1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Earth is young

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by mindlight, Nov 18, 2017.

  1. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +2,285
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    The YEC view is that basically the earth is 6-10000 years old. Answers in Genesis list 10 strong evidences for this here.

    These are basically the following

    #1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
    #2 Bent Rock Layers
    #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
    #4 Faint Sun Paradox
    #5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
    #6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
    #7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
    #8 Short-Lived Comets
    #9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
    #10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

    How would those of you who believe in an Old Earth counter these scientific arguments?

    EDIT:

    I thought my OP was clearly focused on the scientific arguments I listed. I will add the text of this post to my OP to clarify that. I have assumed since this is the Christians only section of the forums that everybody here is happy with the view God did it. But yes there is a variance on how he did it. I am happy to hear the opinions of Christians only as to whether the various scientific evidences I listed are credible or not with a focus on the age of the earth.

    If the arguments are valid then a YEC position has some scientific credibility, if not then an Old Earth or TE position or day age theory may be better. But I would prefer to discuss the biblical evidences and positions elsewhere. This is focused on the scientific evidences listed. I hope the list is not too long but it gives people the opportunity to pick and mix the ones they are interested in.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,832
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    I have no interest in debating this topic. Im sure lots will with you though. It seems to be a very popular topic. I only seek to comment on the referencing.

    When you examine the papers, listed in the reference list at the end of each section, that the author uses to illustrate each of his points, he uses articles and opinion pieces from other creationist centres. I have read what I could of these articles in two chapters you attached.

    Now thats all fine EXCEPT when you purport an opinion to be a fact. Fact has to be supported by independent research that aims to enter the research without bias. All biases in fact must be declared and also declared is the means by which you eliminated bias.

    So my take is - this is an interesting opinion piece lacking in unbiased evidence and lacks any research what so ever. Still Im sure you will get a lot enjoying the debate.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  3. Dkh587

    Dkh587 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,752
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Only about 5,000-6,000 years old, IMO
     
    • Like x 1
    • Agree x 1
    • Funny x 1
    • Winner x 1
    • Optimistic x 1
    • List
  4. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus Well-Known Member

    +2,966
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Single
    Well, don't the naturalists do the same thing?
    Don't the naturalists do the same?
    Does that even exist, unbiassed independent research and / or conclusions and / or models?
    The YEC and / or creationist positions are quite clear.
    It is less clear that the mainstream scientific consensus is naturalism though...

    By the way, i'm an ex-YEC since recently.
    I'm presently not convinced anymore by YEC apologetics.
     
  5. Radagast

    Radagast comes and goes Supporter

    +9,634
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Those are not very good arguments. They are full of errors, and the description of C-14 dating in particular is quite dishonest.

    C-14 dating (as opposed to other methods) has a useful limit of around 50,000 years. One would expect million-year-old coal to have a C-14 date of 50,000 years.

    And C-14 dating has been confirmed by historical records going back about 6,000 years, and by tree-ring data going back about 10,000 years. It's pretty reliable over its useful range.
     
  6. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,832
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    Ive already stated im not entering the debate. The state of the end text referencing is my only position which ive stated clearly. You may debate with others.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  7. Randy777

    Randy777 Well-Known Member

    +308
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    In genesis at the beginning you had a planet filled with waters. How do you have waters without a heat source such as our sun? I just put the importance in God created and not in the timeline which is a endless debate.
    I do believe life on earth is young. It seems to me God terraformed the formless planet and then filled it with life. And I have no issue with God bringing that about rapidly.
    I don't know how old the universe or formless earth was or is. Of course the earth is no longer formless. And you have land and water and sky.
     
  8. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus Well-Known Member

    +2,966
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Single
    Then why did you enter the debate? :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  9. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus Well-Known Member

    +2,966
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Single
    Ice is water too.
    But why would God be restricted to creating ice?
     
  10. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus Well-Known Member

    +2,966
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Single
    No.
     
  11. Grandliseur

    Grandliseur New Member

    78
    +30
    Japan
    Christian
    Married
    Since your post is about the age of the earth, most of your ten points become worthless to a large degree since the things in the ten points all happened in the six creative days.

    The Bible puts the age of the earth outside those days with a "1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. " Thus the point here as to the earth's age is about when this beginning was, and not about the six creative days at all.

    In Micah we have another reference to a beginning, the point when our Lord came to be. Since this beginning is seen to be from "the beginning, even from eternity" it is not a short 6 to 10 thousand years.
    Quoting my own research:
    (French Louis Segond)
    Michah 5:2 . . . Et dont l'origine remonte aux temps anciens, Aux jours de l'éternité.
    English translation: whose origin goes back to ancient times, to the days of eternity.
    (AB) . . . His goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.

    And, Psalms 93:2: Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting. (ASV)
    Psalm 11:4 Yahweh, is in his holy temple As for Yahweh, in the heavens, is his throne, His eyes, behold—His eyelashes test the sons of men. (Rotherham)​

    Surely, the heavens being the throne of God as we are told, we see that the beginning mentioned in Micah is said to be “even from eternity,” not a mere 6,000 years. When in Genesis we are told, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” this has to be in harmony with the scriptures quoted here. We may understand that the earth is very old since it is included in these ‘heavens.’ That the earth may not be as old as other parts of the universe is a given with what we know from scientific studies, and from the continual process of creation we witness in the universe. Connecting the dots from 93:2 and 11:4, God’s throne, the heavens, are from of old, not a mere six days.

    The logical conclusion of this permits extreme age for our earth and solar system. There need not be a disagreement between the Bible and whatever scientists' claim may be presently. However, we do not need to accept the claims of science either. Their claims cannot be verified and contain much to cause scepticism. In fact, the Bible's way of referring to extreme age is aesthetically preferable to what scientists use today, since any normal human, educated or not, may easily relate to it; after all, the claims of science tend to change from decade to decade, and people who live some 75 years cannot easily relate to ages of billions, or even millions, of years.
    If this then is 4.5 billion years or something a lot less has not been revealed to us. We can then accept the scientific statement or just say that the age is very ancient but unknown.

    Here is my own research on the six creative days:

    The six creative days, and the seventh - God's day of rest.
    Not 24-hour days!

    Let the Bible reader who takes the six creative days literally meditate on the following. Much work was done on the sixth day before God created Adam and Eve. Naturally, if this was about was God can do, there is no limit so that if he wanted to use six normal 24 hour days to complete the job, He would be able to do so. However, while remembering that, take a serious look at what God made Adam, a simple man, do on the sixth creative day.

    Only the main points are being highlighted! After creating Adam, God brings the various species of animals to Adam so as to have him name them; next, we find that because Adam is solitary, God creates Eve and brings her to him.

    Gen 2:19-22, And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. 20 And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field:

    but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. . . . a woman: and brought her to Adam. (DRC)

    Adam’s work on the sixth day

    Adam was being asked to observe and remain with each kind of animal long enough to become familiar with that kind's behaviour and name it according to that assessment. Consider carefully how long each animal kind had to be observed to know what name would fit! Taking the great number of animals he had to name, it is clear that the time required is not 24 hours. Even 24 hours may not be enough to name one single kind of animal !

    Only when that work was finished, a deep sleep is induced upon Adam while God creates Eve.


    Deep (long) sleep

    By this reference, we can see that the sleep induced was not nocturnal, but perhaps of an extended period that lasted until the woman had been created and her organism became operational. Adam’s sleep could have lasted days.

    Conclusion

    If you have any inkling as to what can be done in a 24 hour day, you instantly must acknowledge that the Bible is talking about a creative day in the sense that is commonly used about time periods. Check any dictionary for this usage if you don't know how day may be applied to longer periods of time.

    There is no way that the sixth day of 24 hours could include all that God did and all that Adam was supposed to do, including his deep sleep! How long did such a deep sleep last? Two minutes?! That is not what deep sleep means. Also, how much time is needed to name each of the animals God brought him?

    Let logic and common sense rule here! Here the question is not what God can do - for to him nothing is impossible. The question is what is indicated, how long would it take Adam to accomplish the work God gave him! An unbiased examination gives clear indication that we are not speaking about 24 hour days of creation.

    God’s rest period, the seventh day

    Another affirmation that the seven days are of immense unknown length, not 24 hour days, exists! How do we know? In Genesis 1:27-31, Adam was created whereafter the end of the sixth creative day was reached. Next, we are told that the seventh creative day started and with it God's rest period!

    Genesis 1:27,31, And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. . . . 31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day. (2:1-3) So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (DRC)

    Hebrews 4:1-6 1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you might seem to have failed of it . 2 For indeed we have had glad tidings presented to us, even as they also; but the word of the report did not profit *them*, not being mixed with faith in those who heard. 3For we enter into the rest who have believed; as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest; although the works had been completed from the foundation of the world. 4For he has said somewhere of the seventh day thus, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works: 5and in this again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remains that some enter into it, and those who first received the glad tidings did not enter in on account of not hearkening to the word. (Darby)

    The scriptural evidence from Hebrews is that the seventh day remains yet to be completed and in fact the implication is that the thousand year reign of Christ is to be part of it since the promised REST the Christians are expecting to enter into pertains to the fulfillment of their hope.

