Old or Young Earth?

[Aaron]

When people say the earth "appears old," it is only because thy have been conditioned to think a certain way. No one knows how a million-year-old rock differs in appearance from a hundred-year-old rock.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I am an apparent age advocate. I do not think this violates any portion of scripture, in fact, scripture supports apparent age.

When the animals were created, they were not given the maturity of a just conceived being. They were given the appearance of being much older, at least mature enough to bear after their kind. When the plants were created, they weren't given the maturity of a just germinated seed. They were given the appearance of being old enough to bear fruit.

Similarly, man wasn't created as a just conceived baby in a womb. He was given the appearance of a mature adult. As has been said, he was able to walk, talk, think, etc.

This is the epitome of apparent age. Were they x years old? No. They were seconds old. But they appeared to be fully mature. To argue against this is to argue against any given fact. It is true, period.

So, since we know that God created the animals, plants, and man with an apparent age, why would it seem far fetched to assume that the entire universe were already created to appear as if it had been there for years/centuries/millennia? It's not in the least. One doesn't have to resort to a theory based upon a preconceived conclusion if they hold to the apparent age theory. They can be open, honest, and ask "what does the Bible say?" Then, when scientists talk about the light from stars that are billions of light years away, we can look upon with satisfaction knowing that science is catching up to what we already knew; that God created a mature creation.

 

[preachinjesus]

The challenges for Young Earth proponents, whom I appreciate, are greater than they admit.

Not long ago I was talking to a church member who also has a PhD in geology about this whole thing, she is an admitted very old earth proponent, and she noted that most Young Earth arguers just aren't familiar with most of the science. Particularly among the leaders in the Young Earth field, there is an almost conscious effort to ignore specific evidences and how to understand the processes described by the scientific field. She made several points of appreciating how genuine Young Earthers are which is a good thing.

Ultimately we don't know, it beyond all of our abilities to know, what exactly happened at the moment of creation. There is a first starting point.

We simply know too much about the eras being doubted by Young Earthers.

For instance, the Flood, we know too much about the world at the time period where YECers suggest this happened. There are settlements which survive. There are archeological sites which bear no evidence of a global flood during that era. Now, the data for a global flood (which I think is possible) gets stronger as the world is older.

Another issue is that the genealogy lists which YECers rely on for their dating are not consistent across Scripture. There are gaps and missing parts. This doesn't make the Bible false or in error, it just points out that in a humanly authored book there are natural gaps.

When someone points out that the creation appears to be very, very old (as I do) the statement isn't an observation based on looking at creation. Instead it is one that builds on a body of evidences and empirical observations. One area where this has been significantly helped is through astro-physics. Measuring creation, particularly the forces displayed across the various solar systems and in far stars bears that we are not living in a new creation.

Granted, I don't expect all of this will change minds.

However, these are the kinds of conversations that I had as I grew in my personal knowledge and it helped with my move away from the Young Earth position and to my current position.

I absolutely do believe God created all this creation. Without His hand and voice this wouldn't have existed.

 

[TCassidy]

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

The problem is that the genealogies are not a closed father > son relationship.

Matthew’s record of Christ’s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11–14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah).

That is the error Bishop Ussher made when he added up the ages of the genealogies and came up with creation in 4004 BC.

If we look at just the obvious example above we see not just 1 generation, but three generations represented by only one in the genealogies.

Bear in mind the "Table of Nations" found in Genesis 10 is not strictly a genealogy but an ethnography.

In Genesis 11:10-20, as is common in ancient genealogies, it is apparent that this genealogy contains gaps. If it were precisely sequential the events of chapters 9-11 would cover less than three centuries, all of Abraham’s ancestors would have been still living when he was born, and Shem would outlive Abraham by 14 years. The purpose of this genealogy is to record the advances of the messianic line (IE, as I said above, an ethnography not a genealogy) not to add up the years to "prove" the date of creation.

 

[asterisktom]

Young earth!

Yep.

When one studies out the dating issue, crunching all the numbers in the genealogies and other event indicators throughout the Bible, you just cannot find large chunks of time to insert somewhere. I really think Ussher did his homework, although it is fashionable nowadays to make fun of him.

Of course this assumes you agree that Adam was the first living created physical person - which I do.

Edit: This was written before I saw the above post. It was not meant as a rebuttal, or that I intend to spend time defending Ussher. Too busy right now for that.

 

[TCassidy]

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,"?

The vaw connective has nothing to do with "was" or "became." The Hebrew verb "was" - hayah - is in the Qal (indicative) perfect tense. "Became" is a fanciful translation.

There is an ambiguity in Hebrew about past or future actions, but that crops up when the IMperfect tense is used, not the perfect.

