Age of the Earth

[hoser]

I have always held to the belief that the creation events told in Genesis are true (though not necessarily completely literal.) And I also have always held to the belief that dinasaurs roamed the earth at one point in history. I never believed though that this occured at the same time. Christians of the more fundelmentalist flavor argue that if one believes that the earth is millions or billions of years old, then you believe in evolution. I ask why? I don't at all believe in evolution, but I also don't throw out everything in regards to science because some Christians say so. So whatever you believe, could you tell me why you believe in a "young earth" as some fudelmentalists believe or an earth that scientists say is billions of years old, but yet still believe in creation. thanks for your input.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Science is evolving. I believe we as humans have evolved, but that's because of adaptation to our enviornments. As for the dinosaurs, I'm still trumped on that one. For if they died the way science has told us, that would make it the first time God destroyed all creation, not the flood.

 

[Tonks]

I have always held to the belief that the creation events told in Genesis are true (though not necessarily completely literal.) And I also have always held to the belief that dinasaurs roamed the earth at one point in history. I never believed though that this occured at the same time. Christians of the more fundelmentalist flavor argue that if one believes that the earth is millions or billions of years old, then you believe in evolution. I ask why? I don't at all believe in evolution, but I also don't throw out everything in regards to science because some Christians say so. So whatever you believe, could you tell me why you believe in a "young earth" as some fudelmentalists believe or an earth that scientists say is billions of years old, but yet still believe in creation. thanks for your input.

Shhhh! You believe in something similar, but not equivalent to them....much like I do. There is nothing in Genesis that states that it is an exact literal 24 hours etc.

People didn't ride to church on dinosaurs. And if you think that I'm poking fun at the YEC claims one may want to visit that absurd creation museum being built that has this to say:

Creation Explore the wonders of creation. The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bible’s clear—heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards.

Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all!

 

[brenbear1960]

Hello, what I have been told and know that somewhere in the bible is that one day to the Lord is like a 1,000 years. So if you go by that then yes the earth is billions of years old. Our earthly time is not the same as God's. When I look at the human body itself I know that there is a God. Our bodies are just to intrically made to have just happened. Even if you look at a flower, the way a tree goes through its stages of growth and life, to look at animals etc. there is to much to see with the eye to ignore. Thanks, this is my first reply.
Bren

 

[jckstraw72]

I am a young earth creationist. Whether or not the days are literal 24 hr pds is up for grabs, but im I personally believe they are. No matter what a day is like to God, the scriptures werent written for God, they were written for the Church, for the people of the Church to understand. The Early Fathers regarded nearly all of Genesis as literal, with St. Ephraim of Syria even saying they were literal 24 hr days, and explicitly ruling out interpreting Genesis as an allegory, as does St. Chyrostom and others. Exodus says to keep the Sabbath bc God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th...unless these are days then this reasoning for the Sabbath makes no sense in my mind. Dinosaurs lived with man and died at some point, possibly in the Flood. Ive always thought the Leviathan in Job is a dinosaur.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I am YEC, I am also 6 day literal creation.

Why?
1-Well, G-d says in His word 3 different times that He created the world in 6 days...I guess that He means what He says by that repetition.

2-Did you know that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible? KJV uses the word "dragon" the word "dinosaur" wasn't invented until the 1800's...KJV translated in 1600's (?) Job, Daniel, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah Did you also know that the bracheasaurus had the same size nostrils and lungs as a modern day horse....something to ponder Human and dinosaur tracks were found petrified in limestone in TX

3- In the original hebrew writings of genesis, the word yowm was used for "day"...this always means a literal 24 hours period...especially when used with a qualifier like "the" ironically the same word is used in the NT for the amount of time Y'shua was in the grave...3 yowm Just another tid bit to ponder.

The allegations that the story of creation and the story of the Flood are allegorical are just plain wrong. Man's evolutionary science is nothing but a ploy to deceive the people of G-d.

 

[Chief117]

Wow, I'd love the opportunity to answer such a question (though, it will likely be moved soon to a different forum).

