Posted on 03/29/2009 9:27:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
by CMI staff
Peter Milford’s article ‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth’ prompted a reader to send this account of a quite remarkable experience:
What a troubling issue this is in Christianity today! My sister, who helped me become a Christian many years ago, and her family, will now no longer talk to me about this topic. They appear to be long-age Christian believers.
The last time I tried to talk to her about it she burst out crying, her head in her hands, pleading that she just “wanted to be left alone!”, yet I had hardly said a thing to her.
She and her family cannot bear to even think about a young Earth. I must admit, it actually seems to be an abomination of an idea to them; an extremely troubling idea.
How confusing for me! I don’t understand their distress.
So much for the oft-heard contention that the age-of-the-earth issue is “not an issue”! We asked selected CMI staff from our offices around the world if they could offer any insights into this quite astonishing account...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
“She and her family cannot bear to even think about a young Earth. I must admit, it actually seems to be an abomination of an idea to them; an extremely troubling idea.”
All empirical evidence supports an old Earth. If the Bible requires a young Earth, we must reject Christianity. That’s a pretty friggin big deal.
most evidence points to an old earth. The Bible does not require one to believe in a young earth to accept the gospel. Therefore it is not a big issue except to young-earthers, antagonistic atheists and people with too much time on their hands.
Can’t people just accept the fact that there are some things they do not know and will never know? We can’t solve every mystery and every paradox. Let it go.
God can do anything, remelt the earth to refertilze the soil for the soul farm, place life on the planet over and over until man sees the path home..anything is possible, we know nothing..
I am convinced the most wisdom we can achieve in this world is as a child speaking their first words, looking at the Heavens saying “Daddy?”
But that’s ignoring that we *can* know (with a decent degree of certainty) things like the age of the earth. There’s evidence all around us. This is more like people saying “hey, don’t try to know that! It would confuse me!”
So let’s postulate that the Bible was transcribed directly from the word of God.
Let us also recognize that those who actually transcribed the word of God into the book of Genesis may have “summarized” things a bit. Or possibly left out the part where God suggested that discovery of His methods was “left to the reader.”
Therefore we are left with arguments about the age of the earth.
It is my concern that, in teaching our youth to ignore empirical, measurable evidence in favor of a single chapter in the Bible, we leave them unable to cope with all sorts of realities which they will face in their world as adults. For example, people ignoring evidence of Communism brought us the phrase “President 0bama.”
My personal belief that “God created the heavens and the earth” does not conflict with my interest in how it was accomplished. What better affirmation of “Let there be light” than scientific study of evidence of the Big Bang some 13 Billion years ago?
Who says you can know? Who says you even know what words in the bible are translated correctly?
Science changes it’s mind all the time.
Personally speaking, Moses who penned Genesis did NOT tell us when the 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth took place'. NOW there may well have been a BIG bang in the activity that took place in Genesis 1:2 given that whatever took place made this earth void and without form, and a flood that dwarf Noah's flood.
There is ample evidence on this earth and in the WORD that this earth is multiple of millions of years old. Those dinos sure did NOT exist after Genesis 1:2.
I had a fascinating discussion with a Baptist Pastor many years back. He was a real fire-and-brimstone type and a young-earther to the core.
The tipping point of our conversation was an exchange that went something like this:
Me: Take a look at the stars in the sky. How far away are they? Millions of light years, right? That means that for us to be able to see them, the universe must have existed for at least as long as it takes for light to travel to our planet. Hence, millions of years.
Him: In God’s universe, the speed of light is not constant. God could have sped up the light to reach us sooner, or created the light already on its way to Earth.
Me: Really? Isn’t that like giving us the false impression that the universe is older than it is? Like a trick? A look back into a past that doesn’t really exist? Because that sounds like a lie to me, and I don’t think God would lie to us like that.
Him: (Pause. Face tightens.) GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!
Hmmmm... now who was having the emotional response to the young-earth argument that time?
Thanks for the ping!
“...what passes for science says that all of the heavier elements are older than the earth.”
Actually I think you may have this backwards. Hydrogen formed shortly after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago (how long after depends on whether you count Hydrogen ions (protons) at 10^-6 seconds, or whether you only count Hydrogen as existing when they settle down to a gas with an electron attached after 375,000 years).
Some quantity of Helium formed at the same time, though much of what exists was created by fusion in stars. Generally all the other elements formed from nuclear fusion, with all the elements heavier than iron forming in Supernovae.
The small quantities of elements that have formed since the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago would be those formed by radioactive decay of heavier elements (which admittedly were in turn formed by Supernovae).
Exactly. We old-earth creationists are quite happy to let the debate lie. Others seem to want to project a lot.
II Peter
[3] Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after 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 the creation.
[5] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
[6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
[7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
It appears that the men of the late 1700’s and the 1800’s have damaged peoples beliefs that the earth is young and was destroyed by a world wide flood. Even though the evidence of a young earth is everywhere many are willfully ignorant because of the ramifications to their lustful nature.
You wrote:
“For example, people ignoring evidence of Communism brought us the phrase “President 0bama.””
I am willing to bet real money - and I would win this bet hands down - that “young earthers” overwhelmingly voted against Obama. The idea that taking the Bible seriously, even literally, makes someone ignorant or foolhardy is nonsense. Again, how many Bible fundamentalists do you think voted FOR Obama? I’m willing to bet the number was extremely small. All the polls and surveys show that people with college degrees (and much less likely to be Bible fundamentalists) tended to vote FOR Obama.
It has always been my experience that people who take the Bible seriously are LESS LIKELY to get suckered into sheer stupidity like voting for Obama than others.
I think you need to re-think your conclusions.
You mean the "evidence" that you wish to acknowledge?
All of the visible evidence on Earth perfectly fits a 6000 year maximum age.
Were the earth older than 6000 years, we would have essentially no agriculture, since we wouldn't have any soil; if it has erroded at the present observed rate, it would all be at the bottom of the oceans.
The amount of water on Earth perfectly fits a 6000 year age, and certainly nothing older, and balances with the water contributed by Small Comets. Were it much older, it might be dry as a bone from the loss of water caused by tectonic subduction.
This thread would be as long as "War and Peace" if I were to list all the clearly visible things that can only be supportive of the Bible's description of a young Earth.
Of course it doesn't. Only to young-earther zealots like you who do more to damage Christianity than atheists. Away from me, Satan.
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.