Featured Old or Young Earth?

We've been through this before...multiple times...Barry Setterfield has zero, zero credibility to write such papers. He has no advanced training in this field and has been robustly refuted by actual scientists.

I'm glad you mentioned that Setterfield has been destroyed (a better word) on peer review. He has no grounds to make these claims. Thank you for acknowledging that.

 

OK, so the earth has an appearance of millions of years old. But it's not, it's really only several thousand years old.

I wish I could remember the exact quote and who said it, but it goes something like this:

"If God created the world to appear to be 4.5 billion years old, who are we to argue with Him?"

 

The so called dating (ie 4.5) billion years old is unreliable. As a side note those who create these dating methods think that those who believe as they do about the age of the earth by relying on the science are foolish and they make fun of anyone who believes a creator was involved in creation. They have an agenda that is not free from bias. They want to prove there is no God and the very things that some Christians agree with regarding science and the age of the earth are the very things they are trying to use to prove there is no God.

No one knows the exact age of the earth but the billions of years lie is nothing short of ridiculous.

 

Saying the earth looks old implies that one knows how a young earth would appear. So, tell me what a young earth looks like.

 

As far as starlight and time is concerned, the best treatments I found to be by D. Russell Humphreys, and John Hartnett.

They both necessarily deal with the creation of the firmament, the sudden expansion in the waters which made the space in which the stars appear, and applying known and established physical laws elegantly explain distant starlight without the clunky insertions of arbitrary theories like dark matter, dark energy and the creation of light in transit. Oh yeah, and c decay.

 

The only witness to all of this is Jehovah. Most to not believe Him. His Word says He did it suddenly. Do we need a PhD in Chronography to figure out what sudden might mean. Kind of like a moment, a twinkling of an eye. These things are spiritually discerned. Many scientific powers that be are not born again and are therefore given over to strong delusion, regardless of the Truth.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

For many, the above is good enough. I remember wrestling with my own evil heart of unbelief in regard to the Virgin Birth. But the above is unsatisfactory when explaining the observations of scientists, and, in many ways, is a capitulation to the Naturalistic philosophies dictating their interpretations.

 

Man-made stuff will always come up short. Man is hopelessly depraved due to his sinful nature. There is only one remedy: the real Jesus. That puts the discussion in a much smaller box. See: the dialogue of Jesus and Nicodemus, John Ch. 3

This is about different paradigms/worldviews. We are approaching the end of the long war against the Lord God of the Bible. Satan knows his time is short; and he is redoubling efforts to confuse and deceive. See: The Book of Revelation. Romans Chapter 1 is a good read too. See also: The Long War Against God, by H. Morris.

"We ought to obey God rather than men."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
PhD, Hard Knocks University

P.S. Many "scientists" have rose colored glasses which they use to interpret insufficient data points applied to graphs with logarithmic lines. The data is skewed from the start and gets worse exponentially towards the end.

 

Why do some people believe the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The vast majority simply accept what they read some expert or group of experts claimed. If you do a little research on radio-metric dating you will find this underlying assumption: When the earth was formed from the debris of the pre-solar nebula, the impacts created so much heat, all the preexisting minerals were split apart. Therefore when we find a radio-active rock and do a mathematical ratio of the father/daughter isotopes we can say when that mineral formed. Thus the age of the formation of the earth is believed by those accepting the underlying assumption to be 4.5 or so billion years. However, we find "inclusions" where older rocks that throw off the date. For example, we examine a volcano flow and find inclusions dated back say 2500 years, therefore the flow occurred 2500 years ago. But no, the flow occurred in historical time, some 200 years ago. But when we date stuff before history, we have nothing to correct us when we include older material.

Do the nebula we see in space include more than dust, say some rocks and such perhaps the size of Texas? If the nebula include rocks, and these did not split up during formation, then the date of 4.5 billion years might be the date of the supernova that provided the debris that formed the earth. Or not. As I said, we just do not know.

