Young earth vs Old earth?

stevevw · Monday at 5:34 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
The Bible describes creation from God’s perspective, and science measures time from inside the universe. Different viewpoints naturally produce different descriptions of the same events. That doesn’t create a contradiction — it just means we’re looking from two different angles.

Science also measures space as in spatial dimension with the universe or multiverse whatever it is that the theories based on that dimension includes.

That is primarily I think the difference in metaphysics. Science will only measure that within the physical ontology. Whereas belief in transcedent originas or influence transcends the physical/material worldview.

The science is revealing the reality we percieve with our physical senses. It is aligned to Gods creation. Nature is the visible evidence of Gods invisible qualities that belong in the immaterial or spiritual realm. I think understaning nature through science actually shows Gods invisible creation qualities even more now that we are down to the quantum and cellular levels.

Which IMO means that the opposing beliefs about what we see in nature, what it represents as creation or naturalism is a belief and not science itself.

So using science as a measure for nature is one part. Its just describing what we percieve with our senses. But then using science to defeat creation or supernaturalism steps into a metaphysical belief. Its no longer science.

So you can agree with the science revealing nature. But disagree that this means life evolved or was fomred naturalistically. Anyone who wants to defeat that with science is then using their belief to defeat someone who believes the same evidence from the science points to Gods creation, or design in nature or teleology in evolution.

Thats why I don't care so much for whether its an old earth or young earth. The issue is really about supernaturalism verses naturalism. Or belief in Gods creation as opposed to belief in nature itself being the creator and there is no God.

tdidymas · Monday at 11:11 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
Miracles do not violate the Laws of Physics. They restore God's creation to his purpose and intent. We are told he declares the end from the beginning and he watches over His word to perform what He said He would do.

How does Jesus walking on the water, Moses parting the Red Sea, and such not violate the laws of physics? When Jesus ascended into the clouds, I suppose you have an explanation how that conforms to the laws of physics?

Firstlightdawn · Monday at 11:42 AM

tdidymas said:
How does Jesus walking on the water, Moses parting the Red Sea, and such not violate the laws of physics? When Jesus ascended into the clouds, I suppose you have an explanation how that conforms to the laws of physics?

Parting the water doesn’t break the laws of physics because a miracle isn’t nature doing something impossible. It’s God doing something nature cannot do on its own. The laws describe the normal world, but they don’t limit the Creator. When God acts, He isn’t violating His laws; He’s exercising authority over the creation that depends on Him.

tdidymas · Monday at 2:29 PM

Firstlightdawn said:
Parting the water doesn’t break the laws of physics because a miracle isn’t nature doing something impossible. It’s God doing something nature cannot do on its own. The laws describe the normal world, but they don’t limit the Creator. When God acts, He isn’t violating His laws; He’s exercising authority over the creation that depends on Him.

This makes no sense. It looks like you're denying miracles by explaining that God does it. All the obvious miracles in the Bible were done by God, and they are still called miracles. It's what "supernatural" means. Miracles are defined as such, because they are supernatural by definition, and are obvious because they violate natural principles (laws). Jesus appearing in a room is because He came in by way of the spiritual dimension, not because He came in through the door when no one was noticing. Levitation (going up in the air) is obviously supernatural because it violates the law (principle) of gravity. "The sun stood still for about a day" means that the natural day cycle was violated by God's supernatural power. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or theologian to figure out what is supernatural vs natural, or what is miraculous vs providential.

Firstlightdawn · Monday at 4:23 PM

Science is agnostic. It can describe the laws of physics, but it cannot tell us where those laws come from or why they exist at all. That limitation is not anti‑science; it is simply the nature of the scientific method. The existence of precise, universal laws is itself evidence of a Lawgiver. Science studies cause and effect inside creation, but the cause of the laws themselves must come from outside the system.

Firstlightdawn · Tuesday at 12:44 AM

tdidymas said:
All the obvious miracles in the Bible were done by God, and they are still called miracles.

I’m not denying miracles at all. I’m simply keeping the focus on God as the One who does them.

tdidymas · Tuesday at 10:50 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
I’m not denying miracles at all. I’m simply keeping the focus on God as the One who does them.

Your original statement that I was objecting to is: "Miracles do not violate the Laws of Physics". But your responses to my responses seem inconsistent. A miracle by definition is that it violates the laws of physics, in which there are many examples in scripture. It means an event that is physically and naturally impossible.

It appears to me that when someone says "miracle," that you think they mean some kind of cosmic random accident that has nothing to do with God. Is this what you think? It certainly seems so, and I can't imagine where you get that idea, except from atheists. I don't let atheists define words for me. I get my word definitions from the Bible and the dictionary, and keep it in context, so that my communication aligns with truth.

If you are trying to defend the idea that God performs miracles (as opposed to someone or something else), then you apparently think that other people believe miracles happen on their own, or that someone other than God is performing them. My point is that I think your thoughts in this matter need correction, because as Christians our communication should be in accordance with truth, and that includes how words are used. So it begs the question, who has told you that miracles are not God-ordained?

BNR32FAN · Thursday at 11:44 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
Miracles do not violate the Laws of Physics. They restore God's creation to his purpose and intent. We are told he declares the end from the beginning and he watches over His word to perform what He said He would do.

I’m pretty sure Jesus walking on water was defying physics.

BNR32FAN · Thursday at 11:47 AM

Firstlightdawn said:
Miracles do not violate the Laws of Physics. They restore God's creation to his purpose and intent. We are told he declares the end from the beginning and he watches over His word to perform what He said He would do.

Also I’m pretty sure that the very definition of the word miracle mandate’s inexplainable according to physics.

Miracle
An event that is extraordinary and cannot be explained by natural laws, and is therefore attributed to divine or supernatural agency.

Firstlightdawn · Thursday at 2:51 PM

BNR32FAN said:
An event that is extraordinary and cannot be explained by natural laws, and is therefore attributed to divine or supernatural agency.

Yes, people do not realize how limited science is.

Firstlightdawn · Thursday at 2:57 PM

BNR32FAN said:
I’m pretty sure Jesus walking on water was defying physics.

Not if the water was frozen and He was walking on ice. It is rare for that to happen but it does happen. Which would explain how Peter did not know how to walk on ice. We had a pond growing up we would ice skate on., Every now and then someone would break through the ice because they did not know how to avoid the thin ice.

tdidymas · Thursday at 5:11 PM

Firstlightdawn said:
Not if the water was frozen and He was walking on ice. It is rare for that to happen but it does happen. Which would explain how Peter did not know how to walk on ice. We had a pond growing up we would ice skate on., Every now and then someone would break through the ice because they did not know how to avoid the thin ice.

Right, and the disciples were also scooting their boat on the ice. :swoon:

Firstlightdawn · Thursday at 6:33 PM

tdidymas said:
Right, and the disciples were also scooting their boat on the ice.

Maybe take a closer look at the text and we can talk about it. The Greek word there is a big one:

βασανιζόμενον — basanizomenon — “buffeted” or “tormented” by the waves because the wind was against it.

Some people suggest ice as a natural explanation, and in Matthew’s other account the waves are actually flooding the boat. But even if we use your preferred translation, that still doesn’t create a contradiction.

Walking on water doesn’t mean the Bible contradicts science. Science describes how creation normally behaves. A miracle is God acting directly, not creation acting on its own. The laws of physics describe the regular patterns of nature, not the limits of the Creator. A miracle isn’t nature breaking its own rules; it’s God doing something nature cannot do by itself.

So Jesus performing a miracle doesn’t create a conflict with science. People sometimes want science to “take a hike,” but that isn’t necessary here. They’re simply describing two different categories: what nature does on its own, and what God can do when He chooses to act.

Firstlightdawn · Thursday at 6:45 PM

BNR32FAN said:
Also I’m pretty sure that the very definition of the word miracle mandate’s inexplainable according to physics.

A miracle, by definition, is something nature cannot produce on its own, which means it isn’t explainable by normal physics. That doesn’t make it anti‑science; it just places it in a different category than ordinary natural processes.

The beginning — the very first word of the Bible — speaks about the moment creation becomes observable. Something existed before that beginning, but only in a way God understands. The text describes the start of our observable reality, not the start of God.

By definition, science cannot explain God. Science studies the patterns and processes of creation; God is the One who stands outside and above those processes. You can’t use a tool designed to measure nature to measure the Creator of nature. This is known as cause and effect.

Firstlightdawn · Thursday at 6:50 PM

BNR32FAN said:
I’m pretty sure Jesus walking on water was defying physics.

