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

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:24 am

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.
(1) Description of the phenomenon
Sedimentary rocks are produced when materials dissolved or suspended in a transport medium (usually water) settle out and form a layer of precipitate. Any moisture in the sediments escapes (desiccation). During or after desiccation chemical reactions among the particles of sediment cement them into rock (lithification). The longer the period of sedimentation, the thicker a layer of rock will be and the longer the required period of lithification. Sedimentary rock formation can be observed today, and it produces rocks just like the ones we see layered in places like the Grand Canyon.

(2) Why this phenomenon indicates an ancient earth
The average thickness of sediments on the North American continent is about a mile, though in the Appalachian Mountains it is five miles. These rocks display anywhere from scores to thousands of discrete layers. For multiple such layers to form, a period of sedimentation must occur, then the transport medium (wind or water) must be removed, then lithification must take place, then another layer of sediment must be laid on top of the first. Lithification is a chemical process which proceeds at a relatively slow rate, with no known method of making it go faster. From observed rates of sedimentation and lithification it is calculated that, even allowing for periodic catastrophes, it must have taken millions of years to form the sedimentary rocks on the North American continent. For example, the Redwall Limestone found in the American Southwest is 700 feet thick; the known rate of lithification of limestone would require 1.6 million years for that layer alone, after deposition was finished. Furthermore, the Redwall formation had several thousand feet of sedimentary rock laid on top of it after it hardened. There are canyons such as the Grand Canyon cut through these sedimentary rocks. So the layers of rocks must have formed first, and then wind and water cut the canyons. The Grand Canyon is a mile deep. Even assuming numerous catastrophes, it must have taken hundreds of thousands of years for the Grand Canyon to be cut after the sedimentary rock had formed.

(3) Could the great deluge explain this phenomenon?
One flood cannot produce multiple discrete layers of sedimentary rocks. Without lithification, a new layer just mixes with the one already there (some sediments display signs of this mixing, showing that the layer in place did not harden before the next layer was laid). How can the great deluge, in the span of about one year, have deposited a layer of sediment, retreated while the sediment hardened, returned to deposit another layer of sediment atop the first, retreated again while that layer hardened, and so through many layers of rock, and then poured retreating floodwaters through the resulting rock to cut a canyon a mile deep? If the sedimentary rocks and the canyons cut through them did not result from the natural forces that we see forming them today, then they are a sheer miracle performed by God.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Seth
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Hillsboro, OR

Post by _Seth » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:25 pm

Wayne wrote: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.
Thanks for bringing this up, Wayne. It's one of Schroeder's main points in his book. I have no problem thinking that, from God's perspective, Creation took six literal days. And that's the model that's argued from Exodus and other places. It just has no particular bearing on how long Creation took from the earthbound time frame.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:37 pm

Thanks for bringing this up, Wayne. It's one of Schroeder's main points in his book. I have no problem thinking that, from God's perspective, Creation took six literal days. And that's the model that's argued from Exodus and other places. It just has no particular bearing on how long Creation took from the earthbound time frame.
That's fine, if that what the bible teaches. But, how can this be shown (exegetically) to be what Moses meant in Genesis?

When compared with the rest of scripture, it is obvious that he meant normal days. Only by eisogesis, is it possible to see it any way else.

Can someone from the Old Earth brothers on here support their position with scripture?

God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

_Truthseeker
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:24 pm

Post by _Truthseeker » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:22 pm

Put me in at a solid 9 I think.
Genesis 1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 2- Now the earth had become waste and wild, and darkness was on the face of the roaring deep, but the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters.
The above is from the Rotherham's Emphasized. It is not a new thought to me though. I believe the earth was refurbished so to speak after a cataclysmic event. I think that indeed the earth became waste and wild or as the KJV says-"without form and void"
---One of the first places I got a clue of this idea beyond Gen 2 would be in The KJV at Genesis 1:28 where we read -And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and mutiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.---the key here is the term replenish. To replenish is the equivalent of refilling a cup of coffee. If I replenish your cup then we know you have had at least one cup prior. I take Genesis to refer to the beginning of the time God has given us a written acount of. Not the beginning of the time of the earth. I believe this earth may have gone through many ages prior to man. Like probably most of you I did not always see it that way but it makes sense to me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Truthseeker
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:24 pm

Post by _Truthseeker » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:24 pm

Time Out! Forgive me- in my previous post I meant to say Genesis 1:2-not Gen 2. I need to proofread better.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:24 pm

To replenish is the equivalent of refilling a cup of coffee. If I replenish your cup then we know you have had at least one cup prior
.

The vast majority of bible versions use the word "fill" there and elsewhere. (ESV, Youngs Literal, Jay P. Green's Literal, NASB, NKJV, etc.) The KJV (which is my main bible), translates the word "fill" and other ways elsewhere as well.

I am pretty sure there is no such word as "plenish" which would represent the first time something is filled before it is re-plenished.

Websters (1828) has: "PLENISH, for replenish, not used."

Either way, the word literally means "fill" in the hebrew (see Strongs).

