Age of the Earth and the Flood

[Caissie]

I just like to know where people stand on this. I would also like to know why they believe the way they do (present evidence).

Please...don't give me a book to read...I know what each side says, so if you think the age is old and you think carbon dating proves it, then just say something like, "I believe the in the old earth theory because carbon dating proved the earth is old" (or something like that).

 

[Citanul]

I'm a bit confused about this option:

I believe in evolution and no real flood (Genesis is a literal story of actual events)

If Genesis is a literal story of actual events, then there has to have been a flood. So the above statement seems to contradict itself, unless I'm missing something.

 

[hithesh]

Well, I believe in evolution, and a local flood, because the bible tells me so .

The story of the Deluge has been told many times in various religions, such as the Sumerian tale, that predated even the Hebrew take on events. Similar stories can be found in the ancient religions of India, China, and even the Mayans had their take on it as well.

The Biblical story on the other hand, shows a quite profound reflection. Genesis shows a God, who is regretful for what he has done, so he offers man a gift, and a promise to never do it again.

If only all could understand why he does this, then tomorrow the Kingdom of God, would be revealed.

 

[Assyrian]

Evolution and a local flood

Evolution and an ancient earth because that is what the evidence says in every scientific field that has investigated it, from radiometric dating, geology and astronomy to biology and genetics. In the bible we find a literal interpretation of the genesis days rejected by Moses and Peter, a literal interpretation of the Seventh Day rejected by Jesus and the author of Hebrews even Paul tells us the sabbath is just a shadow.

The only thing standing in the way of evolution in the bible is the story of God making Adam out of clay, but God as a potter or making people from clay is a metaphor that comes up a dozen times in scripture. There is no reason to insist the description of God molding Adam from clay in Genesis is the one time in scripture this is literal. Otherwise we have the description of God in Genesis commanding the earth to produce life. And this is what science tells us happened. Why do people have a problem with it?

Local flood because that is what the bible describes. Of course your bible translation probably tells you the whole earth was flooded. The Hebrew can be just as easily translated the whole land. That is what the passage would have meant to the people it was written to, who knew nothing of the earth being a globe.

The only thing standing in the way of evolution in the bible is the story of God making Adam out of clay, but God as a potter or making people from clay is a metpahor that comes up a dozen times in scripture.

I miss spelled metaphor when I first wrote this. But Google spell check spotted it and suggested metpahor is mudpack. I guess that proves it.

 

[Caissie]

I'm a bit confused about this option:

I believe in evolution and no real flood (Genesis is a literal story of actual events)

If Genesis is a literal story of actual events, then there has to have been a flood. So the above statement seems to contradict itself, unless I'm missing something.

Sorry....I meant to say "Genesis is NOT a literal story of actual events"

 

[Caissie]

Well, I believe in evolution, and a local flood, because the bible tells me so .

So you are telling me that you read the bible and concluded without bias that the earth is old and we evolved? I must have missed that part. Why for centuries people read the bible and came up with a young, created earth?

The Biblical story on the other hand, shows a quite profound reflection. Genesis shows a God, who is regretful for what he has done, so he offers man a gift, and a promise to never do it again.

I am confused here. God promised to never have a local flood again? If that is the case, He is a liar.

 

[Caissie]

Evolution and an ancient earth because that is what the evidence says in every scientific field that has investigated it, from radiometric dating, geology and astronomy to biology and genetics.

I asked for evidence. What you presented (besides 'radiometric dating') is not evidence. Saying, it is true because a certain science book says so, is not evidence. Please go into the fields of science and show me why you believe what you do.

In the bible we find a literal interpretation of the genesis days rejected by Moses and Peter, a literal interpretation of the Seventh Day rejected by Jesus and the author of Hebrews

This does not help me unless you show the scriptures where they reject this (each case please).

even Paul tells us the sabbath is just a shadow.

You are taking this out of context. He said, a shadow of good things to come. Here is a good explanation of this.

Local flood because that is what the bible describes. Of course your bible translation probably tells you the whole earth was flooded. The Hebrew can be just as easily translated the whole land. That is what the passage would have meant to the people it was written to, who knew nothing of the earth being a globe.

Then why did God tell Noah to pack up all the animals, and stay in that boat for a year? Why didn't he tell Noah to move?

 

[Assyrian]

I am confused here. God promised to never have a local flood again? If that is the case, He is a liar.

It depends on what size flood we are talking about. What if it was much larger than any we have seen since, would that count?

Or was the promise to the survivors of the flood, that the land they now lived in would never see another flood that wiped out all life.

 

[shernren]

Just to check, Caissie, is this thread just for getting people's opinion about things, or for discussing and clobbering them as well? Every once in a while you get a survey upon which people start discussing stuff and then the original poster says "Hey, no discussion". Is this one of those threads, or should we muck about like normal? Just checking - I don't want to type up a huge reply in an inappropriate thread.

 

[Assyrian]

I asked for evidence. What you presented (besides 'radiometric dating') is not evidence. Saying, it is true because a certain science book says so, is not evidence. Please go into the fields of science and show me why you believe what you do.

Check out http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
You are not asking me to summarise the libraries of information on radiometric dating are you?

However if you have any specific problems with radiometric dating let us know what they are. You could even start a thread on the subject if you like.

This does not help me unless you show the scriptures where they reject this (each case please).

According to Genesis and Exodus, the Sabbath is holy because God rested on the seventh day of creation. Because of that, God blessed that day and made it holy Gen 2:3 Exod 20:11. However Jesus turns that on its head. Sabbath observance was not literally because God rested on the Seventh day. Jesus tells us Mar 2:27 The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Nor did Jesus take the story of God stopping work literally either. John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." He should know, he was there.


Read Hebrews 3&4. God's seventh day rest is a rest we are told to enter into 'Today'. You get an interesting play with word in those two chapters. Not only is God's seventh day still going on, but the command given long ago in the Old Testament 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...' still applies because it is still 'today'. Both the Seventh Day of creation and the 'Today' of the command are seen as what we would call 'Day Ages'. If the Seventh Day of Creation is not seen as a literal 24 hour day then the same hermeneutic applies the other days of the creation 'week'.


The fact that Moses and Peter did not take God's 'days' literally can be seen in Psalm 90:4 and 2Peter 3:8. Now this could be read as each day being exactly 1000 years (which hasn't worked Jesus should have been back 10 years ago) or simply that a day in God's sight is a very very long time. Either way both Moses and Peter warn us not to get stuck in taking God's days literally and Peter, in his talk of the history of the world from its creation to the end of time, tells us this is the one thing we should not forget.

You are taking this out of context. He said, a shadow of good things to come. Here is a good explanation of this.

Ussher's 4004BC creation date was rooted in this theory. He got it wrong. The 7000 years were up when, 1997? But like every other pious calendar that has tried to fit God into timetable, it failed.

If you take the creation week literally, then the seventh day of creation God rested on was not a shadow it was reality, and according to a literal interpretation of the Sabbath law - a law that cost the disobedient their lives - the Sabbaths was grounded on the historic reality of God actually resting for 24 hours after creating the world in six literal days.

For Paul to describe the Sabbath as a shadow of the things to come, whose substance is Christ tells us the real meaning of the Sabbath does not lie in a historical day God rested, but as Hebrew tells us, in the real rest we enter into in Christ.

Then why did God tell Noah to pack up all the animals, and stay in that boat for a year? Why didn't he tell Noah to move?

How would Noah be a witness to the people he lived among if he scarpered? How do you herd cats? How do you bring enough food for all the animals if you are walking? And why shouldn't God do things just the way he wants?

 

[Caissie]

Just to check, Caissie, is this thread just for getting people's opinion about things, or for discussing and clobbering them as well? Every once in a while you get a survey upon which people start discussing stuff and then the original poster says "Hey, no discussion". Is this one of those threads, or should we muck about like normal? Just checking - I don't want to type up a huge reply in an inappropriate thread.

