Featured Creation: 6 days or billions of years... or both?

Good post IJ. I like the canopy theory as well.

HankD

 

The problem as I see it is that we judge everything by our demission, that is, time, space and distance. If one thinks out of the box to peer into eternity with no time or space, it is not hard to reconcile the two positions. The one fact starts with God created everything, and He will end everything.

 

Thanks Me too...I think it's the most Scriptural (although I don't think the Scriptures DEMAND it)....but, I think we shall find at least with reference to a world-wide flood, that it has the most explanatory power than anything else on the market.

I think the Scriptures IMPLY it strongly, but I wouldn't be overly dogmatic. The studies in the Hebrew grammar I have been researching support the idea IMO.

 

I actually like your theory. I am sure the solution to the gap between science and the Bible is the product of our limited minds.

 

Perhaps you might find the following conversation interesting.

http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/canopy-theory

 

Come on DHK, you're better than this!
Your statement promotes a basic misunderstanding of the issue.
If you are going to be taken seriously by those that believe differently from you, you've got to understand the simple points of their argument.

The day of Creation doesn't require a single day-time period and a single night-time period.

Rob

 

It is a verified principle that a velocity increases, the rate of time passage decreases. It might be an interesting contemplation of physics to propose from scripture "God is light", from physics theory as velocity approaches the c value, time tends toward 0. Conclusion, God knows no "rate of time passage".

 

Thanks for the link...Haven't finished it yet, but it's interesting and informative so far!

"Answers in Genesis"....(no friend of Old-Earth-Creationism) has a good article which critiques "Canopy Theory" too.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp
I personally hold to it due to:
1.) Explanatory power and simplicity (and that's powerful)
2.) Grammatico-Historic reasons...

The Hebrew grammar...alongside the comparisons to proto-Hebraic and near-mid-eastern thought tended to simply ASSUME this kind of thing.

History, Paleography, and Archaeology must all be taken into account on these issues IMO....They all use a "Scientific Method" (of sorts anyway) and are thus not discounted.

I suppose if I were to run into "Scientific" difficulty with an explanation...but Paleographical, Archaeological, and Historical evidence all support that explanation. Then, I tend to give weight to the total evidence from the total of all three disciplines, and wait for a "hard" Science to catch up to it.

After all....you must admit that since 1870 (ish) the Earth has aged (according to "Scientists") at the rate of about 100,000 years per year..

I'm only 35....and I remember (somewhat dated) Science textbooks my brother had teaching that the Earth was 3.5 Billion years old.....He's 6 years older than I am...
Forgive me if I'm tentative about cannonizing a discipline which has added 1.1BILLION YEARS to the age of the Earth in only 2 decades or so....I'm not the mathematician that you are...but that's fishy.
I think other disciplines need to have their say as well.

I say this only in rejoinder B.T.W.....I DO appreciate your honest intent at arriving upon truth. I appreciate your open-mindedness and willingness to suggest some relatively un-popular concepts on B.B. I am only sharing this to add a certain perspective. :thumbs: I don't agree with an "Old-Age" Theory of any kind....but, there are worse crimes you could commit :thumbs: We can only grow from your willingness to expose us to these arguments.

God Bless.

 

This is quite true. Good catch DHK :wavey: There are classifications for the animal Kingdom in Genesis 1....and they are tri-fold if my exegesis is correct:
1.) "Beasts of the Earth"....which might include something like larger mammals and specifically those animals which would become carnivores post the curse. Lions, Wolves great Cats, etc....Ya' know....BEASTS.
2.) "Cattle"....generally domesticable animals which are predominantly herbivores....Sheep, cows, possibly goose etc..Ya'know....CATTLE.
3.) "The Creeping Thing".....My previous exegesis and teaching on Genesis has included rodents and the like, rabbits etc....but the point remains and it would decidedly include insects...Ya'know.."CREEPING THINGS".

Point being...God wasn't being unnecessarily verbose when he said:
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. .

God was giving us a clear LIST...of all THREE types (in his classification) of land animals that he had made...he wasn't being "poetic"...he was being insanely precise!
It's not IMO that Genesis is so VERY hard to understand....it's that people aren't READING IT!!!!

 

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

I appreciate your spirit, always remember, honest scientists always acknowledge that further investigation and discovery can always alter whatever current theory or estimate that exists about any scientific fact at any given time. That is the nature of learning and discovery. Certainly, there are things we are confident will remain constant.....noble gas laws etc. (BTW the increase of 1.1 billion years you mention over a 10 year span, equates approximately to about 3% adjustment per year, unfortunately it increases more rapidly than my salary. )


That is one of the attractions that mathematics holds for me, it changes less. Although new mathematics are being created, what we hold as established will remain so for the time being. Often, we discover mathematical and statistical principles at work, and yet remained stymied as to their physical explanation (quantum mechanics) Einstein himself, initially rejected this notion with his famous quote "God does not play dice". He later was convinced as to the accuracy of quantum calculations.

