Old or Young Earth?

[evangelist6589]

I am reading opposing views just for fun. I am reading a book by Roger Olson refuting Calvinism and defending Arminianism called "Against Calvinism." I am reading a book arguing for Preterism, and I am reading a book with a defense of the Old Earth view of creation. I am having a hard time understanding the old earth view and the author seems to be arguing allot from theory rather than hardcore biblical exegesis, like how MacArthur writes his "The Battle for the beginning book." But anyways one good argument (I think) that the author made is the gap between Genesis 1 and 2 and he believes what scientists are discovering these days is the old earth, while the new earth is some 6,000 years old. I believe this view is called the Gap Theory but its been a season since I have been in school so I cannot remember. Anyone? Does the Old Earth view have any merit? So far in the book the way the author has been arguing I have not been persuaded, and his evidence from science seems small compared to what has been produced by Answers in Genesis, Creation.com, and other ministries.

 

[Revmitchell]

 

[revmwc]

I am reading opposing views just for fun. I am reading a book by Roger Olson refuting Calvinism and defending Arminianism called "Against Calvinism." I am reading a book arguing for Preterism, and I am reading a book with a defense of the Old Earth view of creation. I am having a hard time understanding the old earth view and the author seems to be arguing allot from theory rather than hardcore biblical exegesis, like how MacArthur writes his "The Battle for the beginning book." But anyways one good argument (I think) that the author made is the gap between Genesis 1 and 2 and he believes what scientists are discovering these days is the old earth, while the new earth is some 6,000 years old. I believe this view is called the Gap Theory but its been a season since I have been in school so I cannot remember. Anyone? Does the Old Earth view have any merit? So far in the book the way the author has been arguing I have not been persuaded, and his evidence from science seems small compared to what has been produced by Answers in Genesis, Creation.com, and other ministries.

A couple of thing for the young earth not sure if they argued against them. One is the sedimentation rate. At the current rates of sedimentation we would have no more oceans. The other of course is accounting for the flood and the breaking up of the fountains of the deep. Not only did this catastrophe have a deluge from above Genesis also states that the fountains of the deep opened up. These are just a few of the reason an older earth doesn't quite fit. I would need to resurrect my books from my science class from college which taught about them. Wait now it is coming back to me about the course. First photosynthesis occurs when their is light if the earth was an older earth and created in certain periods of times instead of seven days of 24 hours such as many old agers teach then plant life would not have been able to survive. The grass and green plants were on the third day. If it wasn't a 24 hour day and instead along period of time the green would not have survived, because the greater light that is the Sun and the lesser light the moon that controls the tides weren't created until the fourth day. Thus if there was more than a week between the creation of the sun and most who teach an old earth see thousands of years between the days. But a 24 hour day brings the Sun, moon and stars to help the plants survive and the moon to control the tides.

As for the Gap Theory I held it at one time. It teaches that there is a gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis chapter 1. That God created the Earth and it was dormant for a time.

Many will say but what about the bones they find that carbon dating says is millions of years old. Well understand the formula for carbon dating and you will see that these dates just don't align. the formula is this carbon 14/carbon 12 x 1/2 the age of the earth = the age of the bones. Well scientist today say the earth is 4.5 billion. So if you take that and 1/2 it that would be the formula used to date fossils into the millions of years. But what happens if you use 6000+ years that means you would date fossils with carbon 14/carbon 12 x 3000 making the bones considerably younger than we are told.

 

[annsni]

I believe that just as God created fully grown trees (indication of age), fully grown animals (indication of age) and fully grown humans (again, indication of age), He also created a world that has an indication of age even when the earth is not old. I believe He created everything in the 6 24 hour days the Bible speaks of. I just go by the Bible rather than theories.

 

[evangelist6589]

I believe that just as God created fully grown trees (indication of age), fully grown animals (indication of age) and fully grown humans (again, indication of age), He also created a world that has an indication of age even when the earth is not old. I believe He created everything in the 6 24 hour days the Bible speaks of. I just go by the Bible rather than theories.

Exactly which is why the old earth types make bad arguments.

 

[Rolfe]

I am reading opposing views just for fun.

Beware. You may be persuaded.

 

[TCassidy]

I believe the earth is older than the young earth creationists claim, and younger than the old earth claims.

I also know the gap theory is impossible for several reasons. The first is the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1.

Verse 1 and verse 2 are connected with a "vaw connective." It is translated "and." It would be entirely legitimate to translate the "vaw connective" as "and immediately, without the passage of time" the next part of the verse began to happen.

And note also that every other subsequent verse in Genesis 1 starts with the same "vaw connective" with the exception of verse 27. Is there a billions and billions of years gap between all those verses too?

The second is doctrine. According to the bible it was Adam's sin that brought death into the world. (Romans 5:12) The gospel of Jesus Christ is predicated on the fact that death has affected every living soul. If that is not true then the gospel is not true. The gap theory has death existing prior to Adam's fall and is thus not only un-scriptural, but anti-scriptural.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't believe God made the trees, the animals, and the people with "the appearance of age." To make something appear to be what it is, in truth, not, is deception and I don't think God is a deceiver.

I believe God created the trees, the animals, and the people mature, fully able to fulfill one of the reasons for their creation (trees to produce seeds after their kind, animals to procreate after their kind, and man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth).

 

[InTheLight]

LOL! I hope that coffee I spewed on the keyboard doesn't make the keys stick.

 

[annsni]

I don't believe God made the trees, the animals, and the people with "the appearance of age." To make something appear to be what it is, in truth, not, is deception and I don't think God is a deceiver.

