How old is the earth?

What I had said was:

There is no reason to think that the miracles of Jesus were required to defy the laws of physics. Miracles are not works of magic. Miracles are works of wonder. If we could go back and witness Jesus' miracles, and explain how the happenned scientifically, they would be miracles nonetheless.

Yet, we Christians often think of science as taking God out of such things. If we require of our God that everything he does is going to break the laws of the universe, then we're not expecting a Heavenly Father, but a Heavenly Santa Claus. Science simply attempts to, by observation, explain how something occurs. It does not, however, attempt to explain the timing of why something occurs, or who made it occur. That privilege falls among the philosophers.

 

Murphy said:

"the debate is over a clearly revealed truth"

So, if something meets with your interpretation, it is "clearly revealed truth." If someone disagrees with you, they are, evidently, going against "clearly revealed truth."

Typical Murphy.

BTW, if someone does not agree with the literal six days, that does not mean that they believe in evolution.

 

The age of the earth was not a Fundamentalist dogma until the early 20th century. Anyone who says a literal six-day creation and a young earth are a non-negotiable fundamental of the faith has just denied that William Bell Riley and William Jennings Bryan, who believed the age-day theory; and Harry Rimmer and C. I. Scofield, who believed the gap theory, are Fundamentalists.

Better throw out all those Scofield Bibles infesting your house - next stop, atheism!

Peruse the table of contents of The Fundamentals, and you will see contributors such as Scofield, B. B. Warfield, and James Orr, all of whom believed in an old earth. In fact, one of Orr's many contributions to The Fundamentals was the essay "Science and the Christian Faith," in which he writes:

 

Nonsense!!!

Since when is Rightly-Dividing the Bible "twisting God's Word?" In my opinion the average Young Earth Creationist is guilty of ignoring what the Word actually says.

Ask the average YEC what the first thing God created and 90% of the time they will say "light" (citing Genesis 1:3), but Gensis 1:2 clearly says that the "earth" and "waters" were already there BEFORE that. Therfore, common sense tells you that "light" was not created first; the "heavens and the Earth were created first (Genesis 1:1).

WHEN were the Earth and heaven first created? To this question the average YEC will then say that God created the Earth as a entity "without form" on the first day (just before He "created" light).

To this assumption the Word of God in Isaiah says:

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Never mind the truth that terms "without form" in Genesis 1:2 and "in vain" in Isaiah 45:18 are both translated from the same Hebrew word tohuw to'-hoo which is defined as...

"from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:--confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of)nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness."

The Word in Isaiah says that God NEVER created the Earth "without form" in the first place, so the Spirit of Truth is trying to tell the reader (by comparing Scripture with Scripture) that there is something amiss here (hint, hint). Remember, the Scriptures can't be broken so there MUST be a BIBLICAL resolution to this apparent contradiction.

Besides the Earth and waters (matter) already created and existing before God says, "Let there be light.." there is also darkness present (an absence of light). And since God is light, and in Him is no darkness:

"1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

Then why are these already created things shrouded in darkness? Why did God even mention this fact, unless He wanted you to use your brain and think about it?

You see, these are the questions an honest, thinking person, who trusts the infallibility of the Bible, asks for and, if he/she really wants to find the answers they ARE in the Bible. Notice, also, that I did not use one, single "scientific" argument to make these points. The Word is sufficient in itself to point out the errors in reasoning.

The YEC argument that accepting an old age for the earth is only man's reasoning and is a twisting of the Word is utter hysterical nonsense and a simplistic defense of a traditional position that the Word of God, itself, does not support under an objective and truely literal read.

[ September 23, 2003, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: word_digger ]

 

Hi People,
Hope you are all well.
I'd like to believe YEC but I just cant.
Couple of things -

If we look at the earth from space we find impact crators here. Nowhere in recorded history are all these impact creators recorded. And trust me when they landed we'd know about it.

If every volcano that we know about that had erupted had erupted in the last 6K years we'd still be choking on ash now.

Look at the moon. Look at the 'geological' or should I say selenological record. Are we saying all these impacts happened in the last 6k years and if so , more importantly how did Earth escape that impact flux of extraterrestial objects ?
If we were hit by even a 200m iron core asteroid we're talking 1 billion casualties from Tsunami effects if it landed Atlantic / Pacific oceans. Some of the things that cratered the moon must have been massive and moving at considerable speed.

Ever heard of a supervolcano, 1 is suspected in Yellowstone and the other is called Toba in Indonesia. It is believed Toba erupted 75K years ago. If it had been 6k years ago we'd be lucky to be posting now.

I'm earnestly seeking here so if anyone can fit these viewpoints into a YEC framework I'd like to hear their viewpoint ( just for the record I'm not being sarcastic , just wanna know ).

Any respectful dialogue welcomed.
best wishes from Australia

Doug_mmm

 

After I thought about this for a while it dawned on me. WoW! What an excellent proof point!

It leaves only two logical choices: 1) Either they happened before man and recorded history, or 2) God made them look like ancient impact craters and gave then a false age appearence to trick everyone into thinking the Earth was older than 6,000 years.

Since God does not lie, logical choice 2 is invalid.

It will be interesting to see how the YECs respond to this one. I'll bet "Noah's Flood" comes up somewhere in the responses.

 

"I'll bet "Noah's Flood" comes up somewhere in the responses."

And now those that hold the Gen 1 view point are mocked...well done, word-digger.

 

A massive series of impacts ARE remembered and recorded, folks. There is a 'legend' out of the South Pacific about "How the Moon Got a Dirty Face." It records a time when the surface of the moon did not look like it does now. But the moon became angry with a tribe or its chieftan and threw rocks at it. The people threw rocks back, scarring the moon's face.

Take the personal material out and you have an asteroid series of hits coming from the direction of the moon following by the moon itself getting hit and its appearance changing.

American Indians recall times when the various gods of the sky got mad and threw rocks at earth, causing great damage.

Yes, it is remembered.

And yes, it may also have been part of the Flood scenario as well. But it is certainly remembered afterwards by people in two places on earth at least.

However, please also remember that all the legends we are aware of from ancient cultures talk about 'wars' of one kind or another between gods of the sea, the sky, and the earth.

Zeus had his thunderbolts...

The stories are many, and many are missing the point of them. They were constructed around memories of real events known and experienced by men.

 

Good point, Helen.

 

Doug, I'd like to remind you of a few Bible verses. I have cut and pasted from one of my husband's lecture notes because I am in a bit of a rush this morning, thus the reference to 'slides'

SLIDE 22: IMPACT EFFECTS – Job 9:5-7
“God removes the mountains and overturns them in His anger;
He shakes the earth out of its place and its core trembles;
He commands the sun & it does not rise; and He blots out the stars …”

SLIDE 23: VOLCANISM, RIFTING, MAGMA – Job 28:9, 14:18.
The mountains fall and crumble away,
And rock is moved from its place …
For God overturns the mountains from their roots
And cuts out channels through the rocks;
… And underneath it is turned to fire,
Whose stones are the source of sapphires
And contains gold dust.

SLIDE 24: VOLCANIC FIRESTORMS – Job 27:20-22; 1:16, 19.
“A storm steals him away in the night.
A burning [fiery] wind carries him away, and he is gone;
It sweeps him out of his place.
It hurls against him and does not spare…”

“Fire has fallen from heaven and burned up the sheep and servants and consumed them…
and suddenly a great wind from the wilderness struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young men…”

SLIDE 25: TSUNAMIS & STORMS – Job 12:15; 14:11; 30:14
“God withholds the waters, and the sea dries up;
He sends them out, and they overwhelm the earth.
For the waters fail from the sea,
And the [ocean] flood dries up.”
“They come as broad breakers,
As the wide breaking in of ocean waters;
Under the ruinous storm they roll along.”

SLIDE 26: ICE-AGE – Job 38:29-30
“From whose womb comes the ice? …
The [ocean] waters harden like stone,
And the surface of the deep is frozen.”

SLIDE 27: CAVEMEN – Job 24:7-8, 30:3-7
One group from a generation earlier (fathers of the children taunting Job) 30:3-7.
One about poor people of Job’s own day 24:7-8 – society becoming established.
Just possible – one of these groups – Neanderthals
“They were gaunt with want and famine,
And plucked mallow by the bushes,
And broom tree roots for their food …
They lived in the clefts of the valleys,
Their houses were the caves in the rocks,
And they lived under the wild bushes…”

“They spend the night naked, without clothing,
And have no covering in the cold.
They are wet with the showers of the mountains,
And huddle around the rock for want of shelter.”
Job - eyewitness of catastrophic events – valuable written record preserved for us.



You might also check out Psalm 18 and others like it.

 

I apologize. I should not have mocked. After reading Helen's list of "interpretations" (geologic events read into Scripture verses) I now understand the true meaning of this parable:

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

(The ultamate "no-win" scenario)

[ September 23, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: word_digger ]

 

Helen said:

A massive series of impacts ARE remembered and recorded, folks.

Just out of curiosity: Which is more "fundamental"? Believing in a young earth, or interpreting science - and under the circumstances, therefore the Scriptures as well - through pagan myths?

I'll take a pass on the "How the Beaver Got Its Flat Tail" stories, thanks.

 

Ransom, look at the evidence. Science doesn't acknowledge the fact that these things are talked about by people who didn't understand them, who described them in the only ways they knew how. WHY do scientists simply write these off as myths instead of descriptions? Why do you?

Why is it that y'all have to throw out things like word-digger's comments, and your "How the Beaver Got its Flat Tail" comments? If you don't respect someone else's position, and you've given all credible evidence that contradicts that position, and they still hold on to it--is there now an unwritten rule that you must mock and deride them?

I ask this because I've been pretty derisive towards others in the past myself, and I'm exceedingly sorry I did it. One of the reasons I haven't been spending much time here lately is because the temptation to let the flesh grab me and react in a most un-Christ-like manner is extremely great at times....

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" is not the ultimate no-win situation; it means don't sink down to your opponent's level, especially when it's obvious to everyone they're wrong. And verse 5 simply means that if the individual is claiming truth--especially a truth that is harmful towards others or detracting from scriptural truth--then you must set them straight.

