The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation

[mambutuu]

Um, hi.

I will add my two cents.
I believe in an old earth creation.
My reasons are geology, carbon dating, and solar spectroscopy.
I am not a scientist.

Bye.

 

[Cyclo Rider]

I believe in a young earth creation.

Aside from the Bible, my reason is, the conditions on earth weren't always the same as they are today (due in large part to the catastrophic nature of the global flood and the powerful mechanisms God used to cause it), and the earth was created mature with mature plants and animals, giving it the illusion of age.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by mambutuu:

I believe in an old earth creation.
My reasons are geology, carbon dating, and solar spectroscopy.

Since you "believe in an old earth creation", I presume you prefer one of the theories (3, 4 or 5 in the original post on this thread) that harmonize mainstream scientific discoveries with biblical scriptures. Do you have a preference as to which theory? Or is there one that is not listed that you prefer? Thank you.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
I believe in a young earth creation.

Aside from the Bible, my reason is, the conditions on earth weren't always the same as they are today (due in large part to the catastrophic nature of the global flood and the powerful mechanisms God used to cause it), and the earth was created mature with mature plants and animals, giving it the illusion of age.

What verses in the Bible do you use for your conclusions regarding (A) the age of the earth and the universe, and (B) mature plants and animals?

Thank you.

 

[Athlon4all]

Definately number 2. When god says 6 days he means 6 days, and I don't ignore any true scientific evidence, yes the Bible is the first authority, but true scientific evidence fits it.

In any case, any "evidence" can be twisted to fit one's bias, so its a mute point to debate evidence. There is no other view than 2 that fully fits the Bible's plan of salvation, the fall, etc.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
Definately number 2. When god says 6 days he means 6 days....There is no other view than 2 that fully fits the Bible's plan of salvation, the fall, etc.

Thank you for posting, Athlon. There are a number of Bible scholars who, like you, prefer the second theory listed at the beginning of this thread. However, there are probably just as many Bible scholars who prefer theories 3, 4 or 5. In other words, any of the four can be supported by the Bible. Thus, I am not sure I understand why you say that "There is no other view than 2 that fully fits the Bible's plan of salvation, the fall, etc. " Please explain your reasoning on these points. Thank you.

 

[Athlon4all]

Well any other scholar who does not believe in #2 is very off base. I'm gonna copy and paste from the other thread:

If it isn't believed, then many questions come up. Like, why have hope for a better life when there has always been death on destruction? Why do we need a Savior if we all aren't all desendants of Adam and thus under the curse of Adam that all are sinners? And there's so many more.

 

[seebs]

Athlon: "death" is also a concept that applies to us spiritually. When we are told that we get "eternal life", I think it's pretty clear that this doesn't mean we never physically die. Why would we need a savior? Because we are sinful! I don't really know exactly what the story of the "curse" means - but I'm quite sure that I can believe in the observable reality that we *are* sinners, and I don't need to know everything.

 

[AtheistArchon]

- Athalon, are you really a member of God's Army?  As in the fanatical anti-abortionists that tell people to run out and kill doctors?  Or is it just a catch phrase?

[EDIT:  I'm sorry, the actual cult is the Army of God.  My mistake. ]

 

[Didaskomenos]

I believe the young earth creationists are wrong because of the Bible and science. I believe that God left geological, anthropological, and various other types of footprints when guiding his creation's development that scientists just recently have come to understand as the various stages of "evolution." Of course, without any supervising intelligence, I think evolution has a few logical flaws (ex nihilo, for one), but I see no reason not to believe that God directed nature's progression, the crowning result of which was humanity.

Think about this - in Genesis, God is said to have brought forth all nature in various stages, and then what came after all the other lifeforms? Man! That's just what scientists say happened, except that many don't believe there was an intelligence supervising this process.

Besides that, because I trust the Bible and am convinced of its value, I'm not content to simply accept the first thing I think it says. In my occidental worldview, it seems logical that all narratives in the Bible should be historical (unless labeled otherwise). That's all very scientific, because we're scientific - that must mean we speak God's true language - right??  How presumptuous.  Everything we know about the contemporaries of the Hebrews tells me that they just didn't think the way we do about history and such all the time. They saw truth in legends, myths, and parables, and felt guided by them. Why should God speak to the Hebrews in any other language but their own?

 

[Athlon4all]

[Athlon: "death" is also a concept that applies to us spiritually. When we are told that we get "eternal life", I think it's pretty clear that this doesn't mean we never physically die. Why would we need a savior? Because we are sinful! I don't really know exactly what the story of the "curse" means - but I'm quite sure that I can believe in the observable reality that we *are* sinners, and I don't need to know everything.

When I said death, I mean that there was no physical death until the fall and there was no sin on earth either. There should not be death and suffering before the fall (which is after Man was created) and Evolution says that there has always been death and destruction.

Think about this - in Genesis, God is said to have brought forth all nature in various stages, and then what came after all the other lifeforms? Man! That's just what scientists say happened, except that many don't believe there was an intelligence supervising this process.

But in millions of years. Again, read the post I put in Youth Forum about the problems with Evolution+Christianity. And I can never reinforce enough, science needs to be made to fit the bible, not the bible to fit science.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Athlon4all:
Well any other scholar who does not believe in #2 is very off base.

I suppose it's basic human nature to think that anyone who disagrees with us on some particular belief must be "very off base."

When I said death, I mean that there was no physical death until the fall and there was no sin on earth either. There should not be death and suffering before the fall (which is after Man was created) and Evolution says that there has always been death and destruction.But in millions of years.

I can understand how it might not be possible for there to be any sin until a creature capable of sinning--i.e., a human being with a soul--had been created. However, you may need to explain more carefully why you think that unless and until such a creature with a soul finally sinned, nothing else on the planet could die.

Again, read the post I put in Youth Forum about the problems with Evolution+Christianity.

If you believe what you posted in a different forum is pertinent, relevant and germane to what we are discussing, would you mind reposting it here on this thread? Thank you.

And I can never reinforce enough, science needs to be made to fit the bible, not the bible to fit science.

With all due respect, I have generally found that if one attempts to force one set of "facts" to fully fit another set of "facts", one is in grave danger of creating a distorted set of "facts" one place or another--especially if one does not fully understand one or both sets of facts.

 

[Sinai]

Uh, Athlon, are you still here?

 

[Sinai]

Since Athlon has apparently decided not to respond, this question is for anyone: Why do you think there could not have been any physical death of any plant or animal on our planet prior to the sins of Adam and Eve?

Thank you.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by Sinai
Since Athlon has apparently decided not to respond, this question is for anyone: Why do you think there could not have been any physical death of any plant or animal on our planet prior to the sins of Adam and Eve?

Thank you.

[barney fife]"Drop dead, that's why!"[/barney fife]

 

[Sinai]

Sorry, Didaskomenos, but I don't follow what your post means. Would you mind translating for poor simpletons like me? Many thanks.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I was ribbing Athalon, who has been asked that question on thread after thread, but merely repeats his original statement. I was alluding to Barney Fife, who once was angrily asked, "Who do you think you are!?" Since he couldn't think of a comeback, he yelled back, "Drop dead, that's who!" and ran off.

 

[ocean]

lol

 

[Sinai]

Again, since Athlon has apparently decided not to respond, this question is for anyone: Why do you think there could not have been any physical death of any plant or animal on our planet prior to the sins of Adam and Eve?

Thank you.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Ummm.. Because the story is a work of fiction and anything can happen in a fictional world...