Earth created in 6 days?

[TimmyPage]

IMO there was never a creation as layed out in the Bible. No six says, seperation of the waters etc..

To me these are simply stories given to explain things that were way beyond the peoples understanding at the time. They are more ment as spiritual stories rather than a historical or scientific account. Much of the OT seems to be this way. Like the flood, Exodus, and much of the "history" of the jewish people show no signs of being literaly true. Even parts of the NT seem to be more story than historical fact.

I don't feel that seeking the historical and scientific truth is harmful to Christianity as a whole, but for those that base their beliefs on a literal only interpretation of the Bible it might seem that it is.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[pyro214]

LewisWildermuth[/B]]

IMO there was never a creation as layed out in the Bible. No six says, seperation of the waters etc..

To me these are simply stories given to explain things that were way beyond the peoples understanding at the time. They are more ment as spiritual stories rather than a historical or scientific account. Much of the OT seems to be this way. Like the flood, Exodus, and much of the "history" of the jewish people show no signs of being literaly true. Even parts of the NT seem to be more story than historical fact.

I don't feel that seeking the historical and scientific truth is harmful to Christianity as a whole, but for those that base their beliefs on a literal only interpretation of the Bible it might seem that it is.

God told Moses about the creation of the Earth?

 

[Elduran]

God told Moses about the creation of the Earth?
[/I]

If he exists and did, then Moses didn't record it very accurately

 

[pyro214]

If he exists and did, then Moses didn't record it very accurately

whys that?
cause he used the word "day"?

In hebrew, at the time, day mean a significant time period....not 24 hours.

or are u refering to somthing else?

 

[RedAndy]

whys that?
cause he used the word "day"?

In hebrew, at the time, day mean a significant time period....not 24 hours.

or are u refering to somthing else?

The problem with the day-age hypothesis (that the Biblical "day" meant something much longer than 24 hours) is that it requires that the Book of Genesis records the order of Creation correctly. Unfortunately, Genesis 1 records that land plants were created before sea creatures. In reality life appeared in the sea long before plants evolved on land.

So you see, there are far more problems with the Creation account than simply the time period being too short. Like many explanations of Creation myths, day-age Creationism explains away one problem, but fails to address many others.

 

[Elduran]

whys that?
cause he used the word "day"?

In hebrew, at the time, day mean a significant time period....not 24 hours.

or are u refering to somthing else?

Regardless of how vague the word "day" is supposed to be here, it's still inaccurate as to how things developed, what order certain forms of life arose, ever what order the celestial bodies and the associated phenomena formed in.

All in all, it's a nice story, but not very accurate unless you take it to be almost entirely poetic and symbolic.

 

[pyro214]

The problem with the day-age hypothesis (that the Biblical "day" meant something much longer than 24 hours) is that it requires that the Book of Genesis records the order of Creation correctly. Unfortunately, Genesis 1 records that land plants were created before sea creatures. In reality life appeared in the sea long before plants evolved on land.

according to age dating methods. Whos to say these methods may have flaws after 10k, 100k, or even several million years. What age dating method is used to date objects which are "millions of years old".

also, whos to say the world was under the same enviroment that it is now? The sun, moon, and stars were created AFTER plants.....yet there was still light (and heat most likley). Where would this light come from? How many "strange" things happened that could of effected elements on earth enough to fool age dating methods of today.

 

[RedAndy]

according to age dating methods. Whos to say these methods may have flaws after 10k, 100k, or even several million years. What age dating method is used to date objects which are "millions of years old".

There are many different dating methods available, and the thing is that they all agree with each other. Furthermore, we have evidence (through, for example, Supernova 1987A) that radiometric decay rates have been constant for at least the last 168,000 years. What grounds, therefore, do we have for rejecting dating methods. Because they contradict Biblically derived assumptions?

also, whos to say the world was under the same enviroment that it is now? The sun, moon, and stars were created AFTER plants.....yet there was still light (and heat most likley). Where would this light come from? How many "strange" things happened that could of effected elements on earth enough to fool age dating methods of today.

There are no known mechanisms that could describe the events you are postulating - unless, of course, you want to appeal to miracles, at which point your hypothesis becomes thoroughly unscientific.

 

[WilliamduBois]

How many "strange" things happened that could of effected elements on earth enough to fool age dating methods of today.

And more importantly, where is the evidence that such "strange" things happened?


Or let me guess, you're just making those "strange" things up so you can reconcile it with your interpretation of Genesis.

 

[pyro214]

There are many different dating methods available, and the thing is that they all agree with each other. Furthermore, we have evidence (through, for example, Supernova 1987A) that radiometric decay rates have been constant for at least the last 168,000 years. What grounds, therefore, do we have for rejecting dating methods. Because they contradict Biblically derived assumptions?

i could see it working up to 168k years.

Red, i use the "half-life" example to say how age dating methods are flawed after "a million years".
is this correct or does the half-life not play such a large role when it comes to age dating?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

i could see it working up to 168k years.

Red, i use the "half-life" example to say how age dating methods are flawed after "a million years".
is this correct or does the half-life not play such a large role when it comes to age dating?

It depends on the half life of the isotopes used for dating. You could start by reading

Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective

Joe Meert has nice collection of data showing Consistent Radiometric Dates from different methods

F.B.

 

[pyro214]

thanks, i think ill take a little break from the subject until i understand these dating methods better.