Old Rocks

[Van]

The paradox that separates Old Earth Creationists and Young earth Creationist is the age of the earth. If Adam was created about 6000 years ago, and the earth was created within 6 24 hour days of the creation of Adam, then the earth is only 6000 years old. However if the duration of the "creation days" was not 24 hours, allowed by the usage of the word translated as day as referring to an indeterminate period of time, then the earth could be older, but mankind, defined as the offspring of Eve, could not.
So we have folks on both sides questioning the parentage of those on the other side.

According to a widely accepted theory from science, our solar system, including the sun and the earth, was formed when our "pre-solar" nebula collapsed about 5 billion years ago. The reason given for the age is that the oldest rocks on the earth seem about that old.

Those that offer the old earth date make an assumption, that when the earth was formed, it got so hot, all the minerals were broken down into molecules, so any atomic clocks that we ticking in the rocks of the nebula were destroyed when the earth was formed. But if they were not destroyed, then we are dating the age of the nebula rocks which could date from some supernova whose ejecta became part of our pre-solar nebula.

Unfortunately, even if the atomic clocks are discredited, we still must face all the evidence, like cave formations and coral reefs, that suggest the earth is tens of thousands to millions of years old. But the good news is this would get rid of all those billions of years where life supposedly evolved from non-life into the species of today.

 

[juvenissun]

The paradox that separates Old Earth Creationists and Young earth Creationist is the age of the earth. If Adam was created about 6000 years ago, and the earth was created within 6 24 hour days of the creation of Adam, then the earth is only 6000 years old. However if the duration of the "creation days" was not 24 hours, allowed by the usage of the word translated as day as referring to an indeterminate period of time, then the earth could be older, but mankind, defined as the offspring of Eve, could not.
So we have folks on both sides questioning the parentage of those on the other side.

According to a widely accepted theory from science, our solar system, including the sun and the earth, was formed when our "pre-solar" nebula collapsed about 5 billion years ago. The reason given for the age is that the oldest rocks on the earth seem about that old.

Those that offer the old earth date make an assumption, that when the earth was formed, it got so hot, all the minerals were broken down into molecules, so any atomic clocks that we ticking in the rocks of the nebula were destroyed when the earth was formed. But if they were not destroyed, then we are dating the age of the nebula rocks which could date from some supernova whose ejecta became part of our pre-solar nebula.

Unfortunately, even if the atomic clocks are discredited, we still must face all the evidence, like cave formations and coral reefs, that suggest the earth is tens of thousands to millions of years old. But the good news is this would get rid of all those billions of years where life supposedly evolved from non-life into the species of today.

I hate to see that not a single response is given to a post. So, I just add an empty one to it, simply because it is a geology related talk.

 

[alexwylde]

The paradox that separates Old Earth Creationists and Young earth Creationist is the age of the earth. If Adam was created about 6000 years ago, and the earth was created within 6 24 hour days of the creation of Adam, then the earth is only 6000 years old. However if the duration of the "creation days" was not 24 hours, allowed by the usage of the word translated as day as referring to an indeterminate period of time, then the earth could be older, but mankind, defined as the offspring of Eve, could not.
So we have folks on both sides questioning the parentage of those on the other side.

According to a widely accepted theory from science, our solar system, including the sun and the earth, was formed when our "pre-solar" nebula collapsed about 5 billion years ago. The reason given for the age is that the oldest rocks on the earth seem about that old.

Those that offer the old earth date make an assumption, that when the earth was formed, it got so hot, all the minerals were broken down into molecules, so any atomic clocks that we ticking in the rocks of the nebula were destroyed when the earth was formed. But if they were not destroyed, then we are dating the age of the nebula rocks which could date from some supernova whose ejecta became part of our pre-solar nebula.

Unfortunately, even if the atomic clocks are discredited, we still must face all the evidence, like cave formations and coral reefs, that suggest the earth is tens of thousands to millions of years old. But the good news is this would get rid of all those billions of years where life supposedly evolved from non-life into the species of today.

The highlighted portion of your post is not a correct analysis. None of the material on the earth is in the same form it was when it was in the pre-solar nebula. When scientists use radiometric dating, they find the date of the formation of the substance. I don't know how you assume that some rock just floating around from the pre-solar nebula makes its way on to earth during its formation without being melted in the extremely hot conglomeration of elements, and retains its form and age.

AND it just so happens that we have dated our Sun (using entirely different methods than radiometric dating) to be the same age as our earth. 4.57 billion years old. So unless our Earth was SOMEHOW formed billions of years after the formation of the Sun with enough materials that SOMEHOW resisted the pull of the Sun's gravity for that entire time, then I suppose, yes it's possible that our earth isn't 4.57 billion years old. But I will not advocate that viewpoint.