I believe God created the trees, the animals, and the people mature, fully able to fulfill one of the reasons for their creation (trees to produce seeds after their kind, animals to procreate after their kind, and man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth).

But if Adam was any more than a zygote, he had the appearance of age.

 

[Van]

There are several Old Earth views, including "Day-Age" and "Gap."

Carbon dating is only used for recent stuff, less than about 80,000 years, not millions or billions. Other methods of dating using radioactive isotopes are used to "date" rocks and the like.

No theory, old earth or young earth seems likely to reflect the actual reality. Currently the bullet-proof theory is young earth with apparent age. For example the wine at Cana appeared to be old, yet had been created in an instant. What makes this view seem unlikely is God creating light that when it reached the earth 6000 years or so after creation, it would appear to show a supernova occurring 165,000 years ago.

Best answer, we do not know how God created everything, only that He did.

 

[beameup]

I believe the earth is older than the young earth creationists claim, and younger than the old earth claims.
I believe that entropy plays a role in the false conclusion of a very old earth. Entropy dramatically effects the speed of light (among other things).

 

[just-want-peace]

Following is a post I made several years ago concerning this very topic.

Bear with me, as I try to understand the reluctance of some to take God at His word, but believe “SCIENCE” instead when the two don’t gee-haw.

1-What is the absolute base, bedrock, or foundation for determining the age of earth, artifacts, fossils, etc etc? Now I don’t want a long scientific explanation that I can’t grasp, but in simple words, where/what is the proven, unchallenged parameter, upon which the determination of the age of any artifact or fossil, that is beyond our present ability to observe, is based? Allow me to be a bit ridiculous here; is there anything that is as solid as if ( please note “AS IF”, not to be taken literal) you found a bronze war-ax that was stamped “MFG IN MESOPOTAMIA IN 3008 BC”? This is not debatable (excluding a forgery) so this is a fact that you could date similar objects to, or date those found in the same area/level of the discovery

2- Suppose an archeologist unearthed some human bones that happened to be the remains of Seth. What would forensics claim as the age of this man when he died? Note his age according to God’s word:
Gen 5:8 "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died."
I submit that modern science would claim his age at death would be 80 min, to 100 max. Yet, if you trust God’s word, the “scientific estimate would be off more than 800 years. WHY?? Simply because this age is no longer realistic for any human, so the results are adjusted to what is reality TODAY! They would judge the remains by today’s faster aging standard to determine the “age at death”. Quite similar to forensics dating a murder victim as: Male, 25-30 YO, etc.

The point I’m trying to find, is what is the foundation that the Old Earth/Evolutionists are using to justify their beliefs? The foundation, please, not an essay on processes etc.

Now before you challenge, I do not have any foundation to believe YOUNG EARTH/CREATION other than the word of God; in other words since there are two contrasting interpretations of existing evidence, I CHOOSE to believe God over SCIENCE. So please, don’t start the old complaint that I can’t prove my beliefs either. I’m admitting this up front.

The difference is that I admit I’m going on faith; you tell me what you are using that IS NOT FAITH, but concrete facts!

If I did not know the Scripture, then I would have no problem accepting the scientific explanation, BUT I DO KNOW what God said, so I look at this whole subject in a different light than the unknowing or the unbeliever.

I never received a satisfactory answer (for me) from the "old earthers".:sleeping_2:

 

[TCassidy]

But if Adam was any more than a zygote, he had the appearance of age.

No, he didn't have the appearance of age. He was created fit for the purpose of his creation. You (wrongly) assume that God's method of creation parallels man's process of procreation. And that is false.

 

[TCassidy]

Best answer, we do not know how God created everything, only that He did.

Once again I find myself agreeing with Van, which is unusual. Genesis tells us what God did and the order in which He did it. But it does not tell us when or how He did it.

I believe the 6 days of creation are literal 24 hour days, but when those days occurred is not one of the things God chose to reveal to us.

 

[TCassidy]

I believe the earth is older than the young earth creationists claim, and younger than the old earth claims.
I believe that entropy plays a role in the false conclusion of a very old earth. Entropy dramatically effects the speed of light (among other things).

Australian physics buff Barry Setterfield published some papers regarding the decay of the speed of light since creation and the curve that decay follow. Interesting stuff although it has been picked apart pretty thoroughly by his peers during the review process.

You can find his papers here: http://www.setterfield.org/

 

[annsni]

No, he didn't have the appearance of age. He was created fit for the purpose of his creation. You (wrongly) assume that God's method of creation parallels man's process of procreation. And that is false.

But if you saw a grown man, would you not consider he was at least of an age to us? Yes, I agree he was created fit for the purpose of his creation - but that means he could walk, talk, think, make decisions, etc. In our world, that means age.

 

[TCassidy]

But if you saw a grown man, would you not consider he was at least of an age to us? Yes, I agree he was created fit for the purpose of his creation - but that means he could walk, talk, think, make decisions, etc. In our world, that means age.

<sigh> Adam was created by God. People today are PRO-created by their parents. It is the process of PROCREATION that requires time and growth. CREATION did not. To insist that maturity is a sign of age where Adam is concerned is to employ a terrible anachronism!

 

[annsni]

<sigh> Adam was created by God. People today are PRO-created by their parents. It is the process of PROCREATION that requires time and growth. CREATION did not. To insist that maturity is a sign of age where Adam is concerned is to employ a terrible anachronism!

But it IS when we deal with today. If I just come upon a man, I consider there to be age. If he were just suddenly created by God, he wouldn't have age but he would have an APPEARANCE of age.

 

[preachinjesus]

We amid a creation that appears to be very, very old. Hundreds of millions of years old at that.

I am no young earther.