The Gap theory, in my opinion, is not supported by scripture. It's kind of a neat story, with the devil ruling the pre-Adamic race that was wiped out by a flood and all that. But it's just not in the bible as far as I can see.

Now while this view will allow you to understand the Genesis creation narrative somewhat literally, (in that you can say that God "recreated" the earth in six days), you still have the same problem with the Exodus passages mentioned above. The bible says that in "six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.." That would include the pre-Adamic people and all the rest.

HERE'S a good article on the Gap Theory.

Disagreements aside, Truthseeker, if I haven't said so already, welcome to the forum! Glad to have your input.

God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:56 pm

Derek-- man you put a lot more thought into this than I have. in regard to your points re Gen 2, you may be right. it just SEEMS like the events take more than a day, but i agree that if you give every benefit of the doubt to the literal view, then what you say was possible.

i dont think there are scriptures that come right out and support an OE interpretation. i think, as has said before, is the problem of jiving up what the scripture says with what science seems (or at least seems) to tell us. either the science is wrong or the scripture is not literal.

i certainly am not emotionally tied to the OE view-- in fact i am perfectly happy to accept that the YE view is correct. i just dont think that YEers adequately respond to all the science out there, but i could be wrong.

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:35 pm

Derek-- man you put a lot more thought into this than I have. in regard to your points re Gen 2, you may be right. it just SEEMS like the events take more than a day, but i agree that if you give every benefit of the doubt to the literal view, then what you say was possible.

i dont think there are scriptures that come right out and support an OE interpretation. i think, as has said before, is the problem of jiving up what the scripture says with what science seems (or at least seems) to tell us. either the science is wrong or the scripture is not literal.

i certainly am not emotionally tied to the OE view-- in fact i am perfectly happy to accept that the YE view is correct. i just dont think that YEers adequately respond to all the science out there, but i could be wrong.
My position exactly -- except to say that a long duration "yom" can still be considered a "literal" interpretation -- it is surely not figurative. The question is "in what sense literal." In the wooden literal sense, maybe, but even in common vernacular, day has numerous literal meanings today (even here I don't mean "today" to mean only 12/5/06). I think most YEC's (the ones without an axe to grind, anyway) honestly believe it is the only rational interpretation -- I just think they are "arguing from silence" (to some extent anyway) when they prefer the 24 hour day approach -- again, when faced with two rational interpretations (even if not equal) I prefer the one that comports with (at least my perceptions of) reality (natural revelation).

Frankly, if I had precisely equal views as to the apparent age of the earth, I would be utterly divided over which interpretation to take as to "yom." I would (I think) have no basis to choose one over the other (other than my child-hood Sunday School training).

A new believer from a foreign culture (very foreign, of course) reading Genesis only after the rest of Scripture? I wonder if they would have a predisposition one way or the other.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:40 pm

it just SEEMS like the events take more than a day, but i agree that if you give every benefit of the doubt to the literal view, then what you say was possible.
I think this is where we are differing here TK. I don't think that you even have to "give the benifit of the doubt" to see it this way. The only potential problem is the naming of the animals, and I think that the YEC interpretation fits just fine.
i dont think there are scriptures that come right out and support an OE interpretation. i think, as has said before, is the problem of jiving up what the scripture says with what science seems (or at least seems) to tell us. either the science is wrong or the scripture is not literal.
Well, I agree with the first part of your sentence.

As for the second part. I don't think that it is a problem with jiving up what scipture says with science its self, only the interpretations of certain scientists. There are many scientists that think the earth is young. Maybe an overwhelming minority, but so what? God's word is in line with them. God's word is eternal and unchanging and the opinions of scientists change all the time.

But I bet it's safe to say that the majority of scientists are naturalists, and of those that have some belief they don't believe in God in any real sense, let alone that God entered the earth as a man, died and rose again. And I don't think anyone around here is giving any weight in the opinions of scientists on that point.

God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:55 pm

My position exactly -- except to say that a long duration "yom" can still be considered a "literal" interpretation -- it is surely not figurative. The question is "in what sense literal."
... In the wooden literal sense, maybe, but even in common vernacular, day has numerous literal meanings today (even here I don't mean "today" to mean only 12/5/06)...
Then you don't mean "today" literally. You are using it as a figure of speech that means "these days" or "in our time". This is like when dispinsationalists say they take "figures of speech" literally. That doesn't make sense.

Personally, I am not one of the people that think you have to take every word in the bible literally. I am amillenial. That's not where I'm coming from as far as the YEC thing. However, I do think that we should take as literal what the author intended to be literal.
Frankly, if I had precisely equal views as to the apparent age of the earth, I would be utterly divided over which interpretation to take as to "yom." I would (I think) have no basis to choose one over the other (other than my child-hood Sunday School training
).

Well, I didn't go to "sunday school" when I was a child, so I didn't learn my view there, and I think I gave some pretty good reasons (from the bibe no less) several posts back that should give you a basis for changing your mind. No one ever responded to them.

I don't care at all how old the earth is. Like I said, both sides have great points. I have no reason to go one way or the other besides what the bible says.And no one seems to be able (or willing) to show me how the bible comports with billions of years.



God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”