The Earth is young

[Job 33:6]

I just added a bit to my last post.

The uniformitarian inference versus young earth views, could be compared to fossilized dinosaur tracks.

Geologists and biologists understand that dinosaurs were living beings, reptiles, with bones, muscle. And when they walked, they walked at speeds understood through modern examples of reptiles and other animals of bone and muscle.

So, when scientists see dinosaur tracks, say tracks spanning 500 feet. We derive the truth that it took the dinosaur more than 1 seconds to move that 500 feet, based on our understanding of modern nature and modern day reptiles.

Young earthers say, "no no, that dinosaur did in fact span that 500 feet in a second or perhaps less than a second". And then say, that because nobody actually saw the dinosaur moving, scientists do not have any true proof or knowledge, that the dinosaur didnt move at 500 feet per second. Because the dinosaur wasnt physically seen, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that they took longer than one second to walk 500 feet.

Simultaneously, young earthers propose that it is somehow reasonable to believe that the dinosaur did in fact move 500 feet per second, even though there is nothing that any of us have experienced (scientifically), that would ever lead us to that conclusion.

@NobleMouse

This is precisely what is going on when you take a position against inference. And while I agree that, the truth is we cannot know that the dinosaur didnt move at the speed of light without physically seeing it, there is still no reason to conclude otherwise.

It is more reasonable to conclude that scripture has been misinterpreted (which is a common occurrence in a world of broken people).

 

[NobleMouse]

So you're kicking off your logical argument with an argumentum ad populum. Noted.

So in your opinion clocks determine the length of a day? I don't believe that scripture would support that assertion. Do you have any evidence that clocks existed in the beginning?



That's a long read. I haven't presented my argument yet. If it's typical, and it's incorrect, hopefully you are already well armed with a solid refutation.

So is that your final answer; that clocks determine the length of a day? I've personally come to view them as more as measuring instruments.

The measuring instrument of the length of time in the beginning are the words of God Himself, given with context that we could understand: sequenced numerical days with evening and morning. The 7-day week the world recognizes today would have absolutely no meaning (it doesn't help us better understand a month nor a year - it is it's own unique measurement of time) and the commandment to observe the Sabbath would be a complete failure if we could not understand that God rested on the 7th day - if day is an age, what age do we observe the Sabbath - perhaps we will never see the Sabbath in our lifetime and so there is no need to observe... what nonsense. Feel free to make up and invent your own context, redefining day, redefining evening and morning, redefining a week, in support of long ages and gaps of time as desired to fit with what secular science still has never observed.

I may not get a chance to post later in the day, so if I don't catch you I want to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas! We can pick up from here after Christmas or the New Year.

 

[NobleMouse]

I just added a bit to my last post.

The uniformitarian inference versus young earth views, could be compared to fossilized dinosaur tracks.

Geologists and biologists understand that dinosaurs were living beings, reptiles, with bones, muscle. And when they walked, they walked at speeds understood through modern examples of reptiles and other animals of bone and muscle.

So, when scientists see dinosaur tracks, say tracks spanning 500 feet. We derive the truth that it took the dinosaur more than 1 seconds to move that 500 feet, based on our understanding of modern nature and modern day reptiles.

Young earthers say, "no no, that dinosaur did in fact span that 500 feet in a second or perhaps less than a second". And then say, that because nobody actually saw the dinosaur moving, scientists do not have any true proof or knowledge, that the dinosaur didnt move at 500 feet per second. Because the dinosaur wasnt physically seen, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that they took longer than one second to walk 500 feet.

Simultaneously, young earthers propose that it is somehow reasonable to believe that the dinosaur did in fact move 500 feet per second, even though there is nothing that any of us have experienced (scientifically), that would ever lead us to that conclusion.

@NobleMouse

This is precisely what is going on when you take a position against inference. And while I agree that, the truth is we cannot know that the dinosaur didnt move at the speed of light without physically seeing it, there is still no reason to conclude otherwise.

It is more reasonable to conclude that scripture has been misinterpreted (which is a common occurrence in a world of broken people).

Do you have evidence (an online article or website reference) that YEC's are going around saying dinosaurs are moving spans of 500 feet in less than 1 second? Is this an analogy given by the professors at the universities teaching long periods of time or is it something you're making up? Whether this or talking about footprints in the snow, where ever the source, the reason the analogy doesn't work is that it is observable in the present - it occurs within an observable, provable period of time. No scientist is watching millions of years of rock layers bending here in the present - they are inferring it takes this long; they've never (I repeat, never) seen such slow processes happening over vast periods of time. You are at an impasse where you refuse to believe God's word on the basis that it does not seem reasonable/logical from what you've been taught in the classroom. Believe me, I'd love nothing more than for God's word and what secular science asserts to match up perfectly. But you and I both know this is not where the world is headed. Things are not going to get better, the world is not going to suddenly turn to Christianity - leaving behind their false religions, false beliefs, and stop believing the lies from the father of lies. We are (somewhere) in end times (there are no more prophesies to be fulfilled before Christ's return) and more are going to turn away from the truth for one reason or another. According to Pew Research, one of those reasons are the assertions made by secular science, causing some to question the validity of the Bible:

Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

 

[HARK!]

The measuring inatstrument of the length of time in the beginning are the words of God Himself

That's right; and without understanding exactly what he was talking about, you can only guess as to how to measure it.

(CLV) Lv 23:30
And every soul who does any work ion this very day, I will destroy that soul from among his people.

(CLV) Lv 23:31
You shall do not work at all. It is an eonian statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

(CLV) Lv 23:32
It is a sabbath of cessation for you, and you will humble your souls. On the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening until evening shall you cease for your sabbath.

Above a day is defined as evening from evening. These are the words of God himself. Understand that days get longer and shorter, by this particular defiition in the words of God himself, due to seasonal changes. Also days, by this particular definition, vary in length, depending on what part of the world you are in, at any given moment in time. Days are considerably longer at the Earth's poles, than they are at the Equator, as we approach the Solstices.

In light of all of this (no pun intended) one of the most glaring (no pun intended) shortcomings of your purported 24 hour day, is that the sun wasn't even created until the 4th day. No sun = no sundown.

given with context that we could understand: sequenced numerical days with evening and morning.

So you don't believe that the first chapter of Genesis is completely literal. Noted.

The 7-day week the world recognizes today would have absolutely no meaning (it doesn't help us better understand a month nor a year - it is it's own unique measurement of time) and the commandment to observe the Sabbath would be a complete failure if we could not understand that God rested on the 7th day - if day is an age, what age do we observe the Sabbath

YHWH calls us to recognize all of his appointed times, the Sabbath, his Moedim, and his new moons. If you understand that these are physical rehearsals that are fulfilled spiritually; you might gain a little more from them. The Bible is chocked full of shadows of the spiritual reality. To call them failed, simply because they are shadows, is rebellion against YHWH.

if day is an age, what age do we observe the Sabbath - perhaps we will never see the Sabbath in our lifetime and so there is no need to observe...

(CLV) Ps 90:4
For a thousand years are in Your eyes Like yesterday's day when it has |passed, Or like a vigil in the night.

(CLV) 2Pt 3:8
Now of this one thing you are not to be oblivious, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

what nonsense

I would concur with your conclusion to your "24 hour" argument; but try not to be so hard on yourself.

Feel free to make up and invent your own context, redefining day, redefining evening and morning, redefining a week, in support of long ages and gaps of time as desired to fit with what secular science still has never observed.

I can appreciate your zeal for being an inventor, and your enthusiasm to encourage others to join you in that craft; but I'd rather just stick with the facts.

I may not get a chance to post later in the day, so if I don't catch you I want to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas! We can pick up from here after Christmas or the New Year.

I don't celebrate Christmas, nor the Pagan new year. I celebrate YHWH's Moedim, and his calendar; but I wish you and your family well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you have evidence (an online article or website reference) that YEC's are going around saying dinosaurs are moving spans of 500 feet in less than 1 second? Is this an analogy given by the professors at the universities teaching long periods of time or is it something you're making up? Whether this or talking about footprints in the snow, where ever the source, the reason the analogy doesn't work is that it is observable in the present - it occurs within an observable, provable period of time. No scientist is watching millions of years of rock layers bending here in the present - they are inferring it takes this long; they've never (I repeat, never) seen such slow processes happening over vast periods of time.

Yes we are seeing thousands of layers of rock bend and fracture in the present time. It's called plate tectonics and it is visible and confirmed with various forms of satellite based observation and ground penetrating radar.

I'm surprised that you deny my anology of a dinosaur moving at 500 feet per second when nobody has ever seen a dinosaur to know how fast they moved. Yet when it comes to plate tectonics and continental drift, to you it is acceptable if continents drift at mind boggling, physics defying speeds, even though rates of drift and uplift are readily visible today.

The Colorado river, it has eroded through at least a few thousand feet of solid rock. We know the canyon was solid rock prior to eroding away.

So again, why is there an issue with dinosaurs moving at 500 feet per second (nobody has seen a dinosaur) but not a river eroding 10,000 times it's current rate of erosion (it's rate of erosion is visible today)?

There is no difference in irrationality between believing dinosaurs moved at 500 feet per second, and believing the Colorado eroded at 30+ feet per day through solid rock during a flood, or believing that continents drifted thousands of miles in a single year without the surrounding geology being completely obliterated or the planet turning into a ball of magma.

 

[Job 33:6]

But this is what young earthers believe. They think the Colorado did erode through thousands of feet of rock during a single flood, and they think the mid Atlantic ridge was a place of eruption of global flood waters which pushed entire continents apart almost instantaneously or at absurdly high speeds.

 

[Job 33:6]

3000 feet of solid rock can be eroded by a river during a flood at rates of erosion that defy physics. Continents blown hundreds of miles apart by water blasting out of the earth, at rates also defying physics, but for some reason it's dinosaurs moving at 500 ft per second that sounds wrong?

We see modern day rates of erosion and modern day rates of continental drift, but we don't see dinosaurs. We have to infer how fast dinosaurs could move. So why not believe they could move at 500 feet per second? We already believe in crazy fast rates of erosion and tectonic motion, why not believe in super fast dinosaurs too?

 

[NobleMouse]

Hello Hark, hope you had a blessed Christmas! I'll go through your references as I understand them.

That's right; and without understanding exactly what he was talking about, you can only guess as to how to measure it.

(CLV) Lv 23:30
And every soul who does any work ion this very day, I will destroy that soul from among his people.

This is in reference to a memorial holy convocation to be recognized and kept in the strictest sense as was observed on the sabbath day of the week.

(CLV) Lv 23:31
You shall do not work at all. It is an eonian statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

The statute is to be observed throughout the generations. The word "eonian" seems peculiar, but the idea conveyed from common translations (NIV, NLT, ESV, NAS, KJV) is that this statute is to be observed from generation to generation, never to not be observed.

(CLV) Lv 23:32
It is a sabbath of cessation for you, and you will humble your souls. On the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening until evening shall you cease for your sabbath.

From evening to evening was the Jewish mode for identifying a day.

Above a day is defined as evening from evening. These are the words of God himself. Understand that days get longer and shorter, by this particular defiition in the words of God himself, due to seasonal changes. Also days, by this particular definition, vary in length, depending on what part of the world you are in, at any given moment in time. Days are considerably longer at the Earth's poles, than they are at the Equator, as we approach the Solstices.

In light of all of this (no pun intended) one of the most glaring (no pun intended) shortcomings of your purported 24 hour day, is that the sun wasn't even created until the 4th day. No sun = no sundown.

Correct, not all days are exactly 1,440 minutes. Incorrect that there was no light because there was no sun until day 4. Light was created (without the sun) on day 1.

YHWH calls us to recognize all of his appointed times, the Sabbath, his Moedim, and his new moons. If you understand that these are physical rehearsals that are fulfilled spiritually; you might gain a little more from them. The Bible is chocked full of shadows of the spiritual reality. To call them failed, simply because they are shadows, is rebellion against YHWH.

Relevance to creation being in 6 days?

(CLV) Ps 90:4
For a thousand years are in Your eyes Like yesterday's day when it has |passed, Or like a vigil in the night.

(CLV) 2Pt 3:8
Now of this one thing you are not to be oblivious, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

Read the context, this speaks to God's perfect timing, not that time is somehow different for God. He is well aware of what a day on earth means and the amount of time that passes in a day, a week, a month, a year, etc.... He has numbered our days.

I can appreciate your zeal for being an inventor, and your enthusiasm to encourage others to join you in that craft; but I'd rather just stick with the facts.

The fact is that God created everything in 6 days, as it is written - that is fact. The fact is, we have the lineage from Adam to Christ, as it is written, and modern written records of when Christ was on earth relative to now (numbering the year accordingly) - that is fact.

I didn't see reference to millions or billions of years in the verses you cited. The Hebrew language allows for long periods of time to be communicated, yes? How long did Adam live? 930 years - that's a long time... I don't know, maybe you think that is symbolic and He didn't live that long, but still proves the point. It's not that the language doesn't permit for long periods of time, it's not that the language doesn't allow for poetry, it's just that long ages didn't pass in the creation week and the creation account in Genesis is not a poetic/allegorical text like is often seen in the Psalms. Back to my earlier comment, one has to invent these long periods of time because they do not exist in the Biblical text.

 

[HARK!]

Hello Hark, hope you had a blessed Christmas!

Hi Noble Mouse. I don't celebrate chistmas. I worked. I was blessed to find work on that day. I celebrate YHWH's Moedim. It creates a financial hardship to take off of work on days that YHWH commands, and then have to miss work too, on days that most Americans celebrate.

From evening to evening was the Jewish mode for identifying a day.

These are YHWH's words; I wouldn't diminish them by giving his glory to men.

Incorrect that there was no light because there was no sun until day 4.

I interpret resorting to strawman arguments, as an expression of a lack of intellectual honesty.

I said "no sun = no sundown." If the light of the world departs from you at sundown; it might explain some of your confusion.

 

[NobleMouse]

I interpret resorting to strawman arguments, as an expression of a lack of intellectual honesty.

I said "no sun = no sundown." If the light of the world departs from you at sundown; it might explain some of your confusion.

God also separated the light from the dark on day 1 so there is no reason to believe that references to morning & evening were the result of light and darkness that existed from day 1 and it also does not diminish the text and what it plainly says. We all have the free will to believe or not believe. This is not an issue of interpretation; when Jesus says things like "it is written" and "have you not read", this is indicating that the Bible was not meant to be a cryptic text that cannot be understood. What is written Hark?? Billions of years or 6 days? There is a father-to-son lineage given from Adam to Christ, how long do these people have to live to arrive at billions of years? This is why when debating with the OEC's and Theistic Evolutionists here in the forum the arguments in support of long time is focused around things like distant starlight, rock layers, radiometric dating, evolution, etc... it's because the Bible simply doesn't support long ages. If the Bible was clearly conveying long ages then three things would happen: 1) I'd be getting quoted these verses, 2) I wouldn't get quoted verses because I'd believe in long ages - because the Bible clearly conveyed it, and 3) there would be no debate because the Bible would be saying the same thing as what secular science asserts. All I've done here is restated what the Bible states: no reinventing, no reinterpreting, no reading between the lines or reading with a filter with what I already believe to be true from some other source, it is just a plain reading of the text, as it is written. You can believe what you want; as for me and my house, we believe the Bible, cover to cover.

 

[HARK!]

God also separated the light from the dark on day 1 so there is no reason to believe that references to morning & evening were the result of light and darkness that existed from day 1

Light, not sun. That blows your one rotation, with respect to the sun, per 24 hour (a man made scale that didn't exist at the time ) period, right out of the water.

This is not an issue of interpretation; when Jesus says things like "it is written" and "have you not read", this is indicating that the Bible was not meant to be a cryptic text that cannot be understood.

If that were the case then why does he clarify what was written, after he says "it is written?"

Beside that he says things like 'let he who has eyes to see' and 'he who has ears to hear.'

What is written Hark?? Billions of years or 6 days?

What is written is not necessarily what is understood.
You have failed to define a day in absence of the Sun. Let he who has eyes to see...

How can you purport to understand something that you can't explain? You know, if you don't know; that's OK. There are some things that only the Father knows. YHWH will love you even more, if you humble yourself; and be honest with yourself, and admit that you weren't there to see it; and you just don't understand.

There is a father-to-son lineage given from Adam to Christ, how long do these people have to live to arrive at billions of years?

How long was Adam in the garden with YHWH; and how long is a day with Yahweh? Oh that's right; you still can't even answer how long a day is without a Sun. After you figure that one out, maybe you should ask YHWH if he was using the Sun time, or His time, when he created Adam.

This is why when debating with the OEC's and Theistic Evolutionists here in the forum the arguments in support of long time is focused around things like distant starlight, rock layers, radiometric dating, evolution, etc... it's because the Bible simply doesn't support long ages.

I really don't believe that YHWH built deception into his creation. Again, if the empirical evidence, revealed in YHWH's creation, doesn't seem to line up with your understanding of YHWH's word; maybe, just maybe, your understanding is flawed.

 

[NobleMouse]

Light, not sun. That blows your one rotation, with respect to the sun, per 24 hour (a man made scale that didn't exist at the time ) period, right out of the water.

You may be assuming the light is omnipresent rather than from a position? Again, whether the light is omnipresent or directional does not negate the fact that the text gives the time, not the placement/function of objects within creation.

If that were the case then why does he clarify what was written, after he says "it is written?"

Beside that he says things like 'let he who has eyes to see' and 'he who has ears to hear.'

Jesus clarifies not expounding a different meaning than what the text says. See attached site on references made by Jesus to the Old Testament - you will see that his references mean the same as the original text:
Jesus' References to Old Testament Scriptures - Jews for Jesus

What is written is not necessarily what is understood.
You have failed to define a day in absence of the Sun. Let he who has eyes to see...

You are, as almost all OEC's/Theistic Evolutionists, applying naturalism - you only accept explanations that line up with what you know in the present. Again, the text says a day with an evening/morning - you don't accept that because a sun was not there to provide the sunrise/sunset. Have you considered the possibility that day evening morning without a sun still means a passage of time and that the window of time that passed was consistent with the amount of time that passes in one day?

How can you purport to understand something that you can't explain? You know, if you don't know; that's OK. There are some things that only the Father knows. YHWH will love you even more, if you humble yourself; and be honest with yourself, and admit that you weren't there to see it; and you just don't understand.

I am explaining (again) what the Bible does say, you just don't like the answer and would rather confuse what is written to satisfy what you believe from what secular science has taught. No one can know all things as you have correctly pointed out. For example, I cannot explain exactly what the details were of Adam being formed from the dust of the earth and why God breathing into his nostrils brought him to life, but I can say it was God who did it, it happened after day 5 and before God rested on day 7, (thus day 6), and I can say that Adam was formed from the dust of the earth (not an ape-like creature over millions of years).

How long was Adam in the garden with YHWH; and how long is a day with Yahweh? Oh that's right; you still can't even answer how long a day is without a Sun. After you figure that one out, maybe you should ask YHWH if he was using the Sun time, or His time, when he created Adam.

Adam was in the garden with YHWH less than 930 years. I understand you are content to make a day be anything you like to fit your worldview so I will not belabor the point.

I really don't believe that YHWH built deception into his creation. Again, if the empirical evidence, revealed in YHWH's creation, doesn't seem to line up with your understanding of YHWH's word; maybe, just maybe, your understanding is flawed.

You don't believe that He built deception into His creation (but you believe secular science is absolutely right on this even though historically the age of the earth was once believed to be millions of years old, then 100 million, then up to 1 billion, then 2.2 billion, then 4.5 billion, then 4.47 billion... and you believe that God is vague in His ability to communicate, but only on the parts of the Bible that would otherwise disagree with what secular scientists believe to be true).