 

[Hammster]

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. Romans 5:12

 

[Biblewriter]

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. Romans 5:12

This argument is commonly given by YEC people to prove that there was no death in this earth before Adam's sin. This is indeed a legitimate conclusion, based on this scripture alone. But it is not a necessary conclusion, even if this is the only scripture considered. And other scriptures show that this conclusion cannot be correct.

Sin indeed entered into man's world through the sin of one man. And death likewise. But sin entered the earth before Adam sinned.

The first sin committed by a member of mankind was not committed by Adam, but by Eve. But Eve was responding to the previous sin committed by "the serpent," when he specifically denied both the truthfulness and the goodness of God. (Genesis 3:1-6) Whether this was a physical beast that Satan entered into or it was Satan himself is not clear, at least to me. But it was obviously the work of Satan.

 

[juvenissun]

This argument is commonly given by YEC people to prove that there was no death in this earth before Adam's sin. This is indeed a legitimate conclusion, based on this scripture alone. But it is not a necessary conclusion, even if this is the only scripture considered. And other scriptures show that this conclusion cannot be correct.

Sin indeed entered into man's world through the sin of one man. And death likewise. But sin entered the earth before Adam sinned.

The first sin committed by a member of mankind was not committed by Adam, but by Eve. But Eve was responding to the previous sin committed by "the serpent," when he specifically denied both the truthfulness and the goodness of God. (Genesis 3:1-6) Whether this was a physical beast that Satan entered into or it was Satan himself is not clear, at least to me. But it was obviously the work of Satan.

Ahh... Great idea.

So, when God creates lions, they were vegetarian. It was satan who made them start to eat other animals. So when satan is chained, lions will go back to vegetarian diet.

Make good sense. Satan not only wants to destroy man, he wants to spoil everything God created.

 

[Hammster]

This argument is commonly given by YEC people to prove that there was no death in this earth before Adam's sin. This is indeed a legitimate conclusion, based on this scripture alone. But it is not a necessary conclusion, even if this is the only scripture considered. And other scriptures show that this conclusion cannot be correct.

Sin indeed entered into man's world through the sin of one man. And death likewise. But sin entered the earth before Adam sinned.

The first sin committed by a member of mankind was not committed by Adam, but by Eve. But Eve was responding to the previous sin committed by "the serpent," when he specifically denied both the truthfulness and the goodness of God. (Genesis 3:1-6) Whether this was a physical beast that Satan entered into or it was Satan himself is not clear, at least to me. But it was obviously the work of Satan.

I will give you credit for trying. Even though Satan had sinned before Adam and Eve, it wasn't his sin that God credited with corruption of creation. That is something that you have to get from outside of the text.

And also in regards to Eve sinning first, God credited Adam with the sin. He was the first Adam, Jesus is the second Adam.

And I don't know of anywhere in Scripture where Satan is referred to as a man or part of mankind.

These are the argument from OEC people so indicate that God didn't know what He was doing when He wrote the Bible.

 

[alexwylde]

These are the argument from OEC people so indicate that God didn't know what He was doing when He wrote the Bible.

Last time I checked God didn't extend down his divine pen and write the Bible for us. The Bible was written by man, complied by man, and is interpreted by man. Man=imperfect.

 

[Hammster]

Then why in the world would you trust man's science? And you have a quote from the bible as your signature. Fascinating.

 

[alexwylde]

Then why in the world would you trust man's science? And you have a quote from the bible as your signature. Fascinating.

I don't have to believe the Bible is 100% infallible as a history book to believe that Christ is my savior. I take the Bible for what it is, and don't assign it attributes that it does not have. And science doesn't claim to be perfect. In fact, the reason science has gotten to the point where it is now is BECAUSE it is fallible.

 

[Hammster]

Well, since I don't have the incredible wisdom to determine which part of the bible is true and which isn't, I am going to trust that a omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign, supreme God can get the information to us that we have. Jesus, whom you say is your savior, believed that all of the old testament is true. So that is good enough for me.

 

[Biblewriter]

Ahh... Great idea.

So, when God creates lions, they were vegetarian. It was satan who made them start to eat other animals. So when satan is chained, lions will go back to vegetarian diet.

Make good sense. Satan not only wants to destroy man, he wants to spoil everything God created.

I said no such thing. But since you bring it up, the scriptures explicitly tell us that lions will become vegetarians when the curse is revoked. We read of this in regard to the millennium in Isaiah 11:6-9, "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."

We read of it again in regard to the eternal state in Isaiah 66:17-25. "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."