God made the earth "tohuw and bohuw." Unformed and unfilled.

Isaiah 45:18 says of God's creation of the earth "he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited." He created it not in vain (without a reason), he formed it to be inhabited; the earth indeed was "tohu" when it was first created, Genesis 1:2, where the word is used to describe the chaos of the initial creation which is here in Isaiah translated "in vain" meaning the earth was not created to remain unformed and chaotic, nor did it remain so; for though it was first without form, it was soon (< 6 days) formed into a beautiful planet, and made into a magnificent habitation of men and beasts.

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.

So do I.

 

[TCassidy]

Edit: This was written before I saw the above post. It was not meant as a rebuttal, or that I intend to spend time defending Ussher. Too busy right now for that.

Of course, Matthew 1:8 compared to 1 Chronicles 3:11–14 and all of Genesis 11:10-20 prove Ussher to have been badly mistaken.

 

[revmwc]

The problem is that the genealogies are not a closed father > son relationship.

Matthew’s record of Christ’s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11–14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah).

That is the error Bishop Ussher made when he added up the ages of the genealogies and came up with creation in 4004 BC.

If we look at just the obvious example above we see not just 1 generation, but three generations represented by only one in the genealogies.

Bear in mind the "Table of Nations" found in Genesis 10 is not strictly a genealogy but an ethnography.

In Genesis 11:10-20, as is common in ancient genealogies, it is apparent that this genealogy contains gaps. If it were precisely sequential the events of chapters 9-11 would cover less than three centuries, all of Abraham’s ancestors would have been still living when he was born, and Shem would outlive Abraham by 14 years. The purpose of this genealogy is to record the advances of the messianic line (IE, as I said above, an ethnography not a genealogy) not to add up the years to "prove" the date of creation.

But to see it as a 4.5 to 5 billion year old earth will not compute. Nor will it change the fact that the fossil record came from the time of the flood. We see that until the flood all animals and mankind were vegetarians the only animals killed would have been those killed for sacrifices. Given those things we see still a relatively young earth. even if the genealogy were off a few generation it still would not constitute an old earth. The pressures of flood waters for 150+ days on the earth the opening of the fountains of the deep need to be accounted for in determining the age of the earth.

 

[OldRegular]

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

You are correct Aaron!

 

[OldRegular]

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

Double post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[OldRegular]

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.

There is evidence that the velocity of light is not constant.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rm.....did they do a carbon dating test on this rabbit?

 

[Darrell C]

I am an apparent age advocate. I do not think this violates any portion of scripture, in fact, scripture supports apparent age.

When the animals were created, they were not given the maturity of a just conceived being. They were given the appearance of being much older, at least mature enough to bear after their kind. When the plants were created, they weren't given the maturity of a just germinated seed. They were given the appearance of being old enough to bear fruit.

Similarly, man wasn't created as a just conceived baby in a womb. He was given the appearance of a mature adult. As has been said, he was able to walk, talk, think, etc.

This is the epitome of apparent age. Were they x years old? No. They were seconds old. But they appeared to be fully mature. To argue against this is to argue against any given fact. It is true, period.

So, since we know that God created the animals, plants, and man with an apparent age, why would it seem far fetched to assume that the entire universe were already created to appear as if it had been there for years/centuries/millennia? It's not in the least. One doesn't have to resort to a theory based upon a preconceived conclusion if they hold to the apparent age theory. They can be open, honest, and ask "what does the Bible say?" Then, when scientists talk about the light from stars that are billions of light years away, we can look upon with satisfaction knowing that science is catching up to what we already knew; that God created a mature creation.

In regards to appearance, wouldn't your reasoning actually work in favor of the earth having a mature make-up rather than freshly created?

In regards to light, we know light was created in a day, lol. The argument "We know the earth is millions of years because it would have taken (so many) years for light to reach the earth" doesn't correlate to how Creation is described. That would be a noon-issue for us.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The challenges for Young Earth proponents, whom I appreciate, are greater than they admit.

Not really, because we have a set record of data by which we base our views. That is the Word of God.

Those who embrace the Old Earth view have always had to speculate and base their dogmatic conclusions (which we see at times reverse when Science disproves previous positions) on insufficient data.

The worst part is that they deny some simple truths laid out in the Genesis account.

The Old Earth view is not something to break fellowship over, in my view, and we have seen a number of prominent men we know were sincere believers who embraced this view. I personally think they were led to this view because they felt the Scientific Community produced evidence for their anti-biblical positions (and the Scientific Community is by and large opposed to the Word of God), but Science will in fact one day (should the Lord tarry) clarify the errors made by those desperate to ridicule that which is taught in Scripture.

Our greatest challenge as young earthers is not to allow this to be a source of contention where our behavior might be compromised.

