Age of the Earth and all that

[Saint]

hmm. an interesting site.
while some of their theories are less than what i would call perfect. i checked out their mission statement and they really are on track (Jesus wise). they just want to provide possible "answers." Mainly they want to spread the good news of Salvation that Jesus' death burial and resurrection has provided. So i think that is a great goal for a site.

[MyrrhLynn]

I can't believe i missed this yesterday! *cries* I could kick myself!

This is a topic that has been of great interest to me for most of my life. I also have another website to suggest: http://www.creationism.org (Sorry if someone else already mentioned this.)

>a)Apparent age- God made the universe look old deliberately. This is no good, since it implies that God is deliberately deceptive.

I'm sorry Technomancer but I would have to disagree with you here. By making the univers already older he made it livable. (The plants had to be full size or the animals would have starved. )

And actually there is all kinds of scientific evidence for a young Earth. Interplantery dust, the Earth's magnetic field, and recession of the moon, the shrinking of the sun, etc. I won't go into all of them and risk boring all of you to death though.

>How could the light of stars well over 10-11 thousand light years away already have reached earth?

This I can answear! Since I think everyone else skipped over it. Scientists determined in like the 80s that at one time light was instanteous! Of course you never HEAR about that since that would mean that light didn't need thousands of years to get to us!!

Oh and just had to add this. Some people say the Nephilim were aliens. ( I don't agree with this though).

[Technomancer]

By making the univers already older he made it livable. (The plants had to be full size or the animals would have starved. )

This is irrelevant to my point. Even if God did make plants fully formed, the evidence for an old Earth comes from geological, radiometric and astronomical observations which have no bearing on the viability of ecosystems.

As for the young Earth evidence, it has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. See http://www.talkorigins.org for more detail. As an example (since I have studied geophysics), consider the issue of the weakening magnetic field:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#magnetic. Unfotunately, the essay in this link only deals with the flawed methodology for the creationist geomagentic opinions. It does not address the well-known issue of geomagnetic field reversals (strongly evidenced by "stripes" in the oceanic crust)

A word about the speed of light: Your assertion is absolutely false, such a thing has never been published in any reputable peer reviewed journal. A massive increase in c (the speed of light) would have enormous consequences for physical processes. Consider the basic formula
E=mc^2 which is important in describing the energy output of nuclear processes. If c were to increase even 100-fold, the sun's energy output would necessarily increase by a factor of 10^4. Also, the Earth's heat output (via radioactive decay) would also increase by the same. Neither outcome would be conducive to life (assuming the sun would still be stable). Of course, to match current measurements, young-earth creationists require increases of well over a million times (in which case E output increases by at least a factor of 10^12). Also of interest, is a good discussion of the bad methodology of the theory's orginator: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

[EireWolf]

Hi Spiritsword! I have not read all the replies to your question, so I don't know if I'm repeating anyone or not, but here's some of what I learned in my Theology classes regarding the Creation account.

First, the time frame. Some people believe that God created the universe and everything in it in 7 literal days -- i.e., 24-hour periods. Whereas I am certain that God is powerful enough to do such a thing, the Creation account by no means implies that He did. The Hebrew word translated as "day" in our Bible was more often used to mean an unspecified amount of time, probably closer to eons. That's a long time. So, it could be that God created the world in seven epochs. The main point is that GOD created.

Second, the structure of the passage. This was the coolest thing I learned about the Creation account. The first chapter of Genesis (or at least part of it; I'm not sure) is structured in the form of Hebrew poetry. The main characteristic of such poetry is illustrated when you compare the first 3 "days" of creation with the last 3 "days" (before God rested).
Compare verses:

3-5 with 14-19
6-8 with 20-23
9-13 with 24-31

light/darkness, day/night --> sun, moon, and stars; lights to govern night & day
separation of the waters/sky --> sea creatures and birds, to fill the water and the sky
land and vegetation --> land animals and humans, to populate the earth and eat the veggies

So, basically... the stage --> the players. Genesis 1 was not intended to be a scientific report on the order or duration of creation. After all, Moses wasn't there observing God creating the universe. (There is also the slight problem of vegetation existing before the sun.) It is more of a poem, or a hymn to the creator. Pretty cool, eh?

Now... notice there are TWO Creation accounts... one in Genesis 1 and one in Genesis 2. Also notice that they seem to *gasp* contradict each other! Neither one is a scientific account... the Bible is a religious document, not a scientific one. There is no reason to pit science and religion against each other, especially in the instance of the origin of the universe. God can use any means God wants to create, can't He... even a so-called Big Bang? It all goes back to a First Cause... and I think we know Who that is.

As for the Nephilim in chapter 6 ... I can only speculate. It seems to be saying that fallen angels ("sons of God") married human women and had children by them, who were later called "Nephilim." Being half-angel, they were big and strong and famous. There's a novel by Madeleine L'Engle (one of my all-time fave authors) called "Many Waters" that also speculates along these lines. But like I said, it's only a guess. I don't think we'll ever know, this side of Heaven.

[Technomancer]

Of course, there's always Pratchett's interpretation (from "Good Omens"). Sorry couldn't resist

Current theories on the creation of the Univers state that, if it was created at all and didn't just start, as it were, unofficially, it came into being between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. By the same token the earth itself is generally supposed to be about four and a half thousand million years old.
These dates are incorrect
Medival Jewish scholars put the date of the Creation at 3760 B.C. Greek Orthodox theologians put the Creation as far back as 5508 B.C.
These suggestions are also incorrect.
Archbishop James Usher (1580-1665) published Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 B.C. One of his aieds took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday 21st of October 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.
This too was incorrec. By almost a quarter of an hour.
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur skeletons was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet.
This proves two things:
Firstly, that God moves in extremly mysterious, not to say, circuitous ways. God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players (i.e., everybody), to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.
Secondly, the Earth's a Libra.
The astrological prediction for Libra in the "Your Stars Today" column of the Tadfield Advertiser, on the day this history begins, read as follows:


LIBRA. 24 September - 23 October.
You may be feeling run down and always in the same old daily round. Home and family matters are highlighted and are hnging fire. Avoid unnecessary risks. A friend is important to you. Shelve major decisions until the way ahead seems clear. You may be vulnerable to a stomach upset, so avoid salads. Help could come from an unexpected quarter.


This was perfectly correct on every count except for the bit about the salads.

[HeavensTek]

whew boy.....its a bit early for me to try to discuss astrophysics.....

praise God for doing what He did, er...however He did it.

[MyrrhLynn]

This is irrelevant to my point. Even if God did make plants fully formed, the evidence for an old Earth comes from geological, radiometric and astronomical observations which have no bearing on the viability of ecosystems.

Eekkk! I knew as soon as I logged off that I had said that sort of stupid. Sorry about that. Here is a better explanation of what I meant.

When God created Adam and Eve they were on babies. If God did that then why can't we wonder if he made the universe "as an adult"? (yeah I know that sounds poopie but I can't figure out another way to say it) I don't believe it is a matter of him being deceptive at all. I read somewhere that God trying to explain himself to us is like trying to explain the Internet to an ant. It is impossible. It is not deceptive. So I guess the part where you said "it implies that God is deliberately deceptive." part that got me all worked up.

Ok and a quick run through everything else...
That site you posted was interesting. There is some stuff they didn't cover but actually I don't even want to go into it.

As for the light thing... my science teacher told me that. So I guess he could have been lying or dumb. (Or maybe a lying dummy? Or a dumb lier?)

[Ashley]

When God created Adam and Eve they were on babies.

May I ask where you learned this? Or what biblical standpoints suggest it?

[uc pseudonym]

I'm guess that should read as "When God made Adam and Eve they were not babies." That would make more sense in the overall argument. Am I right, MyrrhLynn?

[Rashiir]

Yah, I think that's what she meant too...

[uc pseudonym]

"on babies" ... sounds like some sort of drug, doesn't it?

[Mithrandir]

"25 members of the house of commons were arrested today. It was determined they were on 'babies.' We go live to Dr. P. E. Per with the center for Drug abuse...
Dr. Per: It's just nasty stuff!

...etc"

[MyrrhLynn]

I'm guess that should read as "When God made Adam and Eve they were not babies." That would make more sense in the overall argument. Am I right, MyrrhLynn?

Yes thank you that is what I meant. It is really hard to type when you have a younger sister screaming "it's my turn" right behind you.

[Technomancer]

I'd figured as much when I first read it.

Anyways, that line of reasoning still seems problematic. Assuming a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story (which I don't hold to), once can argue that it was necessary that they be made adults since infants aren't going to be able to look after themselves. However, the non-biological parts of the Earth don't have this constraint. It is certainly within God's power to create an Earth that is in every respect indistinguishable from one that is ~4.5 billion years old. However this would mean creating evidence of things that never happened, for example: magnetic stripes, large scale glaciation, virtually all tectonic activity (mountain ranges, lava flows, etc), in addition to fossils, rock strata etc.

Much of this evidence has no bearing on the viability of life, and a good deal of it is only detectable with modern instruments. The idea that God would create a world that displays evidence of a history so at variance with His word, is to me far more scripturally problematic than the abandonment of literalism. Since God reveals Himself in nature as well as in scripture, by studying His works we may contemplate their author. But by creation of a world of a false apparent age, this can no longer be.

[Mithrandir]

Much of this evidence has no bearing on the viability of life, and a good deal of it is only detectable with modern instruments.

Well, they used to think that about crude oil, ya know... Perhaps the age was placed there for the sole purpose of distracting humanity and placing them in a fight for natural resources.

Hmm. I'm gonna abandond this line of thinking. The possilble ramifiactions on the middle east tension and the book of Revelation is might keep me awake at night. Besides, I think I

[Technomancer]

?

Crude oil is useful, but not necessary. After all, human civilization survived for millenia without it.

[uc pseudonym]

Tell that to your average American.

[Technomancer]

[Mithrandir]

The question is, can they survive without it now. That would mean loss of power in many parts of the world. No gas for the tractors in the fields. No trucks/trains to transport the food. No electricity to refridgerate it. This would be pretty bad. I think you would start seeing riots. I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. The SPECIES would most likely adapt and survive. Civilization as we know it would not.

(Not that many people would think this is a bad thing...)

[Technomancer]

Were the world's supplies of crude oil to go "poof", I agree it would be a major catastrophe for civilization. However, given time (and forewarning) we could adapt by implementing a variety of different measures (alternate fuel sources, life style changes, etc.). This may be overoptimism on my part though given our current experience with the global warming issue.

The question of oil and the future of civilzation though is neither here nor there with regards to my original point: namely that much of the evidence for an old Earth has nothing to do with the viability of life or civilization. It matters nothing to anyone (or anything) that for example the magnetic domains in oceanic basalts show periodic reversals. The same can be said for the presence of cirques in New England, or particular rock striations in Ontario (both thousands of miles from the nearest glacier). With regards to oil, the rock structures it is found in make sense in light of historical geology. One can also mention several immense lava flows on several continents that would have been problematic for human life had they happened in historical times (the Siberain traps for example are probably the main culprit in the Permian extinction event, which killed off about 90% of all species). If they happened long ago (or never happened at all!) then they're just rock.

[Mithrandir]

Yes, that's true. My point ws simply: just because we can't imagine a reason for something now, that doesn't mean we won't later. My example was a bad one; It was also a bit of a nose tweaker, I guess. Sorry if I derailed the direction of the thread...

[Mimichan]

Okay, I'm not even going to try and pretend I have any answers about this topic. I am a simple woman. Besides, so much has been said already--I feel very small amid all this intelligence.
I just popped in to give you another website to check out: http://www.creationevidence.org. This is the site of a creation evidence museum in TX. I watch their program on TBN. The founder submits evidence on a weekly basis and has guests (geologists, paleontologists,etc.) that support the "young earth" theory and Creationism. They also discuss Evolutionism and why it's impossible scientifically, and so forth.
I don't know if it will answer any questions satisfactorily, but you might want to check it out. I would like to say more about this topic, but it's going on 3am and I have to work in da mornin'.

