Age of the earth

[Havensdad]

A civilization cannot be 7000 years old if we have an immutable truth source saying it is only 6000 years old. The genealogies listed in the Bible are well detailed, and while there may be time gaps unaccounted for, we are talking about 4 figures, not 6, 7 or 8.

This is a switch! I like being on the same side (basically) as you. Although I would argue that the gaps in genealogies, along with the long pre-flood ages of men, would allow for an age in the low to mid teens (probably 9-10 k, but perhaps as far as 15-16 k).

 

[webdog]

This is a switch! I like being on the same side (basically) as you. Although I would argue that the gaps in genealogies, along with the long pre-flood ages of men, would allow for an age in the low to mid teens (probably 9-10 k, but perhaps as far as 15-16 k).

I've agreed with everything you have posted so far I heard it explained once in great detail (can't remember who) that the gaps allow for a 5000 - 10,000 timeframe. I split the difference.

 

[Johnv]

A civilization cannot be 7000 years old if we have an immutable truth source saying it is only 6000 years old.

However, we've already establish in prior conversation that a civilization can have a chrolological age of 7,000 years, based on our understanding that it's withing God's power to create something 6k years ago witha a built-in chronological age of 4.5million years.

 

[webdog]

However, we've already establish in prior conversation that a civilization can have a chrolological age of 7,000 years, based on our understanding that it's withing God's power to create something 6k years ago witha a built-in chronological age of 4.5million years.

...that is if we do not have factual sources to the contrary. Scripture doesn't say God's creation was created with age built in, we come to this conclusion using circumstantial evidence. From the point of creation to the present we do have a chronological order of genealogies that can be used to date the earth. To state that there are human and animal remains millions of years old cannot be the case since we know for the most part when God created them. I do not believe God created the earth with human and animal fossils already built in...do you?

 

[Johnv]

Already posted some stuff about soft tissue, my friend.

And I've addressed that. That's different from what Iw as asking. I was asking for a find of dinosaur bones, not dinosaur fossils.

However, you are asking me to show you something, that the Bible says should not be there: since the dinosaurs were killed in the flood...

Scripture doesn't say dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood.

First, I did not say anything about 7,000 years old.

But it's your assertion that nothing can be older than 6k years, therefore, if anything appears to be older than 6k years, it's in error, because nothing can be older than 6k years. OTOH, I assert that, if God created everything 6k years ago, then He did so with a built-in chronolical age. In other words, it's not contrary to a YEC view that God created the earth with a built-in chronological age of 4.5billions years, or of past civilizations with a built-in chronological age of 10,000 years, or of fossils with a built-in chronological age of 65 million years, etc.

Second, it is not circular reasoning. It is "God said He made the earth in this amount of time, approximately this long ago, so that is when he made it."

It IS circular reasoning, because it assumes that God's creation didn't have a built-in chronology.

Here is an article about the mastodon found near my home.

Very interesting. I noticed, though, that it doesn't refer to the Mastadon remains as a fossil, but as remains (which would be consistent with what one woudl expect. Animals remains that are 20-40k years old would typically be bone.

Here, you can actually buy pieces of fully fossilized mastodons and mammoths if you are of interest.

I am, I love that stuff. I've got a trilobite fossil, and a cast of a velociraptor skull. Cool creatures.

....bones in extremely damp conditions, such as after the flood, would either have to be fossilized, or they would decay in a VERY short period of time.

Not necessarily. It's actually quite complicated. Decay requires oxygen, and just because something is wet, that doesn't mean it's being exposed to oxygen. Decay requires moisture as well as oxygen. Anyhoo, that's all probably better left for a different topic.

I've done a fair amount of study in the area, and I've never found the issue of old chronologies to be at issue with my scriptural faith. It bothers me when someone claims that it should be an issue to my faith. Why? Is their faith so weak that my faith should be questioned? I have no problem with Genesis being true, and with God having created an earth that is chronologically old. It's not necesary for me to resolve the differences between the two.

I do not believe God created the earth with human and animal fossils already built in...do you?