First off, I will say that I believe that the Bible's account of history--and yes the first 11 chapters of Genesis--are completely and literally true. I believe that God created the universe and everything in it in six literal days. I believe that this creation/beginning occurred approximately 6,000-10,000 years ago (it doesn't really matter, except that it isn't millions or billions years old).

I believe that Bible clearly teaches this, not only in Genesis 1-11, but throughout as well. On top of this, I believe that science can support that position. For example, you appear to be hung up on the idea that young earth creationists cannot believe in dinosaurs (after all, scientists say that they are 65 million years old). However, this is NOT true.

I believe that dinosaurs and man walked this earth together. The Bible says that everything that was made was made by Christ and was made in the first 6 days of the universe. The Bible also speaks of dinosaurs in the book of Job. History also supports the idea that dinosaurs and man co-existed--except that they were called dragons and given mystical abilities in the story-telling process. There is even some (circumstancial?) archaeological evidence that this is true. Footprints have been found which have both human (modern human) and dinosaur prints walking together (even on top of each other).

The truth is, there is a lot of evidence out there that suggests a young earth--just as much as there is that supports an "old earth." It is a matter of how one interprets the facts.

Really to cut out a lot of stuff and stick to your question, I should just say why I believe one can believe in a young earth and creation (and oppose evolution) and not ignore science:

1. The moon is escaping. If one follows the trend back in time, it suggests that the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
2. The Bible has never been proven wrong. The Bible says that all plants/animals/people will "reproduce after their own kind." This is all we see today.
3. Nothing has ever been observed to suggest that mutations or natural selection can somehow cause a gain in genetic information.
4. Evolutionists cannot explain "irreducible complexities". Some things in nature, such as a woodpecker's ability to peck trees, could not have come about by chance.
5. No missing links for any animal have ever been found. There are none.
6. The Geologic Column (the idea that one can see many layers/strata of rock, each layer a certain age and getting older on the way down) only exists in the text books. In fact, experience tends to disagree with this rather fantastical concept. For example, trees and animals (I've seen pictures of a whale) have been found standing upright through the rock layers. There are only two explanations: (1) they stood up for millions of years while each small rock layer formed, miraculously avoiding decay; or (2) they were placed there and the layers were made quickly during a world-wide flood. By the way, it has been shown that flood waters can create stratified rock as quickly as a 30 minutes (or less)--Mt. Saint Helen's did this when it erupted.
7. Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which basically says that all systems are in a constant state of decay).

I guess that will be it for now. God Bless!

 

[hsilgne]

I have always held to the belief that the creation events told in Genesis are true (though not necessarily completely literal.) And I also have always held to the belief that dinasaurs roamed the earth at one point in history. I never believed though that this occured at the same time. Christians of the more fundelmentalist flavor argue that if one believes that the earth is millions or billions of years old, then you believe in evolution. I ask why? I don't at all believe in evolution, but I also don't throw out everything in regards to science because some Christians say so. So whatever you believe, could you tell me why you believe in a "young earth" as some fudelmentalists believe or an earth that scientists say is billions of years old, but yet still believe in creation. thanks for your input.

Well, I can tell you that I was of the same belief as you describe. But then I looked into the evidence(or lack there of) for myself. I'm now of the belief that evolution is more of a leap of faith than creation. Thanks in many ways to this man - Dr Grady McMurtry. A former professor of evolution who, during his studies, discovered he was teaching a bunch of bologna.

Check out what he has to say here,
http://www.creationworldview.org/_docs/Articles.htm

Peace in Christ.

 

[Tonks]

Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which basically says that all systems are in a constant state of decay).

I was enjoying the list until I stumbled upon this whopper. Creationists have never been able to use the physics of the second law to effectively explain their theories - particularly since the arguments in any published work they they care to deal with are speaking of abiogenesis and not evolution - two entirely different concepts.

Further, creations further ignore "open systems" WRT the entropy balance equation and ignore the general form of the second law:

for more derivative versions. Further, as any academic text will note the 2nd law is only a tendency. Suffice to say that until creationists realize that the 2nd law is speaking of the system as a whole and that entropy does not have to remain constant across localized sub-systems, they're merely going to sound silly attempting to cloak their arguments with science they don't understand. Lastly, creationists cannot express their thermodynamic arguments mathematically which means, by definition, that it can't be a thermodynamic argument.

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, not everything perished by what caused the annihilation of the dinosaurs. That isn't what science (and the fossil record) states and shows respectively. Mammals for example most definitely survived, as well as ancient species of sharks.

As a TE, I take Genesis quite seriously due to its theological implications and outright statements. For example, the whole aspect of the seven days is to introduce the concept of the Sabbath, nothing more. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 differ mainly because in 1, it shows how God did indeed create men and women equally (and thus St. Paul's classic statement later in the NT) whereas in 2, it shows the basis of the old Ritual/Holiness laws in regard to the genders. Agreeing with the theory-fact of evolution does not equate to a denial of the real theology going on.

And, lastly, the Bible says God did it. TEs don't disagree one bit. We merely point out that the Bible is silent on exactly how He did it. As the old saying goes, God said "let there be light," and BANG!; there's the first light caused by the Big Bang. The Bible doesn't say that things changed immediately, only that things changed according to His desire.

 

[Willtor]

Really to cut out a lot of stuff and stick to your question, I should just say why I believe one can believe in a young earth and creation (and oppose evolution) and not ignore science:

1. The moon is escaping. If one follows the trend back in time, it suggests that the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
2. The Bible has never been proven wrong. The Bible says that all plants/animals/people will "reproduce after their own kind." This is all we see today.
3. Nothing has ever been observed to suggest that mutations or natural selection can somehow cause a gain in genetic information.
4. Evolutionists cannot explain "irreducible complexities". Some things in nature, such as a woodpecker's ability to peck trees, could not have come about by chance.
5. No missing links for any animal have ever been found. There are none.
6. The Geologic Column (the idea that one can see many layers/strata of rock, each layer a certain age and getting older on the way down) only exists in the text books. In fact, experience tends to disagree with this rather fantastical concept. For example, trees and animals (I've seen pictures of a whale) have been found standing upright through the rock layers. There are only two explanations: (1) they stood up for millions of years while each small rock layer formed, miraculously avoiding decay; or (2) they were placed there and the layers were made quickly during a world-wide flood. By the way, it has been shown that flood waters can create stratified rock as quickly as a 30 minutes (or less)--Mt. Saint Helen's did this when it erupted.
7. Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which basically says that all systems are in a constant state of decay).

I guess that will be it for now. God Bless!

At one point I thought exactly the same thing for these same reasons. The problem was that I found out that the books in which I'd read these were working with evidence that was almost entirely fabricated. This was compounded when I found quite the opposite of most of these points to be true.

For example, "Nothing has ever been observed to suggest that mutations or natural selection can somehow cause a gain in genetic information," is constantly refuted in my very own field, Computer Science. We do lots of work with "Genetic" or "Evolutionary" Algorithms. They help us come up with near-optimal solutions to complex problems in very short amounts of time. It's actually gotten to the point where the problems that were once considered nearly impossible are too easy, and need to be revamped in order to present a challenge. Most of this stuff can be done in class. A lot of it isn't even thesis material, anymore.

Also, "No missing links for any animal have ever been found. There are none," would be a faulty conclusion. Better would be to say, "None have been found," and leave it at that. But even this would be incorrect. There are actually quite a lot. I'm not aware of a missing link discovery for humans, but transitional species have been uncovered for other creatures.

I am distressed that so much work has been done to fabricate one set of evidence and hide another. I, for one, was genuinely deceived, and that's not something I take lightly.

 

[Gwenyfur]

There are actually quite a lot. I'm not aware of a missing link discovery for humans, but transitional species have been uncovered for other creatures.

Such as?

 

[Jig]

I'm a YEC.

If I'm wrong in my beliefs, then the only thing I'm guilty of is giving God too much credit. So go ahead and say I'm stupid for doing that.

 

[Espada]

I'm a YEC.

If I'm wrong in my beliefs, then the only thing I'm guilty of is giving God too much credit. So go ahead and say I'm stupid for doing that.

I agree totally here, after all if I am creationist, I might offend or upset some scientists but if I go against God's word I could offend him. I know which I would rather choose.

Another point, there is a trend in Christianity today that seeks to explain God's miracles scientifically. By doing so you are saying that God is constrained by the very laws he createdHe can do anything, that is what makes a miracle, a miracle

 

[nephilimiyr]

I have always held to the belief that the creation events told in Genesis are true (though not necessarily completely literal.) And I also have always held to the belief that dinasaurs roamed the earth at one point in history. I never believed though that this occured at the same time. Christians of the more fundelmentalist flavor argue that if one believes that the earth is millions or billions of years old, then you believe in evolution. I ask why? I don't at all believe in evolution, but I also don't throw out everything in regards to science because some Christians say so. So whatever you believe, could you tell me why you believe in a "young earth" as some fudelmentalists believe or an earth that scientists say is billions of years old, but yet still believe in creation. thanks for your input.

I pretty much consider myself a fundie but believe in an old earth. I believe in the gap theory and those who believe in the gap theory are mainly fundlementist.

No one knows how old the earth really is, we can maybe, through our scientific finds, even pin point the age to a tollerance of plus or minus a few hundred million years but the age of the earth is only known by God. And thank God for that!!!

 

[hsilgne]

Such as?

Still waiting....

 

[hsilgne]

I am distressed that so much work has been done to fabricate one set of evidence and hide another.

Me too...

For instance, the way evolutionists look at a fossil, take a guess at the age of said fossil, and then choose the appropriate date testing method to achieve the result they want.

 

[Lynn73]

I am a young earth creationist. Whether or not the days are literal 24 hr pds is up for grabs, but im I personally believe they are. No matter what a day is like to God, the scriptures werent written for God, they were written for the Church, for the people of the Church to understand. The Early Fathers regarded nearly all of Genesis as literal, with St. Ephraim of Syria even saying they were literal 24 hr days, and explicitly ruling out interpreting Genesis as an allegory, as does St. Chyrostom and others. Exodus says to keep the Sabbath bc God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th...unless these are days then this reasoning for the Sabbath makes no sense in my mind. Dinosaurs lived with man and died at some point, possibly in the Flood. Ive always thought the Leviathan in Job is a dinosaur.

I'm in agreement but I do believe the days were literal days. "The evening and the morning were the first, second, third, etc." day. I believe it happened just as revealed in Genesis and I also believe in a young earth and that dinosaurs and man lived together. There were maybe even baby dinosaurs on the ark and even a few that still may exist today. And, yes, they're even alluded to in the Bible imho.

Job 40:15-24 15 Behold now behemoth, F227 which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.


I recently got to listen to Kent Hovind in person and listen to his tapes on all these subjects and though many may not like him, I think he explains this subject very well. He's a creation science evangelist. Perhaps some of you may prefer answers in Genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0106.asp

Home: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

In my opinion, true science will always support the Bible. After all, God knows all about science. I think in some cases, evidence that doesn't fit what evolutionists want is discarded and other evidence is misinterpreted. They use circular reasoning sometimes too. Oh, this bone is zillions of years old because it was found in thus and such layer. Oh, this layer has to be zillions of years old because this bone was found in it. I personally think the world wide flood of Noah's day explains a lot of how the fossils and layers were laid down and it didnt take zillions of years imho.

 

[Tonks]

I'm a YEC.

If I'm wrong in my beliefs, then the only thing I'm guilty of is giving God too much credit. So go ahead and say I'm stupid for doing that.

I certainly don't think that YECs are stupid - I simply disagree with them.

What I find stupid is when they attempt to use high-level science that they don't understand to prove their points.

 

[Espada]

I certainly don't think that YECs are stupid - I simply disagree with them.

What I find stupid is when they attempt to use high-level science that they don't understand to prove their points.

I am a YEC and I don't even bother with the science of it, I understand enough of the scientific theories on the beginings from before I was Christian to know they are full of holes (in the case of big bang theories, literally) and the Bible tells me clearly what happened - God made the Earth and the Heavens. I don't need to stand there with a stopwatch timing the first day.