Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters

[anochria]

It's been a while since I've been on the forums. In regard to NevadaDad's questions- IsaacJ pointed out some of the missing names in some of the geneologies though we obviously have different conclusions about what that means. Matthew for some reason (probably liked multiples of seven) really wanted to have a nice even 14 names between Adam and David, David and the exile, and the exile and Jesus (Matt. 1:17) though we know there were actually more father-son relationships in the line than that.

I am told that "the father of" in biblical genologies (Hebrew and Greek presumably) can simply mean "the ancestor of". Matthew himself makes it obvious that he does use it this way in Matthew 1:1 where he says: A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham. Such a short and sweet geneology does of course include super wide gaps, the kind which isaacj seems to think the bible doesn't allow for.

I'm not going to pretend that it's obvious from the geneologies that there must be thousands of years missing- it's not obvious. One has to go to science for that. Only then does the evidence that bilbical geneologies aren't strict chronologies become a clue that we might be attempting to use them to determine something they were never intended to do (determine the precise time of creation, etc..)

Also, and this is a whole other can of worms, I'm not convinced that the long life spans of Genesis have anything to do with actual amounts of years lived by individuals, but maybe that's better for another thread.

[NevadaDad]

I simply cannot reconcile even a non-literal reading of the Genesis account of creation with evolutionary and big bang theories.

First, if one assumes the "days" of Genesis chapter 1 are actually epochs, one has to ask what "morning" and "evening" symbolize. One then must ask why the God of creation would be so careful to record the sequence of the appearance of created things (earth, light, dry land, plants, sun, moon, stars, birds, fish, mammals, creeping things, man - in that exact order) yet in an order that would seem to defy reason? How could plants exist for a "day" before the sun appeared if actually much longer than a normal 24 hour span? Doesn't the Big Bang posit that stars came first? Doesn't evolutionary theory require the appearance of "creeping things" before birds? If the order really wasn't meant to be taken literally, why bother to take such seemingly painstaking detail to segment it into distinct "days" replete with numbering? Wouldn't a metaphorical description avoid emphasizing a sequence that was clearly wrong and at least preserve the basic order of appearance - if indeed the order posited by evolutionary theory is correct?

Finally, we have the not-so-small matter of sin, death, and the relationship between the two. Evolutionary theory requires death as a necessary precursor to the proliferation of species, culminating in the appearance of homo sapiens after millions of years of random mutation and natural selection (i.e., survival of the fittest and therefore death). The bible is very clear that man preceded death, not vice-versa. The bible is very clear that man produced sin, not sin produced man. To accept evolution is to undermine a very basic tenet of the Christian faith; namely, the origin of sin and death.

[steve7150]

How could plants exist for a "day" before the sun appeared if actually much longer than a normal 24 hour span? Doesn't the Big Bang posit that stars came first? Doesn't evolutionary theory require the appearance of "creeping things" before birds? If the order really wasn't meant to be taken literally, why bother to take such seemingly painstaking detail to segment it into distinct "days" replete with numbering? Wouldn't a metaphorical description avoid emphasizing a sequence that was clearly wrong and at least preserve the basic order of appearance - if indeed the order posited by evolutionary theory is correct?


I read that the heavens and earth were created in the beginning & heavens includes the sun and moon. On the 4th day, my take is that the greater light from the sun was seen and the leeser light from the moon was seen as well as the light from the stars.

[Paidion]

On the 4th day, my take is that the greater light from the sun was seen and the leeser light from the moon was seen as well as the light from the stars.

Would you come to that conclusion naturally, if you read the following account and simply accepted what it seems to say?

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:14-18

[steve7150]

Would you come to that conclusion naturally, if you read the following account and simply accepted what it seems to say?

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:14-18




Paidion,
It says the lights were created but to separate the day from night , which suggests that it's referring to a perspective of looking at the lights from the earth, since day and night only have meaning from an earth vantage point. So i really do think it's not speaking of the sun and moon being created on the 4th day, but of their light being seen from earth.

[NevadaDad]

Steve 7150 wrote:
On the 4th day, my take is that the greater light from the sun was seen and the leeser light from the moon was seen as well as the light from the stars.

So if the sun and moon were not created on day 4 (and instead much earlier according to day/age and big bang interpretation), why would it take until day 4 for this light to reach the earth's vantage point? Light takes about 1.3 sec to travel the 238,000 miles from moon to earth, and about 8.3 minutes to travel the 93 million miles from sun to earth.

Where in scripture is the Hebrew word for "day" when accompanied by numbering and the additional clarification of morning/evening as if to be even more explicit ever used to mean vast geologic ages necessary to satisfy millions or billions of years of evolution? If creeping things came after animals in the Genesis account, how do you reconcile this with the supposed appearance of invertebrates millions of years before mammals as required by evolutionary mechanisms?

You have shared elsewhere that this is your "take" on the creation account, and that death in the animal kingdom preceded the fall of man, but where is your scriptural support and biblical evidence for such an interpretation? The linkage between sin and death in the realm given to man to rule (I.e., earth) is exceedingly clear in scripture. Nowhere is there any hint that death preceded man's sin in the scriptures. This strikes me as little more than an attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution and long geologic ages with a rather clear and simple account of 6 literal days, 6 literal mornings and evenings, and a very detailed chronological order in which things were created (not just perceived from earth).

Please provide scriptural support - opinions abound and I can speculate as well as the next person, but I have yet to hear any cogent, scripturally based response that simply lets the passage speak for itself without superimposing a lens of macro-evolution and long geologic ages.

