The Earth is young

[Grandliseur]

That's true.
It would mean Genesis 1 to 3 and maybe 4 too, are allegorical.
But that's what i used to believe when i was new to the faith, and i don't think it's a salvation issue.
However, nowhere in Scripture is it suggested to be an allegory.
But the same goes for the flat earth model (a disc is not a sphere).
I agree.
However, there is quite a lot of evidence that makes it difficult to believe Genesis up to chapter 9.
Look at Madagascar, for example. Unique species there.
Hominids. What are we to make of those?
I don't know...
God dividing the waters, ordering the chaos (without form and void) seems similar to Marduk and the see serpent story.
It could be mythology rewritten to point to the True God YHWH Elohim.
I don't know..

The dividing of the waters were to have a hot house effect over all earth with a canopy of water above and a balmy warm all over earth even at the poles. Scientists, atheists for sure, have already shown this true though they attribute this to very long time in the past as usual, millions and millions of years, yet, it agrees with the Bible's pre-deluge accounts.

Check for yourself:

Alaska -- once hot enough for palm trees?
Ancient Earth Not as Hot as Previously Thought
Researchers think Antarctica served as animals' interstate
Tiny Fossils Reveal Warm Antarctic Past​

- and there is more like this. When the deluge occurred the fountains of the earth were broken in some places but not all, also, the canopy was destroyed and all that water came down. On a shallow sea world with low mountains, none about 3 km high, the earth was flooded to above the mountain tops, and the stresses induced created deeper seas, and higher mountains. These did not exist until after the flood.

If you have followed this kind of news story, you would know that even now they have found huge oceans under the earth. This was what God called fountains of the earth that were broken, but not all obviously:
Huge Underground 'Ocean' Discovered Towards Earth's Core

 

[Halbhh]

That's true.
It would mean Genesis 1 to 3 and maybe 4 too, are allegorical.
But that's what i used to believe when i was new to the faith, and i don't think it's a salvation issue.
However, nowhere in Scripture is it suggested to be an allegory.
But the same goes for the flat earth model (a disc is not a sphere).
I agree.
However, there is quite a lot of evidence that makes it difficult to believe Genesis up to chapter 9.
Look at Madagascar, for example. Unique species there.
Hominids. What are we to make of those?
I don't know...
God dividing the waters, ordering the chaos (without form and void) seems similar to Marduk and the see serpent story.
It could be mythology rewritten to point to the True God YHWH Elohim.
I don't know..

Plenty isn't explained, but often real events are allegorical also. We are of course trying to discuss what might be only metaphor, but I don't rule out the real possibility God decided looking at all the hominids that it was time now for man, in His image, and simply intervened and did genetic engineering, or instead made Adam right out. He could do either of course, and both are definitely Him making Adam. Both. We are definitely formed from the Earth in that all of these molecules in us are from Earth, so I take "dust" as an intentionally allegorical wording. It's used so that later we can read "you were made from dust and to dust you will return", and that has a profound emphasis to it, and that's why "dust" is the word chosen. Dust blows away in the wind. It's here now, and later gone....

Eve is from Adam's rib. Eve could have been.....made from mud, or dust, or Adam's hair.

No, no and no.

Instead, Eve is from his rib. God could do anything to make her. Why from a rib?

Because it has profound meaning.

She is like unto Adam, in their relationship even closer than skin, and protects his very heart and breath.

That's the essence of marriage. Deeper than one's own skin, protecting the very heart.

That's why shes from his "rib". These are the ways the real meaning is conveyed, the point of the story, and there are several more such profound points in it. Seeing these points by staying quiet in the mind and listening to the words, we still can't know if everything is literally happening. God can do whatever He chooses. He could even do something like one member in my church thinks -- to make things look old, intentionally, so that we can't merely see and know without any faith.

