Age of the earth

What is the definition of "day" in Genesis 1?

I believe that it means 24 literal hour days. We heard Ken Hamm this morning and he touched on this point. The six days of creation is a model for us to go by. Six days of work and one day of rest. Exodus 20:11 talks about God creating the world in six days (24 hour period) and the Sabbath was the day of rest.

For the ones who say that it took BILLIONS or MILLIONS of years. How do you define day? (Period of time) If so, then we ought to work for a period of time (6 million years) and then take 1 day of rest (1 million years).

Sorry, but I cannot by the earth being millions or billions of years old.

Forget about everything scientific evidence that you have learned and just study to see what God says.

 

Go right ahead Rev, I know YOU have all the answers.

 

Really, this is the very same argument I would level at those who "ridicule" any mention of scientific measures of the age of earth etc.

 

I have 4 children. Not a single one of them understood the meaning of the word hot, until they exeperienced it for themselves. Until then, they were just taking my word for it.

Got scripture? Cause my Bible says the life of an animal is in its blood:

Gen 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (ESV)

 

What "scientific" measures would those be? You mean there is a tested, verified method of dating millions and even billions of years? Who was it that was able to live for billions of years, to collect the necessary scientific data?

 

Which is exactly what Adam and Eve did.

Gen 7:15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.

 

Sounds like a contradiction.

I thought the Bible didn't contain any.

Anyhow, what God breathed into man was either different than what He gave the animals or else animals would contain a soul. Nor is the death of an animal akin to the death of a man. (Well, unless you are a member of PETA and I don't think God is) I see no evidence to suggest that animal life was treated in like manner to human life and personally believe that the "death" that is thrown into the lake of fire refers only to the death experienced by humans, that is death of the soul. Remember, Adam was made special by God's own two hands and not spoken into existance as were the animals.

Just because the animals didn't eat each other doesn't mean they die. Just that they didn't die violently. I think we read too much into some of these passages.

 

God's "very good" creation, did not include animal death. The Bible says "death" is thrown into the lake of fire. The Bible says that animals "die". What you think is irrelevant.

 

Allan, I'm with you, too. Count me as a young earther.

 

If you are meaning - simply alive via breathing (and by extension blood) - you are correct. If not then you might do well to study this one out a bit more. This breath of life meantioned is not noted as being specifically the same as that which God breathed into Adam. In point of fact man is the only one that God takes the time to elaborate that He personally breathed it into man. This phrase simply refers to 'being alive via breathing' which yes, in one sense that which Adam partakes of. However the majority of Hebrew writings and views (as well as NT Christians) do not equate this as being one and the same with that 'breath of life' given unto Adam. - Except in the sense of living.

 

Here is a "non-exhaustive list of several methods used for geologic dating purposes.

Radiometric Dating Techniques

Uranium-Lead
Samarium-Neo-dymium
Potassium-Argon
Rubidium-Strontium
Uranium-Thorium
RadioCarbon
Fission track
Chlorine 36

Here is the fundamental equation for exponential growth/decay

D = D0 + N(eλt − 1)

If you like, a little later this semester, I will invite you to the lecture on solving exponential growth/decay applications. You are invited to be my guest. I will happy to explain, the mathematical fundamentals of the science behind it.

As per your argument of "observation", keep in mind, that argument also applies to your "postion", as you were not there either. You are relying on YOUR interpretation of the scriptural record as well.

 

"Two errors, to exclude reason, and to exclude all but reason." (Blaise Pascal)

 

Your assertion is that all items that undergo fossilization must therefore be the same age. That's simply false. Fossilization is a process, and you don't find these mammal remains fossilized to the same level and age of dinosaurs. If they coexted, you'd see them fossilized to the same extent. But that's not what you see. You find dinosaur fossils being much older than mammal remains.

Then you have a problem, because you do find them in the same locale, but find them generally separated by many geological layers. Plus, you can easily find human remains (not fossils) of civilizations that are 20,000 years old, as well as other animals that are in the 10-15k year old area that are not fossilized. Yet you typically don't fined fossilized remains of these same animals. OTOH, dinosaur remains are always fossilized. If it's a case of "well sometimes fossilizations occurs, and sometimes it doesn't", then you'd find bones, not fossils, of dinosaurs. You don't.

 

:laugh: Common resort of folk who have run out of room to debate. :laugh:

Thank you, this was what I was trying to say.

 

These are not scientifically proven methodology. As you know (as apparently you are some kind of science professor), there are great discrepancies an nearly all samples taken, when a wide range of techniques are applied. In fact each of these tests are said to be useful, only within a given "range." Multiple geologists have commented on the circular reasoning inherent within this approach ("I think it is this age, so I will use this test...).

Secondly, as I am sure you are aware, these tests are based on Old Earth assumptions...not observed data. There are at least three assumption that these tests take for granted...


#1 That the original ratio of parent isotope to product (daughter) is 100/0, or at least, that we are capable of determining the original ratio. This is problematic at best, as even though secular scientists say that this is possible, it assumes that we have "all knowledge" as to how to additional daughter product could be introduced. These kinds of assumption are not scientific. Science is repeatable and verifiable.

