could ask is What do you believe in, the bible or scientists theories, or even both?


Chad :rolleyes:

The Parson
Dec 27th 2008, 10:38 PM
I reckon I'd believe the Bible over the scientists hands down chad. The answer seems simplistic but dead spot on to quote our British members... Time, may be defined however by Gods perspective on it. 2nd Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 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.

Yukerboy
Dec 28th 2008, 12:58 AM
4,725,165,156 years old.

Just a guess.

Partaker of Christ
Dec 28th 2008, 01:15 AM
Jesus said:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

The genealogy of Christ, shows that from Adam to Jesus Christ, was around 4,000 years.

I will stick with what the Son of God said.

BCF
Dec 28th 2008, 01:19 AM
I would say.............slightly younger the God;)

God Bless

Dave

holyrokker
Dec 28th 2008, 01:20 AM
4,725,165,156 years old.

Just a guess.
I think you're off by a few days. ;)

BrckBrln
Dec 28th 2008, 01:23 AM
4.55 billion years +/- 4.54 billion years

matthew94
Dec 28th 2008, 04:26 AM
Are we going by earth time?

Then I'll say less than 10,000 years old

Based on my understanding of Scripture and the scientific evidence

CoffeeCat
Dec 28th 2008, 04:41 AM
I've always held an old earth position. The Genesis account of creation itself suggests that God's time isn't our time -- a 'day' doesn't need to equal 24 hours (which is a fairly modern conception). God's timing is more vast, more intricate. And everything around us points to an earth that was created, experienced different geological shifts and changes; an earth that's seen the passage of a LOT of time.

The 'young earth'/'old earth' creationism debate has raged on for centuries, mostly starting with Nicolaus Steno advocating for an old earth due to geology about 400 years ago. If I'm wrong, I'd stand corrected, and thank God my understanding of this won't ever affect my or anyone else's salvation. :) If the earth is in fact much older than some people think, then they, when they get to heaven one day, they'll learn a neat fact.

Biastai
Dec 28th 2008, 05:18 AM
This discussion is raging in the Evangelism & Apologetics forum, and interesting points regarding this question can be found there. Just thought I'd post some of my ideas that I posted there here.

I'm for an old earth myself. I'm assuming one of the biggest reasons for the claims for a young earth are felt to be necessitated by Genesis 5? My view on the records in Genesis 5 are that the named individuals are patriarchs.

In tribal and/or nomadic peoples such as the ancient herders of the Middle East, the patriarch is the unquestioned authority and his many sons do not matter much at all as individuals ("so-and-so had many sons and daughters"). I believe the named individuals in the Genesis 5 record would be notable men who broke away from their particular primal horde to establish their own tribe (could be many many generations down the line which explains the lengthy lifespans). I cannot except that an individual man would live 900 some years.

So for example, I would interpret Genesis 5:25 this way...

"When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech."

as...

When the tribe/people of which Methuselah is patriarch/founder lived 187 years (also may be lengthened in actuality due to a different timescale used by the ancients), Lamech who was a descendent many generations later left his tribe (at a time when Methuselah was long dead and buried) and established his own new tribe/people in a different locality.

Abraham would later on follow this pattern of breaking away from his family to begin his own nation instead of remaining at home.

Furthermore, these records in Genesis 5 are oral traditions passed down countless generations and written very late in relation to their time of existence. These will undergo a very necessary simplification to make these traditions transmissable verbally. The simplified system here inspired by God I believe we see here is to record genealogies before the flood by patriarchs only. God did not deem all the other minute details necessary. I believe that man has roamed the earth for several tens of thousands of years (perhaps much longer).

This is just a personal interpretation of these passages, and I'm not asking for agreement. I don't believe whether one interprets them literally or in this above mentioned way affects one's faith.

Luke34
Dec 28th 2008, 06:44 AM
The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. This isn't really my "opinion," of course, but there you have it.

threebigrocks
Dec 28th 2008, 06:50 AM
And - these topics are A&E topics. ;) Moving this there for continued discussion.

ServantofTruth
Dec 28th 2008, 11:56 AM
Ah the Genesis/ How old is the earth question? again.

Listern carefully to my words;
let this be the consolation you allow me.
Permit me to speak in my turn;
you may jeer when i have spoken.

Of only one thing am I certain,
The earth will be much older
By the time this topic ends. :rofl:

SofTy.

Romber
Dec 28th 2008, 01:39 PM
~6,000-10,000 years old.

fishbowlsoul
Dec 29th 2008, 03:10 AM
Ah the Genesis/ How old is the earth question? again.

Listern carefully to my words;
let this be the consolation you allow me.
Permit me to speak in my turn;
you may jeer when i have spoken.

Of only one thing am I certain,
The earth will be much older
By the time this topic ends. :rofl:

SofTy.

Very clever haiku. Can I steal it?:cool:

teddyv
Dec 29th 2008, 05:55 PM
Very clever haiku. Can I steal it?:cool:
I don't think that's a haiku, but good nonetheless:).

For the record, I accept an old earth, in the range of 4.6 billion years.

RabbiKnife
Dec 29th 2008, 07:03 PM
The earth is one day younger than it will be tomorrow.

Partaker of Christ
Dec 29th 2008, 11:21 PM
And - these topics are A&E topics. ;) Moving this there for continued discussion.

Does 'A&E stand for Acident and Emergency?

ChristianKnight
Dec 30th 2008, 11:36 AM
Eh, must have been a while since dinosaurs lived around 365 million years ago.

smot_poker
Dec 30th 2008, 01:14 PM
Jesus said:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

The genealogy of Christ, shows that from Adam to Jesus Christ, was around 4,000 years.

I will stick with what the Son of God said.

If that's what the bible says, that means the bible is proof of it's own fallability. Ther's an overwhelming amount of evidence that can't be denied, that the world is older then 6000 years old.

Maybe Jesus was just quoted wrong?

Ascender
Dec 30th 2008, 02:32 PM
The age of the earth is not clear but the use of the geneologies to try to determine an age is...problematical.

First, what is a generation? How long was that? Was the person named the first born or further down the lineage and if so was that in another generation?

Second, especially Jesus lineage from Adam as given in the Gospel was not meant to be accurate and complete but symbolic and meant to give credibility to His being the Anointed One. Note the 14, 14, and 14 reference -- surely this is more a literature device rather than a literal accounting.

Now, the age of the earth itself is an conundrum if you look at all the facts. It is nearly impossible to empirically determine. Radiation and carbon dating may be dating the age of the material and not the age of the earth itself. There are a variety of theories and some more creditable than others based on the accepted theories of the moment, but in general there is some very interesting discrepancies many cosmologist try to ignore or explain away.

Here is the interesting reality -- the material that most of the earth is made of or consists of is far older than perhaps the planet itself. This is where both sides in the debate run into problems.

dljc
Dec 30th 2008, 03:39 PM
Here is the interesting reality -- the material that most of the earth is made of or consists of is far older than perhaps the planet itself. This is where both sides in the debate run into problems.Which begs the question. Is the earth and the universe itself made of eternal things? If so, how do you measure time in eternity?

