Christians: Does age of earth matter?

I suppose we agree to disagree. I am headed out of my boring cubicle to work outside so this may turn out to be a good day after all. You, too, have a good day.

 

Ut:
Yes, it appears to be that way. By the way, I am originally from Alabama. Most of my relatives, including my parents live in Alabama. Enjoy the weather.

 

Frank, thanks for contributing a fresh voice to the discussion. Another point of view is always welcome.

Actually, there are several speculations out there and you can read them in the current issue of Scientific American - the one with the hourglass on the cover - but they are all speculative at this time, one must admit that.

The only reason for you or anyone to change their mind would be in consideration of the evidence. If you simply disregard the fact that over 200,000 annual layers of laid down ice have been recovered from the highlands of Greenland - if you simply ignore the fact that light has been traveling across the universe for billions of years and only now is arriving in our eyes . . well, your thought processes seem strange to me, but they are yours to account for.

I have a similar acknowledgement. Give God the praise and glory for the mighty works He has done.

The proper interpretation of God's word will not be in conflict with the proper interpretation of the evidence of the heavens and the earth. Some of that evidence has been gone over and over again on this very board. Evidence of this caliber is sufficient to convict murder suspects and give them the death penalty.

 

Paul:
I agree the word of God is in harmony with creation. The scholarship teaches us the word YOM was a twenty four hour day. This cannot be refuted. It maybe and is questioned by those who havbe an evolutionist agenda, However, to question something does not disprove it.

I do not disregard the evidence. However, the law of rationality allows one to make only those conclusions as are warranted by the totality of the evidence.
I have demonstrated the inconsistencies in the proclamations about evolution, specifically the contradictions of time. the earth cannot be 5 billion, 12, billion, 14 billion, or 18 billion years old. Things that are different are not the same. These are obvious differences. Someone has misinterpreted the data. I do not know how a rational person can look at this evidence and conclude otherwise.

I am amazed some assume origin can be proven scientifically. I do not know of one scientist that will claim he can prove origin. Science cannot test one time events. In this thread alone, there has been numerous disagreements as to what constitutes the scientiifc method.

The inference that those who believe the account of creation have misinterpreted the data is not true. The static, unchanging account provided in Genesis provides irrefutable evidence that in six days God created the earth.

[ May 13, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

Hi, Frank. Alas, I must confess my memory is fallible. When I got home today I looked at the Scientific American issue for this month and its a giant pocket watch, not an hourglass. And therein lies a lesson for us all . . .

For example, when you say this

I think you will find if you go back to your sources that not one source postulates the earth to be older than 4.5 to 5 billion years. The other dates look as if they are designed for the starry universe as a whole.

But scientists do not claim to have proven anything about the origins; they only claim to have some knowledge about how the universe unfolded after it originated, and how life unfolded after it originated.

This seems like such a simple thing, I don't know why it is such a big issue for you. My faith will not stand or fall on what science eventually finds out about origins, in any case.

But in the context of evidence in the scientific sense, the static, unchanging text of the Bible is not allowed to be considered as evidence.

Do you not recall how the same appeal to the static, unchanging text of the Bible let men astray regarding the cause of day and night being the movement of the sun around the earth? Hasn't history shown you that this method you propose doesn't really work?

 

Paul:
Just as evolution can not be proven by the scientific method neither can creation. The difference is that I do not propose creation to be proveable by science. I can do so by the abundant prima fascie evidence. My friend the Bible is more reliable than any science text ever produced, your opinion not withstanding. The age of the earth is, indeed stated as a fact in the science texts at our school as, 5, 12, 14, and 18 bilion years old. Just choose the one that suits your opinion, and presto you become a scientific genius. After all, the book says so!!!

The evolutionist has the burden to prove his position with the scientific method because he cannot do it from the prima fascie evidence. He cannnot provide historical data that supports his belief. The book of Acts, alone, is second to none in geographical accuracy. The archeology of many biblical places, once questioned by secular archeologist, has been proven to be accurate as portrayed on the pages of inspiration.

Men go astray when they do not submit to the will of God. The Bible does not teach anything that violates scientific law. Now, your secular humanism is creeping in, be careful where you go with that argument.

For example, Men also bled our first president to death thinking it would cure him. However, God said, in Leviticus 17:11 : "the life of all flesh is in the blood." There are hundreds of scientiifc facts revealed in the text of scripture long before any scientist proved it. God had it right. Your logic destroys your own position.

 

See, right here we have this little problem. Evolution has been proven by the scientific method and you keep saying it hasn't.

Aww, now you've quite dialoguing and gone to preaching. I'm already a committed Christian, I accept the Bible as God's word for my life, sufficient for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness.

But you didn't check, did you? I betcha the older ages after 5 are NOT of the earth but of something else.

