Age of the Earth and the Flood
- Thread starter Caissie
- Start date
- Status
I'm just wondering, how can someone be a YECist and understand physics at the same time? How do you deal with radioactive dating and far star light, and cosmic background radiation? Do you think that decay rates were different in the past, and the speed of light was different in the past? Also, does your views ever enter the classroom, or do you teach just science, and explain your views when asked?
Upvote
0
I believe in a young earth that was created by the hand of God in 6 days and I believe in a World Wide Flood. Why? Cause the Bible says it.
Upvote
0
Evolution, ancient universe and local flood.
Reasons:
1. Some stars are billions of light-years away, it takes the light billions of years to reach our eyes.
2. Radiometric and carbon dating methods.
3. Distinct sedimentary layers in the geological column.
4. "Family likeness" between species points to a common ancestor.
5. Creation "ex nilo" is not the norm; if it were, then a YE would be much easier to believe, but we share a genetic link with our parents, we consist of the same "stuff" as every creature on the planet, and we obtain our energy ultimately from the sun - i.e. we are made up / created out of what has come before.
6. Molecular biology reveals a genetic relationship between species.
7. Fossils exist.
8. The Bible doesn't teach the "ex nilo" creation of humans, but that Adam was formed from "dust" or "clay" - i.e. out of the earth. Likewise, God commanded the earth to bring forth/yield vegetation - again, no special creation ex nilo, but creation from what has come before.
9. Although God could have created in an instant, he chose to create by a step-by-step process over a series of "days" - in general, from more simple to more complex (e.g. heavens/earth then plants then fish then mammals then humans etc. etc.)
10. Where did the world-wide flood water come from? Where did it go?
11. How could Noah & family possibly collect, store and feed representatives of every creature on earth? And how could he emulate the quite specific habitats / ecological niches that many animals need to survive?
12. If "good" means no death, then what about carnivores? The Bible does not speak of such a drastic re-creation of ecosystems since the fall/curse.
13. Similarly, if the whole earth were "good", then why the special creation of Eden?
14. The threat/warning of death (i.e. "you shall surely die") would have rung hollow to someone who had not the faintest idea of what "death" means. If death occurred before the fall into sin, then why not creation over millions of years of survival & extinction?
15. The flood over the "earth" is equally well-translated as over the "land". Besides, the author of Genesis was unaware of the globe.
16. If we assume that the earth IS billions of years old, then what word would an ancient Hebrew-ite have used for a "billion"? Perhaps "day" is symbolic for something the author would not have understood anyway.
Reasons:
1. Some stars are billions of light-years away, it takes the light billions of years to reach our eyes.
2. Radiometric and carbon dating methods.
3. Distinct sedimentary layers in the geological column.
4. "Family likeness" between species points to a common ancestor.
5. Creation "ex nilo" is not the norm; if it were, then a YE would be much easier to believe, but we share a genetic link with our parents, we consist of the same "stuff" as every creature on the planet, and we obtain our energy ultimately from the sun - i.e. we are made up / created out of what has come before.
6. Molecular biology reveals a genetic relationship between species.
7. Fossils exist.
8. The Bible doesn't teach the "ex nilo" creation of humans, but that Adam was formed from "dust" or "clay" - i.e. out of the earth. Likewise, God commanded the earth to bring forth/yield vegetation - again, no special creation ex nilo, but creation from what has come before.
9. Although God could have created in an instant, he chose to create by a step-by-step process over a series of "days" - in general, from more simple to more complex (e.g. heavens/earth then plants then fish then mammals then humans etc. etc.)
10. Where did the world-wide flood water come from? Where did it go?
11. How could Noah & family possibly collect, store and feed representatives of every creature on earth? And how could he emulate the quite specific habitats / ecological niches that many animals need to survive?
12. If "good" means no death, then what about carnivores? The Bible does not speak of such a drastic re-creation of ecosystems since the fall/curse.
13. Similarly, if the whole earth were "good", then why the special creation of Eden?
14. The threat/warning of death (i.e. "you shall surely die") would have rung hollow to someone who had not the faintest idea of what "death" means. If death occurred before the fall into sin, then why not creation over millions of years of survival & extinction?
15. The flood over the "earth" is equally well-translated as over the "land". Besides, the author of Genesis was unaware of the globe.
16. If we assume that the earth IS billions of years old, then what word would an ancient Hebrew-ite have used for a "billion"? Perhaps "day" is symbolic for something the author would not have understood anyway.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
I accept the scientific models of how the universe,earth, life, and current diversity of life all formed as the best we have currently. They have all bore good fruit and thus are to be kept, unlike "Creation science."
As far as the flood goes, I feel that it may have been loosely based on a large flood in the past, but that its meaning is not really tied to the reality of that flood, but to the spiritual subtext of the story itself.
As far as the flood goes, I feel that it may have been loosely based on a large flood in the past, but that its meaning is not really tied to the reality of that flood, but to the spiritual subtext of the story itself.
Upvote
0
Of course, what you guys don't realize is the Bible doesn't actually say it - your interpretation of the Bible is why you believe it.What he said and why!
Upvote
0
S
Servant222
Guest
On the question of the Biblical flood, here are a few comments I posted on another thread some time ago.
1. The Biblical flood would only have wiped out land animals- all fish, etc. would presumably have been fine. So there appears to be some ambiquity in the Genesis account since it states that the flood wiped out all living things, but doesn't explain whether fish and other sea creatures died. It also doesn't explain why the presumably thousands of fishermen and others that would have been out in the ocean with their boats died, or where the second dove that Noah sent out got the olive branch that it returned with.
2. While I am not aware of any scientific evidence for a world-wide flood, there is very convincing evidence of a massive regional flood in the Mediterranean Basin. Since this area was heavily populated at the time, and likely the cradle of civilization, this event would have killed large numbers of people and land-dwelling animals. This event is described in more detail in a number of scientific publications, and also at this Christian web site: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible...-97Morton.html
In a nutshell, northward movement and collision of the African Plate with the European plate at one point in the distant past closed off the Strait of Gibraltar, which then allowed the Mediterranean Ocean to basically dry up (more water evaporates from its surface than flows into it from rivers). Presumably, many people living along the shore of the Mediterranean would have followed the receding waters downhill, setting themselves up for what was to come next......
As plate movement continued, and downwarping of land at the present-day location of the Straits of Gibraltar occurred, Atlantic Ocean water started to flow back into the Mediterranean Basin. The initial flow would have quickly increased as rapid downcutting occurred, thus creating a massive flood that would have rapidly engulfed the entire Mediterranean Basin, and overwhelmed all living things there.
3. There would have been a time in the Earth's distant past, before plate tectonic activity pushed up crustal material to form mountains, when the Earth would have been much flatter, and floods would therefore have been able to inundate much more land (assuming, of course that ocean water was already present in sufficient quantities to cause flooding). Heck, since about three quarters of the Earth's surface is water, maybe there was a time before mountain building occurred when only a very small portion of the Earth was above sea level, and it would have been much easier to overwhelm the air breathing creatures, including man, that were crowded onto the limited land available.
I have no doubt about the authenticity of the Bible, and therefore no doubt that God created some sort of massive catastrophic flooding event that wiped out a good part, or maybe even all, of mankind, and a bunch of other air breathing creatures. It is intriguing that the story of a world-wide flood is mentioned in other religions and in the legends of some First Nations people.
However, beyond these two truths, I don't pretend to understand the literal story of the Genesis flood, and have to assume that we are not yet to the point where we can correctly interpret what it says in the Bible about this event.
As little as about 100 years ago, the concept of a massive Mediterranean flood, and the mechanism of plate tectonics that created it, would have been considered preposterous. Now, though, our past assumptions have been shattered by newly-discovered knowledge, and what was once considered a myth is accepted to be reality. Science has had a habit of doing that (see geocentrism) to us numerous times in the past- forcing us to re-examine our interpretations, but, when a better explanation is established, still keeping the basic tenements of our Faith intact, or even strengthening them. I think we need to learn something from that.
So I view the story of the Biblical flood with interest, but have no doubt that our present interpretation of that event is not likely correct.
On the question of the age of the earth, I believe there is overwhelming evidence from many independent sources (radiometric dating, speed of light and size of Universe, ice core studies, stratigraphic studies, etc. etc.) that the earth is very old; certainly much, much older than the 10,000 year age that creationists seem to believe in. At the same time, I believe the Bible does not provide a clear-cut statement about how much time was actually involved in the 6 days of creation, and therefore to rigidly hold to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account is just that- an interpretation.
On the question of evolution, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs- but how far back it actually goes is unclear, and how that first living cell was "accidently" (in the words of an atheist) created from inorganic material AND, at exactly the same instant of time, was given the ability to reproduce itself without the intervention of a Creator, is also not something that science can explain.
I also think God makes it very clear in the Bible that the matter of time is really pretty unimportant in the overall scheme of things (see Acts 1:7) and that with this issue, and many similar ones, we need to be careful to discuss them with a proper persepective. Much more important is to focus on issues that directly affect your, and others, salvation.
1. The Biblical flood would only have wiped out land animals- all fish, etc. would presumably have been fine. So there appears to be some ambiquity in the Genesis account since it states that the flood wiped out all living things, but doesn't explain whether fish and other sea creatures died. It also doesn't explain why the presumably thousands of fishermen and others that would have been out in the ocean with their boats died, or where the second dove that Noah sent out got the olive branch that it returned with.
2. While I am not aware of any scientific evidence for a world-wide flood, there is very convincing evidence of a massive regional flood in the Mediterranean Basin. Since this area was heavily populated at the time, and likely the cradle of civilization, this event would have killed large numbers of people and land-dwelling animals. This event is described in more detail in a number of scientific publications, and also at this Christian web site: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible...-97Morton.html
In a nutshell, northward movement and collision of the African Plate with the European plate at one point in the distant past closed off the Strait of Gibraltar, which then allowed the Mediterranean Ocean to basically dry up (more water evaporates from its surface than flows into it from rivers). Presumably, many people living along the shore of the Mediterranean would have followed the receding waters downhill, setting themselves up for what was to come next......
As plate movement continued, and downwarping of land at the present-day location of the Straits of Gibraltar occurred, Atlantic Ocean water started to flow back into the Mediterranean Basin. The initial flow would have quickly increased as rapid downcutting occurred, thus creating a massive flood that would have rapidly engulfed the entire Mediterranean Basin, and overwhelmed all living things there.
3. There would have been a time in the Earth's distant past, before plate tectonic activity pushed up crustal material to form mountains, when the Earth would have been much flatter, and floods would therefore have been able to inundate much more land (assuming, of course that ocean water was already present in sufficient quantities to cause flooding). Heck, since about three quarters of the Earth's surface is water, maybe there was a time before mountain building occurred when only a very small portion of the Earth was above sea level, and it would have been much easier to overwhelm the air breathing creatures, including man, that were crowded onto the limited land available.
I have no doubt about the authenticity of the Bible, and therefore no doubt that God created some sort of massive catastrophic flooding event that wiped out a good part, or maybe even all, of mankind, and a bunch of other air breathing creatures. It is intriguing that the story of a world-wide flood is mentioned in other religions and in the legends of some First Nations people.
However, beyond these two truths, I don't pretend to understand the literal story of the Genesis flood, and have to assume that we are not yet to the point where we can correctly interpret what it says in the Bible about this event.
As little as about 100 years ago, the concept of a massive Mediterranean flood, and the mechanism of plate tectonics that created it, would have been considered preposterous. Now, though, our past assumptions have been shattered by newly-discovered knowledge, and what was once considered a myth is accepted to be reality. Science has had a habit of doing that (see geocentrism) to us numerous times in the past- forcing us to re-examine our interpretations, but, when a better explanation is established, still keeping the basic tenements of our Faith intact, or even strengthening them. I think we need to learn something from that.
So I view the story of the Biblical flood with interest, but have no doubt that our present interpretation of that event is not likely correct.
On the question of the age of the earth, I believe there is overwhelming evidence from many independent sources (radiometric dating, speed of light and size of Universe, ice core studies, stratigraphic studies, etc. etc.) that the earth is very old; certainly much, much older than the 10,000 year age that creationists seem to believe in. At the same time, I believe the Bible does not provide a clear-cut statement about how much time was actually involved in the 6 days of creation, and therefore to rigidly hold to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account is just that- an interpretation.
On the question of evolution, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs- but how far back it actually goes is unclear, and how that first living cell was "accidently" (in the words of an atheist) created from inorganic material AND, at exactly the same instant of time, was given the ability to reproduce itself without the intervention of a Creator, is also not something that science can explain.
I also think God makes it very clear in the Bible that the matter of time is really pretty unimportant in the overall scheme of things (see Acts 1:7) and that with this issue, and many similar ones, we need to be careful to discuss them with a proper persepective. Much more important is to focus on issues that directly affect your, and others, salvation.
Upvote
0
I opted for Other primarily because of problems with the wording in the other choices.
1. While I accept evolution as the best available explanation for current biodiversity, I am puzzled as to why it appears in the choices at all. The question was about an old earth and a global flood. Evolution does not touch directly on either part of the question.
2. I don't like the phrasing "believe" in evolution because of the ambiguity of the meaning of "believe". Does it mean that in my opinion evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is sound science? In that case, yes I do believe in evolution. Does it mean I put my trust in evolution rather than in God or that I do not believe in creation? In that case, no I do not believe in evolution.
3. In regards to the flood, I do not believe it was global, but I have no firm opinion on whether there really was a more limited flood or whether it is a fictional story. What is certain IMO, is that if there was a real flood, the biblical account is not a straight description of the event, but a story inspired by the event.
Evidence for these opinions:
On the age of the earth: the fact that Christians practically invented geology trying to track down the remnants of Noah's flood and came to the conclusion based on data gathered in the 18th to 19th century that the earth is very old. Even if one discounts more modern discoveries such as radiometric dating, that evidence still stands.
On the global extent of the flood: same as above. Also the faunal succession displayed in the fossil record which cannot be satisfactorily explained by a global flood, the continuity of genetic inheritance through the alleged flood (no genetic bottlenecks) and the continuity of cultures through the alleged flood,
On evolution: the fact that species have been observed to change, the fact that speciation has been observed, the fact that the proposed mechanisms of evolution have been observed to occur and work as predicted, the twin-nested hierarchy of the phylogenic tree, and the fact that it is multiply attested through different lines of evidence, particularly the close correlation of morphological, fossil and genetic evidence.
On all points: there is no compelling reason to intepret scripture in such a way as to disagree with the evidence from creation. And good theological reasons why creation and scripture should be interpreted in harmony with each other.
1. While I accept evolution as the best available explanation for current biodiversity, I am puzzled as to why it appears in the choices at all. The question was about an old earth and a global flood. Evolution does not touch directly on either part of the question.
2. I don't like the phrasing "believe" in evolution because of the ambiguity of the meaning of "believe". Does it mean that in my opinion evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is sound science? In that case, yes I do believe in evolution. Does it mean I put my trust in evolution rather than in God or that I do not believe in creation? In that case, no I do not believe in evolution.
3. In regards to the flood, I do not believe it was global, but I have no firm opinion on whether there really was a more limited flood or whether it is a fictional story. What is certain IMO, is that if there was a real flood, the biblical account is not a straight description of the event, but a story inspired by the event.
Evidence for these opinions:
On the age of the earth: the fact that Christians practically invented geology trying to track down the remnants of Noah's flood and came to the conclusion based on data gathered in the 18th to 19th century that the earth is very old. Even if one discounts more modern discoveries such as radiometric dating, that evidence still stands.
On the global extent of the flood: same as above. Also the faunal succession displayed in the fossil record which cannot be satisfactorily explained by a global flood, the continuity of genetic inheritance through the alleged flood (no genetic bottlenecks) and the continuity of cultures through the alleged flood,
On evolution: the fact that species have been observed to change, the fact that speciation has been observed, the fact that the proposed mechanisms of evolution have been observed to occur and work as predicted, the twin-nested hierarchy of the phylogenic tree, and the fact that it is multiply attested through different lines of evidence, particularly the close correlation of morphological, fossil and genetic evidence.
On all points: there is no compelling reason to intepret scripture in such a way as to disagree with the evidence from creation. And good theological reasons why creation and scripture should be interpreted in harmony with each other.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 37
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I'd largely agree with gluadys' nuanced answers. (TEs are notorious here for picking the "Other" option whenever there is a poll.) For me the key evidence that shows that the earth and universe is old is that there has been no successful competitor to the Big Bang theories.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S
Servant222
Guest
But hopefully your faith does not hang on these absolutes.
If, like the long-held belief that the earth is the center of the Universe (geocentrism), your belief in a young earth is proven to be erroneous, I hope your faith is not so strongly tied to this notion that you would abandon it too.
Upvote
0
- Mar 26, 2004
- 868
- 53
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Because I understand what science can and can not prove. Also, there are scientists with PhDs in Phyisics (and other fields of science) that accept the young earth model (I am sure people on this forum has shown this).
I do have good answers for all of these and I bet that someone in this forum has pointed these answers out a time or two. As you see, I have not gone into debating anyone when they say stuff like:
1. Fossils exist
2. Radiometric and carbon dating methods.
3. Distinct sedimentary layers in the geologic column.
4. "Family likeness" between species points to a common ancestor.
I can go in to a lot of detail and show how these points can not prove the age of the earth or evolution, but why bother when that is not what this thread is about. I am sure that these same subjects are being argued on this forum. Plus, I do not have the time. This thread is mainly to find out what you believe and why.
I just teach science (I did point out the assumptions of radiometric dating and point out some of the times that it was proven to bring a wrong date)...but (unlike others) I keep to facts and I do not tell them what I believe, (in fact, students have asked me what I believe...and when they do, I know that I am doing my job as a good science teacher because, unlike most science teachers, I just present facts) but I make sure they challenge everything and I make sure they can distinguish from theory and fact. If my kids asked me what I believe, I would tell them that it doesn't matter what I believe and it doesn't matter what the text book author believes (even though the text book author makes his beliefs known and presents them as facts) what matters is what one can demonstrate.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
You don't have time to explain yourself, but you wish us to waste ours explaining ourselves...
And with your lack of time, you can reply and question, but you cannot bother to answer our questions?
That does not seem right to me.
And with your lack of time, you can reply and question, but you cannot bother to answer our questions?
That does not seem right to me.
Upvote
0
Did you want me to go into more detail, or are we just summarising briefly the reasons behind our position?
Upvote
0
- Mar 26, 2004
- 868
- 53
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I assume you have been in these debates before. You see that they last for days and days, and both sides presents tons of researched evidence. Scientists are in these debates too, and spend all their time in it writing back an forth with each other. (At least they can post that info in a book or something and get paid for it).
If you want to go into all the details, there is another thread for that.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 26, 2004
- 868
- 53
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Nope, you did exactly what I asked. I am aware of the details. I am sure they have all been posted in this forum before.
Thanks
Upvote
0
jeffweeder
Veteran
Upvote
0
laptoppop
Servant of the living God
- May 19, 2006
- 2,219
- 189
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Young earth, global flood -- both because that's what the Scriptures say and because I think it fits the observed evidence, such as the fossil record, the best.
One small point about carbon dating -- it is only able to be used to date things within about the last 50,000 years, then there is too little c-14 to be measured. (There are problems with using it even for that, but carbon dating in particular cannot "prove" an extremely old earth) Of course, this raises problems when material that is supposedly much older than 50K years still has measurable c-14. There are secondary explanations, such as contamination, c-14 production from radiation, etc., but in certain cases, such as diamonds, these have not been shown to be sufficient. This does not prove a young earth, but gives an upper bound to the age of the earth.
One small point about carbon dating -- it is only able to be used to date things within about the last 50,000 years, then there is too little c-14 to be measured. (There are problems with using it even for that, but carbon dating in particular cannot "prove" an extremely old earth) Of course, this raises problems when material that is supposedly much older than 50K years still has measurable c-14. There are secondary explanations, such as contamination, c-14 production from radiation, etc., but in certain cases, such as diamonds, these have not been shown to be sufficient. This does not prove a young earth, but gives an upper bound to the age of the earth.
Upvote
0
crawfish
Veteran
- Feb 21, 2007
- 1,731
- 125
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What I believe? As others have mentioned before, I have no faith in evolution...it simply explains the known evidence better than any other theory. In fact, much of evolution - commonly referred to as "microevolution" - is fact, completely provable.
What I believe is that we cannot take for granted what the scriptures say based on what we've always believed. When science seems to conflict with scriptures, you have either a) incomplete or wrong science, or b) an incorrect understanding of scripture. The discoveries of the modern age have made it pretty obvious that we have misunderstood much of Genesis, especially the creation account.
I believe that God's purpose in scripture wasn't to provide a scientific or historical textbook, it was to give insight into His nature and purpose. By understanding the meaning behind these stories - in a non-metaphorical, non-literal way, mind you - we can better understand how God interacts with the world.
For the record, I think we can be pretty sure of the fact of some kind of significant flood in ancient history, that probably killed quite a few ancient peoples. There are just too many accounts to doubt that. God's point in the story, with the promise, is NOT that he won't flood the earth again; rather, he will not wipe out mankind again, no matter how sinful or how much they rebel against Him. An important promise, as His people would sin and rebel time and time again throughout the history of Israel.
What I believe is that we cannot take for granted what the scriptures say based on what we've always believed. When science seems to conflict with scriptures, you have either a) incomplete or wrong science, or b) an incorrect understanding of scripture. The discoveries of the modern age have made it pretty obvious that we have misunderstood much of Genesis, especially the creation account.
I believe that God's purpose in scripture wasn't to provide a scientific or historical textbook, it was to give insight into His nature and purpose. By understanding the meaning behind these stories - in a non-metaphorical, non-literal way, mind you - we can better understand how God interacts with the world.
For the record, I think we can be pretty sure of the fact of some kind of significant flood in ancient history, that probably killed quite a few ancient peoples. There are just too many accounts to doubt that. God's point in the story, with the promise, is NOT that he won't flood the earth again; rather, he will not wipe out mankind again, no matter how sinful or how much they rebel against Him. An important promise, as His people would sin and rebel time and time again throughout the history of Israel.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Because the earth rotation around the sun and his own axis isn't exactly round, there is cyclical insolation which can be measured and it shows an earth history older than 10k years:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/astro_cycles.html
And the flood doesn't fit into the existence of varves (Green River, Lake Suigetsu):
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