Luke34
Dec 30th 2008, 04:00 PM
Which begs the question. Is the earth and the universe itself made of eternal things? If so, how do you measure time in eternity? I read somewhere, possibly a Stephen Hawking book (or not), that the universe cannot be eternal, because an infinite amount of time would have passed by now already, and all the universe's energy would be used up.

Yankee Candle
Dec 30th 2008, 06:28 PM
I read somewhere, possibly a Stephen Hawking book (or not), that the universe cannot be eternal, because an infinite amount of time would have passed by now already, and all the universe's energy would be used up.

I read Stephen Hawking. I have two of his books on my shelf in front of me and I refer to both of them often. But I do not believe Stephen Hawking on evolution or the 'big bang'.

I believe the universe is between 6,000 & 7,000 years old, the matter of time and distant starlight travel notwithstanding.

Why? (1) Because of the chronolgies that Moses gave us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Those chronologies are useless to us unless they have meaning in a historical context that bespeaks of real people who actually lived on earth duing the age mentioned in Genesis 5 & 10. (2) Because after God made the universe He stretched it out in every direction (Isaiah 40:22) and that means that the stars and galaxies were much closer to the earth in Adam's time than they are now. This explains the real reason for the red shift and not the big bang nonsense.

"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it..." Isaiah 42:5

ServantofTruth
Dec 30th 2008, 06:53 PM
Very clever haiku. Can I steal it?:cool:


You'd have a job!


Pay attention, listern to me:
keep quiet, I have more to say.
If you have anything to say, refute me,
Speak out for i would gladly accept that you are upright.
If not, then listen to me:
keep quiet, and i will teach you wisdom.

rabbiknife and dljc
speak a lot of sense
yet their words seem so empty.

Love SofTy.

Whispering Grace
Dec 30th 2008, 07:04 PM
I'm a "young earth" Creationist.

dljc
Dec 30th 2008, 07:22 PM
I read somewhere, possibly a Stephen Hawking book (or not), that the universe cannot be eternal, because an infinite amount of time would have passed by now already, and all the universe's energy would be used up.Said the finite mind trying to explain the infinite. (referring to Stephen Hawking).

You see Luke I'll be the first to admit there is a lot about the universe we don't know. But you see, the Bible starts out pointing to time. In those first verses God, through Moses is saying this is how much time it took Me. He confirms it in Exodus 20:11 which is part of the 10 Commandments that we recognize that God Himself wrote on the two tablets.

The Parson posted earlier in the thread the verses from 2 Peter 3:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

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.

We tend to forget about some of the miracles Jesus performed while He was on earth. Walking on water for example, and the fact that once He got on the ship it was immediately transported to the shore they were headed to. And that Phillip was found in Azotus immediately following the baptism of the eunuch in Acts 8:

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

So were these powerful miracles pointing to the power that God has over His creation? And that we spend more time trying to figure out how old something is, instead of seeing what He meant for us to see....Him in His glory.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Gulah Papyrus
Dec 30th 2008, 09:03 PM
I'm a "young earth" Creationist.I'm a 'young earth' evolutionist...wait....what? Hold on....

Ascender
Dec 30th 2008, 09:27 PM
I read Stephen Hawking. I have two of his books on my shelf in front of me and I refer to both of them often. But I do not believe Stephen Hawking on evolution or the 'big bang'.

I believe the universe is between 6,000 & 7,000 years old, the matter of time and distant starlight travel notwithstanding.

Why? (1) Because of the chronolgies that Moses gave us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Those chronologies are useless to us unless they have meaning in a historical context that bespeaks of real people who actually lived on earth duing the age mentioned in Genesis 5 & 10. (2) Because after God made the universe He stretched it out in every direction (Isaiah 40:22) and that means that the stars and galaxies were much closer to the earth in Adam's time than they are now. This explains the real reason for the red shift and not the big bang nonsense.

"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it..." Isaiah 42:5


The context of the geneology is relational not historical.

crawfish
Dec 30th 2008, 11:59 PM
The context of the geneology is relational not historical.

And don't forget legal.

alethos
Dec 31st 2008, 12:06 AM
This is the age old question, How old is the earth?

Many christians profess that it is 6 thousand years old, but dinosaurs, animal fossils and other evidence proves otherwise.

How old do you think it is?
Why do you think so?


All comments are welcomed....
:amen:

Scripture states that the earth existed before there was any life upon it.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was waste and void;

We can also learn from Scripture that life existed on the earth for approximately 6000 years, but no one absolutely knows the age of the earth, or how long it existed in a state of waste and void before any life forms were created to inhabit it.

Athanasius
Dec 31st 2008, 02:20 AM
Not so old that God couldn't have been its creator.

Luke34
Dec 31st 2008, 07:26 AM
Said the finite mind trying to explain the infinite. (referring to Stephen Hawking). Wait...so are you saying that the universe is eternal? Because that's both logically impossible (Hawking is still right) and, I would think, theologically unsound.

dljc
Jan 2nd 2009, 03:37 AM
You see Luke the original question was:

This is the age old question, How old is the earth?

Many christians profess that it is 6 thousand years old, but dinosaurs, animal fossils and other evidence proves otherwise.

How old do you think it is?
Why do you think so?


All comments are welcomed....
:amen:


Which begs the question. Is the earth and the universe itself made of eternal things? If so, how do you measure time in eternity?This was my response to Ascender, because what they wrote leads to those questions based on Scripture. Not what Stephen Hawking wrote or anyone else but God Himself through the author of that text we know as the Bible.

Wait...so are you saying that the universe is eternal? Because that's both logically impossible (Hawking is still right) and, I would think, theologically unsound.

Theologically it lines up with both Hebrews 11:1 and Romans 1:20

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Can you measure time in eternity accurately?

Explain this verse to me.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

DoctorZOomZoOm
Jan 6th 2009, 10:43 PM
5 billion years old. There's no reason to think the Genesis account has to be taken literally, and this isn't a new idea. Luther complained St. Augustine thought the Genesis account was an allegory. Makes more sense than a talking snake if you think about it.

shepherdsword
Jan 10th 2009, 01:04 PM
~6,000-10,000 years old.

I would be willing to believe that..if someone can kindly explain why we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away.
The distances can be verified by using gravitational lensing and Doppler red shifting since we know that the speed of light is a constant.

ideas?

Romber
Jan 11th 2009, 12:44 PM
I would be willing to believe that..if someone can kindly explain why we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away.
The distances can be verified by using gravitational lensing and Doppler red shifting since we know that the speed of light is a constant.

ideas?


I will have to get back to you on that. But just a thought, I thought that Light doesn't always have a constant speed. I forget what thread it was, but there was a pretty lengthy discussion going on about it.

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 11th 2009, 04:29 PM
I will have to get back to you on that. But just a thought, I thought that Light doesn't always have a constant speed. I forget what thread it was, but there was a pretty lengthy discussion going on about it.