I'm not sure what your phrase "historical data" means in this context. What about a fossil of a dinosaur dated to be a hundred million years old. Isn't that "historical data"?

I'm currently leading a series of lessons in our church on Acts and its true the cities it names actually exist but what does that have to do with anything we are talking about?

What you stated has nothing to do with the fact that men trying to follow the literal teachings of the Bible have been led in the past to make mistakes, such as the mistake of rejecting the teachings of Copernicus and Gallileo.

It is a matter of how the Bible is interpreted. By simply declining to require a literal interpretation of the first chapter, one still gains the spiritual benefits and avoids conflicts with what we know to be true of the history of our world and universe.

 

Paul:

Evolution has not been proven. It remains a theory and a bad one at that. Again, the inconsistencies purported by evolutionist are printed on the pages of the texts in our school.

The idea a dinasaur is 100 million years old is conjecture and can cannot be proven by the scientific method. Furthernmore, history demands a historian. What was the name of the historian that proclaimed this dinosaur to be 100 million years old? How does he know it?

I reject a number of things. However, It is because the scholarship leads me to that conclusion, not a position presupposed. The literal six days of creation canot be refuted. One can decline or reject anything. However, that is an irrational approach to making conclusions.

Lawyers actually use prima fascie evidence to win their cases before the judge. God is our judge. So, I have no reservations about using all the evidence. I understand why you don't like the rational approach, too!

The ages for the material universe, including the earth are stated inconsistently in science texts. If you believe otherwise, prove it!

Moreover, not one instructor of science in our school believes evolution is proveable. Therefore, it is rational to deduct that the data and conclusions have led some in science to make contradictory and inconsistent conclusions about what you claim has been proven.

Evolution, according to our state standards, is a THEORY. I guess you know more than those who prepare and publish science texts and the state board of education.

My point about geography and other related sciences pertinent to the dicussion was that the Bible reveals things before secular people prove them or accept them as fact. The Bible is always correct on any fact presented. Science, in the case of George Washington, was incorrect. God in Leviticus 17:11 was correct long before men accepted it. I guess science led them astray.

 

I also like the command that God gave Moses concerning circumcision being done not before 8 days old. Later in our history, it was determined that Vitamin B is at it’s highest on day 8 of a newborn baby boy enabling the blood to clot.

Being familiar with this, naturally I questioned the command God gave Moses considering circumcision when my son was circumcised on day 2! My wife laughed and said that they gave our son a shot of Vitamin B! I haven’t questioned the Word of God since.

 

John 6:63:
Amen! There are literally hundreds of scientific facts in the Bible that were not accepted as scientifc fact for centuries after God revealed them. At times I use this question, How did the writers of the Bible know scientifc fact before science? The reply is obvious. GOD told them.

I have a little jingle for you.
The Roundness of the Earth: No need to sail the ocean blue in 1492 just read Is. 40:22. Have a good day.

 

No one's position is right beyond Jesus Christ as God, and concerning the creation and time factor, His position is I AM (Exodus 3:14), which eternally encompasses three definitive and scientifically demonstrative, observable and produceable statements of fact concerning Genesis 1:1. First, the repetitively demonstrative eternal fact that "GOD IS RIGHT" (Daniel 9:14). Secondly, the clearly observable fact that "GOD IS LIGHT" (1 John 1:5) since the very moment of time He "commanded the Light to shine out of darkness" (2 Corinthians 4:6 c.f. Genesis 1:3). And Thirdly, and most important by Biblical chronology, (though not understood by 99% of all Christians and their ministers), "In the BEGINNING" is not, has not been, and never shall refer to a period of time that you can calculate or prove to be either young or old. For Jesus clearly said in all of His ETERNAL present tense BEING, as the I AM GOD (Genesis 35:11/ 46:3/ Isaiah 45:22/ 46:9), even He the Lord God Almighty said, "I AM THE BEGINNING" (Revelation 1:8/ 21:6/ 22:13 c.f. Genesis 1:1/John 1:1). "In THE BEGINNING" is not a period of time, but Jesus Christ Himself! So much so, that the very first verse of the Word of God says what it means and means what it says, that "IN JESUS CHRIST God created the heavens and the earth", just as John wrote of the same that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", nothing removed or different than saying "In Jesus Christ was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The SAME was IN JESUS CHRIST with God" (John 1:2). That is what Paul meant when he wrote, "IN HIM we live, and move, and HAVE OUR BEING" (Acts 17:28).

 

Why are people reviving 12 year old threads?

 

The problem is that most read the Bible superficially and make claims that do not follow the text. Augustine had good comments on this. See link at end for quote (new site here is buggy; like typing in molasses nightmare) https://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/creation-young-earth-ham-nye-genesis-one/

 

Ok now shows rest of commment ; only showed half to me; toook 5 min to type this.

 

Augustine: Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil . . .

 

again only showed me half above