How old is the earth?

I submit #2 is false. All of the stuff of matter was created at the creation event, the fiat (ex nihlio) (big bang) originated at that moment, including the stuff that make up you and I....and Adam and Eve.

I submit, #4 is only known to be half true. God did Create it, but you have no idea regarding his feeling regarding man's attempt to understand God's creation.

#5 Correct, it does not make a difference as far as salvation is concerned. I would further state, ones theological position Cal- Non-Cal also has no bearing on salvation.

 

And please tell me, what has brought you to be snippy with me? Or is it simply you do not like what "I bring to the table".

 

Some people have common sense, and some people want to put everything in a test tube. You do not have a clue as to whether the matter that we are made of today was present at the moment of creation or not. You are all over the map on number 4, as if the Lord wanted you to understand more than is in the Bible, no doubt He would have sent you a divine message in a neutrino. He told us what He wanted to know. I have no idea what Calvinism or free-will has to do with any of this, but that is the one statement you said that was correct, it has no effect on salvation. By the way, are you a fan of Calvin's or something?

 

Why do you bring things to the table that you do not know, and neither does anyone else?

 

Like this?

He is quite amused at his created beings explaining how He did it.

[Sorry, but it was right there, ripe for the picking.]

 

Yep, you got me. He may not be amused on second thought.

 

Granted, and I just take God at His word, without trying to make it conform to a science that is "scientifically(?)" convinced that it is/was not simply as He stated it.

YE, OE, Evolution - all are based on faith! The only difference is the basis of that faith!!!:sleep:

 

Then what is the problem? If God created the 24 hour day, then we have a 24 hour day. Suggesting (as you did earlier and again below) that God created a 24-hour day but is not limited to the same day He references in the Creation account is akin to saying that God intentionally lied to His people because they could not understand the concept of long periods of time. That does not seem a tenable hypothesis to me, nor is it in accord with the balance of Scripture. Of course, that hypothesis is required to accept the naturalist/atheist view of the age of the earth. Seems like shaky ground upon which to stand.

The stuff you say probably sounds good from Carl Sagan's point of view, but it fails to recognize the source material for the Christian faith that you profess to be a part of...

You have to deal with THIS:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then, you have to deal with this (concerning your hypothesis that God is timeless):

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Rev 6:10-11 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

There are, of course, many other references to God and time, and many of those are in the context of eternity, so you cannot so easily pin them off to anthropomorphisms.

Okay, sure. Because I'm really stupid and still think the earth is flat... :BangHead:

For you, not for me. I believe that God did as He said. You are the one arguing that He did something other than what He said. I included the "if" to give you the rope to hang yourself and you willingly took it up and used it.

Getting snarky, are we?

Do you readily know of one that does not? I even gave my statement a bit of wiggle room... But it really isn't necessary, save for the fact that we may not know "every" culture on earth and their view toward a 7-day week. Of those we do know, they held to the week like all other people... Weird, huh.

 

Yeah, you'd think it was related to the phases of the moon, or the female menstrual cycle.

 

I suggest it is the latter.

 

Yes, I simply do not understand why so many seem to get their knickers in a knot discussing "possiblities" on "how" the creation event transpired, given that all agree that it was an act of our God.

 

If its is any encouragement for you, one of the things that several colleagues and I have noticed is that in these kinds of discussions we see people act strangely towards those who are closer to to them in certain aspects than those who are very far away.

For instance, there are plenty of examples of fellow Bible-believing Christians ranting and raving about someone holding an old earth position or a less than "literal 6 day" creation view. They will run them into the ground and even question their fidelity to the faith. Then someone comes in who doesn't believe in God or holds to an agnostic theistic creation scheme...they simply are passed over with no harsh rebuttal.

So it seems that for some reason too many hold those who are allies as enemies while considering their enemies just blips on the radar. Its an odd thing.

 

I know this discussion isn't mine, and I'll not step between you guys, but here is the way I think about the two different domains -- science and Scripture.