You can slow down light, depending on what medium it's passing through, but you can't speed it up past 299,792,458 metres per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Athanasius
Jan 11th 2009, 06:38 PM
I will have to get back to you on that. But just a thought, I thought that Light doesn't always have a constant speed. I forget what thread it was, but there was a pretty lengthy discussion going on about it.

I believe what he meant to say was that light was a constant inside a vacuum.

daughter
Jan 11th 2009, 06:56 PM
How old is the earth?

As old as it's tongue, and a little younger than it's teeth...

oh, hang on... that doesn't work with planets does it? :hmm:

graygm18
Jan 12th 2009, 05:36 AM
It is possible to have a young Earth and an old universe.


Time is not constant! It can be affected by various forces that slow it down. Gravity will slow time down, as will the speed something is traveling. This effect known in Einstein’s general relativity is called gravitational time dilation. Experiment and Einstein's theory agree that time and all physical processes run more slowly in areas which are lower in a gravitational field than in areas which are higher.


It isn’t until the fourth day that this centralized creation starts to be stretched out and created. As God created the sun, moon, & stars, their light would have been immediately seen on the Earth, even though they were being rapidly set in their place. As this is happening, remember that the Earth is still the focus and center of His creation. Thus time would be moving slower on Earth than it would be in the rest of creation. Where one day may have passed on Earth, billions may have passed in the universe.

This is a summarized version. A more complete article can be found at http://www.icr.org/article/446 (http://www.icr.org/article/446).


My questions for those who claim old-age:
· What would it take for you to see to be convinced to see the other side?
· If death came into the world by Adam’s sin, how do you explain the death of animals before the fall?
· If death existed before sin, then why did Jesus come? Since the “Wages of sin is death”, what is he saving us from?
· When do you stop believing what you are told, and trust what God says?


Looking forward to the discussion.


In Christ,
Jerry

shepherdsword
Jan 12th 2009, 06:18 AM
I believe what he meant to say was that light was a constant inside a vacuum.

exactly and thank you.


elaboration: the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

BrckBrln
Jan 12th 2009, 06:24 AM
If death came into the world by Adam’s sin, how do you explain the death of animals before the fall?

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned...Romans 5:12

graygm18
Jan 12th 2009, 06:45 AM
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned...Romans 5:12

So how does this answer the question? Are you saying that death existed in the animal kingdom before the fall? If so, then I believe you are missing the "and death through sin" part. Death entered through sin and spread to all mankind. If death entered because of sin (specifically man's sin, since animals can't sin), how could death entered prior to sin?

If you are trying to make a point with a verse, please include your thoughts. I hate to assume how you are applying the scripture. In this case, I am assuming you are using this to answer my question. If so, if read comma to comma, I would say that this verse supports my question and not answers it.

In Christ,
Jerry

BrckBrln
Jan 12th 2009, 06:54 AM
So how does this answer the question? Are you saying that death existed in the animal kingdom before the fall? If so, then I believe you are missing the "and death through sin" part. Death entered through sin and spread to all mankind. If death entered because of sin (specifically man's sin, since animals can't sin), how could death entered prior to sin?

If you are trying to make a point with a verse, please include your thoughts. I hate to assume how you are applying the scripture. In this case, I am assuming you are using this to answer my question. If so, if read comma to comma, I would say that this verse supports my question and not answers it.

In Christ,
Jerry

I thought the verse (and the context) said it all. There is nothing about animals in the verse, it's talking about man. The verse says death spread to all men, not animals.

shepherdsword
Jan 12th 2009, 08:28 AM
It is possible to have a young Earth and an old universe.


Time is not constant! It can be affected by various forces that slow it down. Gravity will slow time down, as will the speed something is traveling. This effect known in Einstein’s general relativity is called gravitational time dilation. Experiment and Einstein's theory agree that time and all physical processes run more slowly in areas which are lower in a gravitational field than in areas which are higher.


It isn’t until the fourth day that this centralized creation starts to be stretched out and created. As God created the sun, moon, & stars, their light would have been immediately seen on the Earth, even though they were being rapidly set in their place. As this is happening, remember that the Earth is still the focus and center of His creation. Thus time would be moving slower on Earth than it would be in the rest of creation. Where one day may have passed on Earth, billions may have passed in the universe.

This is a summarized version. A more complete article can be found at http://www.icr.org/article/446 (http://www.icr.org/article/446).


My questions for those who claim old-age:
· What would it take for you to see to be convinced to see the other side?
· If death came into the world by Adam’s sin, how do you explain the death of animals before the fall?
· If death existed before sin, then why did Jesus come? Since the “Wages of sin is death”, what is he saving us from?
· When do you stop believing what you are told, and trust what God says?


Looking forward to the discussion.


In Christ,
Jerry

I find this interesting. Do they provide the math that backs up this claim on their site somewhere? I can't seem to find it. If they can provide this I will adopt their position.
green to you

er... they need to provide a correlation between Einsteins time dilation equation and this theory or else provide STRONG evidence that lightspeed was faster in the past.
In fact I think I can show an equation that disproves this assumption given time. maybe someone else has one now?

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 12th 2009, 11:45 AM
It is possible to have a young Earth and an old universe.


Time is not constant! It can be affected by various forces that slow it down. Gravity will slow time down, as will the speed something is traveling. This effect known in Einstein’s general relativity is called gravitational time dilation. Experiment and Einstein's theory agree that time and all physical processes run more slowly in areas which are lower in a gravitational field than in areas which are higher.


This is Russel Humphrey's "Starlight & Time". Yes, time can dilate but you need a super-massive gravitational field and even then it's just no possible to dilate time enough to make billions of years look like thousands. Additionally, earth doesn't have near enough gravity to dilate time, there's no indication that earth is the center of much of anything, and even if there was you wouldn't be able to generate that much gravity without creating lasting observable effects. One of the implications of Humphrey's theory is that distant stars should be blue shifted since we are observing them from the bottom of a super-massive gravity well, obviously this is not the case.

I would encourage you to really look into this before throwing it out there as a viable theory.

The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml



It isn’t until the fourth day that this centralized creation starts to be stretched out and created. As God created the sun, moon, & stars, their light would have been immediately seen on the Earth, even though they were being rapidly set in their place. As this is happening, remember that the Earth is still the focus and center of His creation. Thus time would be moving slower on Earth than it would be in the rest of creation. Where one day may have passed on Earth, billions may have passed in the universe.


Centrality does not equal time dilation. Time dilation requires gravity, gravity requires mass, where is all the mass required to generate that much time dilation? There certainly isn't enough mass represented within the whole of the solar system to dilate that much time. Unless you're going for a white whole pseudo-theory I don't see how you can make this argument.



My questions for those who claim old-age:
· What would it take for you to see to be convinced to see the other side?


A comprehensive explanation of observation that is consistent with a young earth interpretation which does not rely on pseudoscience.



