Does Creation Support EITHER old/young dating?

Could you post some links to this observed data? Because in my readings the variable speed of light was a theory meant to provide a way to explain Inflation. Inflation is a theory that is proposed to solve the Horizon Problem.

 

That is correct, in that, this is precisely how science is NOT to be done. True and real science begins only with hypotheses and then draws conclusions based upon observable and quantifiable data.

 

Setterfield studied both physics and geology at Adelaide U. for three years but left school because of serious health problems. He lectured for the Astronomical Society of South Austrailia for six years. He and Trevor Norman of Flinders were invited by a physicist at Stanford Research Institute to write a paper published by Flinders U. in 1987.

Setterfield is hardly the layman you make him out to be.

In contrast, Bill Gates only attended college one year, I guess that makes him a dummy in your opinion. I suppose he doesn't know anything about computers does he?

Lots of folks that go to college can't think their way out of a wet paper bag. Having degrees does not prove how intelligent you are.

 

I think it intellectually curious that such periods would be invented in spite of a complete paucity of evidence to support them.

 

The only "scientists" who affirm otherwise are the pseudo-scientists who affirm Old Earth, secular "science,." There are no consistent affirmations of evidence pointing to a creation that appears to be billions of years old.

 

Which is the same exact thing that evolutionary cosmologists do. They eliminate out of hand any conclusion which does not affirm a billions of year old universe.

Considering that the Theory of Relativity has been called into question by main line scientists in recent weeks (due to particles being accelerated past the speed of light in experiments), I am surprised that you Old Earther folks are still so doubtful of God's Word. Both the Starlight/Distance problem and radiometric dating techniques are dependent upon the theory of relativity being accurate.

 

Quantum, I am not surprised by the others, but I am surprised by you. How can you judge someone you do not know? Go to Setterfield's site and do some reading. The first thing you will realize is that he is no layman. Secondly, you will see it is his goal to go where the facts take him, not to prove a presupposition. E-mail him and ask questions, he will answer, I know because I have written him before.

I don't know for a fact he is correct, I am not in his league, but I do know him to be a sincere and serious scholar and scientist.

 

I knew it would not be too long before such vitriol was dispensed. And the "jury is still out" on the relativity thing. In fact, I think it would be quite exciting for some new vistas and ideas to be generated to stimulate new theories and science to confirm or deny. I am also not so certain, given the speed of the neutrinos is confirmed, that all of physics from Einstein will necessarily be made null and void. But you feel free to dispense your displeasure with anyone who fails to measure up to your standards and views.

 

Not "my standards and views." God's standards and views.

If we can't trust, "In six days He made the heaven and earth and all that is in them," then there is no reason to trust, "By grace are you saved through faith." Maybe "faith" in that verse actually means "works." Maybe when it says that Jesus paid "once for all," that it is actually talking about a perpetual sacrifice in the Eucharist.

Words have meaning. Doubt God, if you wish, or proclaim that the scriptures are not God's Word; but to say that you believe in the scriptures, and then to reinterpret the words to mean whatever you wish, is preposterous at best, and downright disingenuous at worst.

 

Winman,

I was supporting the idea that "real science" is done in a very prescribed manner. You are correct, I do not know Mr. Setterfield, I have read some of his idea and also several refutations of his hypothesis. As I see it, and currently understand it, I don't think his hypothesis "stands up". I have stated before, as did "in the light" that a slowing speed of light could likewise support a much older creation event, that is, unless my comprehension is incorrect.

 

Nobody is doubting God's words in the Bible here. Nobody is saying the Genesis account is anything less than an authentic representation of events.

What we are saying, well at I am saying, is that there is room in the text for an Old Earth interpretation given the observable text and the observable data. The creation exists with the appearance of being very, very old. It isn't against the text, or external evidence, to suggest such.

 

The Text says six days. Heavens. Earth. All that is in them. Six days. Six days from the beginning of everything, to Adam. If you doubt that, you doubt what the Bible says. If you doubt what it says when it says "Six days," then you might as well doubt what it says when it says "Faith alone."

Words have meaning.

 

Quantum, I suppose I am hoping Setterfield is correct, because I always wondered how light from galaxies millions and even billions of light years could arrive here in 6000 years. I can believe God simply made it so, but this does not completely satisfy me. God is HOLY, he does not mislead. So, why would he make the universe appear old? So, I have been hoping for a scientific answer. Nevertheless, God can give the appearance of age, Adam and Eve looked like adults the first day they were created.

The reason I believe in a literal six day creation and young earth is simple, because God said so. If the universe were billions of years old, why wouldn't God simply say that? If he said the universe was old, I would believe it. But the scriptures showing the geneology of Adam show the universe young, and so that is what I believe.

I do believe that eventually we will find an answer that agrees with scripture, because God's word is TRUTH.

 

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.

If God created the earth with the appearance of millions of years of age who are we to argue with Him?

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I do "love and respect" you brother. We just have different perspectives on the young/old debate. It is after all, despite the claims of some, a "non-essential" point of agreement for both of us to love, honor and cherish our maker.

 

There is no appearance of age. It appears to be very young.

However, if it appears young to you...

Why do you trust your eyes instead of the Word of God?

 

I don't have to work on this but the quantum (no offense or pun) mechanics in order to "speed up" the speed of light and then slow it down isn't very possible unless you posit that God did something extremely strange and uncharacteristic.

I've got this person in my ministry area who so desperately wants a spouse that they are excited and overjoyed with every date they go on or opportunity for a relationship. As a result they've taken in several bad relationships in order to try to find something that satisfies their need. I wonder how often we, as evangelicals, latch on to whatever theory or quasi-scientific explanation that sounds credible because it gives us hope to "prove" our faith. Maybe if we have better standards we'll find the proper one that is God's way.

Who are we to accuse God of being misleading?

Where does God say the earth is _________ years old? In Scripture? Show me. The six days are one thing, but they never answer the issue of actual age.

 

I know the Bible says that "all the days that Adam lived were 930 years". I also know that God said "in the day that you eat of it [the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil] you shall surely die." I'm going to assume that Adam knew that "to die" was the opposite of "to live" and that eating the fruit would be a new paradigm, a game changer. So an argument can be made that the counting of "all the days that Adam lived" began on the day of the Fall.

How long were Adam and Eve in the garden before the Fall? A day, a week, a year, 5,000 years?

 

Right. Uncharacteristic. Like causing water to stand straight up, changing the molecular structure of a wooden staff, or bringing people back to life....

Right. God's Word.

Exactly. Which is why, regardless what are fallible minds and eyes tell us, we should just trust what He actually SAID. How dare we say God lied, when He spoke so clearly! "Six Days" is pretty clear.

There were six days from the beginning of His creating (first molecules), until Adam was made. Adam lived just over 900 years. We have a genealogy, with total number of years, going all the way to Jesus. Unless you believe Jesus' crucifixion was millions of years ago...

 

I have to agree. Some folks can't get past the first page of the Bible without being struck by unbelief. They can't get past the first chapter. Some folks can't get past the first verse, they have to stick a GAP between verses 1 and 2.

This calls into question what you believe about God. God didn't need six days to create the universe, he didn't need six hours, or six minutes, or six seconds, or six milliseconds. He is GOD, he could speak the universe into existence instantly.

If you can't get past that first page, how are you going to believe the rest?

And if you can't believe, then you are in serious trouble.

Not saying this to be mean, but folks should give this some serious thought.