Not long ago I was talking to a church member who also has a PhD in geology about this whole thing, she is an admitted very old earth proponent, and she noted that most Young Earth arguers just aren't familiar with most of the science.

The problem with that is that Geologists have a basis of error due to bias.

Recently Geologists have admitted that through the study of turbidation they can no longer use sedimentary layering as the basis for extended times not accounted for in the Bible.

They concede that rapid formation is not only possible, but can be witnessed in hours.

The "science" they would have us familiar with is akin to a Catholic saying "Protestants are wrong because they are not familiar with what we know." lol

Both are equally credible.

Particularly among the leaders in the Young Earth field, there is an almost conscious effort to ignore specific evidences and how to understand the processes described by the scientific field. She made several points of appreciating how genuine Young Earthers are which is a good thing.

She said they are consciously dishonest but genuine in their dishonesty?

How magnanimous of her.

Ultimately we don't know, it beyond all of our abilities to know, what exactly happened at the moment of creation. There is a first starting point.

And that is the one thing I stress to people in this debate: we simply do not have the data to make dogmatic conclusions when it comes to history.

But...we can stand on what is taught in Scripture and take a somewhat dogmatic position.

Consider global warming. I have never lost a night's sleep because I know this world isn't going anywhere until Prophecy is fulfilled.

I believe in Global Warming, just not the garbage taught for the purpose of raking in the bucks from the gullible who are not familiar with Scripture. IT will happen, but when it happens...it will be all at once.

So I don't sweat the elements melting with fervent heat (pun intended).

But we do know enough about what happened in the days of Creation to dismiss a number of claims which are supposed to be rooted in irrefutable fact.

We simply know too much about the eras being doubted by Young Earthers.

And only that which is convenient to an argument (and this applies to both sides) is usually brought to the table. For example, I am ridiculed for believing the entire earth was under water. We are told in Scripture that it was, at Creation, and then in the Flood.

That is thought to be idiotic, yet, Science presents evidence of what are great land masses being under water. I remind people of the Cretaceous Seaway as an example.

But just because we have that example doesn't mean that Science can limit it to that. For me, as a Bible believer, I don't struggle with what God's Word said happened.

For instance, the Flood, we know too much about the world at the time period where YECers suggest this happened. There are settlements which survive. There are archeological sites which bear no evidence of a global flood during that era. Now, the data for a global flood (which I think is possible) gets stronger as the world is older.

You think a global flood is possible?

You are going to believe Scientists who say it isn't instead of the Word of God which says it is...twice?

What is this evidence that has you doubting God's Word, I would very much like to see it.

And I will remind you, that just in Theological Discussion, just because one group presents a view doesn't mean everyone else agrees with them. The point being that you are relying on that group to present your argument.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Another issue is that the genealogy lists which YECers rely on for their dating are not consistent across Scripture. There are gaps and missing parts. This doesn't make the Bible false or in error, it just points out that in a humanly authored book there are natural gaps.

Very weak argument.

Doubtful that there were enough descendants left out to account for four billion years. Think about it.

The only variable we have is that we do not know how long Adam was alive prior to the Fall.

The Gap Restoration Theory was created, I think, primarily because some men bought into the "Science" of that day. But Science is constantly having to change their story in order to make their "science" seems reasonable.

Have you considered their dating of fossilized humans? Have you noticed that there is dispute in the ranks on that subject?

We see in Scripture that men were superior early on, they lived longer, for instance (and I don't think anyone would claim Adam was an inferior human). It is scientific belief (I won't say fact because that is a debatable issue depending on which side of the aisle one sits on) that man's brain/cranial capacity was larger in "neanderthal man."

When is the last time a scientist brought that issue up to you?

That fits the basic principle in Scripture of man's degeneration as a result of the Fall.

One scientist said, in regards to man's former strength, "The average Neanderthal woman would have whupped Arnold Schwarzeneggar in arm-wrestling."

That fits the pattern of degeneration in man.

And the data relevant to this conversation is simply not available. Where is the science that can identify precise understanding of osmoregulation in...fossils. And how about species we have never even discovered? In both animal and plant species? How about nutritional value 6,000 years ago compared to today? Even in the last fifty years we have seen that decline, lol, due to man's "wisdom" and scientific know-how. People wonder why cancer is so prevalent in our society, well...you can thank the genius scientists.

If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it, you'll live longer, lol.

When someone points out that the creation appears to be very, very old (as I do) the statement isn't an observation based on looking at creation. Instead it is one that builds on a body of evidences and empirical observations.

So you say, as do all who offer that "body of evidences and empirical observations."

Again, this is as valid as any group presenting their data and declaring superior knowledge. What we have to do is examine the basis for those beliefs and when we do we usually find some interesting items of note.

