Does Creation Support EITHER old/young dating?

of course. I'm a young earth guy, but those that believe in an old earth still believe God created it.

 

Of course. I say that the earth, and creation, appear to be billions of years old.

I do mention also that God seems to create with age built in for the Genesis passages.

 

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

 

No. That's just being silly. If the world appears to be millions of years old, why fight it?

If you look at the depths of coral reefs, the vast distances light has traveled in space, the thickness of glacial ice, the thickness of coal deposits, the formation of the Grand Canyon, etc. etc. all point the earth being millions of years old. If God made the earth to appear this way, why try to claim that it's really only 10,000 years old?

 

Sorry, but no. How do you account for the growth of coral reefs? The thickness of coal deposits?

Now you are simply making up hypotheticals to defend a belief.

If God created the earth with the appearance of millions of years of age, who are we to question it? In other words, if God wants us to believe the earth is millions of years old, I'm going to go with it.

 

There is an assumption of constants with dating things that is merely an evolutionary agenda. Evolution and old earth loses ground every day. The Grand Canyon was created in about three days. There is only the appearance of an old earth in the minds of evolutionists. The science Is neither settled not reliable.

 

When you figure the impact of a global flood on the earth that could have caused the age to look a million.
Unless of course you discount the flood.

 

Just think how plant life would need to survive without light for all those millions and billions of years. Since we are told God didn't create the Sun, Moon, stars and the heaven until the fouth day but plant life on the third.

Gen. 1: 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Notice especially verse 16 if the two great lights weren't created as Moses tells us until the fourth day then how did the earth form from a big bang when everything is suppoesedly coming about.
If the plants had to survive millions or billions of years without life how could that possibly have happened with photosynthesis being able to take place? Even by the laws of science it couldn't. So the bible supports young not old dating.

 

It isn't a matter of you must be young earth or you accept evolution.

MANY old earthers are not accepting evolution. Not all are gap theory either.

They just aren't date setters. Bible tells me what happened. It also clearly leaves some gaps in geneologies, etc, which would allow for a very old earth.

I don't have to discount the earth being old to adhere to a literal reading of Genesis.

This is an argument we don't have to have, and one I think Satan delights in. We can spend our time narrowing the field of who the "real Christians" are, or we can spend our time spreading the gospel.

 

Thank you for a very sensible post.

 

So assuming the speed of light is a constant and assuming radioactive decay is a constant as they have been since we've been able to measure them is evidence of an evolutionary agenda? :tonofbricks:

Oh boy...

 

I don't know where you get the idea that the dust on the moon was MUCH thinner than projected by extreme age, in fact, it is exactly as thick as would be expected. There were very few scientists in the 60's that thought there would be thick layers of moon dust present when astronauts landed there. Of course they got mentioned in the news.

HA!

I see that Answers in Genesis lists "Too Little Moon Dust" as the #1 argument that young-earthers SHOULD NOT use.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/far-out-claims

 

I see the decay of the speed of light argument is included on that list. A good add.