An old Earth

[Lekker]

Hi All

We can learn God through the Bible and we can learn of His power through His creation. Thats why I believe that science and the Bible dont contradict each other. Some people tell you that you must not try to understand everything becaue we dont know everything; I believe that we must believe like a child but we must not think like a child. God put us on earth with brains and talents and told us in Genesis to work on earth and to be fruitfull. I am a geologist myself (speciallizing in low temperature geochemistry), and it is impossible for me to reject the evidence of an old Earth (plate tectonics, sedimentation, weathering etc.). I am very disappointed with the stuff that YEC and the IRC propose as "science". I truly think that they must just say they believe that the only translation possible for the day "yom" (the Hewbrew word used in Genesis 1) is "a 24 day" and must rather not try to draw science also into it. It gives them a bad name.

Let us take the flood for instance. YEC believe that the flood was responsible for the weathering of igneous/metamorphic rocks and that it gave rise to all sedimentary layers in the world. This is absurd. The weahering rate of silicate minerals are so slow that it is absolutely impossible for all these sediment to form and to be redeposited. Even if all these sediments did exist before the flood (which is not possible if you believe in a young earth), there is lot of other problems for instance how do you explain uncorformities and the deposition of various coal layers. Unconformoties is where sedimentary rocks for instance have been weathered away along with the dykes or another intrusions (if present) within them, before new sedimentary rock is deposited over them. Coal layers are the product of the accumulation of plant material - it could not happen suddenly like during a flood. In the Karoo Sedimentary rocks in South Africa we have the Dwyka Formation (that is a time where there was glaciers) followed by the Ecca Group with coal layers in it. Later on you have other thick layers (Molteno and Elliot Formation) evident of the accumulation of blown sand during a dry period. Dont tell me that it all formed during a single flood.

Now take the light from the stars for instance. If the light is millions light years old, then so must be the universe. We can go on and on with the scientific evidence of an old earth and universe.

Let us go back to the word day in Genesis 1. The Hebrew word for "day" has three literal definitions: 12 hours, 24 hours, or a long time period. We know that God also rest on the seventh day and is still resting after He created until He will create one day again: the new earth and heaven. So the seventh day is still ongoing. Why do we want to force the Bible into Genesis 1 day = 24h? In other places in Genesis the same word is used to indicate a planting season or another period than day. The Hebrew word for day dont necessitate a 24h day. And that is also what the nature that God has created tells us. God would not let nature lie to us? Even before the coming of science, which is the study of God's nature, the old church farthers like Augustinus even understands that the word day in Genesis 1 is not "like the day we know".

Below I give a something to read from Reasons to Believe that have some excellent books on the subject. Visit them on the web for more.

Regards
Lekker




Science and Faith: Allies or Enemies?
Dear Web Visitor,

Many people assume that science and faith are at odds with one another. The common response - we must either choose between them or keep them apart.

The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies. Our mission is to bring that life-changing truth to as many people as possible, both believers and unbelievers.

It is our conviction that since the same God who "authored" the universe also inspired the writings of the Bible, a consistent message will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted.

We want to help unbelievers find answers to those questions that bar them from entrusting their lives to Christ. And we want to help Christians find new joy and confidence in worshiping the Creator as they shed their fear of science.

So, whether you are a skeptical inquirer, a new Christian, or one who has enjoyed a long relationship with the Lord, we look forward to providing you with materials that will keep you informed about up-to-the-minute scientific discoveries and how they harmonize with God's revelation in the words of the Bible.

Sincerely,

Dr. Hugh Ross
Founder/President


8. Does RTB's acceptance of a billions-of-years-old universe contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. FALSE

Actually, Reasons To Believe affirms the accuracy of the biblical writings and frequently engages in scholarly discussions concerning the best, and most faithful, way to interpret Genesis 1. As a "God-breathed" revelation, the Bible is completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually). God's written word is our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses. Many Christian leaders have affirmed that an old-earth creation interpretation does not compromise Scripture, including Norman Geisler, the late Gleason Archer, Chuck Colson, Jack Hayford, and the late Dr. Walter Martin. LEARN MORE...

Books and Other Resources
Matter of Days, by Hugh Ross
The Genesis Question, by Hugh Ross
Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? by C. John Collins
God’s Pattern for Creation, by Robert Godfrey

 

[Jig]

If you'd like to think of my beliefs as absurd, thats cool. I understand that this is all just opinions and assumptions anyway.

 

[shernren]

Response as expected. Gee, screw science; aren't all those white-lab-coated evolution and geology researchers bloody atheists anyway? No wonder there's so much evidence supporting an old earth; it's all an evilutionist, uniwhateveritarian conspiracy to turn people from God by convincing them that radioactive atoms don't actually decay gazillions of times faster than expected!

[sarcasm over. Hope you'll feel welcome here, Lekker, though I doubt it, what with being told you're less a Christian because you like science every other day.]

 

[CaiperLane]

I believe that science will one day prove the Biblical accounts to be true.