    It is fairly well established by several denominations that Adam and Eve were created about, or a little more than, 6,000 years ago. Once the thousand year reign of Christ is added to that number by necessity because of Paul's statement in Hebrews, the unavoidable conclusion about how long each day must be at a minimum is in. From this scriptural proof, it becomes clear that the seventh day is at least 7,000 years long. Since the Bible nowhere states the seventh day will conclude when Christ's thousand year reign is complete, there is then no way for us to claim that this seventh day cannot be millions of years long.

    For these reasons, it is evident that each creative day's length cannot be defined with any certainty at all. All we can say with certainty about the length of each creative day is – that it is unknown, and, that it is at least 7,000 years long. More can be said about how science may have some way of limiting the length of this day. Even Biblically speaking, there are certain things in Genesis chapter one that give us some controlling factors. But the above is enough for all to make their own conclusions given a little help from my studies.

    If we were able to establish when Gen 1: 9 and 10 happened, we could establish how long God’s creative days were each. But, this seems impossible. Personally I do not believe in the claims of science since there is not enough sediment in the seas to indicate a really long, as in billion of years, long time.

    So, it is seen that each Terra-forming day is at least 7,000 years long at a minimum. However, my personal opinion which doesn't have much scriptural basis is that each day s 42,000 years long.

    ------------------------------
    This permits at 7000/day an age now to the beginning of day one - 48,000 years. Since we are ca 6000 years into day seven.

    If using my 42,000 years, we would have 252000 +6000 = 258,000 years unverified.



     
  12. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +2,285
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    The scientific community is partisan and divided on this issue. Neither side post in each others journals or grant each other any authority. The restriction is especially strong on the secular side. So my perspective is to ignore titles and claims to mainstream or Creationist credibility in favour of the quality of the arguments.
     
  13. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus Well-Known Member

    +2,966
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Single
    Nah, in the beginning is the starting point of day 1.
    That end s with "and it was evening, and it was morning, the first day.
    Incidentally the first day starts without light, like every 'Jewish' day does.
     
  14. Grandliseur

    Grandliseur New Member

    78
    +30
    Japan
    Christian
    Married
    Disagree totally.
    You have the right to your opinion, but I will never share it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  15. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +2,285
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    My understanding is that after 60000 years the amount of C14 is worthless for dating cause there simply is not enough of it left. So if you have readable amounts in diamonds or coal these samples cannot be older than 60000 years.

    In which case you cannot date a diamond at a billion years if it has readable amounts of carbon 14 in it.

    The oldest confirmed dating of a tree is 5000 years ( counted by its rings) . The Swedish tree dated at 9500 years was done so by carbon 14 dating, but the possibility of contamination and other factors makes this a guess.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  16. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +8,247
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Instead of reading in order to see a doctrine in Genesis 1, Yec or any other...

    Instead, just read and listen and be awed. Let the words do the talking. Let us do listening.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
  17. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +2,285
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    The scientific arguments used in the OP indicate a time limit to the age of the earth and errors in the various arguments used to argue for an old earth. This is a discussion about whether these arguments are credible or not. It is not about age day theories or the biblical evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  18. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus Well-Known Member

    +2,966
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Single
    Okay, but it makes sense that the 1st day starts in the beginning.
    At least in the beginning of time, which is part of our space-time reality.
    One could argue however that the angels were already there before the beginning of Genesis 1, although the may well be part of the heavens (its host).

    But lately i'm not so sure anymore if Genesis 1 - 4 should be taken literally at all...
    The implications are what it's about though.
     
  19. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +8,247
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    ah! You mean to have a scientific approach to answer the non-spiritual questions like how old are meteorites, moon rocks, certain old parts of Earth, and such?

    That's indeed a science question to most believers, but it sounded in the OP as if you meant to prove one particular doctrine about Genesis 1 over other viewpoints other believers have, of which there are more than just 2 mainstream views (and also about which has no ultimate importance once one does believe in God the Creator), among real believers who know Christ will come again and that we will live forever. If you aren't trying to just prove one idea against another idea believers have, so that instead you are only discussing just the science of dating old rocks, that would be interesting, but wouldn't that belong in the Physical Sciences forum?

    Also, since some of the questions your links point to are involved, wouldn't it be better to get a clear discussion to pick just 1 for one OP, and discuss it alone, well?
     
  20. Grandliseur

    Grandliseur New Member

    78
    +30
    Japan
    Christian
    Married
    Seems you have more than one problem. :):)
    I have answers to the light problem in Gen 1. But, most might not be ready for it. Unless, your stance on Gen 1:1 changes, you are definitely not ready for my answer there.:cool:
     
Loading...