I don't intend to "clobber" anyone. I just want to know what they believe and why they believe it. But saying, "because the bible says so (with out verses to back it up) or because Biology says so, is not what I am looking for.

If you say something like, God promised never to flood the 'land' again (and you believe in just a local flood) then I will ask you to explain some things.

The goal of this really is to find out what you believe and why you believe that. An example of an answer that I am looking for is something like this:

I believe that the earth is old because carbon dating proved it. (I am actually looking for more science to back it up...but if you came to believe this because of scriptures, please show the scriptures.)

 

[Caissie]

You are not asking me to summarise the libraries of information on radiometric dating are you?

No, I am very familiar with how radiometric dating works. I use to be a Physics teacher.

According to Genesis and Exodus, the Sabbath is holy because God rested on the seventh day of creation. Because of that, God blessed that day and made it holy Gen 2:3 Exod 20:11. However Jesus turns that on its head. Sabbath observance was not literally because God rested on the Seventh day. Jesus tells us Mar 2:27 The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Nor did Jesus take the story of God stopping work literally either. John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." He should know, he was there.

So are you saying that God never took a day of rest?

Read Hebrews 3&4. God's seventh day rest is a rest we are told to enter into 'Today'. You get an interesting play with word in those two chapters. Not only is God's seventh day still going on, but the command given long ago in the Old Testament 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...' still applies because it is still 'today'. Both the Seventh Day of creation and the 'Today' of the command are seen as what we would call 'Day Ages'. If the Seventh Day of Creation is not seen as a literal 24 hour day then the same hermeneutic applies the other days of the creation 'week'.

So God is currently resting? When do you think he started and what is your estimate of how many years He will be resting? Also, why is the past tense "rested" found in the OT when talking about God resting?

The fact that Moses and Peter did not take God's 'days' literally can be seen in Psalm 90:4 and 2Peter 3:8. Now this could be read as each day being exactly 1000 years (which hasn't worked Jesus should have been back 10 years ago) or simply that a day in God's sight is a very very long time.

Or as that site that I sent pointed out that God can use significant figures.

Ussher's 4004BC creation date was rooted in this theory. He got it wrong. The 7000 years were up when, 1997? But like every other pious calendar that has tried to fit God into timetable, it failed.

You did not read that page that I linked to. It explains how God could be using significant figures.

How would Noah be a witness to the people he lived among if he scarpered? How do you herd cats? How do you bring enough food for all the animals if you are walking? And why shouldn't God do things just the way he wants?

You wouldn't need to herd cats or anything. Just let them die. In no time, other animals will migrate back to that land.

 

[Jadis40]

I believe in a local flood, not only because the scientific evidence, including the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon, proves it, but also the historical evidence.

I feel somewhat qualified to state this, because I graduated with a degree in history. First, let me state that even during college I still accepted happily that the flood was indeed global. What changed my thinking on the issue is based on archeology. For one thing, there are numerous cultures that have existed and vanished throughout history. Please note, that existence of "culture" can be defined as a specific artifacts in limited areas with certain features unique to a specific time frame which can be used to differentiate them from earlier or later cultures. Using that criteria, "culture" predates civilization by a much longer time scale. The first recognized civilization was Sumer, which dates from about 3500 BC, yet one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities is Byblos, which is in Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byblos

Also, look at the area in which most of the early part of the Bible takes place - Mesopotamia. The story of Adam and Eve mentions two rivers in modern day Iraq. Abraham himself came from the city of Ur. So, given what we know of linguistics, chances are Abraham didn't speak Hebrew, but possibly Sumerian or Akkadian. The interesting thing about Sumerian is that it's a language isolate, meaning no languages came from it, and no languages came before it. It's not the only one though. The Basque language, spoken by the Basque people in the Pyrenees in North Central Spain and South-Western France is the same.

So, in conclusion, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the Gilgamesh epic was the basis for the Biblical story of Noah.

