Old or young?

[truthman]

Would you all agree that there is evidence for a young earth? Of course.

Would you all agree that there is evidence for an old universe? Of course.

So, why can't both be right?

Isn't it possible that God created our universe eons ago, yet created our solar system only 6,000 years ago?

This theory certainly explains the starlight and time problem.

Thoughts?

truthman

[Blake Reas]

God in his infinite wisdom created a Universe that appears Old. This is not deception though because in order for him to create something it must be created with the appearance of age.

To the Earth, the fact that we do not know just how long the earth set here before God began to bring forth life on the planet leaves a nice hole that we can work with in.

I personally hold to a modified young earth- literary frame work hypothesis of Genesis which is put forth by John Feingburg in his Theology Proper "No One Like Him":read:

In Christ
Blake Reas

[GrayPilgrim]

I got really good at "Ages of Empire 2" in Feinberg's class! But on a serious note. Could not much of the discrepancy be handled by the decay of time? Ohh Jaltus!

[Yog^sothoth]

Would you all agree that there is evidence for a young earth? Of course.

Would you all agree that there is evidence for an old universe? Of course.

So, why can't both be right?

Isn't it possible that God created our universe eons ago, yet created our solar system only 6,000 years ago?

This theory certainly explains the starlight and time problem.

Thoughts?


How do you account for C14 dating? Bioluminesence dating?

how do you account for the things that are older than 4004 or so years old (I guess it'd be like 4200 right now)?

As a counter to your two questions I would raise these two contradicting quesitons.

Why couldn't (as ancient history books often are) the bible be off somehow? Through the time it took from oral history to writen form the telescoping effect and mythicalizing effect history through the spoken word can have, will morph just about any story. Why couldn't this have happened with the bible?

As far as science is concerned, How do we know we are right at all? Maybe what we judge as undeniable proof of a greater history than what is accounted for in the bible is way off base? Maybe what we judge as C14 is actually as old as it is because it took God a while to create life on this planet and C14 exsists in everything.

But then again, maybe i dunno what i'm talking about!! :rofl:

[Wesley's son]

Hi all,

I'm new here and this will be my #2 post.

From what I have read in secular and Christian writings, I strongly believe that the Earth section universe is old (about 15 billion years in fact). Do I believe in the veracity of the Genesis account? Absolutely Do I believe the Triune God is the author of all that is? Completely

I have seen Genesis 1 to be a beautiful poetic reandering of what 20-21st century scientists describe as big bang cosmology. I discovered this from the reading of Dr. Gerald Shroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang, and this is also supported by Dr. Hugh Ross on his site www.reasons.org.


I will elaborate more in my next post.

[Revolg]

Well I don't think the universe is 3.4 billion years old or that the world is even more than 100 million. There is just too much assumption in geology. As someone who studies science (Ornithologist), I study birds! But we do get to look at the various geography conditions and fossils that birds leave behind. The guy dates the bird and it's usually right on the money. But the more observable facts you give the better you'll get a correct assessment. The dating methods are not 100% correct. You cannot get like 87.45 year old birds. They have to round this number. When it passes the Libby half life, the more chance you get error. This happened several times at the radiocarbon plant where they told us the bird fossil was 900 years old but it was more like 80 years old. And this is just for young birds alone! The older it is, the more exaggerated the age.

But Carbon Dating is very effective when you have the facts and less assumptions to start out with. It's also very expensive ;). I would say about 5,000 years is a better age to date all animals young or living under. Then you will get into Geology which is out of my expertise so I won't speak on it.

[Pate]

Originally posted by Wesley's son
Hi all,

I'm new here and this will be my #2 post.

From what I have read in secular and Christian writings, I strongly believe that the Earth section universe is old (about 15 billion years in fact). Do I believe in the veracity of the Genesis account? Absolutely Do I believe the Triune God is the author of all that is? Completely

I have seen Genesis 1 to be a beautiful poetic reandering of what 20-21st century scientists describe as big bang cosmology. I discovered this from the reading of Dr. Gerald Shroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang, and this is also supported by Dr. Hugh Ross on his site www.reasons.org.


