YEC vs OEC

JohnR7 · Feb 15, 2003

Do you believe in a old or a young universe? Is it possible that both theorys are true, depending on how you determine the age of the universe? For example, they have photos of what they claim is a very young universe, becasue we know that time effects matter and light quite a bit different.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20030215/fob1.asp

Evee · Feb 15, 2003

 I believe in an old universe I have nothing to go on but just a belief.

 I believe Adam and Eve may have been created way way after the universe. :o 

 Hope I don't appear to silly on this one.

 Evee

Evee · Feb 15, 2003

Oh lordy I did sound silly I am out of here now! Evee

fragmentsofdreams · Feb 15, 2003

God has made it clear through the clues he left in nature that He created the Universe a long time ago.

wblastyn · Feb 15, 2003

I believe in an old universe because all evidence seems to point that way, I have no reason not to.

Oh lordy I did sound silly I am out of here now! Evee

lol, you didn't sound silly.

Evee · Feb 15, 2003

Okay good!
Thanks wblastyn
I have to worry about getting attacked sometimes. Evee

wblastyn · Feb 15, 2003

I have to worry about getting attacked sometimes.

Well you might get attacked by people who believe if you don't interpret Genesis the same way they do then you aren't a Christian, which I do not believe, obviously since I believe the universe is ancient.

wildernesse · Feb 15, 2003

I think that the universe is very, very old--based on what we know about all different kinds of things. I've yet to hear of a good theory that explains a young universe consistant with the natural world we live in.

Evee, I don't think you sounded silly either.

JohnR7, I don't think that the article is about pictures of "a very young universe" but about pictures of our own old universe when it was young based on the cosmic microwave background. The articles states that the "picture" of our universe when it was young supports the current cosmological models--part of that model being an ancient universe.

--tibac

judge · Feb 16, 2003

When we think of a year, we normally think of the time it takes for the summer to turn to autumn to winter and spring and on again to summer. In this way a year is measured by the movement of the sun through the sky (from our perspective anyway).

Some might say that this is the time it takes for the earth to do one lap of the sun

The ancient egyptians worked out that they could measure the exact length of a year by noting the exactly when the dog star appeared each year.

Both these methods are much in line with the teaching in genesis that the sun and stars are to mark seasons.

 

So if someone says that the universe is 14 billion years old, what exactly are they saying? Are we saying the earth has done 14 billion laps of the sun?

No because the people who say the universe is 14 billion years old also say that for a lot of this time our solar system wasn't even formed.

 

Any thoughts?

JohnR7 · Jun 24, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Do you believe in a old or a young universe? Is it possible that both theorys are true, depending on how you determine the age of the universe?

Is the Gap theory a workable theory? Could both the YEC and the OEC theorys of creation be true?

lucaspa · Jun 24, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Is the Gap theory a workable theory? Could both the YEC and the OEC theorys of creation be true?

Is it? Have you tested it? If not, why not? John, people are supposed to test their own theories in an attempt to falsify them. Darwin did. That's why he constantly bombarded his fellow scientists with letters with questions -- looking for data that would show the theory to be wrong. We shouldn't be the ones doing the first testing of Gap Theory. You should. If we test it and find it wrong, then you get all upset because you think we are attacking you and didn't give it a fair chance. But if you seriously test it BEFORE you post it, you might find the flaws in it before we do. And save your ego.

As you have stated Gap theory, it is contradicted by data you accept.

JohnR7 · Jul 2, 2003

lucaspa said:
Is it? Have you tested it?

Actually, it works for me. There is a constraint that is difficult for me to get around. Moses and Peter tell us that a day to God is as 1000 years. That leads me to believe that the literal meaning of the days in creation are 1000 years in length. Then when I look at what takes place in Genesis and I look at what is known about the natural record, it seems to line up pretty good. But others do not seem to feel that way. Which does not really make any difference to me, if it works for them or not. They most likely are looking at something different than I am. So what they come up with explains what they are looking at, what I come up with explains what I am looking at.

Philip · Jul 2, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Actually, it works for me. There is a constraint that is difficult for me to get around. Moses and Peter tell us that a day to God is as 1000 years. That leads me to believe that the literal meaning of the days in creation are 1000 years in length.

Does that mean that Noah saw 40 000 years of rain? How do you know which days are days and which are 1000's of years?

JohnR7 · Jul 2, 2003

Philip said:
Does that mean that Noah saw 40 000 years of rain?
Genesis Chapter one talks about creation. Geneses chapter two on, talks about the generations or the genologys.

Genesis chapter one cover the creation of our modern dispensation, begining about 12,970 years ago. Genesis Chapter two begins about 6000 years ago.

We have another 1000 years to go, then this dispensation will come to an end, and we are told there will be a new heaven and a new earth.

How do you know which days are days and which are 1000's of years?

Context

Philip · Jul 2, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Context

What is the context in Genesis 1 that suggests that the days are 1000 years? Are there other 1000 year days that we can compare them to?

JohnR7 · Jul 2, 2003

Philip said:
What is the context in Genesis 1 that suggests that the days are 1000 years? Are there other 1000 year days that we can compare them to?

Genesis 2:17
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat(yowm) of it you shall surely die."

Genesis 5:5
So all the days (yowm) that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past,
And like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Philip · Jul 3, 2003

I don't see how any of that indicates that a day in Genesis 1 is differant from a day in Genesis 2 or 3...

Jase · Jul 3, 2003

I believe in a young universe. If we dismiss everything that God told us in the Bible, that science isn't able to explain - might as well stop believing in Jesus and His ressurection/miracles too, since science can't even touch that.

I think there is still too much in the world and universe that we can't comprehend, to assume that the Earth and universe is old based on questionable dating methods, and faulty assumptions/observations. There are many other Hebrew words that could have been used in the Bible to denote a long span of time, or "ages", but those words weren't used - days were and when applied to other terms like morning, evening, etc., I see no reason to assume that God didn't intend for it to be literal.

Sure, i could be wrong about Genesis being literal, but I'd rather put my faith and trust in God over humans.
So many people take science as fact, which i think is a big problem. People just assume that science is almost always correct.

DayAge · Jul 7, 2003

The universe is old and so is the earth for that matter. All matter, energy, space, and time had a singular beginning, the "bigbang." This is exactly what the Bible teaches.

The gap-theory does not work, there are about 16 major texts in the Bible that discuss the creation. You must integrate them all to get a full picture.

What johnR7 described does not sound like any gap-theory that I have ever heard. It sounds a little like the Day-Age view. Although the verses say that a day is LIKE a thousand years not that it is 1000 years.
Psalm 90 was written by Moses and is an indicator that the Gen. 1 days may be long periods of time.
Also see Gen. 2:4, etc.

I believe that God specially created different things over long periods of time.

God Bless

Jet Black · Jul 8, 2003

judge said:
So if someone says that the universe is 14 billion years old, what exactly are they saying? Are we saying the earth has done 14 billion laps of the sun?

No because the people who say the universe is 14 billion years old also say that for a lot of this time our solar system wasn't even formed.

 

Any thoughts?

I know I shouldn't really come in here, but I look around as things are a bit slow at the moment and I thought I would answer your question, though I promise not to get involved in the conversation

yes it is true that a year was originally defined as the time it takes for the sun to go round the earth, however it is also possible that you can define it in other ways, for example a second is defined as the time it takes for light to travel 300,000,000 metres, and you can define a year from the number of seconds. alternatively you can define time based on numbers of atomic oscillations as they do in atomic clocks and so on, so you don't even need the earth to define a year. we just do, because it is a nice "understandable" time limit that can be compared to something like the human lifespan.

YEC vs OEC

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critical loyalist

Jedi Master

Well-Known Member

Jedi Master

Use less and live more.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Well-Known Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Well-Known Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Jet Black

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency