1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Old Earth vs. Young Earth

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by ChurchBoy, Apr 20, 2003.

  1. ChurchBoy

    ChurchBoy New Member

    Apr 18, 2003
    Let the Debate begin! [​IMG]

    I'd like to know WHY you hold to a particular view of the age of the Earth. I am very curious to hear the responses!
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Active Member

    Aug 27, 2002
    The God view -

    A literal 7 day creation of all forms of life on earth is the only one that fits Gen 1-3 AND the Exodus 20:8-11 SUMMARY that God gives AND the "appeal to the DETAILS" that we find in the Gospels and NT author's writings.

    ONCE you have a "short creation" span of 7 literal days. The remaining "time" is miniscule by evolutionary standards between then and now.

    6000 years (rather than 60,000 years or 4 billion) is the "Scale" that scripture sets.


    Nothing in science would allow the "SEQUENCE" that we see in Genesis 1 as a LONG ages SEQUENCE.

    In fact science would argue that the LONGER the sequence the WORSE the science. (for example: Millions of years between day 3 and day 4 would be scientifically absurd).

    So whether it is the sedimentation rates of river deltas - or the build up of nickle from meteor impacts or the accumulation of micro meteor dust on the moon or a number of other young-earth geochronometers - SCIENCE argues for a young earth.

    In the case of old-earth geochronometers such as some of the radiometric clocks - the problem is the "starting conditions" have to be "assumed" rather than "proven". And of course - atheism makes the "assumption" of no radioactive daughter products and a non-useful parent product - because they don't "need" a living-planet to start with.

    Creationists "need a living planet" as a starting point. So ALL the elements have to be in play at the right mixture FROM the START. Adam can't be a 1 day old helpless infant that starves to death in the first 10 days of life - for example.

    In christ,

  3. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Aug 29, 2001
    Churchboy, I would respectfully suggest that you go back to some of the earliest threads here on the creation-evolution forum and see what some of the arguments are regarding both sides. This is not a new subject, you know... [​IMG]

    UTEOTW New Member

    May 8, 2002
    Really? You aren't making any assumptions about past processes you were not around to personally observe are you? ;)

    I'll first just quote myself from an earlier thread here.

    The moon dust argument is based on an old measurement made by a guy named Hans Petterson. His value for the rate of dust accumulation is about two orders of magnitude higher (a difference of 100 fold) than most other measurements made with a variety of techniques. In fact, Answers in Genesis lists this as one of the lines of reasoning that should not be used any more. To quote

    To continue, even by the mid 1960's, the scientists were only expecting a layer of dust from a few centimeters up to a meter thick. In 1972 Dohnanyi estimated, based on satellite data as far as I can tell, that in 4.5 billion years 1.5 inches of dust would accumulate.

    Also, what assumptions about the rate of dust accumulation in the past and compaction rates and age and other assumptions are you making?

    First, are you dating the age of the earth or the age of the river delta? Second, only the part of the sediment not carried away by marine currents, if any is left, can be used to form a delta. Third, what assumptions are you making to use river deltas to determine age?

    In addition, this argument is often seen using the Mississippi River delta. Now, I found a paper dealing with oil and gas wells drilled into the Mississippi River delta sediments and down to at least 15000 ft (three miles) they were still hitting sediments. So, where did this much sediment come from? Now remember that it takes time for the sediments to compact from the loose state in which they are deposited and that the uncompacted sediments would be much thicker.

    I have never heard of this before but it sounds like the accumulation of materials in the oceans argument. In that case, from the simple model used to give the ages, the age of the earth varies from 100 years to billions of years depending on which metal or mineral you use. Oops! Most metals and minerals dissolved in the ocean are at or near equilibrium and therefore influx rates tell you nothing. Plus, there you go making assumptions about how things operated in the past again. If you had something else in mind please detail the argument for me.
  5. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Oct 30, 2001
    Well, its pretty much demonstrated that the continents split, and continents only move about one or two inches per year on the average, so the atlantic ocean couldn't have formed in a mere 6000 years . . . .
  6. Peter101

    Peter101 New Member

    Mar 2, 2003
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;In the case of old-earth geochronometers such as some of the radiometric clocks - the problem is the "starting conditions" have to be "assumed" rather than "proven". And of course - atheism makes the "assumption" of no radioactive daughter products and a non-useful parent product - because they don't "need" a living-planet to start with.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    BobRyan, your statements above are not correct. First you equate atheism with an ancient earth, when in fact many christians accept an ancient earth also. Secondly, you are mistaken when you say that for radioactive dating methods, there is an assumption of no radioactive daughter products. Secondly the starting conditions do not always have to be assumed. There are dozens of different radiometric dating methods, and unless you have carefully studied them all, with the education necessary to understand them, you ought not to make erroneous statements such as you have made. Each method has to be discussed separately, because they all differ. You have not even attempted to do that. You should stick to your own specialized field and not comment on radiometric methods, because you obviously know little about them.