First, science is valid. It is a valid means to discover much about the general revelation -- our cosmos, our earth, and the innermost workings of cells, atoms, etc. The scientific method is derived from a Christian worldview (though now largely disavowed by the materialistic/atheist faction that seems to be the holder of all things scientific) whereby an orderly God might give cause to investigation in order to discern His orderliness at a deeper level than what is easily visible to the eye (my paraphrase of other definitions both more succinct or more expressive). The idea of observation, hypothesis, testing, refining the hypothesis, then -- if possible -- framing an actual theory or even a law to deal with the concepts investigated is a great means to both qualify and quantify the world around us. The scientific method has given us great gains in virtually every aspect of life and has, in a sense, removed some of what was once only considered mystery.

Science, however, cannot answer every question, nor can it validate every hypothesis, for some things just cannot be tested in such a way as to validate a hypothesis via the scientific method. The tough cases involving historical issues, cosmological issues, and other issues where no direct observation and testing come into play are those areas where the underlying philosophy of science comes into play, for these are all philosophical issues requiring a philosophical answer (or hypothesis) instead of one based in hard, repeatable experiment. One HUGE question that the scientific method cannot answer or verify is, "What scientific experiment is it that details the fact that only scientific experiment can give us solid answers to some of life's most difficult questions?" Said more simply, "What experiment proves that science is the only way of knowing?" For some things we need something other than science, though the exploration of these difficult topics can still be seen as rightly falling under the banner of science itself.

Creation is just one of the many of these difficult issues. We have, on the one hand, the specific revelation of God. He said it precisely the way He wished for us to know the story. He caused His Word to be preserved and handed down through the ages so that all people could read and learn of both He and of His Creation (plus His plans to redeem said Creation). Because Creation is a one-time historical event, it cannot be replicated via lab experiment, though many have tried. In truth, we cannot know for sure all the parameters involved in Creation, whether viewing it through scriptural or scientific eyes. So, what is done is extrapolation. We view what we can see right now, then extrapolate that data back in time, making educated speculations that lead to hypotheses concerning the advent of the cosmos, of earth, of man, etc. Some would say that these are theories, but I believe that most of what we know of the advent of any of the big areas of life or universe that holds life is yet (at best) in the hypothesis stage, for it cannot be tested nor repeated to confirm that even a theory is in fact reality.

Because we have one view of Creation expressed in the true Word of God (and to be a Christian means that one must necessarily consider God's Word true! -- anything else is to be other than Christian) and one view of Creation that is based in scientific extrapolation and educated speculation. Is it any wonder then that there are two sides (X number of sides!) in this debate?

When we find physical evidence that contradicts Scripture -- the true specific revelation of God -- we must then discern several issues: Have we mis-interpreted the true Word of God? Have we misinterpreted the evidence of Science? Have we allowed our worldview to dictate to us something that is not in fact "truth" on the level required to say that we "know" or that this "is"? So far, the burden of proof is not on the Scriptures, but on Science which in many senses seeks to overturn the Scriptures that long pre-dated any scientific inquiry as to the nature of Creation. But that is not what we find in the 21st century. Instead we find Science pressing God -- requiring God's people to bend the Scriptures to Science. Yet, Science is constantly in flux, always changing, and not yet settled to the point where it can definitively say, "this we know as true" (if they could, it would be a law and not a theory or a hypothesis). The Bible, on the other hand does just that. this is "true" because the "True One" said it.

This... Is what causes some to have their knickers in a knot...

To speak further on this issue, let me say that there is at times a false dichotomy presented by those leaning toward the science end of the spectrum. Because the biblicists (conservative Christian who holds the Word of God to be Truth, whether or not we can argue that truth in scientific terms) holds God's Word above the dictates of Science, he or she is often assumed by the ones knowledgeable in the scientific realm to be sub-par in their understanding, and paraphrasing the sentiment often implied or outright shared, "If they only would understand what we understand, they would change their minds..." What is false about this dichotomy is that we may indeed know and understand, but still reject Science as the end all and be all of knowledge, realizing that God is more sure and more true than philosophy or experimentationaly-derived hypothesis. In other, more simple terms (again), "We chose God over science, but not out of ignorance."

I would include myself in that category. This is a partial view of my current stack of books on the issue of creation/evolution.