I will elaborate more in my next post.


Yes, I think that Ross & Co are among the most credible creationists. I'm very open to the possibility that something like their view is correct, though I certainly don't rule out views that are closer to theistic evolution either.

[Blake Reas]

I dont like Ross he tries to strain the text way to much. Just my thoughts.

In Christ,
Blake Reas:huh:

[Pate]

Originally posted by Blake Reas
I dont like Ross he tries to strain the text way to much. Just my thoughts.

In Christ,
Blake Reas:huh:

Ross is more a scientist than a theologian or exegete. At least his point that God's general and special revelations are in harmony and do not contradict each other, should be something that many Christians, regardless of their personal views about age of earth/universe, have reasons to agree on. As far as I'm concerned, the progressive creationist view seems to accomplish best the task of showing that these two revelations really are in harmony.

[Revolg]

I prefer Answers In Genesis for the rest of my stuff.

[MJCoate]

Pointless count-booster #3:

Personaly, I don't care. Any one else feel that way?

On a side note look at this cool icon:
:yipee:

[Revolg]

I like your banana guy. :)

[MJCoate]

YES!
:yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

This forum is the best one ever because it has the bouncing banana guy!

[Blake Reas]

Pate:
Ross is more a scientist than a theologian or exegete. At least his point that God's general and special revelations are in harmony and do not contradict each other, should be something that many Christians, regardless of their personal views about age of earth/universe, have reasons to agree on. As far as I'm concerned, the progressive creationist view seems to accomplish best the task of showing that these two revelations really are in harmony.

I definetley agree that he is no Theologian! But I do respect you opinion. I really do not think that we will be able to resolve this problem until Christ comes.

In Christ,
Blake

[Revolg]

Ross is oft refuted by Hebrew Scholars and by reputable Theologians. Yes he is a good scientist and has useful info! Just he believes in Pre-Adamite creatures which the bible does not say at all..

[Jaltus]

Could not much of the discrepancy be handled by the decay of time? Ohh Jaltus! According to Hawking, yes. Assuming Big Bang mechanics, when everything was much closer together, time moved much more quickly. In other words, what we would call a year now actually 1 billion years could have occured (remember, gravity wells effect time a huge amount, and if matter started off in a point the gravity well would be near infinite, meaning the flow of time would be warped beyond all understanding).

As for the date, your thinking is wrong, Yog. It is about 6000 years ago, since you need to add the 4004 to 2003. Creation allegedly occured 4004 BC, not 4004 years ago.

[Yog^sothoth]

oh yeah. thanks.

[Pilgrim]

Blake Reas:
God in his infinite wisdom created a Universe that appears Old. This is not deception though because in order for him to create something it must be created with the appearance of age.

To the Earth, the fact that we do not know just how long the earth set here before God began to bring forth life on the planet leaves a nice hole that we can work with in.

I personally hold to a modified young earth- literary frame work hypothesis of Genesis which is put forth by John Feingburg in his Theology Proper "No One Like Him":read:

In Christ
Blake Reas

It is interesting that one would combine the two. I ascribe to the frame-work hypothesis but would never combine it with a young earth model because I think that the Genesis account is a literary one, not a scientific one. And thus is not helpful for determining the age of the earth.

[Pilgrim]

But for the sake of argument. What about a "time-lapse" theory in which everything was aged rapidly to a starting point for human life?

[automatthew]

Grist for this mill:

A once-famous, now-notorious astronomer named Halton Arp has expressed serious doubt as to whether any of the astronomical bodies our telescopes detect are actual farther away than our local cluster of galaxies. :huh: He also provides compelling evidence to suggest that our galaxy is essentially at dead center of our local cluster. If anyone is actually interested in this line of discussion, let me know and I'll work at transcribing some of the book I have. Paraphrasing would be pointless.

matthew

[flipper]

truthman wrote:


Would you all agree that there is evidence for a young earth? Of course.

Ummm.