Water is parted (for real I believe), the dead are raised. We need faith to believe, and this is the goal, faith itself. Because of how faith sustains love I think, but this is only a possible reason, or rather, it's a good quality of faith, but not necessarily the only reason faith is the goal.

 

[GBTG]

I think you all should read Genesis in the Hebrew first before you continue this discussion, as no one can be accurate if you are referencing a translation. Even the best translations have many errors that lead to improper conclusions. If you want literal read this:

Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

I would also suggest Strong's accordance for better understanding.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[Hieronymus]

It's interesting stuff.
I tend(ed) to believe the crust of the earth became too large when the waters of the deep came up, thus tectonic plates formed and pushed eachother up, forming huge mountain chains.
But i also believe(d) the flood was caused by extra additional terrestrial waters, that were on earth only during the flood (which in total was a period of almost a year, according to Genesis).
The ice that was part of the package, could have been hot water spouting from the deep, forming snow high up in the air. (compare a cup of boiling water thrown in the air in polar regions, it freezes instantly and falls down as snow).
I'm totally in the dark about the canopy and firmament though.
And the earth is not flat either, so i'm not sure where to draw the line anymore.
Past years i have only been confirming my beliefs and preferences by looking for young earth apologetics.
But they seem to use lies too, just like the religion of "Holy Science" does...

 

[Halbhh]

I think you all should read Genesis in the Hebrew first before you continue this discussion, as no one can be accurate if you are referencing a translation. Even the best translations have many errors that lead to improper conclusions. If you want literal read this:

Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

I would also suggest Strong's accordance for better understanding.

Warm regards, GBTG

1:2
u·e·artz and·the·earth הָ יְ תָ ה eithe she-became תֹ הוּ theu chaos וָבֹ הוּ u·beu and·vacancy וְ חֹ שֶׁ u·chshk and·darkness עַ ל ol over ־ - פְּ נֵי phni surfaces-of תְ ה ם theum abyss

Yes, that's lovely! Thank you!

 

[mindlight]

No it doesn't and that is their dirty little secret, it's no different from atheistic materialism in any way that is meaningful.

In practice yes. But having been a TE at one point myself on my way to a YEC position i still regard TEs as brothers in Christ. What they do is say The book of nature shows us how God did it and the bible tells us about the who and the why. What they do not see is the extent to which a non miraculous view of reality contradicts the biblical account and also the ways in which the readings of the book of nature have been hyjacked by atheists with agendas.

 

[Hieronymus]

Plenty isn't explained, but often real events are allegorical also. We are of course trying to discuss what might be only metaphor, but I don't rule out the real possibility God decided looking at all the hominids that it was time now for man, in His image, and simply intervened and did genetic engineering, or instead made Adam right out. He could do either of course, and both are definitely Him making Adam. Both. We are definitely formed from the Earth in that all of these molecules in us are from Earth, so I take "dust" as an intentionally allegorical wording. It's used so that later we can read "you were made from dust and to dust you will return", and that has a profound emphasis to it, and that's why "dust" is the word chosen. Dust blows away in the wind. It's here now, and later gone....

Eve is from Adam's rib. Eve could have been.....made from mud, or dust, or Adam's hair.

No, no and no.

Instead, Eve is from his rib. God could do anything to make her. Why from a rib?

Because it has profound meaning.

She is like unto Adam, in their relationship even closer than skin, and protects his very heart and breath.

That's the essence of marriage. Deeper than one's own skin, protecting the very heart.

That's why shes from his "rib". These are the ways the real meaning is conveyed, the point of the story, and there are several more such profound points in it. Seeing these points by staying quiet in the mind and listening to the words, we still can't know if everything is literally happening. God can do whatever He chooses. He could even do something like one member in my church thinks -- to make things look old, intentionally, so that we can't merely see and know without any faith.

Water is parted (for real I believe), the dead are raised. We need faith to believe, and this is the goal, faith itself. Because of how faith sustains love I think, but this is only a possible reason, or rather, it's a good quality of faith, but not necessarily the only reason faith is the goal.