Funny you should ask. When I first became a Christian, the church I attended at the time was hyperfundamentalist, and many there asserted that very thing. I wasn't convinced that this was so, but also began to understand I didn't need to know why God created things to look as they did, just to understad that God created.

 

[Havensdad]

And I've addressed that. That's different from what Iw as asking. I was asking for a find of dinosaur bones, not dinosaur fossils.

Again, Dinosaur bones would not fit the Young Earth model.

Scripture doesn't say dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood.

Yes, it does.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.
Gen 7:22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.
Gen 7:23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

But it's your assertion that nothing can be older than 6k years,

You are not even reading what I write, are you? I actually said something different, if you will actually read my posts.

therefore, if anything appears to be older than 6k years, it's in error,

No, if anything goes against God's word it is in error. The Bible says God created the Earth in 6 literal days. On the 6th day, He created men. This was the same day He created dinosaurs. So any view that denies that Men and dinos were created on different days (not to mention millions of years apart!) specifically denies what God says.

because nothing can be older than 6k years. OTOH, I assert that, if God created everything 6k years ago, then He did so with a built-in chronolical age.

But with Dinosaurs and humans being made on the same day, according to his word.

In other words, it's not contrary to a YEC view that God created the earth with a built-in chronological age of 4.5billions years, or of past civilizations with a built-in chronological age of 10,000 years, or of fossils with a built-in chronological age of 65 million years, etc.

What you are saying does not make sense. It is just a way of denying what God said. God made Adam, and dinosaurs, within the same 24 hour period, according to scripture.

It IS circular reasoning, because it assumes that God's creation didn't have a built-in chronology.

It does not assume anything. It simply says "God says he made the whole earth in 6 days." That means He made it in 6 days.

Very interesting. I noticed, though, that it doesn't refer to the Mastadon remains as a fossil, but as remains (which would be consistent with what one woudl expect. Animals remains that are 20-40k years old would typically be bone.

Look again. "mammoth fossil found in Vernor mining site"

http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/everythings-mammoth-in-texasa-closer-hb/

And no: animal remains 20-40k years old would not be bone. They would be gone (decomposed). Most all bones, when in an observed environment (such as coffins dug up from cemeteries) are completed decomposed within 100 years or less. 5k-10k year old bones are only theoretical, and are based on faulty old earth assumptions. Scientific data suggest they decay much more rapidly.

Not necessarily. It's actually quite complicated. Decay requires oxygen, and just because something is wet, that doesn't mean it's being exposed to oxygen. Decay requires moisture as well as oxygen. Anyhoo, that's all probably better left for a different topic.

Actually, if something is in water, it is indeed being exposed to oxygen. Tissue completely immersed in water decays slower than tissue in the open air, but it still decays faster than tissue which is buried in non-water saturated ground. The added presence of microbes in the water, caused by the huge amounts of dead things, would assure that bones would never be found.

I've done a fair amount of study in the area, and I've never found the issue of old chronologies to be at issue with my scriptural faith.

Don't understand how. So you admit dinosaurs and humans were made on the exact same day, like God said they were?

It bothers me when someone claims that it should be an issue to my faith. Why? Is their faith so weak that my faith should be questioned? I have no problem with Genesis being true, and with God having created an earth that is chronologically old. It's not necesary for me to resolve the differences between the two.

Strong faith, scripturally defined, is forsaking what the world tells you, what it teaches, and it's ways, for the sake of what God says. Old Earth theories do the opposite: placing the Word of God at the mercy of fallible human "scientific" interpretation.

Funny you should ask. When I first became a Christian, the church I attended at the time was hyperfundamentalist, and many there asserted that very thing. I wasn't convinced that this was so, but also began to understand I didn't need to know why God created things to look as they did, just to understad that God created.

You need to trust Him in everything He said. Including that he made dinosaurs and humans on the same day.

Tell me: if you had a young son, and you told him not to cross the street, because he would get squished, how would you feel if someone else came and told him that the street was not dangerous, and he could play in it all that he wished? How would you feel when you found your son dancing in the street, having trusted someone else's word over yours?