[TK]

NevadaDad:

You seem "panicked" that if the earth is billions vs 15,000 years old it necessarily lends support to macro-evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe this universe is very ancient (although I won't be terribly upset if I learn I am wrong someday) but I certainly don't believe in macro-evolution. Neither does Hugh Ross- a main old earth creationist. Steve7150 can certainly answer for himself but if you haven't read Hugh Ross's books that address this subject you should. He does answer your questions- although probably not to your liking.

To me, the evidence is overwhelming that the earth/universe is old. I know that YE creationists have their explanations why they are right and it is only 15,000 or so years old and how all the scientific evidence to the contrary is wrong, but personally I just don't buy it.

That being said, if the universe is truly just a young little thing, it really wouldn't bother me at all.

TK

[steve7150]

So if the sun and moon were not created on day 4 (and instead much earlier according to day/age and big bang interpretation), why would it take until day 4 for this light to reach the earth's vantage point? Light takes about 1.3 sec to travel the 238,000 miles from moon to earth, and about 8.3 minutes to travel the 93 million miles from sun to earth.

Where in scripture is the Hebrew word for "day" when accompanied by numbering and the additional clarification of morning/evening as if to be even more explicit ever used to mean vast geologic ages necessary to satisfy millions or billions of years of evolution? If creeping things came after animals in the Genesis account, how do you reconcile this with the supposed appearance of invertebrates millions of years before mammals as required by evolutionary mechanisms?

You have shared elsewhere that this is your "take" on the creation account, and that death in the animal kingdom preceded the fall of man, but where is your scriptural support and biblical evidence for such an interpretation? The linkage between sin and death in the realm given to man to rule (I.e., earth) is exceedingly clear in scripture. Nowhere is there any hint that death preceded man's sin in the scriptures. This strikes me as little more than an attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution and long geologic ages with a rather clear and simple account of 6 literal days, 6 literal mornings and evenings, and a very detailed chronological order in which things were created (not just perceived from earth).



I did provide scriptural support "In the begining God created the heavens and earth." There is no reason that this would not include what is mentioned on the 4th day , the sun, moon and stars. So i think that the light was seen on the 4th day so that day could be differentiated from night. That's scriptural support and yes Nevada it is "my take" because that's what i take from it. Your take which you claim is exceedingly clear is very different and that's fine with me. "Yom" is used differently already in Gen 2 as it already is not used for 24 hours and in Psalm 90 by Moses where again it does not mean 24 hours. "Evening and morning" is an unusual way to describe a 24 hour day , normally we say "day and night" so my take is this expression sounds like a day/age period with morning being the birthing of life. As far as "old age earth" being a vehilcle for evolution, all i can say is there are woefully few transitional fossils so i'm not buying macro-evolution but i'm not going to rule out an old earth interpretation just to rule out evolution. Also i already answered the death issue as only man may have eternal life so the sin/death connection is meant for man only, that's my take.
Lastly on the 4th day the light may have been seen for the first time because a canopy of ice crystals may have covered the earth's atmosphere.

[NevadaDad]

You seem "panicked" that if the earth is billions vs 15,000 years old it necessarily lends support to macro-evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe this universe is very ancient (although I won't be terribly upset if I learn I am wrong someday) but I certainly don't believe in macro-evolution.

TK,

No panic on this end and I am not assuming that billions of years = macro-evolution, although I see no reason scripturally or scientifically why there must necessarily be anything longer than 6000-10000 literal years to account for all observed evidence including starlight traversing vast distances. I was responding primarily to Steve7150 who earlier explained in this thread that his take on Genesis Ch 1 was that death of animals and plants preceded Adam by many "day-ages" and that Adam's sin resulted in only spiritual/physical death for mankind - not the rest of creation which was already experiencing death prior to Adam.

At the risk of being overly blunt, I am not terribly interested in his take, but I will take that up directly with him on another thread. His reasoning was very weak at best and I would like to know why he feels compelled to gravitate to such an opinion if not for macro-evolutionary harmonization. There is certainly nothing in scripture of which I am aware that would demand such an interpretation. The topic concerns me because the origin and nature of death is very fundamental to Christianity. The age of the earth is of lesser importance, but still worth discussion.

I appreciate the reference to Hugh Ross's book and may read it as time permits. I have been exposed to various facets of the debate ranging from theistic evolution to atheistic evolution to OEC to YEC for more than 35 years, beginning in junior high school. Nor am I a stranger to critical scientific examination, as my degree was obtained in the so-called "hard" sciences of physics, chemistry, and engineering. None of that makes me an expert, but it does make me recognize that science is often far more consensus-based, peer-influenced, and politicized than many would like to admit. I remain profoundly skeptical of the initial condition, rate-of-change, and boundary condition assumptions that permeate dating methods used to estimate the age of the earth and the universe. I am not convinced that anything in Genesis needs to be interpreted metaphorically to agree with the fossil record, dating methods, etc. The big bang is not settled science.

[TK]

I have read a lot about the arguments for a young earth on Ken Ham's site and others. I understand the arguments, and they may very well be right.

But if the pyramids are 5000 years old, and the earth is only 10,000 years old, it just seems impossible. i guess i mean that things like the moon and grand canyon and alpha centauri and all those nebulas and neutron stars etc etc seem more than 5000 years older than the pyramids. it takes eons for a star to burn itself into a neutron star-- unless God created ready made neutron stars and I supposed he could have if He wanted to. I wish he would have told us so because if that is what He did it is confusing everybody- most particularly me.

TK