Featured How Old is the Earth? Really??

Just what are this person's credentials? Is he unbiased?

Just who are these unbiased people [I assume!!:laugh:] who are concerned about the welfare of creationists.

 

I agree, that is not exactly what I was saying. I am saying the scientific community objected to the Big Bang theory because it so closely resembled the scriptural account that God stretched out the heavens.

It should be called the Big Stretch. :thumbs:

Most evolutionists do not actually deal with or try to explain the original creation, they simply argue that evolutionary processes took over afterwards. I absolutely disagree with evolution.

 

S/N take a deep breath, hold it, now exhale slowly. Feel better!:laugh:

 

Reply to OP

I have not read any of the follow-on posts, so if this is redundant, sorry.

The Bible is clear, God created everything that was made. However, in Job 38, we have God teaching that man does not know "how" God created everything. So the Biblical answer to the question of "how old is the Earth" is "the Bible does not say."

Based on appearances, the Earth appears very old, older than 10,000 or even 100,000 years. However, if we look at the generations listed and even assign more than 25 years per generation, we still end up with the time between Adam and today of less than 7000 years.

I have never seen a compelling argument against the young earth theory of God creating a history of apparent great age, but I cannot imagine why God would choose to create supernova whose light took more than 100,000 years to reach us. I am aware of all the enabling inventions (light exceeding the Einstein max and so forth.

So I have settled, for now, with an open mind, with "the Bible does not say."

On the other hand, I am aware of a flaw in the radio-dating method. It assumes when the earth was formed, the earth got so hot all the mineral molecules were broken apart, resetting so to speak, all the radio-clocks held in mineral formations. If they all were not reset, then some of the dates for rocks could be dates of the material in the nebula that formed our solar system. If a supernova exploded 5 or 6 billion years ago and the ejecta formed our pre-solar system nebula, then the dates tell us how old the material of the nebula is, not how old the earth is. Just saying.

 

Exodus 20:11 (KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The Genesis account of creation, coupled with the genealogies listed, reveal that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old.

Now, Genesis records that the stars were created the fourth day. There goes the stars created hundreds of thousands of years ago theory... they are three days younger than the Earth.

Who cares that some scientist says the stars are more than 100,000 light years away from us? I sure don't. God created all those stars only three days after creating the Earth and two days before creating man.

Scientists can claim things came into existence billions of years ago all they want. God is not a liar and He tells us He created all less than 7000 years ago.

I'll believe God on this one.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

OR, not completely accurate. Those who agree with the big bang and are complete naturalist's...Yes. There are multitudes of believers and theists who agree with the cosmology of the big bang and acknowledge it as the creative ex nihlio event of YHWH. In fact, the hard core naturalists, have attempted to find and create cosmological models which do not require the input of a Creator, but one can accept the Big Bang and be a committed believer in God.

 

The big bang theory can not be worked into scripture in any fashion of the imagination. Creation was not one event in one instance. Scripture clearly shows it took 6 days of events with each being separated by the prior day. The earth and stars were not created on the same day. To hold to a big bang for creation there would have to be 6 bangs, not one.

Now I do believe in a big bang as it is spoken of in scripture, but it has not happened yet. We see it in 2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

That is one big bang we all should believe in and it is future, not past.

 

I really do not understand how you get the "necessity" of 6 bangs. But, brother, we will just have to agree to disagree. I personally, have no quibble with the idea and "theory" of the Big Bang as the singular "ex nihlio" creation event of God speaking the universe into existence. I do disagree with any scientific comrades who seek to deny the authorship of that creation.

 

I get 6 because there was 6 days of creation, not one. The sun was not around on the first day nor the stars and moon and planets. If a person holds to a big bang and the bible then they need 6 bangs, not one. There is no need for an explosion in creation when scripture says He spoke things into existence not exploded them into existence. He did not blow nothing up and make everything. He simply spoke over 6 days and different things took place and appeared. He is going to destroy them with a bang not create them with a bang.

The truth is the only explosion in the bible by God is in 2 Peter. Any other is a myth.

 

Well, we will just see it differently. We can see the "how" differently and still both worship our Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer, even if the Only thing we agree on is that HE did it. I realize, here in BB land, I am in the minority, but that is fine. One day, I will have all my questions answered by HIM who did it all.

 

Jesus made wine at the wedding at Cana.