This is no different than if I were to question whether Jesus is the ONLY way to God and that no man comes to the Father except by Him. The Bible makes this clear and you would argue in favor of this being true as ardently as you do that we cannot understand what a day with evening and morning means. I could go on to say that Jesus is the only way for Jews. I could also argue that this only applies to prayer as Jesus is our intercessor. But, you and I both know that there is no getting around the fact that Jesus IS the ONLY way to God - it is only through His payment for our sins that we may be given His righteousness and be as adopted Children and fellow heirs in heaven. You don't have a problem with this because this doesn't challenge what you've been taught in science class, it doesn't challenge your worldview. You have a problem with a straightforward understanding of Genesis because it runs perpendicular to what secular science says.

You warned me of your challenge regarding the Biblical text, so feel free to bring out the 'big gun' arguments any time. I'll warn you though that I'll just continue to point back to what the Bible clearly says, referencing the OT, NT and Jesus - there is no contradiction in the truth and nowhere are millions or billions of years even alluded. You can decide whether it's worth your time to continue debating what is written in the Bible and what it means.

 

[HARK!]

Have you considered the possibility that day evening morning without a sun still means a passage of time and that the window of time that passed was consistent with the amount of time that passes in one day?

Have you considered the possibility, in light of the empirical evidence that you can see right before your very eyes, in YHWH's creation, that day evening morning without a sun still means a passage of time and that the window of time that passed was possibly inconsistent with the amount of time that passes in one day of sun?

 

[NobleMouse]

Have you considered the possibility, in light of the empirical evidence that you can see right before your very eyes, in YHWH's creation, that day evening morning without a sun still means a passage of time and that the window of time that passed was possibly inconsistent with the amount of time that passes in one day of sun?

I see you're now ignoring most of my comments, so we'll just part here on this topic as good friends and brothers in Christ. As to a different period of time passing than what was written, I have considered it and concluded that it makes no sense since there are Hebrew words for month and year as would be more appropriate for conveying a longer period of time than a day, if that is what happened. Blessings and peace brother -

 

[HARK!]

I see you're now ignoring most of my comments, so we'll just part here on this topic as good friends and brothers in Christ. As to a different period of time passing than what was written, I have considered it and concluded that it makes no sense since there are Hebrew words for month and year as would be more appropriate for conveying a longer period of time than a day, if that is what happened. Blessings and peace brother -

I figured that I would just cut to the heart of the matter. Face it the common understanding of a day, today, in this culture, is defined by the sun. In absence of this key element, the meaning of the word is undefined.

I really don't care what you believe on this subject. You believe in what actually matters. You believe in YHWH. My concern is that when believers like you start making assertions, based on assumptions, proclaiming the assumptions as facts, which seem to fly in the face of the empirical evidence; it creates a stumbling block for those agnostics who are casually searching for the truth that there is a creator.

Some brand Christians as loons over these arguments.

You've obviously studied science to some degree. If only you could find a way to use what you know to nurture people to understanding that there is a creator; instead of reinforcing what ever doubts they might have.

I'll leave you with this challenge:

First, read this verse:

“since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” ~Ro 1:19-20

Then:

Find a way to reach the non-believer in ways that will show him YHWH, through his creation.

The non-believers are watching us argue over a point which has no effect on their salvation.

Shalom

 

[NobleMouse]

I figured that I would just cut to the heart of the matter. Face it the common understanding of a day, today, in this culture, is defined by the sun. In absence of this key element, the meaning of the word is undefined.

I really don't care what you believe on this subject. You believe in what actually matters. You believe in YHWH. My concern is that when believers like you start making assertions, based on assumptions, proclaiming the assumptions as facts, which seem to fly in the face of the empirical evidence; it creates a stumbling block for those agnostics who are casually searching for the truth that there is a creator.

Sounds familiar, like making assertions of billions of years, assertions of evolving from a molecule, that this molecule came from non-life (abiogenesis), that earth formed from protoplanetary star dust... that ultimately came about from a big bang... and absolutely none of these events were ever seen. Further, there is no 'ultimate authority' behind these assertions that wrote a book saying any of them happened - these are just theories in the minds of men and men and women and is in an ever-changing flux of what is true, what is real... as shifting sand. I'm not saying these theories are invented without any study of evidence; I'm just saying there were not observed and so the conclusions cannot be known to be true. When I say creation happened in 6 days, this is not some rogue, cult-originated idea - it is from the Bible, from God, handed down to man as the ultimate authority on creation. I don't just like 6 days and ~6,000 years old because it seems 'cool' or a novel idea - it is only because this is what is written in the Bible that I believe it. Even if Genesis said 6 days, but Jesus had said something like the beginning being 13 times a thousand years times a thousand years times a thousand years (13 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000), then I would completely agree with billions of years and reinterpret Genesis to be allegorical with gaps or other constructs commonly used to extrapolate out to deep time. That said, I cannot find any verses in Genesis, references elsewhere in the OT, references elsewhere in the NT, or by Jesus Himself that contradict on the subject; on the contrary, they coincide with, reinforce, and solidify one another with the same unified message.

Some brand Christians as loons over these arguments.

You've obviously studied science to some degree. If only you could find a way to use what you know to nurture people to understanding that there is a creator; instead of reinforcing what ever doubts they might have.

I'll leave you with this challenge:

First, read this verse:

“since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” ~Ro 1:19-20

Then:

Find a way to reach the non-believer in ways that will show him YHWH, through his creation.

The non-believers are watching us argue over a point which has no effect on their salvation.

Shalom

I believe Romans 1:19-20 is a great verse for addressing non-believers, as Paul intended it towards the gentiles of the day. As it states, God's invisible qualities are clearly seen and men are without excuse. If I were to use some of my examples of the assertions made by secular science, that is: life does not come from non-life, planets do not just form themselves, you and I are not the result of random mutations and natural selection over billions of years - God did it, only God, not the result of natural phenomenon as is purported by secular science.

I think you've hit right on with where the 'rub' exists between creationists and secular science. We both feel the other is a barrier to reaching the lost. Both want the other side to concede in their ideas so that a lost world can be reached with the truth of God. It's my opinion that secular science would love nothing more than to re-write the Bible every time it re-writes history. The ideas, theories, and hypotheses from secular science; however, are not completely neutral... nearly 70% of scientists do not believe in the God of the Christian Bible. Worth noting too is that the ideas of deep time are more recent than when Genesis was written. So, who has deviated from the truth? I am inclined to believe that the ideas of deep time have largely sprung forth in recent centuries with the emergence of the formal study of geology, biology, and astronomy and this is where the major divergence has occurred. That said, there have always existed those who rejected what is written in the Bible, and so there are records of philosophers from millennia ago who also had their own ideas of our origins.

I personally don't see this as a salvation issue directly, so I think it's important whether we believe in thousands or billions of years that the focus of our message be around the salvation found in Christ and that those who are lost must first recognize their need for a savior, they need to see their sin for what it is. Until they see themselves as wretched sinners, as I am as well, there will be no desire for a savior. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that salvation comes from recognizing our own sin and making the decision to repent and give our lives over to Christ, not what we believe about science and so our message to reach out to a lost world should focus on the crux of the issue (our sin) and not get tripped up on what we believe about tertiary issues.

Shalom to you as well, friend.

 

[Denadii]

The YEC view is that basically the earth is 6-10000 years old. Answers in Genesis list 10 strong evidences for this here.

These are basically the following

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
#2 Bent Rock Layers
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
#4 Faint Sun Paradox
#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
#8 Short-Lived Comets
#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

How would those of you who believe in an Old Earth counter these scientific arguments?

EDIT:

I thought my OP was clearly focused on the scientific arguments I listed. I will add the text of this post to my OP to clarify that. I have assumed since this is the Christians only section of the forums that everybody here is happy with the view God did it. But yes there is a variance on how he did it. I am happy to hear the opinions of Christians only as to whether the various scientific evidences I listed are credible or not with a focus on the age of the earth.

If the arguments are valid then a YEC position has some scientific credibility, if not then an Old Earth or TE position or day age theory may be better. But I would prefer to discuss the biblical evidences and positions elsewhere. This is focused on the scientific evidences listed. I hope the list is not too long but it gives people the opportunity to pick and mix the ones they are interested in.

Let me address only the bent rock layers here..I was a miner. An open pit mine..Coal...One morning as we went out to the pit to work, we passed a place where, during the previous shift, they had removed the coal from against the wall of the pit. That left a lovely straight sheet of rock almost vertical. It almost looked as though it was built that way,as in, a concreted wall, but yes, it was hard limestone. Eleven hours later as we were passing it again on the way down to the changerooms, we noted that the straight wall now resembled the belly of a pregnant woman. It bowed outward in a tight bend, making a loop of rock almost fifty feet from top to bottom...
Rock is not rigid but very elastic. It bends and folds very easily in the right situations... So that argument is blown.

I'll add this....Soft tissue in fossils doesn't necessarily prove the Earth is young, it could also be the proof that these 'fossils' live recently and did not die out millionsof years ago. For an example...Many of the Indian people of North America have stories of their recent ancestors hunting mammoth. Which died out uh....millions of years ago? Not!

 

[dqhall]

Let me address only the bent rock layers here..I was a miner. An open pit mine..Coal...One morning as we went out to the pit to work, we passed a place where, during the previous shift, they had removed the coal from against the wall of the pit. That left a lovely straight sheet of rock almost vertical. It almost looked as though it was built that way,as in, a concreted wall, but yes, it was hard limestone. Eleven hours later as we were passing it again on the way down to the changerooms, we noted that the straight wall now resembled the belly of a pregnant woman. It bowed outward in a tight bend, making a loop of rock almost fifty feet from top to bottom...
Rock is not rigid but very elastic. It bends and folds very easily in the right situations... So that argument is blown.

I'll add this....Soft tissue in fossils doesn't necessarily prove the Earth is young, it could also be the proof that these 'fossils' live recently and did not die out millionsof years ago. For an example...Many of the Indian people of North America have stories of their recent ancestors hunting mammoth. Which died out uh....millions of years ago? Not!

Limestone bends over the course of many years. If hit with a dynamite charge it does not bend, but shatters. Once miners remove tons of rock, the pressure release may cause rocks to pop or heave. The earth's crust has some flexibility called isostacy. Over 12,000 years ago there was continental type glaciation in New England. A mile thick layer of ice depressed the earth's crust. After the glaciers melted, the earths crust started to rise again without a mile thick ice sheet pressing it down. During the recent ice age, the sea level was lower and people migrated from Siberia to Alaska.

There is an active rift zone near Iceland called the mid-Atlantic ridge. The sea floor is spreading an inch a year in each direction. This is from the field of plate-tectonics. There is little deep ocean sediment as not much lives in the dark abyss of the deep sea. Sedimentation is greatest is near continental boundaries and river deltas.

Chevron discovered oil in Gulf of Mexico oceanic sedimentary rocks over 20,000 feet thick, in 6000 foot deep water. These sediments were once closer to the continental margin millions of years ago. You might like university courses in geology for geology majors if you are to understand the earth's composition and age.

 

[The Barbarian]

My understanding is that after 60000 years the amount of C14 is worthless for dating cause there simply is not enough of it left. So if you have readable amounts in diamonds or coal these samples cannot be older than 60000 years.

In which case you cannot date a diamond at a billion years if it has readable amounts of carbon 14 in it.

"Answers in Genesis" staff is well aware of the reason for this, but they chose to hide it from you. C14 is produced when radiation strikes nitrogen atoms. There is both radioactive material and nitrogen in coal and diamond deposits. Diamonds often have significant nitrogen atoms in the carbon lattice of the crystals, and thorium is found in the blue earth deposits where diamonds have formed. However, there isn't very much radiation, and the amount of C-14 produced over millions of years is rather small.

Hence, if you test these things, you will get a result that pegs the meter on the test for age.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Earth's magnetic field has fluctuated over the ages, sometimes growing, sometimes diminishing. The magnetic field leaves traces in the Earth's rocks as they form, giving us a readable history of the magnetic field. It's like saying "we had two inches of rain today, so we must have had 60 inches of rain this month."