[ September 23, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

I am glad I am no longer a moderator as I would have to deal with the answering a fool remark. I wish people would act like adults. It amazes me how many names have been mentioned who wrote about an old earth belief. Scofield and others but the one author that many seem to ignore is God and His book says 6 days. Concerning the defaming of Helen after she mentioned the american indians, we must recognize that her post was an answer to someone who said that nobody remembers the craters. She answered the question in possibly the only way it could have been answered and she is made fun of. Let me remind us all once again this is a fundamental forum, it accepts a literal interpretation of scripture and genesis says 6 days.
Murph

 

Don said:

Ransom, look at the evidence.

I have no problem with "evidence."

"Evidence" is the heavy cratering on the surface of the moon.

Stories about an angry moon throwing rocks at some tribe and the tribe retaliating, is not "evidence." It is pagan superstition.

Worse - it is pagan superstition being used to interpret the evidence of science and to verify a particular interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

WHY do scientists simply write these off as myths instead of descriptions? Why do you?

I can't speak for scientists, but I write it off because: a) I don't let idolatrous beliefs inform my understanding of Scripture or the world; and b) the moon is a lifeless hunk of rock, not an angry prankster.

Why is it that y'all have to throw out things like word-digger's comments, and your "How the Beaver Got its Flat Tail" comments?

Because Helen's nice little legend is no more plausible than the classic folk legend of the beaver's tail being flattened by a log, or a large rock.

 

C.S. Murphy said:

Concerning the defaming of Helen after she mentioned the american indians,

Nobody "defamed" anyone, so you can scrap the extremist rhetoric.

we must recognize that her post was an answer to someone who said that nobody remembers the craters.

There was nothing about "craters" in that pagan legend. It was about how the moon got its "dirty face." A telescope would reveal that the moon is heavily cratered, but with the naked eye all that can be seen is that the face of the moon is darker ("dirtier") in some places than others.

Helen's version of things is anachronistic. We would have to accept that when its mythology was being formed, this stone-age tribe in the South Pacific had access to a telescope powerful enough to make out clear physical details on the moon's surface.

Let me remind us all once again this is a fundamental forum, it accepts a literal interpretation of scripture and genesis says 6 days.

Let me remind us all once again that before about 1930, belief in a young earth was not a prerequisite for being a Fundamentalist, nor was belief in an old universe a challenge to the inerrancy of Scripture, nor was it a denial of the inspiriation of Scripture. If it wasn't then, why should it be now?

[ September 23, 2003, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Ransom is correct on this: I have a personal library filled with creationism books dating back to 1831 (it's been a favorite research topic of mine), and the idea of a very young Earth (Ussher notwithstanding) was not demanded by fundamentalists/conservative Christians until the ideas of some Seventh-Day Adventists began to take hold. For an excellent study of the origins of Young-Earth Creationism see Ronald Number's The Creationists. It's a factual, balanced study.

 

Larry, Ransom, please look at the following documentations regarding who believed what long before the Seventh Day Adventists got involved:
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Contents.htm

Secondly, the fact that there are memories of events which are then mythologized does not invalidate the memories! The fact that flying rocks are associated with a change in the moon's appearance is what is important. If it were just this one tribe in this one place, we might call it imagination. But the fact is that the stories of rocks and thunderbolts being hurled down from on high are common in both secular and biblical literature. Something is being remembered.

Think about material from the past couple of HUNDRED years and what we have done with it! The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is essentially a fable, I believe, but it does not invalidate the truth that George Washington lived. Johnny Appleseed was a real person, even though he has been widely mythologized.

We do it ourselves, in other words. My own personal opinion is that it is far better to give some respect to the old stories and see if they can be teased apart from the myth elements to see what some of the ancient memories can tell us. In the meantime, it took NO interpretation whatsoever to simply quote the book of Job for what it was saying. The fact that these events are associated with catastrophes took no interpretation either.

What does take interpretation is to deny that they simply mean what they are saying and then 'interpret' them to mean something else!

What is apparent to me, actually, as an ex-theistic evolutionist, is that the majority of people will refuse evidence that contradicts what they already believe, regardless of the quality of that evidence or where it may be found. I believe Romans 1 says something about suppressing the truth....

 

Once again when some posting here seem to have no problem ignoring God's book why would anyone be interested in books written by men.
Murph

 

I feel that Genesis is clear in it's description of how God created the earth. In my opinion when one claims otherwise they are ignoring God's word. To do so would involve belief in some sort of gap period which the bible does not speak of. For some scientists to say that the data they have found cannot match a young earth creation only makes me cling to God's truth tighter. I feel that another theory one might entertain to account for an older earth would require a pre adamic race, besides the fact that God never mentions such a thing we also must remember that for such a race to have existed God would have had to fail in an earlier attempt and I don't think that could happen. This reasoning would also promote satan by showing him as the ruler of such a race and I feel that is not biblical.There is also the doctrine of the fall bringing about sin, that would be compromised by a pre adamic race having been destroyed. In short I can see no room for an old earth creation while still holding firm to the genesis account.

Murph