 

[shernren]

That day is in the future, if it is at all, and until it has come it will be foolish to live as if it indeed has come.

 

[Jig]

Look...I'm a YEC. Big deal. I see the evidence differently. Why must you believe that the science used to back my beliefs is false, yet the science you use to prove your beliefs is right?

Only God knows who's right...let Him tell me if I'm wrong. Untill then you have no way of 100% knowing yourself!

 

[shernren]

Explain isochron dating scientifically within a young-earth, young-universe model. (Go on, do me a favour. This was the first thing that really turned me to TEism.)

 

[Jig]

Explain isochron dating scientifically within a young-earth, young-universe model. (Go on, do me a favour. This was the first thing that really turned me to TEism.)

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=42

I'm not sure if this will be heplful, but it is interesting.

 

[vossler]

Thanks Jig, even though I'm far from being a geologist or even someone who is scientifically minded, I could follow the dialog within the article. Obviously this shoots holes into the radioisotope dating methods, or at the very least gives reason to question their results.

 

[Critias]

Response as expected. Gee, screw science; aren't all those white-lab-coated evolution and geology researchers bloody atheists anyway? No wonder there's so much evidence supporting an old earth; it's all an evilutionist, uniwhateveritarian conspiracy to turn people from God by convincing them that radioactive atoms don't actually decay gazillions of times faster than expected!

[sarcasm over. Hope you'll feel welcome here, Lekker, though I doubt it, what with being told you're less a Christian because you like science every other day.]

Do you think this comment helps things progress to a better situation here?

 

[shernren]

Thanks for the link, Jig, but there's the same "wishful thinking" I find in a lot of other creationist literature on radioactive decay - namely that God can just wish away the resultant heat instead of melting the rocks to smithereens. We are talking about 1,000 times or more acceleration of nuclear decay here. At Chernobyl the reaction was only going at its natural rate and look what happened. There's no way the earth would not have been vaporised to yield such ages.

The ages seem to differ from each other by a factor of about +-10% (excluding the K-Ar samples) and that is anomalous, I grant, but probably not in the way they read it. I'll look it up elsewhere. In any case, the Grand Canyon is a very small part of the Earth's surface. Do creationists have only one happy hunting ground?

Critias, perhaps my comments were indeed incisive, but I hope you will get the point that often people who disrespect science only find disrespect from people who appreciate it.

 

[justified]

Explain isochron dating scientifically within a young-earth, young-universe model. (Go on, do me a favour. This was the first thing that really turned me to TEism.)

Ooh, ooh, pick me:

you see, first, you take a chicken bone, break it up a bit, and then bury it in the backyard like you are a puppy.

Next, you dig it up a couple of weeks later and bring it to your local university to have it dated. When they ask you for a calibration, you say "huh?" and then, being the brilliant man you are, catch yourself and say "oh, say, um, we found it pretty deep."
The tech looks at you quizically. "25,000? 180,000? 65 million?" Reply: "yeah, the middle one thar." The tech shrugs and scrapes off a few samples.

Four weeks later, you get a letter in the mail with the results. You ignore all the numbers and jump down to the last one that reads "date:" and are gleefully satisfied that your chicken is dated to be somewhere from 20,000 - 2,000 years old.

So, doesn't that cut it?

 

[shernren]

Ah well, it's only fair for one sarcastic turn to deserve another.

 

[Critias]

Critias, perhaps my comments were indeed incisive, but I hope you will get the point that often people who disrespect science only find disrespect from people who appreciate it.

I am now hearing the phrase 'the God of the TEs'. So tell me, is this what the God of the TEs says to do, give no respect to those who don't respect leaving God out of Origins?

 

[Justme]

Hi to whoever the scientist was,

I want to ask a question of the educated one who posted back aways but forget who it was....the geologist or scientist or whatever....

You mentioned the light from the stars in one comment. Does it follow that if we can see light from a certain star and we know how far away from earth that star is...can we then calculate a minimum age of the star??

Like the light is plodding along at what, 186000 miles?feet? per second and ..........is there any way of minimum dating here?

I am aware that the earth or the third rock from the son, is billions of years old, but I am curious of other ways of dating just how old.

Justme

 

[shernren]

Hi to whoever the scientist was,

I want to ask a question of the educated one who posted back aways but forget who it was....the geologist or scientist or whatever....

You mentioned the light from the stars in one comment. Does it follow that if we can see light from a certain star and we know how far away from earth that star is...can we then calculate a minimum age of the star??

Like the light is plodding along at what, 186000 miles?feet? per second and ..........is there any way of minimum dating here?

I am aware that the earth or the third rock from the son, is billions of years old, but I am curious of other ways of dating just how old.

Justme

Well, here's an obvious way to estimate: if the light has to travel, say, 500,000 years to reach us, then the star must be 500,000 years old. Generally we have the "main sequence" which correlates a star's brightness and color to its age, but I'm not so well versed in it. I suppose you could Google it if you're interested.