[__ Science __ ] Old Earth vs. Young Earth

[Eternally-grateful]

No new news there my friend.

Please keep mind, that from the original post, I am only asking a question and trying to discuss a relative topic.

Now I ask that for one reason. My church is one mile from a University and over the years we get many students. We even have a "College Class" of 35 students.

This question that I posed come up every single year from these "Science educated" individuals and they want a better answer that......"Just have faith and accept what I tell you".

This generation wants to believe but if we can not give them a proper answer then we will lose them.

1 Peter 3:15.....
"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect".

What I am asking on this forum is the questions that are asked to me, and their arguments against a YOUNG Earth.

100%

it was evidence not blind faith that changed my view 10 years ago

when talking to kids we just need to show them the evidence and let them decide.

 

[RandyK]

For many hundreds of years, Old Earth and Young Earth views have been debated back and forth. I have NO expectations of that paradox being solved here, however it can be a stimulating topic. It is also a topic that requires an answer as it usually plays a part in trying to lead a lost person to Christ.

Old Earth and Young Earth represent differing interpretations of the biblical creation account surrounding the science that has come forward in the past 100 years concerning "Dinasour" fossils.

Old Earth sees vast amounts of time spanning billions of years. Various scientific dating methods, and archeology and geographical evidence place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.

However, Young Earth other contends for a timeline of only around Six to Ten thousand years since the universe’s origin based on genealogy records in the Bible. .

The hinge point is how the “days” in Genesis are understood, whether as literal 24-hour days or extended geological periods.

To be clear, the Hebrew word “yom” can refer to DAY or it can refer to an AGE or ERA.

The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows:
1. the Bible is wrong,
2. the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the
3. scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.
4. There was a Creation before Genesis 1:1

Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Generally speaking, both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word.

Now if you believe that the Young Earth position is the right one, then you "must" also accept as a fact, that Adam and Eve lived with dinosaurs and that Noah had them on the Ark even though there is NO Biblical record of either one.

What say YOU?

Yea, long ago I read some of Henry Morris' material. Later I read Bernard Ramm's "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," and at some point , then or earlier, gave up on any belief in a Young Earth. Maybe it was when I started out in Usenet over 20 years ago--actually, I think I played Devil's Advocate representing Young Earth arguments against a Jewish intellectual whose brother was a scientist. I felt very, very weak in that debate! ;)

Bottom line: I agree with Ramm that Scriptures do not present a modern scientific view of the earth, but only speak truth in the most convenient language of the time--true, but not intended for scientific scrutiny.

For example, in the time of the Flood the word "earth" had reference to "land" with unmentioned borders--it was not given to be a "globe." So when the Scriptures say that the flood waters covered "all the earth," it was talking not about covering the entire globe universally, but rather, about covering all of the land as far as the eye could see, and encompassing an entire region.

Everything in that region would die, along with the entire civilization that lived there. The preservation of animals was purely symbolic of God's wish to save the earth and all of its animals, birds, insects, worms, fish and mankind.

In this case, the Bible was true in its description but not "scientific" in providing a comprehensive explanation in scientific terms. We are not told the entire "globe" was covered--only what may have been seen from the point of view of Noah and his family.

It is the same with the act of creating the universe. There is no attempt to affix a time frame or chronology of events, which are unimportant to God and less important to us who can never even understand the act of creation or how long it should take!

We just need an ordering of the events to make sense of it design-wise. I like the term "Intelligent Design" in the philosophy of Divine Creation.

The history of the earth and the study of geography, including the dating of rocks, is a record that God seemed to have *intended* to leave here as a roadmap for future scientists. We can see how the progressive appearance of animals, through their fossil record, shows the actual time frame, in a limited way, of how God created creatures over time, with man coming last.

 

[Rodger]

Yea, long ago I read some of Henry Morris' material. Later I read Bernard Ramm's "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," and at some point , then or earlier, gave up on any belief in a Young Earth. Maybe it was when I started out in Usenet over 20 years ago--actually, I think I played Devil's Advocate representing Young Earth arguments against a Jewish intellectual whose brother was a scientist. I felt very, very weak in that debate! ;)

Bottom line: I agree with Ramm that Scriptures do not present a modern scientific view of the earth, but only speak truth in the most convenient language of the time--true, but not intended for scientific scrutiny.