From what i understand, the rib is the only bone that can regenerate itself.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's true.
It would mean Genesis 1 to 3 and maybe 4 too, are allegorical.
But that's what i used to believe when i was new to the faith, and i don't think it's a salvation issue.

No I'm talking about Genesis 1, God created life. It's always a salvation issue when we are talking about life.

However, nowhere in Scripture is it suggested to be an allegory.
But the same goes for the flat earth model (a disc is not a sphere).
I agree.

What flat earth, there is no such thing in Scripture.

However, there is quite a lot of evidence that makes it difficult to believe Genesis up to chapter 9.
Look at Madagascar, for example. Unique species there.
Hominids. What are we to make of those?
I don't know...

God provided for adaptation, no question about that.

God dividing the waters, ordering the chaos (without form and void) seems similar to Marduk and the see serpent story.
It could be mythology rewritten to point to the True God YHWH Elohim.
I don't know..

Perhaps but then again so could the stone age ape man myth. The truth will prevail.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hieronymus]

I think you all should read Genesis in the Hebrew first before you continue this discussion, as no one can be accurate if you are referencing a translation. Even the best translations have many errors that lead to improper conclusions. If you want literal read this:

Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

I would also suggest Strong's accordance for better understanding.

Warm regards, GBTG

Thanks! Awesome!
Makes a lot much clearer, could have avoided a lot of discussion here...

 

[Hieronymus]

No I'm talking about Genesis 1, God created life. It's always a salvation issue when we are talking about life.

I'm not disputing life is created, and so are the main phyla.

God provided for adaptation, no question about that.

I believe so, yes.
But Madagascar...
I mean, did the Ark stop there to dump some animals?

 

[Radagast]

I would also suggest Strong's accordance for better understanding.

Do you mean concordance?

And if people don't actually know Hebrew and its quirky grammatical rules, they're better off reading a good modern English translation. After all, the translators did know Hebrew.

I can't comment on that Hebrew interlinear, but the accompanying Greek interlinear is really, really bad.

 

[Ronald]

The reason Creationism became an big issue, more than predestination etc., and I personally saw it become so again in the 1980s, getting more and more prominent, is because it was being preached prominently, as if it were...well, as if it were the gospel.

But actually it's a certain way of reading Genesis chapters 1-3. Why preach so forcefully, insisting it be in schools, etc.? Do people think we can only learn in schools, and that faith depends on an certain interpretation of Genesis 1 instead of on Matthew or Luke?.....

The real gospel is in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

So, Creationism should not even be preached prominently, but instead Christ and repentance should be preached prominently, and thank God this is indeed so!

Christ said to base faith on hearing and doing His words. Nothing else is the rock on which we are to base our faith.

Neither belief in a Created Old Earth, nor belief in a Created Young Earth can save.

Neither.

Only Christ can save.

I agree with that. Creationism is a non-essential for me, I got saved from reading the New Testament, not the Old. But it is foundational and important. If you misinterpret or spiritualize it, why not do that with the rest of the Bible when something doesn't gel with your world view. Homosexuals, delete or distort all the scriptures pertaining to that, so they can continue to live as they do. The Bible is not what we think it means, it is what the Author intended to mean. He didn't say, "Make sure and qualify your interpretation with man's scientific theories."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It is impossible to observe electrons with the naked eye. Are you saying they don't exist?

That's a weak argument.

Yes there is a small element of faith in the scientific method but constant scathing peer review and the reproducible nature of the experiments makes that faith threshold very low indeed.

You have absolutely no comprehension of radioactive decay. That is one of the most easily verifiable processes in all of physics. Hold a piece of uranium in your hand and tell me how you feel the next day. Then again let's make it easier then that! Tell me what happens if Radon levels are too high in your basement? That is a different type of radioactive decay but the basic nuclear process is similar to that of Carbon 14 beta minus decay.

This reasoning method is kind of how some christians talk down to others about doctrines, it's not very impressive.

I really wonder about Christians sometimes. Is your faith so weak that you are willing to deliberately LIE?! That is outrageous!

Grandstanding, appeal to emotion, no logic. Where is the science in your approach?

 

[Zoii]

Oh, and the TOE is only based on unbiased evidence? Their evidence is so biased, that it ignores any bit of evidence that gets in way of their theory. Staunch evolutionists are spiritually blind to begin with and so can't see any real evidence of God all around them, are in denial or either bury or distort it as we've seen. Unfortunately, our school system has forced fed this theory with a biased intent, unbalanced and lacking the Biblical narrative. The result is confusion and what is now accepted by almost half of Christianity, a hybrid of the two views called theistic evolution. So they think God created basic things and let evolution take its course and in turn must distort the literal meaning of Genesis. Genesis is foundational, if you mess with that, you risk allegorizing and symbolizing other parts of the Bible that don't quite fit into your life.
The TOE is a house of cards, filled with guessing, assumptions and opinions.
The Bible is reliable, every word and most is to be taken literally. Symbolism is usually explained in scripture. The earth is young
... just ask God. He'll tell you.

Thats all fine - you can debate it with an evolutionist or a creationist - not me. My point is purely from one who reads journals. The end text references highlight this is merely an opinion piece as opposed to researched factual article which is what the OP attempted to indicate. Take what ever position you want in the debate itself because I really dont care. My entry was to merely highlight the quality of the chapter articles from a referencing perspective.

 

[chilehed]

The YEC view is that basically the earth is 6-10000 years old. Answers in Genesis list 10 strong evidences for this here...

I'm not qualified to speak on any of those 10. I am qualified to address the AIG article about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it's so badly flawed that it calls everything else they say into question.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm willing to consider new ideas, but need persuasive evidence to make an actual conclusion.

 

[Radagast]

I'm basically skeptical because I've seen scientists re-calibrate their dating methods.
So it's not like it's perfect.
Carbon Dating Gets a Reset

Minor refinements of carbon dating don't mean it was "wrong," it just means that it gets improved.

Also stating a 5000+ year half life, when there's no actual observable evidence of that half life involves some "faith" on behalf of those who trust in the hypothesis.

There is massive evidence of that half-life. Radioactivity has been studied for over a century, and we understand it pretty well.

Every time an atom splits, it releases radiation; the amount of radiation tells us the rate of decay, and hence the half-life.

 

[Zoii]

I think it would be impossible to find a source, for either YEC or OE that is not biased.

Its a fair statement. Bias of course is one issue and authors should go to great lengths to show the reader how they attempted to eliminate bias - which this article does not.

But I also highlighted this article has no researched components. All references are from other creationist sites and are opinion pieces only. How you respond to that in this debate is not my concern. As one who reads research I just take issue with opinion pieces being put up as research - Its a dishonest practice that happens across lots of different sectors.

But as to this debate - its one that disinterests me because its be done 1000X before with he same tired arguments.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

Virtually every argument AIG proposes is rebutted by Talk Origins:

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Minor refinements of carbon dating don't mean it was "wrong," it just means that it gets improved.

Since science tends to speak as though what is being said is factual, it needs to be examined according to it's claims. If there is a change in the dating calibration, it then starts again from day one in terms of reliability.

It's not that I don't see the point they are making, but from a scientific standpoint, it doesn't make the grade. Most of what science claims to know (about the age of things) is based on guesses because we haven't been watching the evidence long enough to make the claims we are making.

There is massive evidence of that half-life. Radioactivity has been studied for over a century, and we understand it pretty well.

I'll accept it as a hypothesis with observational evidence for 100 years allowing for calculations to make conclusions based on what is available.
.
I however do not have sufficient evidence to say it is scientific fact.