Good question...............
Posted on 12/15/2010 5:17:34 AM PST by ImProudToBeAnAmerican
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” (Exodus 20:11a KJV)
According to evolutionary scientists, the earth is over 4 billion years old; but Biblical chronology dates the age of the earth at about 6,000 years. In an attempt to reconcile the two extreme positions, many creation scientists have used 2 Peter 3:8 to state that the six days mentioned in the Genesis account were not literal 24-hour days. However, if we used the “a day is as a thousand years” formula, we would have the six days of creation plus the day of rest equaling 7,000 years, at most. Hardly a good reconciliation with 4 billion years. So, how old is the earth?...
Fifth article in a series about Creation by Rosemarie Thompson.
Comments welcome!
(Excerpt) Read more at inspiretomorrow.wordpress.com ...
According to evolutionary scientists, the earth is over 4 billion years old; but Biblical chronology dates the age of the earth at about 6,000 years. In an attempt to reconcile the two extreme positions, many creation scientists have used 2 Peter 3:8 to state that the six days mentioned in the Genesis account were not literal 24-hour days. However, if we used the “a day is as a thousand years” formula, we would have the six days of creation plus the day of rest equaling 7,000 years, at most. Hardly a good reconciliation with 4 billion years. So, how old is the earth?
From the beginning, the Jewish sages and the early church fathers interpreted the word “day” in the Genesis creation account as a literal 24-hour period, presenting a young earth. Scientists were in agreement with the young earth view until the early 19th century. Even the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1771, stated that the creation of the earth occurred 4007 years before the birth of Jesus.1
In 1785, James Hutton, the father of geology, introduced the old earth theory with the concept of uniformitarianism, which is the theory that geologic processes we see today are those that have always been. This was contrary to the prevalent concept of catastrophism, which states that only great disasters – such as Noah’s flood – can modify the earth’s surface. Although Hutton introduced his theory in the late 18th century, it wasn’t until Sir Charles Lyell popularized it in 1830 with the publication of Principles of Geology. The rest is evolutionary history.
But are we to believe that centuries of Biblical scholars and scientists have been wrong about the age of the earth? The body of Scripture supports the literal six-day creation. Mark 10:6 states that God made man and woman at the beginning of creation, not millions of years later. Also, the curse of death didn’t enter the earth until after Adam sinned, so there couldn’t have been millions of years of fossilized death prior to the creation of man. Neither did God place death into the creation He called good.
Recent scientific discoveries are even placing doubts on the old-earth theory. The 4 billion year age of earth is based on radioactive dating, which uses the decay rates of radioactive materials, assumed to be constant, to assess age. However, in 2009, scientists discovered that the decay rates are not constant, but are affected by seasons and solar activity.2 Additionally, in two similar experiments, scientists took lava samples from known volcanic eruptions from Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand3 and Mount St. Helens4 in Washington state and had them analyzed using radioactive dating. In both instances, the rocks were aged in the millions of years, not the actual age of 25-50 years.
So, how old is the earth? It seems Scripture is once again more reliable than some science.
Full article - see online article for sources.
I’m reading Remarkable Creatures by Tracy Chevalier. I’ve always enjoyed her books. This one is about Elizabeth Philpot and Mary Anning. Historical fiction about these two women in the 19th century finding fossils on the beach at Lyme, GB.
I’m still waiting for evolutionists to provide a good explanation for polystrate fossilised trees that doesn’t rely on handwaving and question-begging.
Forget theology, just use Occam's razor. The figure of 4 billion years is almost too ridiculous to consider seriously. How could they even be sure of their dating with something that old?
Why shouldn't the rocks be dated at millions (or billions) of years old? The magma was melted under the surface of the Earth for that long; the only thing "new" about those rocks is that now they are solid and exposed to air for the first time. The material they are made of is as old as the Earth.
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Flood-John-C-Whitcomb/dp/0875523382
I want an explanation for the 90% of brain mass that we dont use.
And just for the record the more I learn about science and the older I get the more I lean to the earth being 6,000 years old.
By the way what are polystrate fossilized trees?
Christians are made fun of because:
1Cr 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
According to general relativity time is relative. Thus, both old earth theory and the 7 day account in Genesis could be literally true depending on what perspective one is viewing the event from.
Because science refutes God, not all science, there are exceptions of course, but for the most part, science refutes scripture.
Was there something special about the fossils? I thought they were found everywhere on earth
Seriously, why would anyone care about that?
Honestly, evolutionists and old-earthers have to believe a lot of abject, completely unsubstantiated nonsense to hold to what they believe. I mean, seriously, what kind of a dolt thinks that life developed from non-life, completely at odds with pretty much everything we know about the laws of physical and organic chemistry? What kind of an idiot would think that the earth is billions of years old - all on the basis of demonstrably erroneous dating methods which rely on completely unsubstantiated assumptions?
Good grief, if anyone needs made fun of, it's the evos and OECs.
I do too!
And just for the record the more I learn about science and the older I get the more I lean to the earth being 6,000 years old.
Me too. I used to be an evolutionist, actually. I'm not any more. And I probably know more about "science" than 95% of the people who get into these crevo discussions here on FR.
By the way what are polystrate fossilized trees?
PFTs are fossilised trees that are positions such that they cross stratigraphic geological boundaries, meaning that they essentially span what can be up to "hundreds of millions of years" of geology, if you buy the old-earth geological arguments. The question is how they got there, without any evidence to suggest that they were placed in such a fashion after the fact. Did it take hundreds of millions of years for the tree to finally get buried and fossilised, all without rotting away as, well, we all know trees tend to do?
“And people wonder why Christians are made fun of...”
“Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” John 15:20
If a Christian believes the truth about God instead of the lie(Romans 1:25), he will be persecuted.
Good question...............
So, 6000 years ago God created a world that was 4 billion years old.
What’s the problem?
You mean we only use one percent of the brain matter?
I was not sure of the details.
Or are you mocking me because I am naive enough to believe the Bible when it says the good Lord made the Earth 6,000 years old?
Who says it’s not to be taken literally? After all, the same One who says “I am God and besides me there is no other” is the same One who said He labored six days and rested.
If you don’t believe all of it, you don’t get to believe any of it, after all, it was all given by the same author.
It seems Scripture is once again more reliable than some science. >>
A 6000 year old earth only makes sense if you are a Biblical inerrantist—which is to say, wilfully and utterly ignorant of science and the laws of physics. It is also a clinging to protestantist religious bigotry because if the earth is NOT 6000 years old maybe them Cath-o-licks have the right idea after all (since they accept evolution, having learned their lesson from the Gallileo fiasco).
God does not lie. For the Bible to be literally true He would have had to create massive false evidence of a 13.8 billion year old universe, including falsely planted fossils of every variety and light from stars created in situ only a few hundred light years from our solar system so that they can arrive “just in time”.
God does not lie; he is, however, the original poet. And the Biblical image of creation is high, indeed the highest, poetry. But literally true? Only if Pi can equal precisely three (which the Bible claims).
The Bible does not say the good Lord made the Earth 6,000 years old.
Time is relative. If you were standing at the point of the big bang (where God would have been) The entire Universe would be, about six days old. I’m relying on a physicists calculations here, but that’s what several have come up with. People think just speed effects time, it is also mass.
Some folks find it incredible that I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
I find it incredible that highly educated people think we evolved from sludge or apes. A keen study of our five senses should end any speculation at once and forever. But they keep believing and promoting a lie from the master of lies.
They are better off believing aliens seeded the planet a long time ago then to indulge in nonsense about evolution.
Heck, even the different Christian denominations cannot live peacefully along side of each other.
This will be my “quote of the day”, if you don’t mind.
I didn’t know that about the Bible and Pi. Thanks. But, here is a possible explanation of the Pi discrepancy: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/pibible.htm
So, now you can go ahead and believe again in the inherency of the Bible.
No reply other than a personal attack. Color me shocked.
Time exists so everything doesn’t happen at once.
what kind of a dolt thinks that life developed from non-life,.............................................................................................................................................................You mean like from a hunk of clay. Interesting that bible lore says god created all of the heavens and earth and all of its animals out of nothing just from a nod yet he had to mold some clay together and breath into it to get man. Also, if prior to the “sin” of adam, and death did not exist, why did he make both male and female of all the species? Why would there be a reason to procreate?Talk about suspension of belief!Why would gender even become an issue if there was no death?
Rosemarie Thompson writes for the online magazine Inspire Tomorrow
and her own website www.KingdomScribe.org
Previous articles in this Creation vs Evolution series:
Creation vs Evolution: Why it Matters
In The Beginning: Shedding Light on Creation
My guess is that God made us with the capability to understand ourselves and the Universe, eventually.
Right now we understand about 10%.
In the beginning, there was nothing ... then it exploded.
Great answer!
Answer me this.
If the Bible is in error, then where does your salvation lay? Can’t have it both ways, either the Scripture is whole and not in error or it’s in error and not to be trusted.
As for your other quip, maybe you should learn a little more about the Bible before you bring that tired old attack in here. It’s been proven false and only those with an agenda to push continue to hold to it.
Here’s proof that you’re full of it. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
Obviously untrue. A guy I worked with can prove that easily (in rehab now).
This argument frustrates me. At the end of the day, there are holes in the evidence on both sides. In other words, NOBODY REALLY KNOWS. Besides, aside from being a point of division, is it really relevant? God in his majesty can do whatever he wants and what He does is not dependent on our understanding how he did whatever it was. It just IS and God is awesome.
Here is my best (and only) rebuttal to this debate:
Isaiah 55:8-9 (New King James Version)
8 “ For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
One of the most ignorant statements ever mmade on FR.
It doesn’t directly say 6000 years, but if you count the years of the generations from Adam to Christ, you have a pretty good idea of the actual age of the earth. Amazingly, that’s exactly what the Jews do with their calander and while I may quibble with a few things, I agree with them that earth is not over 6000 years old.
The pope, for one.
Me: The Bible does not say the good Lord made the Earth 6,000 years old.
You: It doesn’t directly say 6000 years,
Thank you. That is my bible lesson to you for today.
I tend to believe the gap theory between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. To think the earth is only 6000 years old seems to me to be putting God in a box of time. Certainly if He is eternal then there was something before this world as we know it.
What was special was the time when it was generally accepted that the world had been created on a Thursday at 3:15 p.m. 4125 years earlier (that’s just my guess but there was a specific date and time). And these fossils were the hard evidence that there were creatures who were no longer alive who had been alive long before that date. And, the two people who discovered them and made them available were women which in the time was remarkable. Just an interesting story.
How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? Since God originally designed them to live forever, then theoretically couldn’t they have been in the Garden for millions, if not billions of years?
Correction: "God does not lie. For the fundie interpretation of the Bible to be literally true He would have had to create massive false evidence of a 13.8 billion year old universe, including falsely planted fossils of every variety and light from stars created in situ only a few hundred light years from our solar system so that they can arrive “just in time”.
No, not ignorant just not well stated. Most “science” that is passed to us today is nothing more than Naturalistic Athiesm’s religious dogma. It’s not a case of the data itself disagreeing with Scripture, but a case of how that data is interpreted that is in disagreement with Scripture.
They have lost the argument so badly in the past 25 years that they now just skip to the end and open with the ridicule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.