 

[Marcia]

Well, we will just agree to disagree. And yes, I do believe life existed, lived and died, before God "breathed" the breath of life into man (neshama, I think). If you want to label me a "heretic" then go right ahead.

No, I will not label you anything.

So if there was death before man, then how could creation be called good when death is called an enemy in 1 Cor. 15?

 

[Marcia]

Liberal comment coming up:


If plants and animals never died before man sinned then how were Adam and Eve able to comprehend what death was when God warned them not to sin?

.

I don't know but I'm sure that God could have explained it and made it possible for them to understand. The fact that the serpent enticed them this way shows they understood it, so that is logical. To say that there had to be death for them to understand it has less support since the Bible seems to be clear that death came after sin.

Second point, What sort of tending was Adam doing in the garden if he wasn't pulling the dead heads off the roses? Or alternately, if he were pruning, wouldn't the cut stems not die?

Bottom line is that we do not know what this means. Perhaps it was picking the fruit for food, since it was given for food. I know one person who knows Hebrew who thinks this verse means worshiping God in the garden, not tending it. However, be that as it may, I do not think there were weeds in it. Weeds came after the fall.

From Gen. 2

5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

This is pretty clear that there were no plants at all except around the time man was created.

I don't think that we can equate the death of plants and animal with the death of a human which has the breathe of God within him. God didn't breath into the environment, only into Adam

And yet the Bible is clear that the ground was cursed after sin (Gen. 3), that death came through sin (Rom 5), and the earth groans for redemption (Rom 8). If creation is good and death is the enemy, how could there be death before sin?

Putting it all together, it is reasonable to conclude that all death came after sin. There is no scriptural support for any other view. The view that death existed before sin is based on trying to fit in secular views of creation.

 

[Marcia]

Anyhow, what God breathed into man was either different than what He gave the animals or else animals would contain a soul. Nor is the death of an animal akin to the death of a man. (Well, unless you are a member of PETA and I don't think God is) I see no evidence to suggest that animal life was treated in like manner to human life and personally believe that the "death" that is thrown into the lake of fire refers only to the death experienced by humans, that is death of the soul. Remember, Adam was made special by God's own two hands and not spoken into existance as were the animals.

Just because the animals didn't eat each other doesn't mean they die. Just that they didn't die violently. I think we read too much into some of these passages.

Death is bad, period. God doesn't say that just death for man is bad. The sacrifices of animals and their blood showed in vivid pictures to the Jews the terrible price of sin. Animals are creations of God and all creation was good.

Is.11 gives a picture of when all is peaceful in God's kingdom, which is at the very least a reflection of the Garden:

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them.
7Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together,
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den.
9They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.

There is no death in the final fullest manifestation of God's Kingdom, just as there was no death before sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

God's "very good" creation, did not include animal death. The Bible says "death" is thrown into the lake of fire. The Bible says that animals "die". What you think is irrelevant.

Maybe it is the other way around, and you dont have everything as "correct" as you THINK you do.

 

[quantumfaith]

These are not scientifically proven methodology. As you know (as apparently you are some kind of science professor), there are great discrepancies an nearly all samples taken, when a wide range of techniques are applied. In fact each of these tests are said to be useful, only within a given "range." Multiple geologists have commented on the circular reasoning inherent within this approach ("I think it is this age, so I will use this test...).

Secondly, as I am sure you are aware, these tests are based on Old Earth assumptions...not observed data. There are at least three assumption that these tests take for granted...


#1 That the original ratio of parent isotope to product (daughter) is 100/0, or at least, that we are capable of determining the original ratio. This is problematic at best, as even though secular scientists say that this is possible, it assumes that we have "all knowledge" as to how to additional daughter product could be introduced. These kinds of assumption are not scientific. Science is repeatable and verifiable.

#2 That the rate of decay has remained constant. There is good scientific evidence to state this is NOT the case, and accelerated decay rates have been shown to be at least theoretically possible under the right conditions (Please refer to the R.A.T.E. project, a research project recently done by the Scientists at ICR. I believe they have made the technical data available to others in the field, upon request.) This, again, however, is another assumption, even if no way could be conceived by our minds for accelerated decay.