For example, in the time of the Flood the word "earth" had reference to "land" with unmentioned borders--it was not given to be a "globe." So when the Scriptures say that the flood waters covered "all the earth," it was talking not about covering the entire globe universally, but rather, about covering all of the land as far as the eye could see, and encompassing an entire region.

Everything in that region would die, along with the entire civilization that lived there. The preservation of animals was purely symbolic of God's wish to save the earth and all of its animals, birds, insects, worms, fish and mankind.

In this case, the Bible was true in its description but not "scientific" in providing a comprehensive explanation in scientific terms. We are not told the entire "globe" was covered--only what may have been seen from the point of view of Noah and his family.

It is the same with the act of creating the universe. There is no attempt to affix a time frame or chronology of events, which are unimportant to God and less important to us who can never even understand the act of creation or how long it should take!

We just need an ordering of the events to make sense of it design-wise. I like the term "Intelligent Design" in the philosophy of Divine Creation.

The history of the earth and the study of geography, including the dating of rocks, is a record that God seemed to have *intended* to leave here as a roadmap for future scientists. We can see how the progressive appearance of animals, through their fossil record, shows the actual time frame, in a limited way, of how God created creatures over time, with man coming last.

Good stuff.

When you say the act of creating the universe, and we just think for a minute how fast light travels....
186 thousand miles per SECOND, then consider how long it takes that light to go say to the nearest solar system to us.

That would be Proxima Centauri, and it is more than four light-years away. If it was possible,
a ground-based light beam would be used to push a tiny spacecraft attached to light sails, powered by the sun, to speeds of up to 100 million miles an hour, it has been calculated that would allow a flyby mission to reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years after launch.

 

[Rodger]

100%

it was evidence not blind faith that changed my view 10 years ago

when talking to kids we just need to show them the evidence and let them decide.

What evidence my brother. There is NO Bible evidence whatsoever.

These are not kids. They are college students.

Overwhelming hard data from biology, geology and anthropology as well as astrophysics all prove false the claims made by those who believe in a 7 day 24 hour per day of the universe and the Earth.

 

[Rodger]

from what you said in my post. I do not see you being open to anything, people who are open do not come out and talk like you do

2 Peter 3: 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

I am not calling you a scoffer. please do not misread.

but this answers the question

1. all scientific aging tools assume that what happened a million of years ago is the same today. Otherwise. it would not be reliable

2. It assumes things we see today were part of that ancient earth

3. It is based on forgetfulness or lack of knowledge that that earth (pre flood world) perished in the flood.

there is nothing here on earth that would show us what it was like back then, because water totally destroys things, its bad enough when a local flood can be so severe that it destroys a small town and leaves nothign in its wake.

that flood lasted only a few days to a weak.

Now take a worldwide flood. that lasted over a year..

then look at what happened when the waters receded. leaving these hugs lakes.. there is ample evidence the grand canyon was formed very quickly as two great lakes broke their banks. and carved it out in a matter of weeks. not millions of years..

anyway,

I have seen human footprints and dino footprints in the same stone which means they walked together.

But also remember. The new world (post flood) could not sustain these large creatures.. and only two of each kind came through the flood.. So I would not expect to see much evidence they walked together. that does not phase me in the slightest.

You said.........
"I am not calling you a scoffer. please do not misread."

O yes you are. That is exactly why you posted the Scripture from 2 Peter.

This is just as I expected.

Have a good day my friend.... I am done.

 

[Eternally-grateful]

Yea, long ago I read some of Henry Morris' material. Later I read Bernard Ramm's "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," and at some point , then or earlier, gave up on any belief in a Young Earth. Maybe it was when I started out in Usenet over 20 years ago--actually, I think I played Devil's Advocate representing Young Earth arguments against a Jewish intellectual whose brother was a scientist. I felt very, very weak in that debate! ;)

Bottom line: I agree with Ramm that Scriptures do not present a modern scientific view of the earth, but only speak truth in the most convenient language of the time--true, but not intended for scientific scrutiny.

For example, in the time of the Flood the word "earth" had reference to "land" with unmentioned borders--it was not given to be a "globe." So when the Scriptures say that the flood waters covered "all the earth," it was talking not about covering the entire globe universally, but rather, about covering all of the land as far as the eye could see, and encompassing an entire region.

Everything in that region would die, along with the entire civilization that lived there. The preservation of animals was purely symbolic of God's wish to save the earth and all of its animals, birds, insects, worms, fish and mankind.

In this case, the Bible was true in its description but not "scientific" in providing a comprehensive explanation in scientific terms. We are not told the entire "globe" was covered--only what may have been seen from the point of view of Noah and his family.

It is the same with the act of creating the universe. There is no attempt to affix a time frame or chronology of events, which are unimportant to God and less important to us who can never even understand the act of creation or how long it should take!

We just need an ordering of the events to make sense of it design-wise. I like the term "Intelligent Design" in the philosophy of Divine Creation.

The history of the earth and the study of geography, including the dating of rocks, is a record that God seemed to have *intended* to leave here as a roadmap for future scientists. We can see how the progressive appearance of animals, through their fossil record, shows the actual time frame, in a limited way, of how God created creatures over time, with man coming last.

wow. I had to stop reading

you do not believe in a global flood?

 

[Eternally-grateful]

Good stuff.

When you say the act of creating the universe, and we just think for a minute how fast light travels....
186 thousand miles per SECOND, then consider how long it takes that light to go say to the nearest solar system to us.

That would be Proxima Centauri, and it is more than four light-years away. If it was possible,
a ground-based light beam would be used to push a tiny spacecraft attached to light sails, powered by the sun, to speeds of up to 100 million miles an hour, it has been calculated that would allow a flyby mission to reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years after launch.

or we could look at God

and say if God created the earth for mankind, And God created the starts for signs and seasons for use by man

That God is fully capable of creating the stars. and by his own power have their light shin on the earth the day he created them (since it was his purpose)

God does not have to wait millions of years for evolution to take place so he can move on to the next point of creation

 

[Eternally-grateful]

What evidence my brother. There is NO Bible evidence whatsoever.

Well if you do not look for it. you will not find it

These are not kids. They are college students.

Overwhelming hard data from biology, geology and anthropology as well as astrophysics all prove false the claims made by those who believe in a 7 day 24 hour per day of the universe and the Earth.

they do not prove that at all.

science wants to disprove God.

thats why it will do whatever it can to disprove a creator.

 

[Eternally-grateful]

You said.........
"I am not calling you a scoffer. please do not misread."

O yes you are. That is exactly why you posted the Scripture from 2 Peter.

This is just as I expected.

Have a good day my friend.... I am done.

you were done awhile ago I believe

I answered the question why, and I answered it biblically

Peter answered it. I was not directing it to you.. but to those who you are following

But hey, if you do not want to be challenged, then I will leave you be

 

[RandyK]

wow. I had to stop reading

you do not believe in a global flood?

No, I'm a conservative believer in the inspiration of Scriptures, as well as its authority. The biblical account is given in the environment of a primitive people who observe things with their eye, and not with a scientific outlook. The account is entirely true, except that we today, in our scientific world, think that "earth" means "globe." It didn't mean that to the people who wrote Genesis. "Earth" referred to "land" that had been brought into existence as a home for Man.

If you cann't finish reading, don't ask me for an explanation.

 

[RandyK]

Good stuff.

When you say the act of creating the universe, and we just think for a minute how fast light travels....
186 thousand miles per SECOND, then consider how long it takes that light to go say to the nearest solar system to us.

That would be Proxima Centauri, and it is more than four light-years away. If it was possible,
a ground-based light beam would be used to push a tiny spacecraft attached to light sails, powered by the sun, to speeds of up to 100 million miles an hour, it has been calculated that would allow a flyby mission to reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years after launch.

You're a genius to me, Roger! ;) Thanks...I guess!

 

[Eternally-grateful]

No, I'm a conservative believer in the inspiration of Scriptures, as well as its authority. The biblical account is given in the environment of a primitive people who observe things with their eye, and not with a scientific outlook. The account is entirely true, except that we today, in our scientific world, think that "earth" means "globe." It didn't mean that to the people who wrote Genesis. "Earth" referred to "land" that had been brought into existence as a home for Man.

If you cann't finish reading, don't ask me for an explanation.

No one observed how high the waters Got. Moses wrote what he was told. Moses wrote the first 5 books. he did not experience or witness the flood.

I would say since all the high hills and mountains were covered by water. science would say that means it was a global flood.

if it was just a local flood as some want us to believe. then mankind had a chance to live as did many animals. and Noah spending over 100 years to build this ark seems to be a waste of time.

 

[RandyK]

or we could look at God

and say if God created the earth for mankind, And God created the starts for signs and seasons for use by man

That God is fully capable of creating the stars. and by his own power have their light shin on the earth the day he created them (since it was his purpose)

God does not have to wait millions of years for evolution to take place so he can move on to the next point of creation

Yes, that is the alternative version, which I think doesn't sound very God-like to me. I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe God communicates by many and varied methods.

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.

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.

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

 

[daddd]

The Bible has several verses that describe how God created the atmosphere and how it affects the light from the sun, moon, and stars. Here are a few key passages:

• Genesis 1:14-16 – "And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.’" This passage describes how God placed the celestial bodies in the sky to govern time and provide light.

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

• Psalm 19:1 – "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." This verse highlights how the sky itself reflects God's creation.

Again, nothing about atmosphere

• Jeremiah 31:35 – "Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night..." This verse emphasizes God's control over the celestial bodies.

Same as above...squat about atmosphere

• Isaiah 40:26 – "Lift up your eyes and see: Who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name; by the greatness of his might and because he is strong in power, not one is missing." This verse speaks to God's role in sustaining the stars.

Same thing here.

 

[daddd]

Good to know.

It just seems hypocritical to me to accept the science that saves lives with medicines, surgeries, trips to the moon, and so and so and then reject that same science that dates artifacts because we do not have a better answer for the time discrepancies.

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

 

[daddd]

God is a God of absolute Justice. We tend to connect Justice with the Law. Science tells us that the laws of physics are very exact and precise. Also we know the Justice of God is very exact and precise. Everyone gets what is coming to them. People reap what they sow.

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

 

[Free]

Vs 1 and 2 is a general statement

this happened..

yes I agree

But the earth is included in vs 1.

God created the heavens and the earth.

Created is in the perfect tense. a completed action.

so while I agree, it may be another option. I would tend to disagree that it is what happened based on these 2 things

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, 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. 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.

 

[daddd]

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, 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. 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.

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

 

[RandyK]

No one observed how high the waters Got. Moses wrote what he was told. Moses wrote the first 5 books. he did not experience or witness the flood.

What does that have to do with what I said? I said it was written for the primitive people who provided the story for future generations, which includes Moses, as well. We don't know precisely how God inspired Moses to tell the story. Some of what God gave him may have been through Oral Tradition--you can't say you know!

What's clear is that no matter how Moses got this information, it was told and likely retold for a long period of time, and would've been told in the technology and non-scientific environment of their own time. God would not speak in the language of modern science in the Bible to communicate to many many generations information of no use to them and completely foreign to them.

I would say since all the high hills and mountains were covered by water. science would say that means it was a global flood.

I went to Israel years ago, and was shocked to see what people there referred to as "mountains." Have you ever seen Mt. Zion, or even the Mount of Olives? These mountains in the area of Jerusalem are dwarfed by the mountains in my back yard, which are the Olympics and the Cascades, part of the Rocky Mountains.

So, I know that the mountain in Turkey is very high, but likely could not accomodate the ark and its inhabitants. But lower level hills could still be called "mountains," or these could be just very high hills in the region of the Black Sea.

The point is, what had been high hills, or mountains, in the region of Noah's Civilization, were completely covered in water. I believe the Black Sea spilled out, and waters broke into an entire region that was completely covered, including its "mountains."

This is in contrast to the Global Flood idea, in which the very highest mountains would be covered. But volcanoes, dating back before the Flood, have never been molested by flood waters. And water that covers all the mountains on earth would demand far more water than exists in our world.

Not only that, but the sea depth would destroy the habitat of fish who require certain depths, or only fresh water. And all vegetation would be destroyed after a year.

if it was just a local flood as some want us to believe. then mankind had a chance to live as did many animals. and Noah spending over 100 years to build this ark seems to be a waste of time.

No, it was designed to show the world that God wanted to "save the earth"--not destroy it. If He really had wanted to destroy the earth, He would've engulfed the whole thing in water for a year. That would end plant life, animal life, and all possibility of many species surviving. Many in the insect and worm world would die, unless you think Noah trapped, kept, and preserved all of their species as well?

A local Flood is a very real warning to the world that the *corrupt world* will be annihilated. But the earth will be saved and preserved for those worthy of it. That's the lesson--not a gargantuan miracle that makes no scientific sense.

 

[Free]

If you could, Free, where is this? You are referring to the Hebrew here?

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).

Note also the NASB:

Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
...
Gen 1:8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
...
Gen 1:13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
...
Gen 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
...
Gen 1:23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
...
Gen 1:31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

The lack of a definite article for days one to five; the definite article for days six and seven. That's consistent with what biblehub shows.