Well, not as young as I suspect you think it is. But relatively very, very young in relation to the age of the universe.

[Ted]

As a newcomer to the board, I am surprised that no one has brought forward the serious science that challenges long ages as determined by various radioactive techniques. In particular, I am speaking of Carbon 14.

C14 is made by interaction of cosmic rays and nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. Mixing in the atmosphere brings the C14 to the surface, where it enters plants during photosynthesis. Animal eat the plants, distributing C14 through the biosphere.

The key ASSUMPTION in this is that for the 60,000 or so years, the level of C14 has been constant. This is open to serious question.

http://www.grisda.org/reports.htm#GEOPHYSICS contains a number of useful reports. Robert Brown has shown that a biblical model yields much older apparent C14 dates than actual, since C14 levels before the flood were very low.

Paul Giem has shown that "infinite age" substances such as coal and oil all date less than 50,000 C14 years. Yet conventional science places them at millions of years old.

If we were to take a single atom of C14 that was 1 million years old, it would have to have been part of a mass that was 100 times the mass of the earth originally. This is obviously impossible, and coal and oil aren't that old, either.

Paleozoic fossils are supposed to be 250 to 500 million years old. Yet we find paleozoic fossils with C14 in them. They aren't that old, either.

There is even a mastodon recovered in Alaska with C14 dates that are 14,000 years different between its hair and brain. It's pretty clear that the hair wasn't that much older than the brain. But if we consider a flood model, the change in C14 fits perfectly. See http://www.bibleonly.org/gen/JATSFlood.PDF for more details.

The C14 calibration curve is derived from overlapping tree rings. There are two scales: the English Oak and Bristlecone Pine. Both have an anomaly at about 300BC that prevents them from being accurate any further back. Paul Giem has a femur from a soldier that died in the fall of Nineveh in 622 BC. (We actually know the day!) His femur dates older than 800 BC.

It should be pretty obvious that C14 is not useful for dates older than 300 BC. On the other hand, it absolutely refutes long ages, since specimens that are "millions of years old" still have C14. Only a young history for life on earth fits the C14 evidence.

[Wesley's son]

[QUOTE]Revolg:
Ross is oft refuted by Hebrew Scholars and by reputable Theologians. Yes he is a good scientist and has useful info! Just he believes in Pre-Adamite creatures which the bible does not say at all.. [/QUOTE

No the Biblical canon does not report on the presence of pre-Adamic creatures, but there is other rabbinical literature (I think it is in the Talmud?), written centuries before Darwin and his Origin of Species, that tells of the Lord using pre-humans as the design template for Adam. I will cite the source as soon as I find it. I know this is included in Shroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang, I will just have to find my copy for the details.javascript:smilie(':read:')

[Socrates]

Wesley's son wrote:



From what I have read in secular and Christian writings, I strongly believe that the Earth section universe is old (about 15 billion years in fact). Do I believe in the veracity of the Genesis account? Absolutely

Hey, is this a contest to see how many contradictory ideas people can float in their heads at once? Any advance on two? :juggle:

Seriously, you need to realise that dating methods have assumptions.



I have seen Genesis 1 to be a beautiful poetic reandering of what 20-21st century scientists describe as big bang cosmology.
Genesis is NOT poetry. There is no parallelism. Rather, it has all the Hebrew characteristics of historical narrative, e.g. the waw consecutive, careful definition of terms, and the peculiar sequence of verb tenses.



I discovered this from the reading of Dr. Gerald Shroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang, ...

Schroeder? :duh: The eisegetical contortions of this unsaved Jewish physicist are breathtaking to behold. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp.



... and this is also supported by Dr. Hugh Ross on his site www.reasons.org.


Not serious, surely! :argh: He pontificates on Hebrew without even knowing how to say "yes" or "no", tells porkies about what the Church Fathers believed, leaves open the possibility that Adam was younger then the Australian Aborigines, and even in his own field of astronomy, resorted to the extremely outdated explanation of comets as being of interstellar origin.

See the articles under http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Genesis.asp#progressive :bonk: