Young earth vs. ancient earth- where do you stand?

[Guest]

I found the final statement from that site particularly interesting.

Quote:

In his testimony before the supreme court, Nobel Laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann said, and I must agree with him on this point, it would be easier to prove that the earth is flat than to prove that the universe is only a few thousand years old.

What do you find interesting about the statement, darin?

I find the statement ludicrous, if not asinine.

The earth has been already proved to be spherical in many different ways. There have been thousands, if not millions of flights around the earth.

Not only has the universe not been proved to be older than ten thousand years, but there is no evidence for the view that it is --- only particular interpretations of observed phenomena.

[Guest]

What do you find interesting about the statement, darin?

I find the statement ludicrous, if not asinine.

The earth has been already proved to be spherical in many different ways. There have been thousands, if not millions of flights around the earth.

Not only has the universe not been proved to be older than ten thousand years, but there is no evidence for the view that it is --- only particular interpretations of observed phenomena.

What's the difference between ludicrous and asinine? (just kidding)

Seriously, you sort of make the point -- geologists would say that the age of the earth is just as obvious to them based on their observations as you would say the spherical earth is proven -- both are interpretations of observed phenomena -- one is obvious to you, the other is not -- I would posit that the only difference between the two from your perspective may be your relative ignorance of the particular geological observations compared with your ability to extrapolate a spherical earth from the observed phenomena of orbital flights (no disrespect meant by the term ignorance). To the geologist, the age of the earth is more obvious than the spherical earth is to you.

To point to just a single lay example -- how long do you think the Grand Canyon would take to erode based on present rates? Do you think there was supernatural phenoma that would have caused it to erode at faster rates in the past? Do you think the many consistent and predictable (yet very different) layers of sedimentary formations were all caused by a global flood? Most YEC "scientists" have NOOOO problem admitting the perceived age of the earth from the geologic record -- they simply respond by saying that God must have created the geologic record in that way giving only an "appearance" of age (as they also say with respect to starlight being formed in transit, so to speak). There are many problems (some theological) with that response, but my only point in bringing it up is to suggest that serious YEC's do acknowledge that the earth appears to be millions of years old -- they just refuse to believe it is so. They have scientific arguments against a good many well-established "earth age" evidences, but no serious ones as to the geologic record that I'm aware of (aside from the fossil record disputes that OECs would share in response to evolutionary theories).

[Guest]

Not only has the universe not been proved to be older than ten thousand years, but there is no evidence for the view that it is --- only particular interpretations of observed phenomena.

This is kind of where I'm coming from. Everyone has the same "evidence" it's just that the two camps interpret the data according to their presuppositions.

If Gen. 1, Ex. 20:8-11, and 31:-12-17 cannot be shown to be compatable with an interpretation that allows for billions of years, then how can we believe both the Old Earth view and the bible? This is the presuppostion that the YEC crowd interprets the evidence with. That's why I am (as of now) a YEC.

I am aware that some of the brothers here think that there are "reasonable" alternative interpretations of these texts. I would like to discuss these alternatives. So far, we havn't gotten very far. Only assertions that the earth obviously looks really old (which YEC's don't deny), the idea that the YEC view is a "stumbling block" to unbelievers, and the usual Ps. 90/ 2Pet. 3:8 comparrison, which I think has been shown to be lacking. (I am yet to read the links to other sites provided by Seth, so I am not speaking of those).

Folks on here have said that the age of the earth is obvious, so as long as there is a reasonble interpretation of scripture that can be harmonized with the OEC view they'll take it.

I take exactly the opposite stance. I think the bible is clear on this point, (as of now), so as long as there is a reasonable interpretation of the age of the earth being young, then I'll take that.

Personally, I really don't think that either interpretation of the age of the earth is unreasonable. I have heard great points, (most of which, to be honest, I am not qualified to judge), from both camps. But I do think that one better fits scripture. That's why I am more inclined to talk about the relevant scriptures rather than the scientific data. However, if that's not where the conversation needs to go, then that's ok.