#2 That the rate of decay has remained constant. There is good scientific evidence to state this is NOT the case, and accelerated decay rates have been shown to be at least theoretically possible under the right conditions (Please refer to the R.A.T.E. project, a research project recently done by the Scientists at ICR. I believe they have made the technical data available to others in the field, upon request.) This, again, however, is another assumption, even if no way could be conceived by our minds for accelerated decay.

#3 That we have an accurate assessment of the original conditions of the sample.

All of these are assumptions, which make said tests very much unscientific.

Nope. You see, although I do have quite a few science credits, that is not really my field. Theology and Biblical studies ARE my field. And I know that in the Hebrew language, "evening and morning" (a Hebrew idiom meaning "day"), combined with the word "yom" forms a parrallelism: an emphasis by God, that these were normal, ordinary days. The language simply does not allow for anything else.

I also know, that the structure of Genesis 1 and 2, is what is called historical narrative. It is written in the same "kind" of structure, that, say the account of David and Bathseba are written in. So to discount it as some kind of allegory, makes useless two thirds of the Bible.

But this is an untenable position. For 2 Peter 1, says that the Old Testament scriptures, as they had them (which is for all practical purposes, identical to what we have today), were breathed out by God Himself. This is the same Peter, whose follower wrote one of the gospels. If we cannot trust Peter on what he says of the Old Testament, we cannot trust him on anything.

You see, I RECOGNIZE both of our systems are based on belief. However, I give the "tip of the hat" to God and His word, why you are giving it to secular scientific theories...

 

No, you do not. There are many, MANY fully fossilized mammals. Some even secular scientists admit, are in the 60-70 million year range (according to their flawed dating methods).

That is not a problem at all. Just because the lower levels were laid down by the flood, does not mean subsequent catastrophes did not bury and fossilize human remains on top of them! It just means they would never be found in the SAME layers...which is exactly what we find.

20,000 years old by whose belief system?

As has already been stated, soft dinosaur tissue has already been found. Fossilized human remains have also been found. None of these items prove anything.

There are many, MANY fully fossilized mammals. You find them all the time. A fully fossilized mastodon was uncovered, not 10 minutes from where I live.

No, you would not. Not if all of the dinosaurs were killed in the flood. You would NEVER find bones.

 

Let's make this easy. Show me some dinosaur bones (not fossils).

That's not what you said. You said we would not find them in the same locale.

Now I see some circular reasoning: A civilization cannot be more than 6000 years old. Therefore, if a 7,000 year old civilization is found, then it must not be 7,000 years old, because a civilization cannot be more than 6000 years old.

That has already been addressed. Again, show me donosaur bones, not fossils.

I'd like to see that. Can you provide a link or more info? Not for the purpose of argument, I just happen to find mastadons interesting creatures.

So, it's your contention that anything killed before the flood is fully fossilized? I'd like to see scientific support for that.

 

Do those measure perceived chronological age or actual age? Do you deny God created Adam on day 1 as a grown man?

As someone who has been involved in fitness my whole life, there is "age" differences between someone like myself and someone who has spent their lives sedentary, even though we both may have been born on the same date. Actual age would vary.

 

A civilization cannot be 7000 years old if we have an immutable truth source saying it is only 6000 years old. The genealogies listed in the Bible are well detailed, and while there may be time gaps unaccounted for, we are talking about 4 figures, not 6, 7 or 8.

 

Already posted some stuff about soft tissue, my friend. However, you are asking me to show you something, that the Bible says should not be there: since the dinosaurs were killed in the flood, nearly 100 percent of what is out their would be fossils, not bones. The chance of us actually finding a dino bone would be outrageously infinitesimal: so I do not NEED to show you a dino bone.

I did not. I clearly said "with" as in "next to," or "in the same layer".

First, I did not say anything about 7,000 years old. I clearly indicated, in an earlier post, that the genealogies of the Bible, along with Genesis 1, indicate an age which is less than 20,000 years or so.

Second, it is not circular reasoning. It is "God said He made the earth in this amount of time, approximately this long ago, so that is when he made it."

I do not need to. The Biblical record (young earth/catastrophic flood) says there will not be any, or at least, so few that we would never actually find any. To find one, would go AGAINST what I am saying.

Here is an article about the mastodon found near my home. Notice it says the Mastodon was dated by logs that were found nearby (since you cannot date the fossil...)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040211074545.htm

Here, you can actually buy pieces of fully fossilized mastodons and mammoths if you are of interest. There are also carved statues, if you like them enough, LOL...


http://www.tellmewhereonearth.com/Web Pages/Fossils/Fossils_Page_2.htm

That is simple biology, my friend. Bones don't last 6-10 thousand years. They decay, just like the soft tissues, only slower. Typically, human bones, even when buried, decay in less than 50 years. In extremely dry environments, they might last 3-5 thousand, if prepared properly. But bones in extremely damp conditions, such as after the flood, would either have to be fossilized, or they would decay in a VERY short period of time.