 

[Biblewriter]

I will give you credit for trying. Even though Satan had sinned before Adam and Eve, it wasn't his sin that God credited with corruption of creation. That is something that you have to get from outside of the text.

And also in regards to Eve sinning first, God credited Adam with the sin. He was the first Adam, Jesus is the second Adam.

And I don't know of anywhere in Scripture where Satan is referred to as a man or part of mankind.

These are the argument from OEC people so indicate that God didn't know what He was doing when He wrote the Bible.

My point was the manifest fallicy of your conclusion that this scripture proves that there could not have been death on the planet before Adam's sin. Scripture clearly shows that sin did not enter this planet through Adam's sin. It entered man's world through Adam's sin.

So if one part of this statement could not possibly mean that there was no sin on this planet before man sinned, then there are no grounds for assuming that the other part of that same statement means that there was no death on this planet before man sinned.

In both cases, the obvious meaning is that these things came into man's world through the sin on one man.

And I agree with you that the sin was credited here to Adam, as the head of creation and of the family unit, even though his wife actually sinned before he did.

 

[Hammster]

My point was the manifest fallicy of your conclusion that this scripture proves that there could not have been death on the planet before Adam's sin. Scripture clearly shows that sin did not enter this planet through Adam's sin. It entered man's world through Adam's sin.

So if one part of this statement could not possibly mean that there was no sin on this planet before man sinned, then there are no grounds for assuming that the other part of that same statement means that there was no death on this planet before man sinned.

In both cases, the obvious meaning is that these things came into man's world through the sin on one man.

And I agree with you that the sin was credited here to Adam, as the head of creation and of the family unit, even though his wife actually sinned before he did.

Actually, what Scripture clearly shows is that creation was cursed because of Adam's sin. Period. Why wasn't is cursed because of Satan? Ask God, because He doesn't say. There are a lot of things that God doesn't explain to us. But He does give us enough information. It is man that doesn't want to believe.

The only way you can get death, disease and suffering before Adam is if you add millions of years. And the bible clearly does not show millions of years. You cannot read Genesis and get millions of years.

It's strange that because man cannot figure out how God could have created this world in six literal day, that they figure they have to come to God's defense and add millions of years. This way they can talk to their evolutionist friends and they won't sound like they believe in fairy tails.

The evidence is the same for everyone. Creation believers and evolutionists and everyone in between and outside. Those who hold to six days of creation have just decided to start with the bible and go from there. Is there bias in doing that? Of course. But there is bias from other points of view, also.

One thing is for sure: Satan hasn't changed his tactics. He still starts with "Has God indeed said?"

 

[Biblewriter]

Let me be very clear. I believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the scriptures. I believe that every word in the Bible (as it was originally written) came directly from God. And I believe that God is perfect and cannot lie. So I am forced to conclude that every word in the Bible is precisely true and accurate in its smallest detail (again, as it was originally written.) And I believe that we have reasonably accurate copies of the original versions of the Holy Scriptures.

But while we are on the subject of whether or not total belief in the absolute reliability of the scriptures requires a belief that the earth is only six thousand years old, we should note another passage often cited by YEC people to prove their point.

Exodus 20:11 says,"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

But the Hebrew word translated made in this verse is asah (word number 6213 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.) This word does not mean created out of nothing. it means to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application. It is used in Genesis 8:6, for instance, of the ark which Noah made. Noah did not create the ark out of nothing. He took things that were already there (mainly wood) and made them into an ark.

This is not the same word as that used in regard to the original creation of the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew word translated created in that verse is bara (word number 1254 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.) This word literally means to create, as out of nothing.

This word is used only five times in the creation account. (Genesis 1:1, 21, 27 and Genesis 2:3, 4.) All the rest of the time the word used was asah, that is made, as out of something else.

So what did God create? In Genesis 1:1 he "created the heaven and the earth" out of nothing. In Genesis 1:21 he "created great whales, and every living creature that moveth." In Genesis 1:27 He created man, in male and female forms.

In Genesis 2:3 and 4 He had created the heaven and the earth, but he had also made them in both sentences (verses.)

In every other statement in the entire account, it does not say that He created the things mentioned (as out of nothing.) It says he made them (as out of something else.)

Belief in the literal truth and accuracy of the entire Bible absolutely requires that everything in this account after verse 2 took place about six thousand years ago. It does not say this here, but adding up all the time spans explicitly stated elsewhere gives this figure. But this belief does not require that Genesis 1:1 took place about six thousand years ago. In fact it requires the very opposite conclusion.

I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. But I do not believe in the "gap theory."

The "gap theory" is that a literal interpretation of the words in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 do not require that they speak of the same time. While this is correct, that is not the basis of my conclusion. But few realize how absolutely the words allow such a conclusion. The Hebrew word translated was in Genesis 1:2 is hayah (word number 1961 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.) This Hebrew word is often used of a condition that has existed since the beginning (of whatever time period is under consideration.) But is is also used of a condition that exists at the time under consideration, but did not exist before that time. An example of this usage of this word is Genesis 3:22, where God said "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." So the Hebrew word translated was in Genesis 1:2 can just as legitimately be translated became.

But in Genesis 1;2 we find a description of the condition of the earth when God began to make our present ecosystem. In Genesis 1:2 "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The Hebrew word translated without form here is tohu (word number 8414 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.) But Isaiah 45:18 explicitly says that God did not create the earth tohu.

Genesis 1:2 describes the earth at a time that was unquestionably after God created the heaven and the earth. After God created the earth, it either was or had become tohu. But Isaiah 45:18 says He did not create the earth tohu. If both of these statements are taken literally, then something very significant had to have happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

So do not assume that OEC people are simply trying to reconcile scripture with science. There is strong scriptural reason for concluding that the Bible, when correctly understood, not only allows, but actually requires, an understanding that something very significant happened between Genesis 1:1 And Genesis 1:2.

But if that is true, why are we not told anything about it? The reason is very simple. The Bible is not a history book. Neither is it a book meant for entertainment. The Bible is about God's relationship with mankind. And what happened on the earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 has nothing to do with God's relationship with us.

 

[Hammster]

I am unsure of what you mean by OEC, but traditionally it means that God took millions of years to create what we have today, either by theistic evolution, or by progressive creation. If you are just talking about how old the actual terra firma is, then that is a different story all together.

 

[JesusThree16]

We actually do have geologic evidence of young earth. the RATE group found that the amount of helium found in granite was far too much if the granite formed billions of years ago.go to answersingenesis with (/docs2005/1107rate.asp)

 

[Biblewriter]

I am unsure of what you mean by OEC, but traditionally it means that God took millions of years to create what we have today, either by theistic evolution, or by progressive creation. If you are just talking about how old the actual terra firma is, then that is a different story all together.

Look in the abbreviations section in Christian Forums.

YEC = Young Earth Creationist. A young earth creationist believes that the earth was created in six days of 24 hours each approximately 6000 years ago. This belief is based on a literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis and rejects what is commonly called "the gap theory." That is, that there was a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

OEC = Old Earth Creationist. An old earth creationist believes that our present ecosystem was created on this earth in six days of 24 hours each approximately 6000 years ago, but that the earth itself is older than that. The belief does not involve how much older the earth is, just that there was at least one previous creation that was for some reason destroyed. Like young earth creationism, old earth creationism is also based on a literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. But an old earth creationist believes that there was a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In previous posts in this thread, I have given my reasons for believing that this is the correct interpretation of scripture.

TE = Theistic Evolutionist. A theistic evolutionist believes that our present ecosystem came about through a process of evolution that was somwhow guided by God. Theistic evolutionism is based on an assumption that the first three chapters of Genesis are allegorical, and were not intended to be taken as literal truth. Theistic evolutionists generally deny the concept of the plenary and verbal inspiration of the scriptures.

 

[Assyrian]

OEC = Old Earth Creationist. An old earth creationist believes that our present ecosystem was created on this earth in six days of 24 hours each approximately 6000 years ago, but that the earth itself is older than that. The belief does not involve how much older the earth is, just that there was at least one previous creation that was for some reason destroyed. Like young earth creationism, old earth creationism is also based on a literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. But an old earth creationist believes that there was a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In previous posts in this thread, I have given my reasons for believing that this is the correct interpretation of scripture.

Isn't that what is usually referred to as Gap Theory? That is a form of Old Earth Creationism, but so is Day Age Creationism (aka Progressive Creationism) which reads the days of Genesis as long periods of geological history.

There are a couple of lists of origins abbreviations in
The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?
and
Origins Guidelines (includes Creation and Theistic Evolution)

What list of abbreviations were you referring to as 'the abbreviation section'?

 

[Biblewriter]

Isn't that what is usually referred to as Gap Theory? That is a form of Old Earth Creationism, but so is Day Age Creationism (aka Progressive Creationism) which reads the days of Genesis as long periods of geological history.

There are a couple of lists of origins abbreviations in
The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?
and
Origins Guidelines (includes Creation and Theistic Evolution)

What list of abbreviations were you referring to as 'the abbreviation section'?

I guess you are correct, byt day ageism is not based on a literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis.

If the days are actually ages, then plants existed long before there was any sunlight. As that obviously would not work, the theory does not work.