how old is the earth

[RamboPreacher]

Rambo, if they don't give the whole story, how in the world did you find out about it?

They aren't trying to hide anything.

BTW, I have no idea what a 'breathing universe' or whatever is and I'm honestly afraid to axe.

trying to hide as in deceptive? no, I truly doubt that most are trying to be deceptive. how do I find out about it? study. research. questioning the questions. my lens is that of a believer, not an academic that will tear something apart, just because they can.

what I have found is that there is a general air or sense of "better than". a similar analogy would be some of the sects in Christianity that believe they are "the ones", and they are more righteous, or perhaps the only ones that are truly righteous.

"They" have their nose so high and mighty, with self-ego, there is little room to talk to or portray to the common man - especially the "religious". And as you have pointed out, there is much good reason "we" (religious) have given "them", unfortunately.

[RamboPreacher]

If you didn't think they were wrong I'm perplexed about why you would be presenting arguments to discredit their conclusions.

How old do you think the earth is?

I am familiar with the whole multi-verse thing if it is the idea that black holes spawn new universes on the other side.

My point is about seeing the whole picture. not about right and wrong. you seem to be so concluded in their right-ness, that you are missing what I have said. it isn't about discrediting, but about full disclosure, and allowing folks to make up their own minds.

YES, there is reason for them to be that way, don't get me wrong. There is much learning and academics to get through to get to a point in order to be able to make that discussion viable and conclusive. However, that should not preclude it from happening.

and no, my model isn't about black-hole (theory) and re-creations, it is more along a sting theory of dimensional space-time and inter-dimensional transfer of "matter" within and without this physics. All founded on an initial creative event, that is not from a singularity where this physics breaks at planck-level.

[Russell Roberts]

Russell,

A more literal reading of Scripture is natural and does not necessarily, much less readily, lead one to erroneous conclusions. Can it, if taken out of context? Sure. But I propose that the majority of Scripture is written

As for "function" versus a "bringing into existence" it seems to me that when one takes the whole of Scripture on the subject into account it becomes apparent that Divine inspiration intends for us to learn not only of God's functional purpose for creation but His bringing it into existence itself (i.e. 2 Peter 3:4-7, Colossians 1:16, & Hebrews 11:3).

To clarify, I'm not denying function. I am suggesting that it is an interpreting of God's creative work to narrowly when we isolate and emphasize functionality over or apart from institution. After all. you can't give function to something non-existent. Besides, "the beginning" is the beginning for a reason -- it all starts there.

Having said that ... how old is the earth? I have no idea. I would guess somewhere between six and ten thousand years, but there are variables that Scripture does not seem (or at least that I am not yet aware of) to give us that could account for brief moments or ages of time that otherwise are not detailed or specified for us. For instance, just how long were Adam and Eve in the pre-fallen state? How much time passed between their fall and their removal from Eden?

Anyhow, just trying to add to the discussion.

Poimen,

I just realized that I didn't address this comment. I'm sorry for the oversight brother.

If, as John Walton contends, the word 'bara' refers to assigning function rather than bringing material creation into existence, then our interpretation of Genesis should be neutral for determining the age of the earth. This is NOT a denial that God created everything. Of course he did. But as for dating the earth and the universe, I'm going with the scientists. In my opinion, they don't have an axe to grind, they're just trying to figger crap out.

Now the guys out there trying to prove them wrong based on their interpretation of Genesis one, they DO have an axe to grind. That doesn't give them a lot of credibility in my opinion.

[RamboPreacher]

there are many Hebraisicts that believe that bara is to create new, as a "quilt" is new. not ex-nihilo, but rather from something else to make a "new" creation. mi dos centavos.

[Russell Roberts]

If you didn't think they were wrong I'm perplexed about why you would be presenting arguments to discredit their conclusions.

How old do you think the earth is?

I am familiar with the whole multi-verse thing if it is the idea that black holes spawn new universes on the other side.

My point is about seeing the whole picture. not about right and wrong. you seem to be so concluded in their right-ness, that you are missing what I have said. it isn't about discrediting, but about full disclosure, and allowing folks to make up their own minds.

YES, there is reason for them to be that way, don't get me wrong. There is much learning and academics to get through to get to a point in order to be able to make that discussion viable and conclusive. However, that should not preclude it from happening.

and no, my model isn't about black-hole (theory) and re-creations, it is more along a sting theory of dimensional space-time and inter-dimensional transfer of "matter" within and without this physics. All founded on an initial creative event, that is not from a singularity where this physics breaks at planck-level.

Ok Brent. I should axe you one dang question at the time. Let me start with this one.

How OLD do YOU THINK the DAGUM EARTH IS???

[Pastorbps]

I wouldn't be surprised if God is not chuckling at man's "science" (knowledge) which seems to Him to be foolishness. Amazing isn't it? Our planet is one of 8 or 9 planets orbiting a star which is one of billions of stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way. Our galaxy is estimated to be 100,000 light years across which, as most know, means if one could travel 186,000 miles per second, it would take that person 100,000 years to cross our galaxy. Then, scientists say there are billions of such galaxies in this universe of ours. Amazing! And right in the middle of this vast universe there are a group of literal dustbags, who have used their staggering intellect to construct a craft which has carried a man all the way to a moon surrounding their planet which, they say, qualifies them to explain the universe and declare a supernatural creation erroneous. God has to think that is hilarious.

[Russell Roberts]

I wouldn't be surprised if God is not chuckling at man's "science" (knowledge) which seems to Him to be foolishness. Amazing isn't it? Our planet is one of 8 or 9 planets orbiting a star which is one of billions of stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way. Our galaxy is estimated to be 100,000 light years across which, as most know, means if one could travel 186,000 miles per second, it would take that person 100,000 years to cross our galaxy. Then, scientists say there are billions of such galaxies in this universe of ours. Amazing! And right in the middle of this vast universe there are a group of literal dustbags, who have used their staggering intellect to construct a craft which has carried a man all the way to a moon surrounding their planet which, they say, qualifies them to explain the universe and declare a supernatural creation erroneous. God has to think that is hilarious.

Pastorbps, are you saying that the natural conclusion of an old earth is that it implies that the earth was not created by God? If so, that is a faulty assumption. It might well piss some people off who hold to a certain interpretation of Genesis but it does not follow from an old earth that it wasn't supernaturally created.

[Pastor Gary]

I wouldn't be surprised if God is not chuckling at man's "science" (knowledge) which seems to Him to be foolishness. Amazing isn't it? Our planet is one of 8 or 9 planets orbiting a star which is one of billions of stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way. Our galaxy is estimated to be 100,000 light years across which, as most know, means if one could travel 186,000 miles per second, it would take that person 100,000 years to cross our galaxy. Then, scientists say there are billions of such galaxies in this universe of ours. Amazing! And right in the middle of this vast universe there are a group of literal dustbags, who have used their staggering intellect to construct a craft which has carried a man all the way to a moon surrounding their planet which, they say, qualifies them to explain the universe and declare a supernatural creation erroneous. God has to think that is hilarious.

Russell, are you trying for some kind of new record: most uses of the word "piss" in a single thread on a Christian message board. The score right now is 2, if you're keeping count.

[Pastor Gary]

I am not convinced that carbon dating is flawed; I do question one assumption concerning carbon dating in relation to determining the age of the earth.

If, say, carbon dating determined that the earth was 40,000,000 years old (I picked a number at random) a scientist would, quite logically, assume that he is standing on a 40,000,000 year old planet. That assumption starts with a zero date... a day one, and adds 40,000,000 years of testable aging. Those who factor in a creator have to ask if that's the way it would work. Would a God who stands outside of the constraints of time and space have to start by creating raw materials that were zero days old, or could he, for example, create a planet from matter that had an apparent age?

(Let's make it simpler: those of us who believe God created a man in a garden name Ish (Adam) don't assume he created a little baby with an umbilical cord still attached... we picture that creation as a fully formed mature being. Why, then, would we not also assume that God created a fully formed, mature earth?)

[Russell Roberts]

Pastor Gary,

Sorry about using that word. Not that your comment depends upon it, but I should stress once again that the half-life of carbon dating is too short to render an accurate age for dating the earth. So they use radiometric dating which evaluates materials with a much longer half life.

I also want to stress that an estimate for the age of the earth of 4.5 billion years is not an attempt to deny that God created everything that exists. It does challenge a traditional INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1. My argument is not that Genesis 1 is not true. It is that our traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 is flawed. Knowing that God does transcend the constraints of the time space continuum, a billion years to form the earth and to create man from the dust would, for all intents and purposes, be instantaneous.

I DO interpret the six days in Genesis 1 as literal twenty four hour time periods. I just think God was doing something different on those days than some folks believe. I believe he was assigning function to various aspects of creation (that he previously formed) to serve as a temple, a dwelling place, a resting place. I think that is what the Sabbath was all about. In that culture, a temple was the place where the gods rested.

This might shed some light on Jesus' statement from the cross. "It is finished." What was finished? The work God had given him to do - the work of new creation. It is worth noting that Jesus rested in the tomb on the Sabbath and that he had referred to his body as the temple. By virtue of our union we have become that temple - the dwelling place of God - a place of rest.

[Russell Roberts]

Ok Pastor Gary, suppose God did create everything fully formed with the appearance of age. I talked about that in another thread. Let's assume that you are right that radiometric dating is useless for discovering the age of the earth because God made it to appear old.

At a minimum that should dispel the conspiracy theory that presumes that scientists, in their attempts to discover the age of the earth, are simply trying to disprove the existence of God. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Either they have integrity and are giving an honest opinion about how old the earth is, or they have conspired to disprove that God made it.

In other words, if God DID make the earth with the appearance of age, how could anyone in their right mind blame the scientists for their conclusions? They are either trying to give an honest opinion of the age of the earth, or they have all conspired to disprove God's existence? Which one do you think is more likely?

For the sake of advancing this discussion, please give me your opinion.

A) Did God make the earth with the appearance of age, in which case the scientists have simply given an honest opinion?

OR

B) Have geologists, anthropologists, doctors, sociologists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, physicists, nuclear scientists, geneticists, etc. all conspired to disprove the existence of God?

[Pastor Gary]

For the sake of advancing this discussion, please give me your opinion.

A) Did God make the earth with the appearance of age, in which case the scientists have simply given an honest opinion?

OR

B) Have geologists, astronomers, biologists, physicists, nuclear scientists, etc. conspired to disprove the existence of God?

I have no idea. Since none of us were there to observe when and how things came into being we have to rely upon either the Biblical or scientific explanations, or some combination of them.

I tend to believe (A), but it's not a hill I'd be willing to die on. I have never, frankly, heard anyone propose any kind of scientific conspiracy theory. That's a new one to me.

[Russell Roberts]

Ok Pastor Gary,

I'm not looking for a hill for you to die on. I'm just trying to think this through. Just in case you are curious, there are a ton of conspiracy theories out there among those who interpret Genesis 1 as an account of material origins. Here's one I almost came across at random in a recent google search for academic disciplines that embrace evolution.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/ ... tists.html

The presumption behind of lot of these arguments is that there has been a vast conspiracy among scientists to disprove God. But let's presume that you believe that God created the earth with the appearance of age and that scientists are NOT involved in a massive conspiracy. That is that they believe the earth is very old and that, based on your contention that God made the earth looking old, they have drawn what they believe to be a logical conclusion about the age of the earth.

That leaves a conflict between your interpretation of Genesis 1 and the conclusion of most scientists out there including the most prominent CHRISTIAN scientists who have lived over the last fifty years who not only believe in an old earth but believe that God used an evolutionary process to create mankind. Would you agree with that statement?

[one love]

Hey guys I have not been able to read every comment yet but this is what i was honestly asking russell. I knew Rambo had a lot of insight on this subject as well.


I will say that scientist believe in darwins theory with no real proof.i have read books on darwins theory (it has been years) and they have changed it a few times every time it is disproved... Anyway i will try to read all this today and post back later.

[Russell Roberts]

onelove,

Scientists are open to changing their interpretation of scientific theories as new information becomes available. Ironically, many Christians are unwilling to do the same when it comes to their own interpretation of scripture. In other words, scientists are open to learning.