 

[Deamiter]

The only problem I have with the poll is a common phrasing that creationists seem to use universally. Why would anybody "believe in" evolution? Usually the term invokes a concept of trust and a lack of criticism. I certainly believe in God, but even to say "I believe in the Bible" or "I believe in what the Bible says" is going much too far toward bibolatry in my opinion because that sort of comment is usually used as a way to say "I believe in my interpretation of the Bible." Again, to believe in one's interpretation of scripture is totally unbiblical.

Why don't creationists simply say they believe that a particular interpretation is accurate or even have the courtesy to listen when TEs tell them that their acceptance of evolution is not a belief.

Yeah, I'm overreacting, but I don't believe in evolution. While I accept it as the best current conclusion based on available evidence, I'm always looking for evidence of chimeras or other things that would disprove evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

No, I am very familiar with how radiometric dating works. I use to be a Physics teacher.

I taught Chemistry myself

You keep suggesting we might see carbon dating as evidence for the age of the earth, but I don't know any TEs on this site who think carbon dating tells us the age of the earth. Oddly it is usually YECs who come out with that idea. Carbon dating is only useful back 50,000 years or so, even when it is calibrated against varves. Long enough to throw out Ussher's date, but the C14 runs out long before we get to 4.5 billion of earth's real age.

If you get most of your current information on radiometric dating from creationist sources, I suggest you read up on isochron dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

So are you saying that God never took a day of rest?

No me, Jesus.

Though spookily, (is that the right word? it sends shivers down my back) there was a day when God rested, a Saturday, the seventh day of the week, when God the Son ceased from all work, all movement, dead in the grave. That is the only time God stopped.

So God is currently resting? When do you think he started and what is your estimate of how many years He will be resting? Also, why is the past tense "rested" found in the OT when talking about God resting?

That rest is a place, or state, of relationship with God. I suppose it has always been there through eternity, because our names were written there before the foundation of the world. Was there a time before he chose us? This rest always will be too because we will always be with God. In a way God's seventh day rest is a picture of the gospel. It has its roots in our cosmos in and through Calvary and the Resurrection.

Why is the past tense used? Why is the past tense used of something that is a shadow of things to come? Because it is a metaphor a parable. Jesus tells us God didn't stop work and we know God doesn't get tried, yet the metaphor describes him as being refreshed after having a day's rest (Exodus 31:17). Either that is an anthropomorphic metaphor of God identifying with the weary labourers (cf Exodus 23:12), or it is prophetic of Jesus in the grave, either way you don't get a literal seven consecutive days week.

Or as that site that I sent pointed out that God can use significant figures.

You did not read that page that I linked to. It explains how God could be using significant figures.

I did read it. I thought the author was reaching. Creation 4004 BC, 4000 year later Jesus born - around 4BC. Ussher was not using significant figures, his chronology has failed. It ran out in 1997.

It was a nice idea while it lasted, and it was good that the church realised that God's days were not meant to be take literally. It appears they were not meant to be shoved into a day/millennium straightjacket either. Ussher got it wrong. Lets face up to it and move on.

You wouldn't need to herd cats or anything. Just let them die. In no time, other animals will migrate back to that land.

It appears God was more concerned with preserving the lines of animals from the land than you are.

Were there actually domesticated cats anywhere else? Were the breed of cats, dogs, sheep, goats, chickens unique to that region? Were there unique species there? How would Noah know?

The problem is you are telling God how he should have dealt with a prophet of his during a regional flood. That doesn't work.

 

[Citanul]

Sorry....I meant to say "Genesis is NOT a literal story of actual events"

OK, that makes a lot more sense now. Isn't it annoying how one mistake can completely change your intended meaning? (I know what it's like - it's happened lots of times to me)

Anyway, my position that evolution occurred and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years ago. I believe that that's the best explanation for the current scientific evidence that we have.

I don't believe that there was a global flood, as there is no evidence supporting it. However, I don't know whether the flood in Genesis actually happened or not.

It could be referring to an actual flood, or it could be a story about something which the people of that time would have been familiar with (ie floods). But whether the flood described actually took place or not isn't important.

What's important is the message that the story portrays. Hithesh has done a good job of encapsulating - the flood story shows a God who regrets what He's done and promises not to do it again. This sets God apart from the gods of the other cultures at the time - their gods didn't make any sort of promise, and so people lived in fear of their gods.

I know you asked for evidence, but I'm not going to provide any as I don't really have a good collection of links for you. This isn't my area of expertise - I'm just an interested layman whose read a little. But even though it's a little, I feel I've read enough (from both sides of the debate) to be happy with the conclusions that I've come to about things like the age of the Earth and the Flood.

 

[Caissie]

I believe in a local flood, not only because the scientific evidence, including the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon, proves it, but also the historical evidence.

So this "local flood" not only produced the grand canyon but landed Noah half way around the world in the Middle East?

 

[Caissie]

You keep suggesting we might see carbon dating as evidence for the age of the earth, but I don't know any TEs on this site who think carbon dating tells us the age of the earth. Oddly it is usually YECs who come out with that idea. Carbon dating is only useful back 50,000 years or so, even when it is calibrated against varves. Long enough to throw out Ussher's date, but the C14 runs out long before we get to 4.5 billion of earth's real age.

Yes, I am aware of this. I was just using this as an example (even though ignorant people have told me that carbon dating proves the earth is old).

 

[Caissie]

I know you asked for evidence, but I'm not going to provide any as I don't really have a good collection of links for you. This isn't my area of expertise - I'm just an interested layman whose read a little. But even though it's a little, I feel I've read enough (from both sides of the debate) to be happy with the conclusions that I've come to about things like the age of the Earth and the Flood.

You don't have to go into detail with links or to prove each case, for instance...If I asked you to provide the reasons you believe in evolution, all you will have to do is make a few points like:

1. Many animals have common structure
2. Many animals have common anatomy
3. We find different animals in different rock layers. We find birds in the upper rock layers and not with the trilobites, this is evidence that they did not live at the same time
4. We can get a variety of dogs by breeding just a few dogs over time.

 

[Jadis40]

So this "local flood" not only produced the grand canyon but landed Noah half way around the world in the Middle East?

No, what I'm saying is, through the study of the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon, it becomes a strong source that actually disproves that the flood was global. Sorry, I guess the way I phrased that was a bit confusing.

The YEC/global flood proponents like to say that the Grand Canyon is proof of a world-wide flood, but the fossils found in it and also the nature of certain sedimentary layers actually end up showing the exact opposite, but formation over billions if not millions of years.

I submit the Coconino Sandstone as one such example. The vast majority of geologists who have actually been to the Grand Canyon and studied it have determined it was formed by wind, and not by water.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365_1.html

Also, to keep this brief, here's a summary of different fossils found in the varying layers, from top to bottom, from the website here:

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm

Kaibab Limestone: Fossils that can be found in this layer are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth.

Toroweap Formation: This layer averages about 255 million years old and is composed of pretty much the same material as the Kaibab Limestone above. It is darker in color, ranging from yellow to grey, and contains a similar fossil history.

Coconino Sandstone: No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist.

Hermit Shale: Fossils to be found in this layer consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians.

Supai Formation: Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles and terrestrial plants exist in the eastern portion which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward.

Redwall Limestone: Numerous marine fossils can be found in the Redwall Limestone including brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites. Many caves and arches can also be seen in the Redwall.

Temple Butte Limestone: The only fossils to be found in the eastern region are bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. In the western region there are numerous marine fossils.

Tonto Group (3 layers):
1. Muav Limestone: Its color is grey and it does not have much in the way of fossils, some trilobites and brachiopods.
2. Bright Angel Shale: Fossils to be found in this layer consist of marine animals such as trilobites and brachiopods.
3. Tapeats Sandstone: The color of this layer is dark brown and it contains fossils of trilobites. brachiopods, and trilobite trails.


Those are just a few of the many layers within the Grand Canyon. I highly recommend checking out the rest of that webpage I listed.

I'd also check out this webpage, which shows the southwestern US and the numerous retreats and advances of the sea:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/paleogeogwus.html

There are numerous graphics, but I found it to be absolutely fascinating.