 

I am a young earther and have had some fascinating discussions with atheists, as they have tried to support their view of an old earth.

Along the way, I have picked up a few responses to their arguments, so one at a time, and here's the first:

Argument: sedimentary layering proves an old earth.

Response: Geologist's have recently recanted a dogmatic position that sedimentary layering requires millions of years, based on studies of turbidity currents in both the ocean as well as on land, and have documented rapid formation of what before was declared could only result after millions of years.

While it might be hard to find something in an old/young earth context (as anything that contradicts popular opinion in the Scientific Community), this admission is quite surprising, as it destroys a position once feverishly held as dogmatic scientific proof against a young earth.

Christians have argued that Polystrate Fossils argue against that reasoning for quite some time, but, like most scientific issues presented by Christians, it is often called junk science.



God bless.

 

Another argument given would be in regards to a literal flood, which plays into the basic timeline we have in Scripture, which would be that if there was a flood as described in Scripture, then all marine life would have died. The reasoning that salt water creatures would have died because of the fresh, and vice versa.

However, one thing we can see is that there is a downward spiral in all of Creation, not just man, so we are dealing with an issue that we just do not have the necessary data to declare dogmatic truth. Osmoregulation is an issue that would question whether animals, like men, were stronger thousands of years ago, and like a number of species today did not have the ability to adapt to different amounts of salinity in their environments.

How that applies to the age of the earth is that we can look in Scripture and see that in a matter of hundreds of years men went from living for centuries to less than two hundred years. By David's day, which can also be calculated to give approximate history, man is dying on a regular basis before he reaches a hundred years old.

This shows a fairly rapid degeneration in man, yet is seldom considered in other species of life. even the decline of nutritional value, or what type of vegetation was even available cannot be shown.

Then we tie that to the Cretaceous Seaway. I often ask atheists why they deny the earth was flooded when Science provides evidence for that happening. Now here again we see that while we have some data, we don't have all relevant data so a dogmatic conclusion would be foolish. But it is interesting that I as a believer don't have to deny evidence of a large portion of land being under water but others do.

Then we add to that an understanding that sedimentary formation does not rely on millions of years, and we see that nothing in the arguments deny the Record of Scripture, which indicates a much younger earth than the old earth based on speculation and worse...false conclusions drawn from inadequate data.


God bless.

 

Most take it from the Creation of Adam and the age time line Moses gave of the descendants.

 

My question concerns, the death. Where did it come from? God?

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14

Did Adam give that power to the devil? How long had the devil had that power? Why did God plant a garden and then put the man, he had created, in the garden in the presence of the serpent, the devil?

Does the darkness of verse 2 of Genesis, imply the presence of the devil, Satan of which God the light divided himself from in verse 4?

How long had the devil, Satan been exercising his works on the earth, before Adam was created.?

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

Was the Son of God manifested in the figure of Adam?

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Rom 5:12

Was the Son manifested in the figure of Adam to destroy something that existed before Adam was created?

I am old earth because of the scripture.


BTW if the, "vaw connective," had been, "was," instead of, "became," would that not contradict scripture where God stats that he does not create, "tohuw and bohuw,"?

Also I believe what took place from when God said, let there be light, to the end of the chapter were six twenty four hour days.

 

We can follow a general timeline from genealogies, which, while we understand genealogies may not be complete, we can't reconcile great lengths of time being inserted from the beginning of that Historical Record.

And while we might speculate about an interval such as is suggested by those that embrace the Gap Restoration Theory, that would have been before man was created.

Now do you have a good reason as to why you might question the Record of Scripture? Or how you might feel greater time spans could be reconciled to Scripture's record?


God bless.

 

Young earth!

 

Just like the one we live on!

 

I agree!

There are a lot of smart, well educated scientists who believe in a young earth. You have mentioned two of them.

 

Exactly, though in the beginning, the topography hadn't been ravaged by cataclysmic global flood.