#3 That we have an accurate assessment of the original conditions of the sample.

All of these are assumptions, which make said tests very much unscientific.



Nope. You see, although I do have quite a few science credits, that is not really my field. Theology and Biblical studies ARE my field. And I know that in the Hebrew language, "evening and morning" (a Hebrew idiom meaning "day"), combined with the word "yom" forms a parrallelism: an emphasis by God, that these were normal, ordinary days. The language simply does not allow for anything else.

I also know, that the structure of Genesis 1 and 2, is what is called historical narrative. It is written in the same "kind" of structure, that, say the account of David and Bathseba are written in. So to discount it as some kind of allegory, makes useless two thirds of the Bible.

But this is an untenable position. For 2 Peter 1, says that the Old Testament scriptures, as they had them (which is for all practical purposes, identical to what we have today), were breathed out by God Himself. This is the same Peter, whose follower wrote one of the gospels. If we cannot trust Peter on what he says of the Old Testament, we cannot trust him on anything.

You see, I RECOGNIZE both of our systems are based on belief. However, I give the "tip of the hat" to God and His word, why you are giving it to secular scientific theories...

You are incorrect, most, if not all, of your criticisms about various dating techniques have been debunked. Issues and variables in almost all the dating techniques are factored in methodologically and mathematically.

You are also wrong on accusing me of siding with science over God, that could not be further from the truth. I think God granted man with rational thought and believe he relishes and is honored by His creation using the gift of intellect. God is the ultimate creator, our disagreement is the "interpretation" of how he did it. And yes, even YOUR position is interpretation, as is mine.

 

[quantumfaith]

Do those measure perceived chronological age or actual age? Do you deny God created Adam on day 1 as a grown man?

As someone who has been involved in fitness my whole life, there is "age" differences between someone like myself and someone who has spent their lives sedentary, even though we both may have been born on the same date. Actual age would vary.

I believe that God created everything, I think it is quite a reasonable model, evolution, from which homo sapiens developed, and at a moment in that history, Gods determination, God breathed into Adamas, the Neshama, the breath of life, which by his plans, distinguished Adamas from the remainder of creation. Just some thoughts, could be wrong, I WILL NOT be dogmatic, unlike many I find on this board.

 

[quantumfaith]

No, I will not label you anything.

So if there was death before man, then how could creation be called good when death is called an enemy in 1 Cor. 15?

Well, if you really want to know what I think, Death is the "enemy" of man. It saddens and separates man. The "death" spoken of in Genesis was very obviously not the immeadiate cessation of Adam, as he lived on for many years. The implication being, that even more sinister than physical death, was the "death" of communion with the creator. I see not contradictions regarding scripture, in that, live existed and developed for millions of years prior to the advent of Mankind. God created the nature, and yes it was good, very good. I do not, and will not attempt to put God in a box and define him narrowly, he is infinite, in all senses of the word and more.

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not, and will not attempt to put God in a box and define him narrowly, he is infinite, in all senses of the word and more.

I hear that all the time and it never gets anymore intelligent sounding. It only gets dumber and dumber. The box God is in is in His word, His nature, His character. And this issue has nothing to do with putting God "in a box" anyhow. It most often seems to be an easy out more than anything else.

 

[quantumfaith]

I hear that all the time and it never gets anymore intelligent sounding. It only gets dumber and dumber. The box God is in is in His word, His nature, His character. And this issue has nothing to do with putting God "in a box" anyhow. It most often seems to be an easy out more than anything else.

Oh well sorry that my rhetorical eloquence did not meet your standards.

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh well sorry that my rhetorical eloquence did not meet your standards.

Huh...yea

 

[wattie]

This is meant to be baptist only debate right? Seems odd having old earth and liberal views in here...

guess baptist can mean anything nowadays.

Anyway--

'a day with God is a thousand years'-- often quoted verse to back old age..
the context of this verse has NOTHING TO DO with the age of the earth.. but the second coming of Jesus! It is about the patience of God to wait for the right timing to come back.