 

"With respect to the origin of the world, there is one point that is of the substane of the faith, viz. to know that it began by creation, on which all the authoufs in question are in agreement. But the mann and and the order according to which creation took place concerns the faith only incidentally, in so far as it had been recorded in Scripture, and of these thigs the aforementioned authors, safeguarding the truth, by their various interpretaions, have reported different things" (Thomas Aquinas)

"Usually even a non-christian knows something about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ingnorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn....If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untild trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren....to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture....although they understand neither what they say nor the things about wich they make assertion." (St. Augustine On the literal meaning of Genesis)

 

Quantum, both of those quotes are nice, but irrelevant, and I doubt that either could be seen in overall context as preferring a secular view of our world as is promulgated by modern science. In fact, they may both have been inclined to burn someone like (now deceased) Carl Sagan at the stake... :smilewinkgrin:

 

If the earth is only six thousand years old. Then why did God create it to appear much older than it is? Geology is such an interesting subject. I'm not a geologist but I work with geology every day. I understand how long it takes for certain crystals to form. I understand how long it takes for stalactites to form. I understand how long it takes for crude oil to form. Believe me it’s a lot longer than six thousand years. You can throw out carbon 14 and just look at the geology of the planet and see it’s a lot older.
MB

 

Perhaps you missed my subtle point. Particularly with regard to Augustine, which I know you hold in high regard (as do I). He is pointing out, I believe, that it is our responsiblity to make ourselves aware of things (modern science) and its theories, so as to both defend our faith and even sometimes refine our own positions.

It is not "lost on me" that you rather enjoy snipping at me ( usually ever so gently). Is this simply because we hold differing theological positions?

 

Actually (and first, for relationships in the Lord ought to trump all else) I respect and admire you. You are a brother in the Lord and I take that seriously! Generally, you are most civil in your approach to the various (testy) discussions we have on the board. You make good points, that in some cases do not agree with me, but that's the nature of the game. So, please don't read into my posts any secretive snippyness. Just not there. I do get a bit peeved when those in favor of a science first position fail to recognize (as I posted above) that some of us who take a God and God's Word first position are equally qualified to discuss the topics at hand, but that is it.

Second, I agree with both you and Augustine that we can and ought take measure of our cosmos. As the "general revelation" our world and the universe around it is equally valid source for study as is God's specific revelation, the Bible. But I have problems when a study of general revelation sets aside what is clearly written in specific revelation. That is my stance, and I'll not move from it, so help me God.

i have probably read more and debated more on this particular topic than most on this board. I have taken pains to read the original source material from the ones making the secular and scientific proposals. In addition to the picture above, from the library at my home, I've at least doubled that amount of reading specifically on the subject of origins, and from virtually every different perspective on earth. We can swim as deeply as you like in this area and I'll relish the conversation. For instance, let's bring in Tipplers physics and figure out why he things that it is mathematically possible for the universe to have a beginning, an ending, and for there to be a Messiah and a Resurrection. Or, let's delve into the anthropic principles, strong and weak, with all they entail. Or you might be more comfortable in discussing why it is that virtually every ancient culture on earth has a flood narrative that matches the biblical narrative in almost every point -- shared memory? -- perhaps. Should we look at the multi-verse scenario, or will we dig into how light is an antinomy like the Scriptures -- both particle and wave, depending on what one measures? Lots of good stuff to discuss for sure.

But...

I will take a stand on God and God's Word above all that I know scientifically or philosophically. God is my King, my Lord, and my Savior. Science, no matter how well informed, is not...

 

Thank You, I stand corrected and apologize for jumping to assumptions on my part

 

Stalacites and stalagmites can be formed in a matter of a few years and have formed inside buildings.



Oil can be made by man in hours with vegetation, heat, and pressure. Much of the oil on earth can be explained by Noah's flood where vast forests were buried. Under heat and pressure this vegetation was converted to oil and coal quickly.

As for radiometric dating, it is very unreliable, known newly formed rock has been dated at over 3 million years. There are many examples like this.

There is also evidence that the speed of light has slowed significantly in the last several thousand years and was at one time billions (yes, billions) of times faster in the recent past. This explains how light from far away galaxies could appear on earth almost instantaneously. This evidence was first documented by Barry Setterfield, a Christian physicist, but has been corroberated by many secular scientists since. This would explain how radiometric dating can give very old ages even if the earth is only a few thousand years old.

There is actually much scientific evidence for a very young earth.