· If death came into the world by Adam’s sin, how do you explain the death of animals before the fall?


Spiritual, not physical death. Everything's gotta eat. Unless consumers spent their time carefully nibling only half blades of grass or just the very ends of lizard tails things have been dying since things have been living.



· If death existed before sin, then why did Jesus come? Since the “Wages of sin is death”, what is he saving us from?


Spiritual, not physical, death. Obviously Christ doesn't save us from physical death seeing as we pretty much all die.



· When do you stop believing what you are told, and trust what God says?


I believe the story God wrote into his creation, and I reconcile it with the story he wrote in the Bible.

Romber
Jan 12th 2009, 11:49 AM
My questions for those who claim old-age:
· What would it take for you to see to be convinced to see the other side?
· If death came into the world by Adam’s sin, how do you explain the death of animals before the fall?
· If death existed before sin, then why did Jesus come? Since the “Wages of sin is death”, what is he saving us from?
· When do you stop believing what you are told, and trust what God says?


Hey graygm18,

Glad to see another YEC. One thing you can't forget is that OEC don't believe in evolution, just that the earth is old. So it isn't inherent to believe in evolution for the OEC view. However the Theistic Evolution view does believe in millions of years and essentially the opposite of the questions I quoted.


Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned...Romans 5:12

Remember that the bible speaks of lion and the lamb laying together before the fall. This is not natural behavior from the two animals today. From this I think it is quite reasonable to infer sin Adam committed effected all. Mankind is the only creation that can sin, so if we were to punish the animals the same way man was (the first lion and lioness sinned, thus punishing all animals.) Another point that is a little removed from the question is that a TE view needs/requires the death of animals before man could even come into the picture.

crawfish
Jan 12th 2009, 03:19 PM
My questions for those who claim old-age:
· What would it take for you to see to be convinced to see the other side?
· If death came into the world by Adam’s sin, how do you explain the death of animals before the fall?
· If death existed before sin, then why did Jesus come? Since the “Wages of sin is death”, what is he saving us from?
· When do you stop believing what you are told, and trust what God says?


Looking forward to the discussion.


In Christ,
Jerry

Good questions, here are my answers:


What would it take for you to see to be convinced to see the other side?

I would need to know that scripture required a young-earth reading and that no other interpretation could be viable. It would take that kind of assurance to overturn the piles of evidence to the contrary.


If death came into the world by Adam’s sin, how do you explain the death of animals before the fall?

I think no scriptural evidence points to the absence of physical death before the fall. Why was a tree of life needed in the garden? Why did Adam obviously understand the concept of death? Why did Adam and Eve not die the day they ate the fruit? It is because what they expected was physical death, but what they experienced was a spiritual death.

Paul supports this idea in the metaphor he builds in Romans 5 between Adam's sin and Jesus' sacrifice. Eternal life through grace does not mean we will not die physically; thus, Adam's sin does not refer to physical death. Adam died spiritually at the fall; he was separated from God. Jesus' sacrifice offers us again the close, personal relationship with God through Christ, and through that, the promise of an eternal, spiritual life after our bodies have passed away.

Trying to indicate a lack of human death through these verses is misapplication. Indicating the absence of animal death is gross misapplication.


If death existed before sin, then why did Jesus come? Since the “Wages of sin is death”, what is he saving us from?

See above. Jesus had to come because the fall -our sin - had separated us from God. Through His sacrifice we can now have a personal relationship with God again, and receive eternal life.


When do you stop believing what you are told, and trust what God says?

This is a double-edged sword. I was told my entire life that scripture said one thing, but when I got over those instilled biases I discovered that God is actually saying something different. I fully trust that God's word is His inspired word and the guide for our relationship with Him. I fully trust that God's creation is evidence of His will and power.

Honestly, it is next to impossible to be an evolutionary creationist and to simply "believe what you're told" about anything. We are probably the most independent thinkers of any group - YEC/OEC/GT/agnostic/atheist - because this is NOT a default belief like the others tend to be. No, almost every TE I know has had to "get here" from years of prayer, study and thought, and only ends up here because it is obvious there is no other viable alternative.

graygm18
Jan 12th 2009, 04:50 PM
Good questions, here are my answers:
- YEC/OEC/GT/agnostic/atheist - because this is NOT a default belief like the others tend to be. No, almost every TE I know has had to "get here" from years of prayer, study and thought, and only ends up here because it is obvious there is no other viable alternative.

Could you (or someone) please define what these stand for?

-----------------

Let me ask a different question. If indeed all of Creation is old, how did God create it?

Looking to understand,
Jerry

crawfish
Jan 12th 2009, 04:57 PM
Could you (or someone) please define what these stand for?

-----------------

Let me ask a different question. If indeed all of Creation is old, how did God create it?

Looking to understand,
Jerry

Sorry, "TE" = theistic evolutionist, also known as evolutionary creationist
GT = gap theory.

Romber
Jan 12th 2009, 04:58 PM
YEC-Young Earth Creationist
OEC-Old Earth Creationist
GT-Gap Theorists
TE-Theistic Evolution

BrckBrln
Jan 12th 2009, 06:59 PM
Remember that the bible speaks of lion and the lamb laying together before the fall.

I don't know what Isaiah 65 (I assume that's what you mean) refers to (whether it's the New Earth or some Millennial Kingdom) but I have never heard that it refers to before the fall. :confused

graygm18
Jan 12th 2009, 07:04 PM
I don't know what Isaiah 65 (I assume that's what you mean) refers to (whether it's the New Earth or some Millennial Kingdom) but I have never heard that it refers to before the fall. :confused

How about when God brings each animal before Adam to see what he will name it? (Gen 2:19). The animals do not kill and eat Adam.

And since you brought up the New Earth, will God also create that in billions of years? Will we have to wait in limbo (between this Earth and the next)? I was going to ask this later, but now is just as fine?

Thanks,
Jerry

BrckBrln
Jan 12th 2009, 07:13 PM
How about when God brings each animal before Adam to see what he will name it? (Gen 2:19). The animals do not kill and eat Adam.

First, you can name and be near animals without being eaten. People do it all the time. Second, God could have 'tamed' the animals for this purpose like He did with the lions in Daniel.


And since you brought up the New Earth, will God also create that in billions of years? Will we have to wait in limbo (between this Earth and the next)? I was going to ask this later, but now is just as fine?

Thanks,
Jerry

Just because the new earth won't be billions of years in the making does not mean the first one wasn't. You can't reason that way.

graygm18
Jan 12th 2009, 07:26 PM
Just because the new earth won't be billions of years in the making does not mean the first one wasn't. You can't reason that way.

So it is perfectly ok for an instant creation of the new earth, but not of the first? Why? Could not God also create the first earth just as quickly? Does this same logic also apply to the new heaven?

Thanks,
Jerry

crawfish
Jan 12th 2009, 07:26 PM
How about when God brings each animal before Adam to see what he will name it? (Gen 2:19). The animals do not kill and eat Adam.

And since you brought up the New Earth, will God also create that in billions of years? Will we have to wait in limbo (between this Earth and the next)? I was going to ask this later, but now is just as fine?

Thanks,
Jerry

If we are, like God, unbound by time, will it even matter? After billions of years it will still be like it's slightly after midnight...

BrckBrln
Jan 12th 2009, 07:29 PM
So it is perfectly ok for an instant creation of the new earth, but not of the first? Why? Could not God also create the first earth just as quickly? Does this same logic also apply to the new heaven?

Thanks,
Jerry

You're right. I'm gonna start now in believing that the present earth was created in an instant because that's how the new earth will be. Forget that six days thing. :rolleyes:

crawfish
Jan 12th 2009, 07:32 PM
So it is perfectly ok for an instant creation of the new earth, but not of the first? Why? Could not God also create the first earth just as quickly? Does this same logic also apply to the new heaven?

Thanks,
Jerry

It's never a question of what God could do. It's a question of what God DID do. We have mountains of evidence that God took billions of years to create the earth/universe. Proven theories depend on that fact. Either God created it, all of a sudden, not only with age but with an apparent requirement for that age, or God created it over billions of years.

God's ways are not our ways. Just because it seems silly to spend billions of years to put something together to us does not mean it's silly to God. We are, after all, only partially aware of His overarching purpose - the part that pertains to our own salvation.

graygm18
Jan 13th 2009, 03:55 PM
It's never a question of what God could do. It's a question of what God DID do.

I agree completely!

So where in your timeline, as a TE, does Adam and Eve happen? How did they come about?

Thanks,
Jerry

Ascender
Jan 14th 2009, 08:01 PM
Why? (1) Because of the chronolgies that Moses gave us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Those chronologies are useless to us unless they have meaning in a historical context that bespeaks of real people who actually lived on earth duing the age mentioned in Genesis 5 & 10. (2) Because after God made the universe He stretched it out in every direction (Isaiah 40:22) and that means that the stars and galaxies were much closer to the earth in Adam's time than they are now. This explains the real reason for the red shift and not the big bang nonsense.

"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it..." Isaiah 42:5

The chronolgies were commonly available -- accessible to anyone willing to ask. They have a historical context and reference real people. This is not at issue.

The expanding universe is one theory that has credibility, but it is not the only one. When it comes to cosmology, we can speculate far and wide and waffle all we want, but Only Father knows the end from the beginning -- He made it and He made us.

Ixthus
Jan 15th 2009, 04:55 PM
It is widely know that the sun is burning to the core and will run out eventually. The earth is said to be 4.57 billion years old (Usually rounded to 4.6). The Rowe Observatory has proved that 4.57 billion years ago the sun would have been so hot that it would have fried the earth giving life no chance at all. For the few that say the sun is getting bigger 3 billion years ago the sun would’ve been to small to heat the earth at all.

Potassium Argon dating has obvious problems as I will show next. In 1980 Mount St. Helens erupted. In 1986 it was pronounced by scientists suitable to use the K-AR dating method. The tests were sent to the lab, and then they were announced. The lava, which was formed in 1980, was “scientifically” dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old! A little bit off, don’t you say?

The problem with Carbon 14 dating (used to date living or used to be living things) is that it only works if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains the same. We know that it doesn’t because of the changing of the seasons, the manmade production of carbon dioxide, and the dissolving of carbon dioxide into the ocean. Carbon 14 dating also only works if there’s been no outside source of carbon to contaminate it. That’s pretty hard to do considering all life is made of carbon and carbon dioxide in the air. It has been concluded that Carbon 14 dating is accurate only up to around 8,000-10,000 years ago.

Helium flux is another reason the age of the earth cannot be 4.57 billion years old. What that means is that helium is pouring into the atmosphere faster than it’s escaping because of radioactive decay. If the earth is 4.57 billion years old it would be around 2,000 times the level its at now.
Another reason the earth cannot be as old as it is would be because of the saltiness of the seas. Salt is going into the ocean and saltwater bodies faster than it is escaping. The current salt content of the ocean is 3.6%. The sea isn’t nearly salty enough to be even close to 4.57 billion years old. The MAXIMUM age as proven by the data would be 62 million years old.

The Earth’s own magnetic field even shows that the earth cannot be 4.57 billion years old. In the 1970’s Dr. Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown the magnetic field is decaying at 5% per century. Also, archaeological measurements show that the magnetic field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than in AD 2000. This is because of Earth’s magnetic core is become more disordered (as it agrees with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Because the core is more disordered the magnetic pull decreases. Barnes calculated that it could not have been decaying (becoming more disordered) for more than 10,000 years or else its strength would be great enough to melt the Earth. So the Earth has to be younger than that.

Some people reject this and say that the Earth’s core is a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). The earth’s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core. Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, producing an electric current, thus generating the magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable model despite half a century of research, and there are many problems such as Mercury has a far stronger magnetic field than dynamo theory expects from a planet rotating 59 times slower than Earth.


So I believe the earth is between 8,000-10,000 years old

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 15th 2009, 09:36 PM
It is widely know that the sun is burning to the core and will run out eventually. The earth is said to be 4.57 billion years old (Usually rounded to 4.6). The Rowe Observatory has proved that 4.57 billion years ago the sun would have been so hot that it would have fried the earth giving life no chance at all. For the few that say the sun is getting bigger 3 billion years ago the sun would’ve been to small to heat the earth at all.


There are exactly zero mainstream scientists who believe life evolved on earth the moment it was formed. The sun formed roughly 4.59 billion years ago, followed by the earth at 4.57 billion. The earliest possible evidence of life is from Pre-Cambrian stromatolite formations that may or may not contain fossilized cyanobacteria microbes from 3.5 billion years ago. You are literally a billion years off.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Sun_Life.png/800px-Sun_Life.png




Potassium Argon dating has obvious problems as I will show next. In 1980 Mount St. Helens erupted. In 1986 it was pronounced by scientists suitable to use the K-AR dating method. The tests were sent to the lab, and then they were announced. The lava, which was formed in 1980, was “scientifically” dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old! A little bit off, don’t you say?


I assume you're referring to Steve Austin's claims found here
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_sa_r01

The half-life for Potassium-40 is around 1,250 million years, thus even a period of thousands of years isn't enough time for any sample to accumulate enough 40Ar to be accurately measured and tested. So I have a hard time believing that any real scientist proclaimed material formed by a 1986 eruption was a good candidate for K-Ar testing.

Furthermore, the facility Austin sent his samples to explicitly state that their techniques cannot measure the age of anything less than 2 million years old.

many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories (http://www.geochronlabs.com/)of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al (http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/museumintro.htm). (http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/museumintro.htm)).
http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

Why should we expect accurate readings using inappropriate testing techniques? It's like saying rulers don't work because you tried to weigh a bowling ball with one and didn't get an accurate result.



The problem with Carbon 14 dating (used to date living or used to be living things) is that it only works if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains the same. We know that it doesn’t because of the changing of the seasons, the manmade production of carbon dioxide, and the dissolving of carbon dioxide into the ocean. Carbon 14 dating also only works if there’s been no outside source of carbon to contaminate it. That’s pretty hard to do considering all life is made of carbon and carbon dioxide in the air. It has been concluded that Carbon 14 dating is accurate only up to around 8,000-10,000 years ago.


Radiocarbon dating is a quite accurate dating method up to about 11,000 years ago and is fairly accurate out to around 50,000 years. We can calibrate it using tree rings and test it against known events. When properly used it produces results consistent with multiple other dating methods.



Helium flux is another reason the age of the earth cannot be 4.57 billion years old. What that means is that helium is pouring into the atmosphere faster than it’s escaping because of radioactive decay.


Helium certainly can and is escaping from the atmosphere at about the same rate it is accumulating.

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 (http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#dal84) )
http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#bak01




Salt is going into the ocean and saltwater bodies faster than it is escaping. The current salt content of the ocean is 3.6%. The sea isn’t nearly salty enough to be even close to 4.57 billion years old. The MAXIMUM age as proven by the data would be 62 million years old.


Salt is not accumulating that fast, if you are basing your argument on Austin and Humphreys you should know that they ignore numerous salt removal systems such as plankton which remove salt from the ocean. A more comprehensive look at salt accumulation aligns with the old earth view of earth's history.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

Besides, even if you're right the earth is still 61,998,000 years too old to support a young earth view.



The Earth’s own magnetic field even shows that the earth cannot be 4.57 billion years old. In the 1970’s Dr. Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown the magnetic field is decaying at 5% per century.


Do you think it's possible they've done some more research on this since 1970? One clue that you're following pseudoscience is when almost all references you use are more than twenty years old.

The Barnes/Humphreys hypothesis does not stand up to analysis. Barnes is correct that the dipole element of the magnetic field has indeed decreased in strength since the 19th century. However, as geologist Brent Dalrymple points out, "Barnes completely neglects the nondipole field. The same observatory measurements that show that the dipole moment has decreased since the early 1800's also show that this decrease has almost been completely balanced by an increase in the strength of the total observed field which has remained almost constant." (Dalrymple, "Can Earth Be Dated from its Magnetic Field?", Menlo Park, CA, 1992)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm



Also, archaeological measurements show that the magnetic field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than in AD 2000. This is because of Earth’s magnetic core is become more disordered (as it agrees with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Because the core is more disordered the magnetic pull decreases. Barnes calculated that it could not have been decaying (becoming more disordered) for more than 10,000 years or else its strength would be great enough to melt the Earth. So the Earth has to be younger than that.


Another sign of pseudoscience is sampling. Your unamed source is cherrypicking evidence. A comprehensive look at the orientation of metallic particles shows that the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated, not exponentially weakened.

Metallic particles such as iron are partially magnetized by the earth's magnetic field and will line themselves up with the magnetic poles. By examining these particles, we can determine the strength of the magnetic field. And such examination shows that the earth's magnetic field has not been decaying steadily. Clay pottery and other archeological finds which date to about 6,500 years ago indicate a magnetic field that was about 20% weaker than today, while artifacts from just 3,000 years ago show magnetic fields that are 45% higher than today. Thus, rather than decreasing steadily since the time of creation, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated, weaker at some times and stronger at others.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm



So I believe the earth is between 8,000-10,000 years old

You are free to believe what you want but you are citing pseudoscience as your support. This stuff has been debunked for years, in some cases for centuries. If you really believe in a young earth view just envoke a miracle or find do some work and find REAL evidence that is not so obviously wrong.

Advocatus Dei
Jan 20th 2009, 07:55 AM
Yeah, what he said.

Sorry, first post. I'll try to bring more to the next argument.

navigator
Jan 20th 2009, 03:57 PM
I would say that the earth is around 6k years old based on how the scripture reads.

In response to the argument of how about all the evidence that the world is older than that I have two ideas.

1.We don't know how much the world has changed or how much the flood might have affected the earth in a way that caused the earth to "age" much faster than it really has. I once read an article about some anthropologists in California were in a dig site and they were discovering fossils that were so many thousands of years old and they were all excited and all and they dug a little deeper (older in time) and found a button from a uniform from a military uniform which shows that the button was older than the fossils they were finding.

2 My other theory is that God created full grown plants, trees, animals and man. Maybe he created a full grown earth that already had fossils and such in place to give folks with nothing better to do something to occupy their mind with.

Advocatus Dei
Jan 21st 2009, 02:01 AM
I would say that the earth is around 6k years old based on how the scripture reads

That's an entirely valid point to have. But you have to then accept that, after declaring such, you cannot use any scientific fact to back up that claim. Otherwise you'll be swamped with atheistic counter claims which will contain a lot of hard science that you will find it difficult to refute. You're basing your claim on faith in the scriptures, so keep out of the atheists scientific backyard from there on in.


I have two ideas


1.We don't know how much the world has changed or how much the flood might have affected the earth in a way that caused the earth to "age" much faster than it really has.

So your first idea was 'I have no idea'.


2 My other theory is that God created full grown plants, trees, animals and man. Maybe he created a full grown earth that already had fossils and such in place to give folks with nothing better to do something to occupy their mind with.

Now that's an argument that doesn't really stand up to any sort of thought process at all. You're saying that God was afraid that some people wouldn't have anything to do after he made the world so he made lots of brand new fossils of creatures that hadn't existed and hid them so they would have something to look for when they were bored. And he made them look millions of years old because...well, I'm not sure why he'd do that. To confuse us?

Romber
Jan 21st 2009, 12:54 PM
That's an entirely valid point to have. But you have to then accept that, after declaring such, you cannot use any scientific fact to back up that claim. Otherwise you'll be swamped with atheistic counter claims which will contain a lot of hard science that you will find it difficult to refute. You're basing your claim on faith in the scriptures, so keep out of the atheists scientific backyard from there on in.

Is this the only reason you accept 'millions of years'? It's easier to debate with Atheists. I would hope not. Believing in a young Earth can use scientific fact and that's exactly what they do. I highly suggest you read "The Genesis Flood" by John M. Morris and Henry C. Whitcomb. It is a thorough book using much scientific fact to suggest a young earth.

Advocatus Dei
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:04 AM
Is this the only reason you accept 'millions of years'? It's easier to debate with Atheists. I would hope not.

You do not hope in vain. I find it exceptionally easy to debate the age of the earth with atheists because, in general, we believe it to be around 4.5 billion years old.

We do have what some would say is an unusual circumstance in that I find it exceptionally difficult to debate this same topic with fellow Christians.

My point is that if you insist on innerancy and refuse to accept the catastrophically overwhelming evidence for the actual age, then you'd better stay out of the atheists play ground, because all you have to offer to refute it is faith in the scriptures. And apparently, not believing absolutely everything in the bible means that you don't really believe in god.

Does anyone want to question my belief..?

And if someone even mentions answersingenesis, I'm really going to get annoyed.

Partaker of Christ
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:01 PM
I would say that the earth is around 6k years old based on how the scripture reads.

In response to the argument of how about all the evidence that the world is older than that I have two ideas.

1.We don't know how much the world has changed or how much the flood might have affected the earth in a way that caused the earth to "age" much faster than it really has. I once read an article about some anthropologists in California were in a dig site and they were discovering fossils that were so many thousands of years old and they were all excited and all and they dug a little deeper (older in time) and found a button from a uniform from a military uniform which shows that the button was older than the fossils they were finding.

2 My other theory is that God created full grown plants, trees, animals and man. Maybe he created a full grown earth that already had fossils and such in place to give folks with nothing better to do something to occupy their mind with.

I agree with you!

I was crucified with Christ 2000 years ago.
Beats me how all those foolish scientists, are going to refute that fact.

God can, does and did 'quicken'. He created the heavens, and the earth with history built in, by the quickening of the Spirit. When God then formed man and beast, and all living things, he formed them out of the (quickened old/new) earth.

Partaker of Christ
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:08 PM
You do not hope in vain. I find it exceptionally easy to debate the age of the earth with atheists because, in general, we believe it to be around 4.5 billion years old.

We do have what some would say is an unusual circumstance in that I find it exceptionally difficult to debate this same topic with fellow Christians.

My point is that if you insist on innerancy and refuse to accept the catastrophically overwhelming evidence for the actual age, then you'd better stay out of the atheists play ground, because all you have to offer to refute it is faith in the scriptures. And apparently, not believing absolutely everything in the bible means that you don't really believe in god.

Does anyone want to question my belief..?

And if someone even mentions answersingenesis, I'm really going to get annoyed.

Does that mean you can pick and choose what parts, you want to believe and what parts you reject?

If the voice of science speaks to you, above the voice of Almighty God, then your god is not my God.

Soupy
Jan 23rd 2009, 02:32 PM
These type of debates always end up the same way were we have the 'scientific, biological physicist fellow' armed with facts and figures, ready at a moments notice to give both barrels to anyone stupid enough to question their reliable arsenal of data, a supreme accumulation of man's knowledge, a mountain of information built from hundreds of years of scientific exploration and discovery, a mountain so huge that only a foolish man would even dare try to scale it's borders let alone reach for the summit !

I get the feeling that one would have to have faith like unto a mustard seed to remove it ... oh, hang on a minute .... ;)

shepherdsword
Jan 24th 2009, 06:51 AM
These type of debates always end up the same way were we have the 'scientific, biological physicist fellow' armed with facts and figures, ready at a moments notice to give both barrels to anyone stupid enough to question their reliable arsenal of data, a supreme accumulation of man's knowledge, a mountain of information built from hundreds of years of scientific exploration and discovery, a mountain so huge that only a foolish man would even dare try to scale it's borders let alone reach for the summit !

I get the feeling that one would have to have faith like unto a mustard seed to remove it ... oh, hang on a minute .... ;)

I laughed at loud when I read this! :thumbsup:

Philemon9
Jan 24th 2009, 07:39 AM
These type of debates always end up the same way were we have the 'scientific, biological physicist fellow' armed with facts and figures, ready at a moments notice to give both barrels to anyone stupid enough to question their reliable arsenal of data, a supreme accumulation of man's knowledge, a mountain of information built from hundreds of years of scientific exploration and discovery, a mountain so huge that only a foolish man would even dare try to scale it's borders let alone reach for the summit !

I get the feeling that one would have to have faith like unto a mustard seed to remove it ... oh, hang on a minute .... ;)

Faith in what? A literal interpretation of Genesis? Is your salvation based on that? YEC, OEC, TE, flat-earth creationist, whatever. Salvation or faith shouldn't be called into question based on the age of the earth.

I often wonder if the critics of science would demonstrate their distrust, say, when in the middle of appendicitis? After all, the same scientific method that brought us modern geology and cosmology also brought us modern medicine.

Advocatus Dei
Jan 24th 2009, 08:12 AM
Does that mean you can pick and choose what parts, you want to believe and what parts you reject?

It means that I use the brain that God gave me to differentiate between story, metaphor, parable and myth. The other alternative, which you have chosen, means that you have to deny the very science that God has given us to progress out lot in this world.

You accuse me of cherry picking but then you do precisely the same thing with science, but the aspects of science that you reject are exactly and only the ones that run counter to your the beliefs you so desperately cling to.


If the voice of science speaks to you, above the voice of Almighty God, then your god is not my God.

Good grief, that sounds like a line from a very bad movie.

JC Lamont
Jan 31st 2009, 04:48 AM
I would be willing to believe that..if someone can kindly explain why we can see galaxies that are billions of light years away.

ideas?

Too funny -- I just posted this on another thread:

We can see stars 47 billion light years away, but evolution scientists claim the world is "only" 14 billion years old -- quite a descrepency.

So regardless of how old the earth is, starlight can't prove it either way.

In fact, there is less descrepency for Creation.

Creation science has a descrepency for a little less than 14 billion light-years

whereas

Evolutionary science has a descrepency of 33 billion light-years away -- over twice as much.

Advocatus Dei
Jan 31st 2009, 05:14 AM
Too funny --We can see stars 47 billion light years away, but evolution scientists claim the world is "only" 14 billion years old -- quite a descrepency.

Could you please contact the guy who told you that we can see stars that far away and tell him he's an idiot. The Universe is about 14 - 15 billion years old so that would be the furthest light would have traveled.

This from NASA:

With the Hubble telescope, using an exposure time of several hours, one can see stars to about 30th magnitude. This is about 10 billion times fainter than our Sun, if it were 32.6 light years away. The brightness of any object falls off as the square of the distance from the observer, so the Hubble telescope could just see our Sun if it were 3.26 million light years away. If you were to replace our Sun with a star a million times brighter, it could be seen about a thousand times further away, i.e., about 3 billion light years.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980329a.html

Note that he's talking about visible light from individual stars, not galaxies or galaxy clusters.

And the world is about 4.5 billion years old, which is about a third of the age of the Universe so that's going to put your maths out a little.

DoctorZOomZoOm
Jul 28th 2009, 07:38 PM
This is going to be my last post here. I've never said my view about creation was the only possible view.
If somehow I have offended anyone, I am truly sorry.

Reynolds357
Jul 28th 2009, 07:47 PM
I am just confused. I thought that we were only allowed to say that the earth is between 6000 and 12000 years in the apologetics and Evangelism forum. :hmm::help::confused

Athanasius
Jul 28th 2009, 07:48 PM
I am just confused. I thought that we were only allowed to say that the earth is between 6000 and 12000 years in the apologetics and Evangelism forum. :hmm::help::confused

I'm confused too, because that number isn't anywhere in the Genesis account, no matter how literally it's interpreted:hmm:

Ryan R
Jul 28th 2009, 07:51 PM
Faith in what? A literal interpretation of Genesis? Is your salvation based on that? YEC, OEC, TE, flat-earth creationist, whatever. Salvation or faith shouldn't be called into question based on the age of the earth.

I often wonder if the critics of science would demonstrate their distrust, say, when in the middle of appendicitis? After all, the same scientific method that brought us modern geology and cosmology also brought us modern medicine.

All of modern science, including geology, was founded by creationists. As secularism rose so did the acceptance in naturalistic explanations for the universe that pre-dated any scientific support. The suggestion that creation science had to be left behind to conduct an appendectomy is groundless, at best.

Reynolds357
Jul 28th 2009, 07:58 PM
I'm confused too, because that number isn't anywhere in the Genesis account, no matter how literally it's interpreted:hmm:
Exactly, the Bible does not say that at all.

Athanasius
Jul 28th 2009, 08:03 PM
Exactly, the Bible does not say that at all.

I mean, you could count genealogies (*or chronologies), which is about the only way I can figure someone would arrive at that date. In doing so, however, one would immediately cease to be interpreting Genesis 'literally' and would instead be interpreting Genesis through such-and-such: Genesis through the Lens of Lukan Genealogy, perhaps?

Ryan R
Jul 28th 2009, 08:06 PM
It means that I use the brain that God gave me to differentiate between story, metaphor, parable and myth. The other alternative, which you have chosen, means that you have to deny the very science that God has given us to progress out lot in this world.

You accuse me of cherry picking but then you do precisely the same thing with science, but the aspects of science that you reject are exactly and only the ones that run counter to your the beliefs you so desperately cling to.



Good grief, that sounds like a line from a very bad movie.

If you're comparing cherry picking from man's understanding and cherrying picking from the Bible I strongly encourage you to put more stock in God's Word.

Ryan R
Jul 28th 2009, 08:10 PM
I mean, you could count genealogies (*or chronologies), which is about the only way I can figure someone would arrive at that date. In doing so, however, one would immediately cease to be interpreting Genesis 'literally' and would instead be interpreting Genesis through such-and-such: Genesis through the Lens of Lukan Genealogy, perhaps?

Sorry, can you please explain what this means for me? I don't follow what you mean. How does holding the account to the standard it sets defy a literal interpretation?

Scripture is to be interpreted precept upon precept (Isa 28:10). To use the Bible to interpret itself is not putting on a new lens, it's a commandment. Also, there is a genealogy right in Genesis Chapter 11, so how is it a Lukan lens?

Reynolds357
Jul 28th 2009, 08:13 PM
Sorry, can you please explain what this means for me? I don't follow what you mean. How does holding the account to the standard it sets defy a literal interpretation?

Scripture is to be interpreted precept upon precept (Isa 28:10). To use the Bible to interpret itself is not putting on a new lens, it's a commandment. Also, there is a genealogy right in Genesis Chapter 11, so how is it a Lukan lens?

IF they would move this to "controversial" where I would be allowed to debate you on this, I would gladly answer your question.

Athanasius
Jul 28th 2009, 08:52 PM
Sorry, can you please explain what this means for me? I don't follow what you mean. How does holding the account to the standard it sets defy a literal interpretation?

Scripture is to be interpreted precept upon precept (Isa 28:10). To use the Bible to interpret itself is not putting on a new lens, it's a commandment. Also, there is a genealogy right in Genesis Chapter 11, so how is it a Lukan lens?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'How does holding the account to the standard it sets defy a literal interpretation?' If you're saying the account itself presupposes a literal understanding of itself, I wouldn't argue with you (depending on how you interpret 'yom' and so forth). I would disagree in that Genesis does not give you an age of creation.

Lukan genealogy was simply an example. Replying to the rest of what you said, with Isaiah 28:10 I certainly agree that 'scripture should be interpreted by scripture'. However, there is also another important principle to keep in mind along with this. That principle is this: if I take a piece of scripture and claim that it teaches such-and-such, I have to find such-and-such teaching in that piece of scripture.Otherwise, if I turn to a second piece of Scripture in an attempt to interpret the first, and in doing so thereby discover that what I thought was in the first piece of scripture isn't there, then I've committed the error known as proof texting, forcing meaning into the text that simply isn't there. So, if I say a literal reading of Genesis teaches a 6,000 - 10,000 year old creation, I have to find that teaching in the Genesis creation narrative. If I handed you the book of Genesis and gave you only one task, to tell me how old the Bible says creation is, you will not be able to come to a figure because Genesis simply does not teach an 'age of the earth' or an 'age of creation'. Even if you were to appeal to genealogies or chronologies found in Genesis. Those would simply go towards showing that there was 'X' amount of time between person 'A' and person 'B'. Likewise if I gave you the entire Bible and the same task, you would still not be able to come up with an 'age of the earth' or an 'age of creation'.

Thus to say that one cannot (or should not) be accused of hold a non-literal reading and interpretation of Genesis simply because they believe creation to be older than 12,000 years old. As said above, Genesis doesn't comment on how old the cosmos are.

Itinerant Lurker
Jul 28th 2009, 08:54 PM
I'd love to talk about these issues, but seeing as I'm only allowed to agree with one view here now I'm out as well.

Ryan R
Jul 28th 2009, 08:56 PM
I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'How does holding the account to the standard it sets defy a literal interpretation?' If you're saying the account itself presupposes a literal understanding of itself, I wouldn't argue with you (depending on how you interpret 'yom' and so forth). I would disagree in that Genesis does not give you an age of creation.

Lukan genealogy was simply an example. Replying to the rest of what you said, with Isaiah 28:10 I certainly agree that 'scripture should be interpreted by scripture'. However, there is also another important principle to keep in mind along with this. That principle is this: if I take a piece of scripture and claim that it teaches such-and-such, I have to find such-and-such teaching in that piece of scripture.Otherwise, if I turn to a second piece of Scripture in an attempt to interpret the first, and in doing so thereby discover that what I thought was in the first piece of scripture isn't there, then I've committed the error known as proof texting, forcing meaning into the text that simply isn't there. So, if I say a literal reading of Genesis teaches a 6,000 - 10,000 year old creation, I have to find that teaching in the Genesis creation narrative. If I handed you the book of Genesis and gave you only one task, to tell me how old the Bible says creation is, you will not be able to come to a figure because Genesis simply does not teach an 'age of the earth' or an 'age of creation'. Even if you were to appeal to genealogies or chronologies found in Genesis. Those would simply go towards showing that there was 'X' amount of time between person 'A' and person 'B'. Likewise if I gave you the entire Bible and the same task, you would still not be able to come up with an 'age of the earth' or an 'age of creation'.

Thus to say that one cannot (or should not) be accused of hold a non-literal reading and interpretation of Genesis simply because they believe creation to be older than 12,000 years old. As said above, Genesis doesn't comment on how old the cosmos are.

OK, I getcha. Thanks.

Ninna
Jul 28th 2009, 09:00 PM
Closed for mod review.