Wine normally takes at least 1 year of growing season for the grapes, culturing, harvesting, squeezing and preparation and transportation yet Jesus made it in an instant.

So He made wine which appeared to be much older that it actually was.

What about Adam and then Eve, was Adam created as a baby.

Eve was she created a full grown woman from Adam's rib.

They were created as mature human beings probably looking as if they were 20-30 years old.

How about the feeding of the 5000? Jesus created full grown fish with which to feed the people

HankD

 

Interesting recent story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technol...ain-so-old-neanderthals-could-have-done-them/

 

Yes accurate!

The Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo.

***********************************************************

Definition of EX NIHILO
: from or out of nothing <creation ex nihilo>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ex nihilo

***********************************************************
Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
{Emphasis Mine.}

http://big-bang-theory.com/

 

Old earth, young earth-- we have a curious concept of what time might be. There is a completely different conclusion from the paradigm of old and the paradigm of young.

We have a scientific(?) dating system which has man going back millions of years of evolution. Yet he went from caveman to the moon in only a few thousand years. His written record only goes back a few thousand years.

Most of this has to do with the premise one uses on one's world view, including theistic evolution. There is another interesting view coming from the "science" world. Some have rejected evolution and have embraced "intelligent design"----------------without a personal God. This is not new--A. Einstein had such a philosophy--many modern cosmologists follow Al. This all seems to be out of the pit of Theism, Deism, Humanism and other isms provided by the god of this world--the author of confusion. Many of our founding fathers were Theists and Deists--this does not mean they were Christian--that is they had a personal relationship with Jesus as saviour. There are accounts of those who would preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified were imprisioned, beaten and fined--for preaching the Gospel. I have just opened another thread. Sorry.

Back to time: do the math--1,000 years is to God as one day is to Man. Using that relationship: if one lives 100 years, that is 2.4 hours of God's time. (God is not bounded by time.) Corollaries: It has not yet been 2 days since Jesus walked this planet. It is not quite six days since the Creation of Genesis 1:1. The seventh day, the rest, aka: Millenium is not far away--no date setting please. Sure seems like a young earth to me. Our time frame ought to be the second, the heart beat of humans. We are only one second from eternity. Count it in pico-seconds if you like. It is immenent and urgent and pervasive. People are checking out of this world every second--many unexpectedly.

Where will we be in 100 years?

Even so, come Lord Jesus,

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Hasn't the "Big bang" theory been discredited by evolutionary scientists themselves now though?

Hasn't light itself been accelerated/slowed down, some even calimed stopped in lab settings?

That would migigate against light as a constact velocity rate throughout universe.. Good By red Shift!

isn't the string theory of Stephen hawkins taking hold, as to Eternal universe?

if so, why say that, IF they hold to NO way there could be eternal god, yet postualate can be etrnal universe, something from nothing?

 

We know, from scripture, that the world was around before Adam and Eve. The angels fell from God's favour before Adam and Eve.

The truth is, we know as much as God wants us to know. There were so many questions about the earth, that fundamentalist created the gap theory. Some use the word "evolution" in place of progressive growth and development, hence "Theistic evolution" for some.

In early baptist historywe were taught about the three sons of Noah, who would populate the known world. The Hamites spread into Africa and Asia and were the coloured aspect of creation. This includes the early Southern Baptist theologians. Hence we had the rules of segregation. The church in South Africa believed this until recent years, when that country finally opened up to integration.

The most important fact to keep in mind is "In the beginning God..." What theories we develop in our minds on other matters really are not important. It does not change our theology. We are just trying to understand the history of the universe and the course of man.

In 67 years, I have maintained the gospel and the fact that the Bible IS the word of God. There are some gray areas that really don't affect the gospel. For example, the flood. Was it universal or local. Local makes sense to me and the Reed Sea rather than the Red Sea where the Israelites crossed. It doesn't affect the gospel or the fact that the bible IS the word of God. Some tend to make mountains out of moehills to no end.

Cheers,

Jim

 

OR, I very respectfully disagree. You are referencing the "naturalist's" perspective of the Big Bang event, not the theists.

 

Think that the main problem with 'Theistic evolution" is that it has been adopted by some NOT due the scientic evidence for it, but do to wanting to "keep peace' between science/faith!

NO WAY can it expalim mankind, as we are"different" to any other animal on earth, as we have that soul grantd us by God, being in his image, something NO other creature on earth has!

And evolution cannot account/accept that truth!