Featured Old earth or young earth?

The idea that God created the universe with light from distant stars already en route (or already here) and just mature enough to support human life would neatly reconcile the Young Earth creation age problem.

On the other hand, if God created the Earth to appear to be millions of years old, then I'm inclined to go along with it being that old.

I've reached the conclusion that we'll never know exactly how old the Earth is, and to quit speculating and just worry about pointing people to Jesus.

 

I just can't agree with this sentiment because I believe that there is a godly perspective to every single one of the bible's teachings. There is always a perspective which is right against all falsehood and which is sorely needed. However, I am still open to other ideas if they conform to the bible as far as my understanding of exegesis is concerned.

I'l try and keep this as short as I can to respect your desire to leave this discussion:

Why couldn't God just make an old seeming universe? In front of the angels he makes an old seeming Adam.

Also, if you could date the universe easily to 6000 years old and then prove Noah's flood happened at X date ago and lasted X amount of time all in conformity to the bible, then the use of instruments can prove the bible true against all religions, an enemy of simple, biblical faith. Cosmic questions must be left to be believed on in the dark on faith and not sight for there to be an environment of real faith.

Just so long as the creation testifies to God's eternal power and Deity, then things are fine for what God made them to do (Romans 1:20). I find the mere existence of "liberal Christians" the final condemnation of atheism and possibly other theological beliefs. Believing in a watered down God of the bible is that easy even for those who adore science and skepticism.

 

Could be that's how He did it. If so, why do we insist that it's only 6,000 years old?

 

Because if you add up the age of the world in the bible using the timeline it supplies through genealogies and statements to the effect of "500 years later" you get to about 5777 years back to creation.

The problem I am now struggling with is that for some reason, probably copying error but I have qualms about using this, you find history has different dates to the dates given in the bible. The stuff I have found so far leans in the direction of an older creation, but I certainly don't have a definitive sampling of events.

References:
Hebrew calendar - Wikipedia
Anno Mundi - Wikipedia

 

That is a great counter to my current beliefs about the creation of the universe. I ran into this problem for a long time until I just accepted that a universe with "apparent age" was important to allow the survival of blind faith as opposed to believing what you see.

Some people who originally went in search of evidence of the earth's age were actually out to prove all other religions wrong through empirical measurements.Seeking evidence for faith seems counter to the very idea of having faith in the first place. I did that before as a false Christian for years. It got to the point that I believed the bible based on evidence and not faith and tried to convince all my friends of the same thing. I can tell you there was no good fruit and looking back it seems like an evil avenue to go down.

I also want to point out that while God doesn't seem to keep it, He made predation. Also, while God may not keep it, he has made very deceptive animals and insects. Not to mention that anyone who studied the stars back around Galileo's time would tell you God is a master deceiver for those stars to actually turn out to be suns with planets around them. I could go on with other examples really.

 

True, he made Adam in a way like we often perceive of the angels being made, as grown ups. But not old people. I am sorry I used confusing words.

I'll have to research this and think on it, but of course you have inserted a challenge to my current beliefs that puts them in doubt.

 

Nobody (human beings) absolutely nobody has the vaguest notion about the true nature, characteristics or laws concerning/during? the entity called creation - only God.

Personally I wouldn't even say that it had a constant function of C. Even Scientific American ceded that point that C was variable at creation. In fact C was probably something else in embryo before the "Days" of creation.

Why not just trust God . If he indicates a sidereal day/night (Evening and morning...) why not just trust Him at that level. If we find out differently later...Eh!

I'll go with young earth.

HankD

 

You read a summary. You disagree. K.

It's a scoffing not based on real knowledge, only on the notions you've grown up with propped up with fragmented info. Tell me again which postulate of any of either of Einstein's theories have your independently verified . . . Oh yeah.

None. You're notions are base only on what you've read or watched on TV.

If I find physicists like Humphreys or Harnett (and there are more) who indubitably know more about what they're talking about than you do, why should anyone care whether or not you believe them?

Your real argument here is whom we should believe.

Why should we believe you and not them? Why should we believe the people you believe?

We shouldn't. But we should believe Moses.

But then you haven't read them, and you won't, so you don't know what their evidence is.

To the rest. I posted an article, and quotes from Einstein and Hawking, that state that the theories of Relativity put geocentric and heliocentric models of the universe (not the solar system) on equal footing. One can assume any body to be in the center of the mass of the universe and motionless and justify that model with the known laws of physics. In short, there is no more truth in the heliocentric model than there is in the geocentric model.

Now that's what the physicists say. But it was news to InTheLight [Screen name edited], and so he wants to fight you, not the physicists, and spouts his notions about physics as if the physicists he's mocking have never heard any of the justifications for his superior and more true notions.

But my quoted statement was admittedly a poor expression in a wholly different discussion of this statement:

If one considers the rotating roundabout as being
at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at
large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General
Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 108 m/sec
under these conditions. (An Introduction to the Theory of General Relativity. Rosser.)
​

But all this really highlights the real issue. The physics of cosmology are too theoretical and defy any real testing. It's more philosophy than science, and so, saying the speed of light is c so that proves an old universe is not telling the whole story.

And has no bearing on the meaning of the Genesis day. I believe Moses. ITL does not. That's the bottom line.

​

 

Steven, not always. Science is God's domain just as much as the invisible, spiritual realm. The key is to appeal to science wisely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Everyone talks about apparent age. How does the earth appear old as opposed to young?

 

Apparently you care. After saying you were done interacting with me you create your longest post on BB in months.

Yep, must have touched a nerve. Argument has morphed into a discussion about me.

Oh yeah...

Definitely. No Novocaine, dental drill on root of tooth nerve hit.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I believe Adam and Eve are used as examples of apparent age.

Presumably they were created as adults.
There was no conception, incubation and birth (at least as we know it).

HankD

 

Adam was a direct creation of God, no parents, and Eve was created from him!

 

And to always make sure that the inspired scriptures are viewed as the last and final authority, not "scientific truth"

 

Yeah, when you lie about me, it touches a nerve.

 

What about the earth?

 

I personally wonder why this is an important issue IF you accept the fact that God created the heavens and the earth as the Bible tells us. I think the preponderance of evidence says that the earth is billions of years old. The Bible is not a book on science and different books in the Bible need to be interpreted in different ways. Certainly Leviticus needs to be looked at in a different way than Romans for instance. I believe that the creation account in Genesis is not necessarily a scientific description of what occurred. God's ways are much different than our ways.

How did He create the universe? I'd have to say I don't know. Are you claiming to understand God's ways? What if His approach was far more complicated than our meager theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang, String theory, M theory, etc? If that complicated approach could have been described in the Bible would anyone have understood it then or now?

I think claiming that we know God's way of creation is to put him in a box of our own creation and reduces His glory, majesty and sovereignty.