Especially when the body of evidences and empirical observations are presented by people hostile to the Word of God. And I am not saying you are, but referring to the underlying position that has held the reigns of scientific research for so long. It is no different than the stranglehold Catholicism had on the Word of God at one time.

Evolution has for many years (Darwin did not create this belief but merely built on it) presented itself as a factual position based on s body of evidences and empirical observations which cannot be refuted.

It is strange how those facts have had to shift over the years to fit what Science actually reveals.

The belief that men evolved from Apes still has no evidence to support it, though it is still taught. The early Evolution is not the same as the Evolution taught today, yet it does not bother anyone that this is the case. And it is this "science" which led to the Gap Restoration theory and an embrace of Old Earth views.

One area where this has been significantly helped is through astro-physics. Measuring creation, particularly the forces displayed across the various solar systems and in far stars bears that we are not living in a new creation.

Helped?

And you have no thought that manipulation of data to support a view might be taking place?

Let me ask you this: how many scientists are saying the earth is older than the stars?

Start with that contradiction with Scripture, and let me know your thoughts. Let me know what scientific data proves the Scriptures in error.

If you can let me know who is teaching hey have an equivalent age...that would be good enough for me.

Granted, I don't expect all of this will change minds.

Good thing, lol.

However, these are the kinds of conversations that I had as I grew in my personal knowledge and it helped with my move away from the Young Earth position and to my current position.

I believe it. They can be a very convincing group. Perhaps you grew up going through an education program that was very "Evolutionary."

Are you a Theistic Evolutionist?

I absolutely do believe God created all this creation. Without His hand and voice this wouldn't have existed.

The question is...do you believe He did so according to the Record of Scripture.


God bless.

 

[percho]

Are the following scriptures, relative as to whether the earth is considerably older that Adam, in other words, relative to old earth vs young earth?


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

For the creation <(Does that include Adam?) was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; Rom 8:20 NKJV

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. <(Did that include Adam at time of creation?) Rom 7:14

And before the creation of Adam, the Word of God says this was determined.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

Did God before the foundation of the world, this present system of order, determine to create, sell and then redeem, in-order to destroy the works of the devil? Why was the earth, without form and void and darkness upon the face of the deep?

 

[revmwc]

Rm.....did they do a carbon dating test on this rabbit?

If they carbon dated it we probably be told it is between 5,000 to 10,000 years old based on 1/2 the age of the earth as since sees it 4.5 to 5 billion years old.

 

[TCassidy]

But to see it as a 4.5 to 5 billion year old earth will not compute.

Please show where I said or implied any such thing.

In my initial post I clearly stated, "I believe the earth is older than the young earth creationists claim, and younger than the old earth claims."

 

[TCassidy]

Very weak argument.

Very strong argument. Did Shem outlive Abraham or not?

Doubtful that there were enough descendants left out to account for four billion years.

What four billion years? The earth is older than the 6000 years proffered by the young earth creationists. But "older" does not equate to "four billion years."

Think about it.

You think about it!

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Very weak argument.

Very strong argument. Did Shem outlive Abraham or not?

If we go by the years given...no. While I have only done a quick run through of the lifespans given, and would have to recheck, it looks like he died about 3 years before Abraham. I will recalculate later to see if I have made a mistake.

Why would that be an issue anyway?

Why would Shem outliving Abraham, or them being contemporary make any difference?

Quote:
Doubtful that there were enough descendants left out to account for four billion years.

What four billion years?

That is the peak of current belief in the age of the earth.

4 million doesn't make it any batter.

Four hundred thousand doesn't make it any better.

40,000 doesn't make it any better.

Allowing for missing time frames from genealogies would be hard pressed to come up with more than a few thousand years, which, when we get to that age, most of the "bodies of evidence and empirical evidences" are exposed as greatly exaggerated.

The earth is older than the 6000 years proffered by the young earth creationists.

Not all YECers take a 6,000 year view, it ranges from 6 to more than 10 thousand, and even a little higher than that might be justified due to no record of Adam's time in the Garden, a variable often overlooked.

And you cannot be dogmatic about the earth not being 6,000 years old, and if you are...what do you base that on?

Because you think it impossible that Shem was contemporary to Abraham?

Doubtful, I would think it would be of an embrace of evidences which are the wisdom of men which stands in direct contradiction do Scripture, which is the basis for most of the "evidence."

If you are going to buy into that, then to be fair, you should also believe Catholicism is correct in it's doctrine...because they say they are. They can give you Scriptural proof they are.

But "older" does not equate to "four billion years."

For many it does.

Quote:
Think about it.

You think about it!

Give me something to think about, lol.

Are you a Theistic Evolutionist?


God bless.