[__ Science __ ] Old Earth vs. Young Earth

[RandyK]

The distant universe where stars are is not about our atmosphere.

Again, nothing about atmosphere

Same as above...squat about atmosphere

Same thing here.

Yes, I think the Creation account is somewhat earth-centric. We've traditionally used sunlight to guage our daytime for work, and our moonlight to guage our limited work at night. It tracks the number of our days obviously, with the separation that darkness affords (Alaska may be excepted, which at times has light continuously.)

The moon has been used to determine monthly cycles and fit into the periods making up "seasons." And so, with the full set of seasons we have a year, and count them as such.

This would be of no use to aliens from a distant galaxy! ;) I'm not challenging anything you said--just adding to your point.

 

[Free]

No. The other days of creation account for the other things He did after the earth was here

I have no idea what you're stating. What days are you referring to by "other days," and what "other things"? Please be much more clear in what you're saying or asking.

 

[Eternally-grateful]

Yes, that is the alternative version, which I think doesn't sound very God-like to me.

it does not sound God like that he performs miracles?

I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe God communicates by many and varied methods.

I do too..

One of the methods God uses to communicate to us is written in the rocks of the earth. It leaves a record. Also, God gave us brains and scientists and all kinds of discoveries about dating rocks and figuring out how long it take one element to decay into another element. That is, God communicates to us by showing us how to figure the approximate age of the earth, and the process it went through to bring us to where we are today.

and how do we date rocks? and again if the flood destroyed the world that was. would not the rocks be destroyed also?

Just as we can study in archaeology for determining past history of civilizations, so we can study rocks and geological strata to determine time and progress in the age of the earth. We can look at ice in the arctic regions and discover the past in the elements or gases that are trapped there.

Maybe

or it could determine time and progress of a global flood (ie the grand canyon)

again, we can look at it different ways. it does not mean one way is right and the other wrong

The problems with an hypothetical "Global" Flood are many.

Hypothetical?

The whole earth was covered

every tall hill and mountain was covered.

hypothetical?

lol.. come one..

For one thing, habitat sensitive creatures, together with their plant food, would be utterly destroyed, making God have to re-create the earth and its inhabitants all over again.

Of course, this miracle is hypothetically possible, and God could certainly do it. But would He? I don't think so because He made the universe once, and then rested. And in the Bible we read that He made the earth to last forever.

It will have to be "remodelled" or "fixed," but it will continue forever--even if the universe seems to threaten its order currently. I believe the Bible, which says that the earth is forever--not, the Flood destroyed the "globe."

Saving a large region on earth, where the Cradle of Civilization was located, was intended, explicitly, to be a sample of God's wish to preserve the whole earth. By saving Noah and the animals of his region God intended to show the future world that He intends to save it completely in the end. What will be completely destroyed is the entire corrupt world, which is very different from earth's annihilation.

 

[Eternally-grateful]

It seems you still aren't quite understanding what I am saying.

For young earthers, day one necessarily begins in either verse 1 or verse 2. If verse 2,

I am a young earther

I do not believe day one starts in verse 1 or verse 2.

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with it

that leaves verse 1 as a general statement that God created everything, and all that follows provides the details of what occurred in verse 1. So, verse 2 is not necessarily a continuation of verse 1, but a detailed reiteration and explanation. (Just like how the general statement of the creation of man and woman in Gen. 1:27 is detailed in chapter 2.) However, that ignores the fact that days two through six begin with "And God said," suggesting that day one begins in verse 3.

as a young earther I believe day 1 starts in verse 3.

My point is that the earth, along with the rest of the universe, could have been created in verse 1, but was only created to the point of being "without form and void;" merely water and rock (verse 2). Further specific creation to allow for human and animal habitation was then done in days one to six. Hence why it is possible that day one begins in verse 3. That the first "And God said" occurs in verse 3 supports that. That means there could have been a very long time from the creation of the universe to the start of day one.

There are many different nuances and things going on in Gen. 1 that allow for an old earth while remaining completely faithful to the text.

as a young earther. I believe this

gen 1 is a statment of fact. And God created the heavens and the earth

Gen 2 is the starting point if this thing called the earth its origional state (void and formless. it needed to be formed)

gen 3 is day one. where God starts to take this thing that had no form, and starts to form it. and fill it.

