Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: How Old is This Thing?

  1. #11
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by Cere
    For a YEC position I recommend looking here. http://creation.com/
    There is a lot to go through though, everything from what the Hebrew in Genesis means, to why the consensus interpretations of the evidence aren't accepted. The key articles page under the "Topics" list is probably a good start though.
    I'll check it out. Thanks!

  2. #12
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    I am not agnostic, I believe in an Old Earth, but I do not see any faith related issues of significance involved. I believe it because "all" scientific evidence points in that direction. I struggled with the issue because I could not reconcile my understanding of the Genesis creation account with all the evidence. I decided to accept both and let it go at that. Then I ran into Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe. My understanding of the creation account was based only upon what I had heard and rejected as a kid. Hugh Ross read the same creation account and interpreted it very differently. He said something to the effect that; it matched very well what he had learned as a student of science.
    I'll check that out as well. Thanks.

  3. #13
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I always go back to the cross.
    I try to just stay there.

  4. #14
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,758
    Amen (Given)
    19747
    Amen (Received)
    6339
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    For example it's being taught there were no Adam and Eve. It's being said by many that they were some kind of "myth". These are usually tied to evolution though.
    I do believe that Adam and Eve were the real first people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Old earth views would have death before any possible date for Adam and Eve(the genealogies in Genesis can only be stretched so far).
    There was certainly no human death before the fall, Adam sinned so death came to all men. There is no problem with the genealogies.
    Last edited by Jedidiah; 01-23-2014 at 01:45 AM.

  5. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    57
    Amen (Received)
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

    But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

    Thanks!
    There is LOTS of scientific evidence for an old earth, and NO solid scientific evidence for a young earth. Here are just a few items:
    1) the number of annual layers in lake varves puts the oldest back to about 45,000 years (and allows absolute calibration of radiocarbon dates to this age)
    2) the thickness of coral reefs puts them back over 100,000 years.
    3) the number of annual layers in ice puts them well over 100,000 years
    4) the light from SN 1987A took 168,000 years to reach us. Further, its debris ring has been resolved by Hubble and the time lag for the explosion to illuminate this debris ring has been measured. This is all consistent with a 168,000 light-year distance and the present-day speed of light, evidence that the speed of light has not changed. Further yet, the decay of its light curve matched the expected radioactive decay rates, showing that the rates of radioactive decay have not changed in 168,000 years.
    5) the ages of the line of volcanos along the Hawaiin Island and Emperor Seamount chain get progressively older the further along the chain one goes away from the hotspot under the island of Hawaii, up to about 80 million years. These ages are consistent with the rate of tectonic plate motion away from this hotspot as measured by GPS satellites.
    6) all radioactive elements with half-lives less than about 500 million years are essentially absent from the earth's surface, UNLESS they are presently being made by cosmic rays or some other mechanism (e.g. Radiocarbon). But we DO see elements with half-lives longer than 500 million years, and we see lots more of the long-lived ones than the short-lived ones. This is consistent with a roughly 5 billion year old earth; after about 10 half lives, the isotopes are essentially gone (reduced in abundance by a factor of 1000). In fact, if we assume that U-235 and U-238 were originally the same abundance and look at their present-day abundances, we calculate that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old.

  6. Amen Rushing Jaws amen'd this post.
  7. #16
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    I'm holding to an old universe/old earth/young earth view.

    1) The earth is as old as the universe. 2) The earth was given form in 6 days just as Genesis account says. [Day one, the Sun is a star. Day 4, solar wind blows the debris past the earth where the Sun, Moon and star become visible as distinct lights in the sky.]

    Typical measured ages, 13.8 billion for the universe. 4.5 billion for the earth in the solar system. 6,000+ from the 6 day account. Based in flood dating, over 5,000 years to the flood event alone.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ar/cardat.html
    Last edited by 37818; 01-24-2014 at 09:20 PM.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  8. #17
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    . . . In fact, if we assume that U-235 and U-238 were originally the same abundance and look at their present-day abundances, we calculate that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old.
    Earth rock do not date that old, the 4.5 billion is base on other than earth rocks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  9. #18
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,221
    Amen (Given)
    17173
    Amen (Received)
    3398
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    I do believe that Adam and Eve were the real first people.
    Figured you would, you aren't a TE.

    There was certainly no human death before the fall, Adam sinned so death came to all men. There is no problem with the genealogies.
    There certainly is a problem. The genealogies can only be stretched so far. Humans existed far longer than 6,000-10,000 years ago. Do you, like Hugh Ross* accept the "soulless pre-Adamite hominids"?
    Oh, and since the animals were originally said to be vegetarian, there wouldn't be any animal death for them before Adam either. However, we have evidence of carnivorous activity long before humans even show up.

