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

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"

In Christ
Blake Reas

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!

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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

In Christ,
Blake Reas

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

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 prefer Answers In Genesis for the rest of my stuff.

Pointless count-booster #3:

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

On a side note look at this cool icon:

I like your banana guy. :)

YES!


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

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

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..

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.