*waves goodnight*

[Mithrandir]

Hmm. Not sure what I think of that site. It looks like most of their links are of the 'give us money' type, and their science seems to leave a few things out. They are definately a well funded outfit, though and if you feel you want to support this kind of site they make it very easy to pledge $100.00/mo to keep them going.

[Technomancer]

I'd be distrustful of anything associated with "Dr" Carl Baugh. Anyways, the arguments are ones I've heard before. Moreover they betray a lack of basic knowledge of the science involved.

[Mimichan]

Hello again.

Um. Because I posted so late last night I didn't get a chance to really look at the creationevidence site. I just happened to notice that it covered the "young earth" theory as one of its topics...something about coal. I didn't notice any links asking for money (probably cause my eyes were half-shut ). Oh well, I told you I was simple. *sighs*
God can and does use types and shadows in His Word to reveal himself to us, IMO; but, I believe that the creation story should be taken literally (as far as the 6 day period actually BEING a six day period). I have no sound scientific reasoning to support this, it's just what I believe.

Oh, and what is wrong with Dr. Carl Baugh? He seems like a nice guy....
Is there something I should know about the man? *confused and uninformed*

[EireWolf]

I'd be distrustful of anything associated with "Dr" Carl Baugh.

Yeah, me too. I was watching a creation "science" video by him and Kenneth Copeland, back in the day when I believed the young earth theory. One of them (I don't remember which one) was quoting some obscure passage of Scripture and saying that it was talking about the flood of Noah's time. I believe the passage was Psalm 69. In any case, it seems he wasn't expecting people to look up the passage... I did. It was pretty obvious that it was NOT referring to the Flood at all. He said a few other questionable things, too. I wrote Dr. Baugh a letter, telling him that I did not appreciate the way he was twisting Scripture to prove a point. I got a nice letter back... which made it clear to me that nobody actually read my letter. It was a generic "thanks for your interest in our ministry, and here's how you can buy our stuff" letter. I was rather miffed by that, especially since it takes a lot for me to write a letter like that in the first place.

[Technomancer]

The problem is that Baugh's claimed credentials are, to be blunt, fraudelent. He lists a number of institutions where he has claimed to have received degrees. These institutions are all obscure, unaccredited bible colleges (which don't have science departments). Not only are these schools not authorized to grant degrees of any sort, but some of them can't even be verified to exist. In addition, Baugh or his close associates run some of the schools themselves.

Some more info can be found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

[MasterDias]

First, the time frame. Some people believe that God created the universe and everything in it in 7 literal days -- i.e., 24-hour periods. Whereas I am certain that God is powerful enough to do such a thing, the Creation account by no means implies that He did. The Hebrew word translated as "day" in our Bible was more often used to mean an unspecified amount of time, probably closer to eons. That's a long time. So, it could be that God created the world in seven epochs.

Actually, I've always heard the exact opposite, that the Hebrew word translated as day usually was a literal day in the Old Testament.

I read a few books and articles about this once. I probably should read them again.

[EireWolf]

Some more info can be found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

I can say one thing for the revered "Dr." Baugh... he's full of gall, among other things. The sad thing is that most of his adherents won't even check out his "credentials" because they want to believe in him at all costs.

Let our faith not be so shallow that it crumbles when a man is proven false.

[Mimichan]

Thank you for the info on Dr. Baugh. I had no idea about any of this.

In any case, I don't think it really matters so much if we believe in the "young earth" theory or not. What is important is that we know that it was created by the words of God almighty. Young or old is irrelevant to me, as long as I know I didn't descend from a monkey. Perhaps, one day God will open our eyes to this mystery *for no side can seem to prove their claim to everyone's satisfaction* if not in this life then perhaps in eternity. But in eternity it prolly won't matter much