Physics does not try to explain miracles. This is beyond the ability of science.

tdidymas · Thursday at 10:53 PM

Firstlightdawn said:
Maybe take a closer look at the text and we can talk about it. The Greek word there is a big one:

βασανιζόμενον — basanizomenon — “buffeted” or “tormented” by the waves because the wind was against it.

Some people suggest ice as a natural explanation, and in Matthew’s other account the waves are actually flooding the boat. But even if we use your preferred translation, that still doesn’t create a contradiction.

Walking on water doesn’t mean the Bible contradicts science. Science describes how creation normally behaves. A miracle is God acting directly, not creation acting on its own. The laws of physics describe the regular patterns of nature, not the limits of the Creator. A miracle isn’t nature breaking its own rules; it’s God doing something nature cannot do by itself.

So Jesus performing a miracle doesn’t create a conflict with science. People sometimes want science to “take a hike,” but that isn’t necessary here. They’re simply describing two different categories: what nature does on its own, and what God can do when He chooses to act.

Your explanation is nonsense. Why do atheists claim there is no such thing as a miracle? It's because they know that miracles conflict with science. Your response makes me wonder if you actually know the definition of science.

Your statement "A miracle isn’t nature breaking its own rules; it’s God doing something nature cannot do by itself" also is an ignorant statement, since no one thinks that a miracle is nature breaking its own rules. Where do you get that idea? Did someone tell you that, or did it come out of your imagination?

You also aren't making a distinction between a miracle and providence. God causes things to happen within natural means - this is called providence. "God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love God and are the called according to His purpose." This scripture is speaking of providence, wherein God works through natural means. It doesn't mean nature is doing it on its own. God is directing nature to result in His will being done, through natural means, and this is not a miracle, because a miracle by definition is something that is supernatural, that is, beyond natural means. Nature could not work the good for believers, since without God working in it, what could result is mere random chance. Therefore we know that when believers in Christ are favored in their circumstances, it is God who is at work for them.

But a miracle is something entirely different, since it violates the principles of nature. When God performs a miracle, it is clearly a supernatural event, because it is violating natural means. When water is standing up like a wall, or a river stops flowing instantaneously, or Jesus walking on water, or Peter walking on water (not ice), these events are violating natural processes, and so they are obvious signs that God is at work.

Can you respond to what I said here? Why do you keep repeating the same things as if you didn't even read what I wrote? Who are you trying to correct - who is claiming that nature does miracles on its own?

Firstlightdawn · Thursday at 11:02 PM

tdidymas said:
Your explanation is nonsense.

I’m not trying to argue with you or judge your motives. I’m only saying that personal comments about me cross the line for the forum rules. Jesus told us to love one another, and for me that includes speaking to each other without attacking or assuming the worst. I’m happy to keep discussing the passage itself, but I’m not going to engage in personal remarks.

tdidymas · Thursday at 11:21 PM

Firstlightdawn said:
I’m not trying to argue with you or judge your motives. I’m only saying that personal comments about me cross the line for the forum rules. Jesus told us to love one another, and for me that includes speaking to each other without attacking or assuming the worst. I’m happy to keep discussing the passage itself, but I’m not going to engage in personal remarks.

When your comments are nonsense, I am addressing the nonsense. If you take it personally, that is your issue. If what you are doing is evading the honest questions about the issue which you actually brought up, then why do you think it's inappropriate for me to confront your evasion? You're trying to correct some theoretical person's idea, are you not? Then if I try to correct your false idea, why do you object? Isn't that a double standard? If we are to communicate peacefully, we have to agree to the same definitions of words, do we not?

I'm merely trying to get you to respond to what I'm saying. Do you even understand what I wrote? If you respond to my posts by just repeating the same things I'm saying are false, then there is no connection between us, and how can we agree on anything? If you want to end this conversation because you simply don't want to respond to what I wrote, then just end it. If you keep on repeating the same things over and over that I'm objecting to, then I will certainly abandon it, because I will consider it a waste of time. Do you get what I'm saying?

throughfierytrial · Thursday at 11:46 PM

I believe it’s a young earth

The contents of the Bible and all its accounts just would not in my view leave room for an earth which is millions or billions of years old.

throughfierytrial · Thursday at 11:48 PM

I believe it’s a young earth

The contents of the Bible and all its accounts just would not in my view leave room for an earth which is millions or billions of years old.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Young earth vs Old earth?

inquisitive

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Newbie

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Active Member

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Truth-Lover

Truth-Lover

Similar threads