Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Age of the Earth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion The Age of the Earth

    Hello everyone,

    I used to be a YEC (young Earth creationist) in my youth, but came to embrace an old Earth model because of the data that I daily confront as a geologist. I do not, however, believe in evolution. I know for some this is an emotional issue. I would like to discuss this issue sans the emotion. I want to stick to reason.

    So, to any of of my YEC brothes and sisters here, would you care to discuss this issue? Please note that this discussion is not going to be creation vs. evolution. This is a YEC vs. OEC discussion.

  • #2
    In my opinion, God created an aged earth just as he created an aged man (Adam).

    This verse could apply

    1 CORINTHIANS 1:27-29 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.

    Is it not possible that God created a 14 billion year old universe just 10000 years ago?

    In Christ's love,
    Todd
    FORGIVEN!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by itsokimadocter View Post
      Is it not possible that God created a 14 billion year old universe just 10000 years ago?
      Occam's Razor, etc.
      "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by itsokimadocter
        In my opinion, God created an aged earth just as he created an aged man (Adam).
        So you believe that God has created the world to give the deceptive appearance of being very old? I have heard it all now.

        Is it not possible that God created a 14 billion year old universe just 10000 years ago?
        No, simply because 10,000 does not equal 14,000,000,000.

        So, itsokimadocter, do you believe in a young Earth for any scientific reasons?

        Comment


        • #5
          I believe in yec - it seems that there cannot be millions of years in between days of creation because of symbiosis. Everything had to be here with a short period of time for everything to work properly.--Im no scientist though.
          And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Old Earther View Post
            So you believe that God has created the world to give the deceptive appearance of being very old? I have heard it all now.
            It's a thought that originates within Judaism, actually. The reasoning is that, just as God created Adam and Eve with age, so too did God 'age' creation in such a way that it not only appears older, but is actually older than the time it took God to create. If we take the literalist view of Adam and apply the aforementioned reasoning, then it took God a very short time to create a man who was probably in his 30's (the same with Eve). Would I call that deception? No, I don't think I would.

            Comment


            • #7
              Jesus' first miracle was the turning water into wine. It was designated 'the best' wine. What is the best wine? Is it not aged wine? That is the common understanding of those who drink wine.
              By the logic of some, Jesus must have been deceptive in His miracle by making it appear to be old, or rather, taste old. They, of course, will say there is no proof that it was 'aged' wine. Nevertheless, is God not able to create a universe that is 'aged'?
              On the other hand, I think there is 'some' scriptural support for the possibility of a much older earth becoming destroyed at some point, and then 'refurbished' as it were.
              And then there is the whole question of when 'time' was created. God is not limited by 'time'. Time, if there is even such a thing, may not have existed until day one. Time is nothing more than the observation and the dividing and counting of the rotation of the earth. A 'day' elsewhere is an entirely different thing. A day on Mercury is much shorter, and on Pluto it is much longer.
              And the point of the 'time' thing is, the 'age' of the earth is a rather moot point if time as we know it exists only on this planet, or is determined solely by the rotation of this planet. Thus, how old IS the earth, really, and by who's reckoning? From the perspective of God, it is merely 6 days old, and 6thousand years, and probably 6 billion years. Really, the earth just 'is' since the 'instant' God created it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jeffweeder
                I believe in yec - it seems that there cannot be millions of years in between days of creation because of symbiosis. Everything had to be here with a short period of time for everything to work properly.--Im no scientist though.
                I can't decipher your argument. What do you mean by "everything"? Why exactly are you saying that the Earth could not have been around for millions of years?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by xel,nagga
                  The reasoning is that, just as God created Adam and Eve with age, so too did God 'age' creation in such a way that it not only appears older, but is actually older than the time it took God to create. If we take the literalist view of Adam and apply the aforementioned reasoning, then it took God a very short time to create a man who was probably in his 30's (the same with Eve). Would I call that deception? No, I don't think I would.
                  I would certainly call it deception, as it suggests that God has created a false history of events that never took place. Moreover, if the universe was created with a false history, it becomes difficult to claim that it took place at any particular time. It could even have been created last week. Even your memories could be false memories. Reductio ad absurdum.

                  It's a thought that originates within Judaism, actually.
                  Do you have any links on this?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kahtar
                    By the logic of some, Jesus must have been deceptive in His miracle by making it appear to be old, or rather, taste old. They, of course, will say there is no proof that it was 'aged' wine. Nevertheless, is God not able to create a universe that is 'aged'?
                    Assuming that the water to wine story was literal history and not allegory, don't you think that the repercussions from Christ turning water to wine would be insignificant with respect to God creating the appearance of a false history of the universe?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I can't decipher your argument. What do you mean by "everything"?
                      Well that may be a bit strong, but for plants ( day 3) to survive they need the sun(day 4) and you need creeping things and animals to add their bit for the well being of the forest--like digest and bury seeds , pollonate etc etc.

                      So if theres millions of years in between days then i cant see how it could of worked.
                      If they were 6 literal days, i dont see a problem.

                      Why exactly are you saying that the Earth could not have been around for millions of years?
                      What i said above and that man was present from the beginning of creation.
                      Reading the geneology from Adam we see that the beginning wasnt that long ago.

                      Couldnt God have made it clear that he took long ages to create the heaven and the earth?
                      Instead it is written , with evening and morning between each day and God saying at the end of each day that that particular system was good to go.
                      We then see these days as our own working week, further encouraging us to see them as literal.

                      Does God need any time period to do anything?
                      And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jeffweeder
                        So if theres millions of years in between days then i cant see how it could of worked.
                        If they were 6 literal days, i dont see a problem.
                        There is another option:
                        The creation narratives are not to be taken literally but rather metaphorically. If you take them literally, then you have to explain the contradictions between the first and second chapters of Genesis.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Old Earther View Post
                          Assuming that the water to wine story was literal history and not allegory
                          Ah, now there's an easy way to refute anything you want, just turn it into an allegory.
                          don't you think that the repercussions from Christ turning water to wine would be insignificant with respect to God creating the appearance of a false history of the universe?
                          Yeah, certainly it would be insignificant. Yet it's relative significance has no bearing whatever on God's ability to do it.

                          As far as geological evidence goes, much of what is purported to be sure evidence of an old earth can easily be refuted by a casual look at Mt. St. Helens.
                          Nevertheless, you are clearly firmly entrenched in your beliefs and nothing anyone will say on here will change that.
                          All that said, I am still not yet ready to throw out the 'possibility' of an old earth. So your arguments would probably be better directed toward those who are sure of a young earth.

                          Hmmm. No comment on the 'time' thing........................

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by khatar
                            Ah, now there's an easy way to refute anything you want, just turn it into an allegory.
                            Or perhaps some people have good reason for viewing it as allegory? But let's not get off-topic. Back to the age of the earth.


                            As far as geological evidence goes, much of what is purported to be sure evidence of an old earth can easily be refuted by a casual look at Mt. St. Helens.
                            Can you specify what you mean?

                            Nevertheless, you are clearly firmly entrenched in your beliefs and nothing anyone will say on here will change that.

                            Are you kidding? I have what, like 5 posts on this board? What makes you think you are justified in leveling that sweeping accusation at me? I started this thread in order to have an honest discussion regarding the age of the Earth.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by khatar
                              Hmmm. No comment on the 'time' thing........................
                              what did you want me to comment on? Sure, God transcends time, but how does that make this issue unimportant?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X