I think you KNOW this already. I have not been, nor will I be "dogmatic" where issues surrounding OE vs. YE are discussed. I have respect for anyone's view on the matter. The issue will be answered for us one day, but I suspect when that day comes it will have little consequence. For the time being, I will "absorb" criticisms of being heretical or any other such commentary. (although I do occasionally get my knickers do get twisted when it becomes overly "ugly".)

 

I appreciate your Spirit in these debates...and it certainly takes a big man to shoulder the brunt of the assault. But, wheras I would agree with you that God has indeed given us BOTH the Scriptures AND Natural Theology and Scientific knowledge in order to know him....(as you rightly point out).

My general feeling is that we should be cautious about placing them on the same par.
They are NOT on the same level...
Scripture trumps what we THINK we "know" from Science every time.

That doesn't mean that "real" Science must be "ignored"...it simply means that we are approaching it from the wrong angle. This pablum about the Bible not being "Scientific"...but rather "Theological" in it's approach doesn't have any discernible intelligent meaning.

It means PRECISELY what it says. And I am perfectly convinced that anything that we can KNOW (unequivocally) from Scientific discovery will ALWAYS agree with the Scriptures 100%

What that DOES NOT mean though...is that we INTERPRET Scripture in order to conform to what is "known" by some Scientists...
Frankly, IMO...."OLD AGE" Creationism is preposterous from an exegetical perspective...No one would think of it for a second from the text itself, but only in light of modern "Science".

There's NOTHNG (outside of "Special Pleading")...which would convince anyone that the Scriptures mean to suggest anything other than literal 24-hour days and precisely 6 days of creation...and that those were 6-10 thousand years ago.

I see nothing in Scripture which suggests that, not even remotely.
A man of faith IMO...must accept the Scriptural truth, and understand his Scientific evidence in light of it.

I hope that makes sense.

 

AAARRGGHHH!!! I can't let you get away with this man!!!!

Granted....it's only a 3% difference in one decade once one has swallowed numbers which reach to BILLIONS in the first place....
Heck...make it 1TRILLION years and your percentile will be less than that!...But, I'm not so easy as to buy that the percentage is critical for a control group of merely a decade here...Nothing doing. Sell those numbers as inconsequential to a Brilliant P.H.D. economist like Thomas Sowell or Walt Wittman and see what happens.

But you do realize that in the last 100 years....we've literally gone from 100 million to 4.6 BILLION.........


That's a LITTLE MORE than a 3% differential my man....
You're the mathematician...you figure it out.

Unless I'm mistaken....as late as 1850....the age of the Earth was calculated (According to "Principles of Geology" by Charles Lyell)...as 100,000!!!

You wanna do the math on 100,000 vs. 4.6 BILLION???
I believe the Earth's Age was calculated at something akin to 100 MILLION (that's not a BILLION) in the 1930's.....My specifics could be wrong, but my point remains.
Dude, you'll kill the objectivity of "Science" and sound incredibly like a U.S. Congressman assessing the Federal Budget if you do.

You do realize, that you must accept that we are to believe that the "Old Age" arguments are essentially based upon about 1.5 Centuries of the Earth "aging" at the rates of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!! according to the impeccable minds of so-called "Scientists"..

Frankly, dude, I'll put more stock into Joseph Smith than this...

This is why very REAL disciplines like "logic" and "Philosophy" exist...and cry "BU-- ---T"...when "Scientists" want to propose absolute absurdity....and they'll tell you....
"Try again", you are adding 100,000 years to the Earth's age every year you figure it. Become consistent, and we'll care a fig what you think.

I'm sorry, nothing doing: There are some legitimate Academic Disciplines on this planet that deserve respect, and NONE OF THEM can be so preposterous as aging the Earth by an extra 3.49999 BILLION years in only one century. They would be laughed off of the stage.

 

I think you are "over simplifying" and perhaps neglecting the accumulation of knowledge as well as the ever increasing impact of tools of technology, but if you wish to argue (disagree) with radiometric techniques and our greater understanding of such. You are certainly welcome to do so. I too am aware of the changes of age estimates....I am not laughing. (Nothing said here in arrogance or "attitude")

 

I'd agree with you that it were mere "over-simplification" if it weren't for the fact that the entire prevalent "WORLD-VIEW" weren't effected generation by generation throughout all of these apparently FALSE "scientific" explanations of the age of the Earth.


The reality is..."Science" doesn't exist in a vacuum of objectivity...the reason for that, is that there is now an assumed world-view which insists upon "Uniformitarianism" and rejects the classically understood accuracy and prevalence of a Biblical World-view.

Too many assumptions are made which contradict Scripture and ONLY a result which is contradictory to the Scriptures (only by virtue of it's being consistent with modern Scientific thought...not a "conspiracy" per-se)....is accepted as "Scientific"...
It's not that they "MEAN" to be subjective....it's simply that we now have 3+ generations of "Scientists" who perceive that "Scientifically-speaking" the Earth couldn't POSSIBLY be ONLY 6,000 yrs. old...

What they don't consider, is that...for the last 3 generations of "Scientists".... the Earth was only 100 million Years old (as far as they knew) So, what the heck percentage difference does THAT MAKE as far as comparing it to 6k and 4.6 BILLION!!!! Does the 3% moniker matter now?

Isaac Newton (who's chair Stephen Hawking now bastardizes) certainly didn't think so.
"Scientists" are simply (and almost provably) no experts in logic...and your friend and mine William Lane Craig demonstrates that Day in and day out....
But, they make sweeping generalizations consistently which are WAY beyond their purview and their expertise, and frankly, their level of education.
If this ONE ISSUE of the Earth's age has been consistently mis-understood as being PRESUMPTIVELY more than 6,000 years old...than is it any wonder that a modern Scientist will always interpret data within an assumption that it MUST adhere to a "BILLIONS" of years schema??

Data which would imply otherwise would be thrown out as mistaken by default. It certainly wouldn't make it into "National Geographic" I assure you.

Yet, legitimate P.H.D. Astronomers (like Jason Lisle) are on the extremes and ignored whereas U.C. Davis literally employs a "flat Earther" (P.H.D. Astro-Physicist) who argues for the Geo-centricity of the Solar System....but it's at least old according to him.

But I have no doubt that Jason Lisle's arguments will be dismissed because he would argue for an early age of the Earth despite his quite accredited defended P.H.D. in Astronomy (or Astro-physics I don't remember which)........................

He defends the "light slows down argument" which is probably true but, I also don't care a fig for since the Scriptures don't think that celestial bodies are the source of light to begin with.

 

Light is a creation like any other part of the universe.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Now, I know and agree that the Lord himself will be the light in the New Jerusalem, but that is not what is being said here, I believe this was creation of light, and light as a creation therefore falls under the curse.

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I have no problem believing light is slowing down, as I believe it is part of the creation under the curse. It actually makes sense.

Of course, that does not prove light is truly slowing down, but all observable measurements for 200 years show that it is.

 

Natural revelation of God thru His creation NOT same as in Special revealtion of jesus and the bible though!

based upon current and best factual information, there is just no way to get to that Billions and Billions of yeras Evolutionist adhere to as a religion, at best may be few houndred thousands of years, if that!

theistic christians and darwinism evolutionists see SAME facts as Creationists, its just they must process those afcts thru the Gridlock of their assumptions/expectations are facts!

 

You are wrong, the Earth can be only 6000 years old, and the Universe 14-15 years old if you understand it properly.

When we say the Earth is 6000 years old. we are speaking of "solar years" the time it takes the Earth to travel around the Sun. In solar years the Earth and universe is only about 6000 years old, just as the Bible says.

But there are "light years". This is time (actually distance), but it is based upon the speed of light. Right now if we look out to the edges of the universe, it appears to be about 14-15 billions years old. At today's speed of light, this is how long it would take light to travel from the most distant galaxies to Earth. And this is why science argues the universe is 14-15 billion years old.

But if the speed of light was much faster just a few thousand years ago, then that light could have reached Earth within the 6000 solar years.

It is the same with radioactive dating methods. When they date rocks or fossils using this method, they get very old dates, such as 70 million years ago for dinosaurs. Of course, these methods are prone to much error and they have dated live chicken eggs to be thousands of years old.

Nevertheless, these dates are true based on the present speed of light. But if light was much faster in the recent past, then radioactive decay would likewise also have been many millions or billions of times faster just 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

So, the fossil of a dinosaur that lived 5500 solar years ago could give a radiometric age of 75 million years. Both are true, but you must understand that light was much faster in the early universe.

You must understand, when science speaks of the universe being 14-15 billion years old, they are speaking from the perspective of "light years", not solar years. The reason there is confusion is because science assumes that light speed is a constant, when that may not be so.

 

I am much more concerned though with not how old/young one views creation, but if one hold to God using evolution in the process of life or not!

 

When we reject God's clear account we have to replace it with something and this man has done just that. It was 6 literal days.