Not saying i am right. but this is how I see it..

day one is the day God created light according to his word.

a 7 day creation event

 

[daddd]

Yes, I think the Creation account is somewhat earth-centric. We've traditionally used sunlight to guage our daytime for work, and our moonlight to guage our limited work at night. It tracks the number of our days obviously, with the separation that darkness affords (Alaska may be excepted, which at times has light continuously.)

The moon has been used to determine monthly cycles and fit into the periods making up "seasons." And so, with the full set of seasons we have a year, and count them as such.

This would be of no use to aliens from a distant galaxy! ;) I'm not challenging anything you said--just adding to your point.

No aliens, they are probably demons. As for the moon and sun and days, there was no sun or moon the first few days. Not needed

 

[daddd]

I have no idea what you're stating. What days are you referring to by "other days," and what "other things"? Please be much more clear in what you're saying or asking.

There were 6 days involved in creation. So a lot was done on days other than the first one

 

[Free]

There were 6 days involved in creation. So a lot was done on days other than the first one

Right. So, what does that have to do with anything I stated? Again, if you're going to be involved in debating, you must clearly show what you're addressing and how your answer is relevant. Quoting an entire post and making a general statement doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[Hidden In Him]

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

You have to look not at the English, which has the article, but at the blue text which shows what the word is. For days six and seven, it states that the article is present, but not for the first five days (they're just numbers).

Huh... Well that's certainly curious. The LXX has no definite article throughout, so I'm at a loss to tell you the truth. Interesting, though.

 

[miamited]

If a global Flood destroyed all humans except Noah and his family just 4350 years ago, why don’t we find human fossils in the same layers of rock believed to be set down by Noah’s Flood?

Hey Rodger

I asked you earlier if you live in an area of the country that has deer?

I also find it interesting that you decided to say things like....."He called the earth into existence" when I never said that he didnt!

I didn't say that you were claiming that. I merely gave my understanding of God's work in creating this realm.

And then there is the "He did it in six days" when I never said that He didnt.

I'll leave that up to those who are reading this thread as to whether or not your opening treatise in post #1 isn't all about denying six days. You believe that He did it in 6 ages. You claim to have no idea how long the days were, and yet a day, consisting of one evening and morning, since the beginning have been determined as a rotation of a planetary body. That's actually a scientific truth.

 

[RandyK]

You believe that He did it in 6 ages. You claim to have no idea how long the days were, and yet a day, consisting of one evening and morning, since the beginning have been determined as a rotation of a planetary body. That's actually a scientific truth.

I think that is a kind of strange literary convention that happens on occasion, when the context demands it. When Jesus said that he would spend time like Jonah did in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights, he did not actually mean that the comparison would be perfect. Many think Jesus died on a Friday, spent the entire Saturday in the grave, and then rose on Sunday morning--only portions of 3 days--not 3 days and 3 nights like Jonah did in the fish.

In the same way, dividing the days by evenings is purely extending the metaphor, by making it clear the demarcations between the metaphorical "days." To add there were "evenings" really has nothing to do with the literal reality since no day was even possible yet before the sun was created on the 4th day.

The context demands that the "evenings and mornings" be understood as metaphors, or representations standing in for realities that are transcendent and not capable of being understood in their literal sense by us. It's like God had an overlay (as in an overhead projector) of our understanding of a "Week" and laid it as a "transparent" over how He actually progressed in creating the world. This was to emphasize a Week in Israel's worship under the Law, which certainly came much later, God anticipating that and Moses actually initiating it.

My opinion only...

 

[Elijah7777]

The physical laws have nothing to do with creation or God, they are after the fact of creation and limited in what they apply to

We do not see the cause, we only see the effect. Human understanding is built on observing effects and inferring causes. We call them the laws of Science and there are 613 laws in our Bible. Many people see God as the ultimate source of both natural laws and moral laws.

 

[Elijah7777]

If these fossils represent organisms that had been alive as the Flood waters consumed the earth, where are all the human fossils?

According to the Persian Gulf Oasis theory, they are under the Persian Gulf. As the Euphrates River continues to dry up, archaeologists and researchers have uncovered ancient ruins, lost cities, and artifacts that were previously submerged. Noah's "world" is what we call a biodiverse ecosystem. Noah saved the modern civilized world. If it were not for Noah and his Ark we would still be hunter gathers today. There would be no world as we know it today.

The biosphere is the global sum of all ecosystems. Noah saved his ecosystem, not all the whole Biosphere. Science is very interested in how civilization spread from the Middle East to Europe and the rest of the world. At the time the East and West was connected by camels on the silk highway. The ancient road is still there today.

 

[Elijah7777]

The physical laws have nothing to do with creation or God, they are after the fact of creation and limited in what they apply to

The Justice of God is as exact and precise as the universe or all of Creation.

Many religious traditions affirm that God's justice is absolute, unwavering, and perfectly balanced, much like the laws that govern the universe. Just as the physical world operates under precise laws—gravity, thermodynamics, and motion—many believe that God's moral law is equally precise, ensuring fairness, accountability, and righteousness.

 

[Rodger]

According to the Persian Gulf Oasis theory, they are under the Persian Gulf. As the Euphrates River continues to dry up, archaeologists and researchers have uncovered ancient ruins, lost cities, and artifacts that were previously submerged. Noah's "world" is what we call a biodiverse ecosystem. Noah saved the modern civilized world. If it were not for Noah and his Ark we would still be hunter gathers today. There would be no world as we know it today.

The biosphere is the global sum of all ecosystems. Noah saved his ecosystem, not all the whole Biosphere. Science is very interested in how civilization spread from the Middle East to Europe and the rest of the world. At the time the East and West was connected by camels on the silk highway. The ancient road is still there today.

According to what I can find, the Persian Gulf Paradis Theory is dated at approx. 100,000 years ago. That of course would validate Old Earth theology.

 

[Eternally-grateful]

According to what I can find, the Persian Gulf Paradis Theory is dated at approx. 100,000 years ago. That of course would validate Old Earth theology.

who was living 100,000 years ago to determine that things happened then the way they do today., and confirm the test used to date is accurate?

 

[Rodger]

Hey Rodger

I asked you earlier if you live in an area of the country that has deer?

I didn't say that you were claiming that. I merely gave my understanding of God's work in creating this realm.

I'll leave that up to those who are reading this thread as to whether or not your opening treatise in post #1 isn't all about denying six days. You believe that He did it in 6 ages. You claim to have no idea how long the days were, and yet a day, consisting of one evening and morning, since the beginning have been determined as a rotation of a planetary body. That's actually a scientific truth.

Deer live in all parts of the country....so the answer would be yes.

I have NO argument whatsoever in that God did the work in creation and never said that He didnt.

Listen.....AGAIN x 5......I did not say that God did not create the Earth in a 24 hour, 6 day week!
I did not say that God created the Earth in 6 ages.

 

[daddd]

Right. So, what does that have to do with anything I stated? Again, if you're going to be involved in debating, you must clearly show what you're addressing and how your answer is relevant. Quoting an entire post and making a general statement doesn't get us anywhere.

You said this
"
For young earthers, day one necessarily begins in either verse 1 or verse 2.
If verse 2, that leaves verse 1 as a general statement that God created everything, and all that follows provides the details of what occurred in verse 1. So, verse 2 is not necessarily a continuation of verse 1, but a detailed reiteration and explanation. (Just like how the general statement of the creation of man and woman in Gen. 1:27 is detailed in chapter 2.) However, that ignores the fact that days two through six begin with "And God said," suggesting that day one begins in verse 3.

My point is that the earth, along with the rest of the universe, could have been created in verse 1, but was only created to the point of being "without form and void;" merely water and rock (verse 2). Further specific creation to allow for human and animal habitation was then done in days one to six. Hence why it is possible that day one begins in verse 3"

The first day when it was created is where it began. So why would we look to some verse after that somewhere and assume that could really the the beginning? We know the heaven and earth was created and then He did some various other things like create life on it. The total is six days. You can't hack of verse one and separate it.

 

[Rodger]

who was living 100,000 years ago to determine that things happened then the way they do today., and confirm the test used to date is accurate?

Ask those who accept the Persian Guld Paradise story that Elijah7777 posted.

 

[daddd]

We do not see the cause, we only see the effect. Human understanding is built on observing effects and inferring causes. We call them the laws of Science and there are 613 laws in our Bible. Many people see God as the ultimate source of both natural laws and moral laws.

And when so called 'understanding' about where it all came from is based solely on the processes existing after the fact of creation, they cannot tell us about creation. Only about how some of it that we are aware of now works.

 

[Rodger]

Real science does actual stuff. Science falsely called science does squat but deceive and lie

I hear you but you did not answer the question at hand. You gave a personal opinion without giving a remedy.