Also like is said earlier.. the 'days' and 'nights' of Genesis -- these were written for the people of the day to read themselves.. it is the ancient Hebrew words for day and night.. for their time. So to make a day equal thousands of years here is also out of context.

Then there is the case of Adam.. he is created and dies BETWEEN days.. ie.. created on one day and then dies later.. so if you want the thousands of years argument for one day again.. it makes Adam's age to be ridiculously old! Rather than 900 and something .. he becomes something like two or three thousand years old.

So once again.. doesn't fit with scripture.

 

[Havensdad]

You are incorrect, most, if not all, of your criticisms about various dating techniques have been debunked. Issues and variables in almost all the dating techniques are factored in methodologically and mathematically.

You cannot debunk an historical reality, without going back in time. Saying that you can recognize sample contamination, and such, does make it so. In order for these tests to be scientific, they would have to be measured against data which had actually been taken and verified for the requisite millions of years. This is impossible, so these tests are not scientific.

The Isochron method, to which perhaps you are referring, is a joke. Saying "We recognize all of the dates are always different, so we are going to plot them together" is patently absurd. If the dating techniques were accurate, there should BE NO discrepancies.

This is like walking into a watch makers shop, seeing that one clock says 3:00 Pm, another says 8:00 PM, and yet another says 12:00 PM. So you plot the various times, and come up with 7:35.

Meanwhile, another individual comes into the shop, and also needing to know what time it is, simply asks the watchmaker. The watchmaker replies that it is 9 in the morning.

God said on the sixth day He made man. If you do not believe that man was made on the sixth day of creation, you do not believe what God said about how he created. Words have meaning. I realize that you are the product of a post-modern society, which has been ravaged by deconstructionist, reader response criticism, but if God's words do not mean what they say in Genesis, they also do not mean what they say in John 3:16.

You are also wrong on accusing me of siding with science over God, that could not be further from the truth. I think God granted man with rational thought

And you are placing your ability to reason over God's word. It is no different than the Homosexuals "reinterpreting" the Bible to support their sin, nor is it different from liberation theology, or any of the other rotten fruit of Jacques Derrida.

and believe he relishes and is honored by His creation using the gift of intellect. God is the ultimate creator, our disagreement is the "interpretation" of how he did it. And yes, even YOUR position is interpretation, as is mine.

No. Our disagreement is on God's Word. You believe you are the arbiter of meaning, and can change His Word, however you see fit. I believe that we must accept it, even when it brings shame on us, ridicule, etc. I am simply reading the words as God wrote them. You are re-writing the Words.

FYI: you are making a false dichotomy here. There are literally THOUSANDS of scientists, who were former atheists or agnostics, who have come to believe in literal YEC, because of the science. My own Pastor, is a former Biology professor (and for a time, Zoo administrator), who recognized the unscientific nature of evolution. I am a former secular science junkie (still a science junkie, minus the secular), who is 6 credits shy of a degree in Biology. I also recognized that evolution does not fit the observable facts.

It also does not fit the Biblical record. Not even the order is correct. Evolution and the Bible are irreconcilable.

 

[just-want-peace]

I hear that all the time and it never gets anymore intelligent sounding. It only gets dumber and dumber. The box God is in is in His word, His nature, His character. And this issue has nothing to do with putting God "in a box" anyhow. It most often seems to be an easy out more than anything else.

How very true!!

The "You're putting God in a box" argument to justify all sorts of rambling theories is the scientific equivalent of the "It's because he's black" retort from the liberals when they don't want to address the pertinent issues.

 

[webdog]

I believe that God created everything, I think it is quite a reasonable model, evolution, from which homo sapiens developed, and at a moment in that history, Gods determination, God breathed into Adamas, the Neshama, the breath of life, which by his plans, distinguished Adamas from the remainder of creation. Just some thoughts, could be wrong, I WILL NOT be dogmatic, unlike many I find on this board.

You state you don't hold science over God's Word...but by this comment that clearly is not the case. To claim we evolved into humans is clearly anti-God! Your view is heresy, blasphemy, and has no place in the life of a believer. I pray you repent of this heinous error (and your intellectual pride you exhibit)