God bless,

[Guest]

Darin wrote:

To point to just a single lay example -- how long do you think the Grand Canyon would take to erode based on present rates? Do you think there was supernatural phenoma that would have caused it to erode at faster rates in the past? Do you think the many consistent and predictable (yet very different) layers of sedimentary formations were all caused by a global flood? Most YEC "scientists" have NOOOO problem admitting the perceived age of the earth from the geologic record -- they simply respond by saying that God must have created the geologic record in that way giving only an "appearance" of age (as they also say with respect to starlight being formed in transit, so to speak). There are many problems (some theological) with that response, but my only point in bringing it up is to suggest that serious YEC's do acknowledge that the earth appears to be millions of years old -- they just refuse to believe it is so. They have scientific arguments against a good many well-established "earth age" evidences, but no serious ones as to the geologic record that I'm aware of (aside from the fossil record disputes that OECs would share in response to evolutionary theories).

The Grand Canyon is not evidence for an old earth! Please read this article I found. Like most old earth arguments the Grand Canyon argument has large holes in it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp

AIG offers allot of information that refutes the old earth proponents.

Robin

[Guest]

If Gen. 1, Ex. 20:8-11, and 31:-12-17 cannot be shown to be compatable with an interpretation that allows for billions of years, then how can we believe both the Old Earth view and the bible?

My thing is, why should it be shown to be compatible? I don't see anything in those texts that necessitates any particular interpretation of the age of the earth. Yes, the Exodus account appeals to the Six Days, but really it just appeals back to the Creation account of Six Days. It says nothing at all about what those Six Days actually intended to convey.

The seven-day week was based on the Six Days plus the Day Seven Rest. So what? Why does this mean I have to believe anything in particular about the age of the earth?

I think my tone might be a bit off...apologies if I seem to be getting hot under the collar. Not trying to be snippy.

[Guest]

To point to just a single lay example -- how long do you think the Grand Canyon would take to erode based on present rates?

It may be an incorrect appoach to try to extrapolate the age of the Grand Canyon from present erosion rates. The Grand Canyon may have formed rather suddenly.

The major Mt. Ste. Helen's eruption took place in a few hours. Yet the aftermath was such, that future scientists, if they were unfamiliar with the history of the phenomenon, might think that the resulting geological formations required millions of years to unfold.

[Guest]

My thing is, why should it be shown to be compatible?

Because our view of reality should comport with what God has revealed about it in His word. Perhaps you're being rhetorical here.

I don't see anything in those texts that necessitates any particular interpretation of the age of the earth.

The Exodus passages explicitly state that God made the earth in six days.

Exo 20:9-11 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He compares the creation week to the normal human week directly in this context and in 31:-12-17. When we go to the portions of these passages that say God created the world in six days, the only interpretation that makes sense is six normal days.

I have shown in the previous posts why I think this and have given scritpure to support my position, so no need to post them all again. They are there, and I welcome any criticism as to why my interpretation is in error.

Of course this interpretation doesn't necessitate a view age of the earth in and of its self, but it does necessitate a view that He made a mature creation in six days. The young earth position just follows naturally from there.

Yes, the Exodus account appeals to the Six Days, but really it just appeals back to the Creation account of Six Days. It says nothing at all about what those Six Days actually intended to convey.

First of all, I agree that He appeals to the creation account, which cannot be shown to be billions of years either. That's kind of my point.

I do think that the creation narrative is meant to convey much more than a description of how God created the earth. It is very much a type of salvation. But that doesn't negate what it says. It doesn't give us the right to read billions of years into what the author obviously meant (six days).

Every person that holds to the old earth view on here just seems to say they "don't see why it has to be interpreted that way" and "so what" and "YEC is a stumbling block to unbelievers" etc... But frankly, just asserting that isn't going to get the conversation anywhere. Why is the YEC interpretation wrong and the Old Earth interpretation correct? I am asking for biblical reasons here, which have been not been forthcoming for some reason from the OEC brothers on here.

I think my tone might be a bit off...apologies if I seem to be getting hot under the collar. Not trying to be snippy.

No need to apologize bro. We are brothers in the Lord Jesus and what you or any of the other brothers here think about the age of the earth has nothing to do with that! I believe that the YEC postion is the more biblical one, (for the time being), but it is not an emotional issue for me. I, too apologize if I have seemed rude or mean spirited in my posts. If it seems that way, it's not how I feel, but perhaps just how my posts are coming off.

God bless!!

[Guest]

derek--

how about the events that take place in Genesis 2? doesnt it seem unreasonable to suggest that the events noted in Gen 2 took place in the last few hours of creation day 6? it sure seems that some time (at least more than a few hours, or even 24 hrs) passes between adam's creation and the ultimate creation of Eve-- doesn't it? he had to be created; he had to be involved in tending the garden, he had to name the animals, he had to realize he was lonely and needed a helper, God had to agree, he had to undergo rib removal surgery, and eve had to be created. that's a rather busy day.

i guess the point is that if day 6 took longer than 24 hrs, then why not the other "days" as well?

TK

[Guest]

√-23

Tipping my hat to Albert Einstein, since time is relative to the observer the universe was created in 72 hours, as revealed in scripture, and in 10 billion years, as observed by science.

Wayne

[Guest]

Hey TK,

derek--

how about the events that take place in Genesis 2? doesnt it seem unreasonable to suggest that the events noted in Gen 2 took place in the last few hours of creation day 6? it sure seems that some time (at least more than a few hours, or even 24 hrs) passes between adam's creation and the ultimate creation of Eve-- doesn't it?

No. It doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Why do you limit the activity in Gen. 2 to the "last few hours of Creation day 6"?

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
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.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

All of this could have been done in a moment. At that had to happen was "And God said" (even that didn't really have to happen).

...he (Adam) had to be created;

This could have taken less than one second couldn't it? I don't see why not. 23 hours and 59 minutes left.

...he (Adam) had to be involved in tending the garden

Why is this? The text doesn't say this. It says:

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

The text only says that it was God's purpose, in placing Adam in the garden, to dress it and to keep it. There is no mention of him beginning this duty on day 6.

...he (Adam) had to realize he was lonely and needed a helper, God had to agree

The text does not say that Adam became lonely. It says:

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

There is no mention of Adam becoming lonely and God responding to his loneliness. Even if it did, I don't see how loneliness, (or the process of coming to the realization of loneliness), would be a time consuming activity. I could go to work all day long and be lonely at the same time. God doesn't "agree" here with anything Adam said or felt, because there is no mention of Adam being lonely, let alone having a conversation with God about the matter.

...he (Adam) had to undergo rib removal surgery, and eve had to be created...

How long do you suppose this took? Surely we aren't going to compare such an event to a modern day surgery. I also think that right along with the miracle of making another human out of Adam's rib, God could heal him right up so he could get on with business.

...he (Adam) had to name the animals...

Ok, here's the only potential problem as I see it. But rather than rehash what has already been debated, I will just quote Steve G., since he sumarizes, (much more articulatly than I could hope to) what is pretty much my position.

<b>Steve Gregg:</b> Taken from the Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:53 am post HERE

"On the matter of Adam naming the animals, however, I do have some thoughts. First, if Adam's task was a broad one, like the biblical example of calling all flying creatures (including bats!) by the term "bird" (e.g., Lev.11:13-19), this would save a great deal of time. Everything in the sea with fins might similarly be included under a single term, like "fish," which might include marine mammals as well (this way, the creature that swallowed Jonah might be rightly called, either "a great fish" or a "whale."

There is no reason to believe that Adam gave specific names to all the various species individually. "Kinds" in scripture may be categories nowhere near as narrow as what we call "species."

If we take Genesis 2:19-20 to mean that God brought "every beast of the field and every bird of the air" to Adam to be named, there is no reason to assume that this naming was much more detailed than the broad labels which we find in v.20: "cattle," "birds of the air," "beasts of the field,"...that covers millions of species with only three labels! If I were to say "vertebrates, invertebrates and microbes" I have with those three words mentioned every creature known to man.

There is no perceptible importance in the specific names that Adam gave the animals, whether general or specific, for the simple reason that no one today can say even what language Adam spoke, and animals have different names in different languages. We can be reasonably certain that the English word "giraffe," or the Dutch word "wildebeest," never passed Adam's lips.

So what is the significance of Adam naming the animals? It is, I think, just the same as the significance of God giving new names to people like Abraham, Jacob or Simon Peter. It is a demonstration of authority. As parents have the authority to name their children, so has God the authority over man, and man has that authority over the animals. It is this fact, and not the specific names that Adam gave to any particular animals, that I think is important here. "

<b>TK:</b>
i guess the point is that if day 6 took longer than 24 hrs, then why not the other "days" as well?

I don't think that these points have shown that day 6 took any longer than the other days.

God bless,