    Genesis 1:29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

    The same phrasing is used to repeal the plant only diet for Noah.

    Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

    Obviously the same diet was being proclaimed for both man and animals.

    Then there's the part in Genesis where it says that there was no rain up until after God created man, but the fossil evidence supposedly tells a different story.

    Genesis 2:6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

    Is contradicted by this. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...th-atmosphere/

    I prefer to trust what God has revealed about what He created.

    *I remember you saying that you had a similar interpretation to him.

  10. #19
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,758
    Amen (Given)
    19747
    Amen (Received)
    6339
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    There certainly is a problem. The genealogies can only be stretched so far.
    In my mind that is not a problem since the term father can refer to long past predecessors. Jesus is referred to as the Son of David.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Humans existed far longer than 6,000-10,000 years ago. Do you, like Hugh Ross* accept the "soulless pre-Adamite hominids"?
    I believe humans have been around since Adam - around 150,000 years ago or so. The whole question of soulless hominids is a non issue. We have on earth today soulless hominids. So what? I believe that the so-called pre humans were just the same sort of animals we have a few of left today in the hominid category, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

    That whole soulless hominid thing was not Hugh Ross, but AIG trying to make him look bad. I do not think Christians should be attacking one another like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Oh, and since the animals were originally said to be vegetarian, there wouldn't be any animal death for them before Adam either. However, we have evidence of carnivorous activity long before humans even show up.
    There is a lot of stuff that is subject to interpretation. I do not deny that there are questions that I do not have the answer to.

    I do see things in a way similar to Ross, I think I did say that. I see the creation as a revelation of the creator. What we can learn about the creation is true and valuable. Can we interpret creation inaccurately? Sure, but we can also interpret scripture inaccurately. I have shared what I believe, but again I do not see the age of the earth as being spiritually significant.

    I trust God, not my ability to understand everything. But I will still attempt to understand.

    I am not willing to go through the effort of arguing about the age of the earth. It just is not worth the effort to me. I struggled with that for a long time and now put it behind me.

  11. #20
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,221
    Amen (Given)
    17173
    Amen (Received)
    3398
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    In my mind that is not a problem since the term father can refer to long past predecessors. Jesus is referred to as the Son of David.
    That doesn't help the case at all, as the genealogies in Genesis are designed by their nature to give a chronology. http://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies
    We are given specific times for when the next person in the genealogy was born, this takes the possibility of gaps out of the picture. So does Jude.

    Jude 1:14
    Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

    Jude obviously didn't see any gaps in the Genesis genealogies.

    I believe humans have been around since Adam - around 150,000 years ago or so. The whole question of soulless hominids is a non issue. We have on earth today soulless hominids. So what? I believe that the so-called pre humans were just the same sort of animals we have a few of left today in the hominid category, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.
    No it's not. If there are people out there who aren't descended of Adam, then they are potentially left out of the plan for salvation. This comes from Jesus being our "Kinsman Redeemer", which is a theme that is seen throughout the Bible. Besides homo sapiens shows up before 150,000 years ago. This would put human like creatures with signs of culture, art, and possibly religion as being some kind of animal.

    That whole soulless hominid thing was not Hugh Ross, but AIG trying to make him look bad. I do not think Christians should be attacking one another like that.
    It's on the Reasons to Believe website. So, no, it's not an attack. http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/hominids

    There is a lot of stuff that is subject to interpretation. I do not deny that there are questions that I do not have the answer to.
    It's the same phrase applied to both, why should we even think that it means something different? That's right, there's not.

    I do see things in a way similar to Ross, I think I did say that. I see the creation as a revelation of the creator. What we can learn about the creation is true and valuable. Can we interpret creation inaccurately? Sure, but we can also interpret scripture inaccurately. I have shared what I believe, but again I do not see the age of the earth as being spiritually significant.
    I understand that, just don't get close to the kenotic heresy like Ross did. William Lane Craig, an old earther talks about it here. http://www.ldolphin.org/craig/index.html

    I trust God, not my ability to understand everything. But I will still attempt to understand.
    Then why not trust His words in one of the clearest parts of the Bible?

    I am not willing to go through the effort of arguing about the age of the earth. It just is not worth the effort to me. I struggled with that for a long time and now put it behind me.
    I understand what you are saying. However, unlike you, I feel that this is an important issue. Someone's views of Genesis 1-11 is going to color how they see the rest of the Bible. Genesis is heavily used in the NT, especially Genesis 1-11. The very need for the Resurrection is spelled out in Genesis. I don't think believing TE, or OEC is a salvation issue, but I still think it important.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •