Young Earth v. Old Earth

[jcrichton]

I just don’t see why it matters.

God made it all - I don’t really care how long He took to do it.

Hi, GemmaRose!

…some hope to catch the Church in an error… they hope they can find some text where the Church claims that the Earth is only a few thousand years old–then they can throw in “carbon-dating says different!” or something else to that effect; the end game being: God does not exist!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

iii) Argument from Genesis

Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The argument that because it specifies morning and evening, that it must have meant a solar day that creation week followed.

Hi, D M!

…you may want to consider that at that moment the Sun and Moon had not been created and the fact that a solar day consists of the Earth’s movement around the Sun while rotating on its axis.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[thistle]

The best scriptural arguments I’ve heard for a young earth are as follows:

i) Argument from Sinai
Exodus 20:8-11 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your catlte, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

From these verses we see that the seventh day of the week is blessed because that was the day the Lord took rest. The argument then follows that even if the word ‘day’ in the bible can be interpreted as meaning a period which is not a literal day, the fact that the seventh day is hallowed because it was the day God rested, would appear to suggest a literal interpretation of Genesis.

ii) Argument of Original Sin

Romans 5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-

It is argued that since death is a result of sin, that the evoluionary claim that there were in fact millions of generations of deaths before the fall could not work according to our understanding or original sin. It would suggest that death existed before there was sin. That is to say, the creation was corrupted before a sin had been committed.

iii) Argument from Genesis

Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The argument that because it specifies morning and evening, that it must have meant a solar day that creation week followed.

Objection to Arguments I and III:

As Pope Paul VI said, we are greatly separated from the past, and what could seem to be a literal passage may in fact have not been meant as such by the authors who employed styles of writing, different literary devices and ways of communicating written ideas that are no longer used today.

For example compare Shakespeare’s english with modern english; the way of expressing ideas is somewhat different even though it is the same langauage. It is likewise true that modern hebrew is several thousand years separated from the style used by the author of Genesis, who may have meant something different than what seems to be inferred

Objection to Argument II: It is not really an evil thing for animals to experience pain or die and as such it is not a necessary conclusion that the existence of biological evolutionary death indicates creation had been corrupted.

It is also true that the word ‘death’ in the biblical sense often means something other than what is biological, and the death that entered the world through Adam, in which we are all conceived into, is not the same as biological death, but rather refers to our spirits being ‘dead’.

I haven’t found myself necessarily convinced of either young or old earth.

Maybe we should ask someone who knows…

(you may repeat this yourself if you would like to help)

Lord, if it be pleasing to your will, help us better understand your words so that we may know if they are literal or metaphorical, and open our eyes to the truth in this mystery. We ask this through Jesus Christ Your Son. Amen.

You really think we should take it litterally that God rested? Do you think God got tired? Of course not. We are not obliged to take Genesis litterally.

 

[buffalo]

You really think we should take it litterally that God rested? Do you think God got tired? Of course not. We are not obliged to take Genesis litterally.

On the seventh day God covenanted (rested) with His creation.

 

[juliamajor]

On the sacredness of the Sabbath and the sanctification of it and why it’s important read"The Sabbath" by Abraham Heschel. It’s a wonderful moving book of the importance of a Day of Rest. It’s very short and a thoroughly pleasant read.

 

[D_M]

Hi, D M!

…you may want to consider that at that moment the Sun and Moon had not been created and the fact that a solar day consists of the Earth’s movement around the Sun while rotating on its axis.

Maran atha!

Angel

Good evening jchrichton,

Yes, I recognized that… and technically the earth needs to actually turn in order for there to be morning and evening, and it needs to actually exist in the first place for that to be true… I should have stated that in the objections…

Although we are still left with trying to consider why the text would state ‘morning and evening’ in description of the day…admittedly it could have meant a length of time without the actual sunrise and sunset that would have required the existence of a planet…although a subtle interlocuter would then correctly argue that we are in fact imposing a non-literal interpretation on the Genesis creation narrative.

sometimes I think it may be saying that time was created after light,

just as Einstein said, that time is relative to the speed of light, and that the speed of the light is the constant upon which the rest of the universe is relative (hence it being the first thing that was created maybe).

 

[D_M]

You really think we should take it litterally that God rested? Do you think God got tired? Of course not. We are not obliged to take Genesis litterally.

Well, no, not the entirety of Genesis to be certain, but I think the real question was whether or not to take Exodus literally?

For it references the exact same passage in Genesis that we are trying to work out a non-literal interpretation.

When Moses said that you shall rest on the seventh day, do we take this as a metaphor, implying that ‘the seventh day’ upon which the holy tradition teaches that we must rest, may be interpreted as something different than its literal meaning?

Can I rest on a different day? Can I rest on more than one day? Can I rest for a different amount of time, than literally indeed, ‘the seventh day’ upon which He rested?

 

[Orogeny]

Just a couple of comments on this thread.

1. The question about the age of the earth is not synonymous to evolution. Transitional fossils, common descent, etc… have no bearing on how the age of the earth is estimated.
2. Carbon dating is also irrelevant to questions about the age of the earth. The only way it may be relevant to this discussion is that it shows things much older (at least relatively) than is claimed by young earth believers. Other than that, it has a threshold of about 50,000 years. The earth is ~4.6 billion years old.
3. A friend of mine likes to question things like the stability of physical constants when making his argument that age determinations made by scientists may be incorrect. I say that it is up to him to show scientific evidence that that is possible much less likely before I consider that argument.

There are many other threads that are discussing evolution on this forum. Let’s see if we can keep the discussion on this tread to the age of the earth.

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks for sharing your ideas. You seem very passionate about this topic, as you go from post to post trying to correct the “errors” in others’ thinking.

I think you missed the point of my post, however. I am neither for “young” or “old” earth. (I’m a “save the earth” type actually.) Like you, I am an intelligent, questioning, seeking human being. Until I do my own research, I don’t really care what anyone posts here or anywhere else on these forums. I have the ability to read up on the science at a university library and make my own decisions, thank you very much.

And when I get a break from writing my prospectus, getting through this statistics class, and get started on my dissertation, I’ll get to that scientific research on evolution, carbon dating, etc. In other words, sometime around January of 2010, I’ll get to it. Really, why would I care except for curiosity?

In the meanwhile, I will continue to value my questions about the science of evolution. But thanks for trying to “set me straight.”

I am not particularly passionate about this subject. It is a dead issue and has been here for a long time. It’s rather tedious actually to have it brought up again.

You sound insulted. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of a forum. It is of course a place to state your opinions, whether they are based on nothing or on a great deal of research. People generally expect their remarks to be commented upon, in fact it is somewhat rude to ignore posters as if they had nothing of value to say. Most also in their comments correct mis-statements of facts as they have come to learn them. They often cite to various other sites wherein additional information can be found.

I am somewhat confused as to why you post here at all if you are “uninterested in what anyone else has to say.” That is strange indeed.

I in no way meant to insult you, criticize you or anything else. Certainly the tenor of my post was only informational in content. I shall refrain from saying another word to you since it appears to have upset you. You have a marvelous day and good luck on your graduate work. I know from experience just how time consuming that can be.

 

[ROBIN97]

To make it short and sweet. Your right. They’re wrong. Just my opinion.
Hope this helps.
Robin of the Wichita Hood

 

[Gertabelle]

I am not particularly passionate about this subject. It is a dead issue and has been here for a long time. It’s rather tedious actually to have it brought up again.

You sound insulted. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of a forum. It is of course a place to state your opinions, whether they are based on nothing or on a great deal of research. People generally expect their remarks to be commented upon, in fact it is somewhat rude to ignore posters as if they had nothing of value to say. Most also in their comments correct mis-statements of facts as they have come to learn them. They often cite to various other sites wherein additional information can be found.

I am somewhat confused as to why you post here at all if you are “uninterested in what anyone else has to say.” That is strange indeed.

I in no way meant to insult you, criticize you or anything else. Certainly the tenor of my post was only informational in content. I shall refrain from saying another word to you since it appears to have upset you. You have a marvelous day and good luck on your graduate work. I know from experience just how time consuming that can be.

SpiritMeadow, I found your post to me, as well as those to others here, to be rather condescending. I will take responsibility for how I “heard” your tone. I encourage you to be responsible for the possible tone you create in your messages.

Perhaps your tedium with the topic led you to be less than cautious in your word choice? Perhaps, if you find the topic to be tedious, you should leave it to those of us who have not yet participated in a conversation on this topic? Just a couple of thoughts.

Although it may take me years of therapy to get over the comments of a total stranger , please feel free to respond to me as often or infrequently as you like. It does me no harm. And I’ll feel free to respond back as I wish. That’s how these forums work after all.

Gertie

 

[jcrichton]

Although we are still left with trying to consider why the text would state ‘morning and evening’ in description of the day…admittedly it could have meant a length of time without the actual sunrise and sunset that would have required the existence of a planet…although a subtle interlocuter would then correctly argue that we are in fact imposing a non-literal interpretation on the Genesis creation narrative.

Hi, D M!

There are indeed certain passages in the Holy Scriptures which are non-literal… in the narrative of Genesis’ Creation we find several examples… one in particular is the description of the cycles of Creation–since the Sun and the Moon were not created till the 4th day, I believe that the Holy Spirit Inspired the writer to explain Creation in a manner that would be most intelligible to Israel of then.

The mind is a wonderful thing… it can automatically conduct simultaneous functions, some requiring advanced science, without a hitch while, simultaneously, reason (the conscious ability to understand) may elude it. Normally, a child lacks the cognitive abilities that the adults in his/her environment have accumulated… hence, a child reasons from a rudimentary perspective; given too much technical information the mind of the child may simply freeze.

Just a few hundreds of years ago the most enlightened medical minds thought that blood-letting was the sure cure for almost all illments; just recently, the Aids epidemic and the mad-cow decease threatened the whole planet… our lack of awareness continues to present us with problems understanding the makings of things in our environment… the narrative of Creation offers us a simple and comprehensive chronicle of Yahweh God’s Creation: the universe was created, the earth existed without form or substance (at this time there were no cycles mentioned); light was made into being (which I suspect includes the spiritual beings known to us as angels); the mass of water that existed was separated into two elementals; land was made to surface and life was created on it; then the sun and the moon were incorporated into Creation; aquatic and avian life were formed; finally, man was Created.

Since Yahweh God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, could He have caused everything to come into being during a single moment instead of several cycles? Could be. Would a narrative of Creation that would make such a statement be more comprehensible to us? Maybe and maybe not. Would a detailed blow by blow account be more dramatic? Yeah! But if Faith is Hoping on that which we do not yet have, would knowing every single detail hinder or help our relationship with God? …Adam and Eve came, prematurely, into a flood of knowledge… did it help or hinder their relationship with God?

sometimes I think it may be saying that time was created after light,

just as Einstein said, that time is relative to the speed of light, and that the speed of the light is the constant upon which the rest of the universe is relative (hence it being the first thing that was created maybe).

…though sound is generated when a tree falls in the forest even in the absence of human beings, I do not think that it is the same with time; I believe that there has to be intellect to perceive it’s existence: without the human element time is irrelevant (we know from Scriptures that to God time is without relevance); note the reason of the Creation of the sun and moon (beyond separating the night from the day and their respective influence on the planet)… it is for our observation that they were Created. Only once things were put in motion did time become relevant, as our mind (intellect) would be able to have a reference point as we chronicle the events in our environment.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[QuietTimes]

I was curious about this whole thing myself… so now that the thread got started I just kind of skimmed through what was said. My question is how old is humanity? Could it be possible that the earth is old but humans are younger? Is this maybe what they refer to? Please dont beat me with your forum rage it is just an honest question.

 

[jcrichton]

When Moses said that you shall rest on the seventh day, do we take this as a metaphor, implying that ‘the seventh day’ upon which the holy tradition teaches that we must rest, may be interpreted as something different than its literal meaning?

Can I rest on a different day? Can I rest on more than one day? Can I rest for a different amount of time, than literally indeed, ‘the seventh day’ upon which He rested?

Hi, D M!

…but Moses is working from a limited perspective… God did not need to stop because He became literaly tired from all the work He had done… God simply finished executing the machinations of Creation…

There’s a fabulous passage that speaks on this very thing: Creation:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. 17 And he is before all, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:15-17)

So God did not simply Create the universe and rested… but the essence of the universe remains in Him as He contains it in the form and purpose that He gave it.

Another passage that you should consider is Jesus’ declaration that He works (on the Sabbath) because His Father also works:

16 Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. 18 Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.(St. John 5:16-18)

So while God literaly rested from Creation, the components of Creation are in an on-going cycle which God continues to renew/maintain. (This is how I can reconcile the Rest and still Working passages.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I was curious about this whole thing myself… so now that the thread got started I just kind of skimmed through what was said. My question is how old is humanity? Could it be possible that the earth is old but humans are younger? Is this maybe what they refer to? Please dont beat me with your forum rage it is just an honest question.

Hi, QuietTimes!

The narrative of Creation in Genesis demonstrates that indeed humanity is the younger: the universe (heavens) and the earth were created; the earth was without form (life/conditions necessary to maintain life); light (which could include the angels) and the various eco-systems were created; everything was seen by God to have been good (as He required it to be); finally, He created man.

Since we do not know the amount of time that elapsed from the very first moment of Creation to the creation of man, it is only logical to state that man in the younger part of Creation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mich2]

There have been many evangelicals lately who hold to the Young Earth theory, that the earth is 6,000 years old. They deduce this from scripture. I would like to know what some of you CF members think of this theory. It seems to me that science has provided considerable evidence that shows the contrary: that the earth is very old. About 4.5 billion years. Please render your comments on this subject. Thanks.

We could use the scriptures to identify a 4.5 billion years old earth…would it be a correct interpretation is another question.
In Genesis, there are two different definitions for a Day.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The first definition is the time when light hits upon a place on the earth (God called the light “day,” ). This is the time when God
is actively creating, so we’ll call it a Lord’s Day. However a Genesis Day is twice as long as it involves the night time as well (And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.)

Now,if we take the words of Peter: A Day for the Lord (Lord’s Day) is as a thousand years.

The Jews take this also litterally, and so, I “personally” accept it…

chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108400

“However, the Talmud states that there is a predestined time when Mashiach
will come. If we are meritorious he may come even before that predestined
time. This “end of time” remains a mystery, yet the Talmud states that it
will be before the Hebrew year 6000. (The Hebrew year at the date of this
publication is 5763.)”

And so 2 Peter 3:8-9 reads:

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like
a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow
in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness…”

He is speaking to the chrisitans who are impatiently waiting for the coming
of Christ,having been told that they were living in the last Days…Here,
Peter seems to be claiming, the last Days, as meaning the next couple of
thousands of years, being in accordance with the Jewish Talmud. Therefore,
if 1 Day litterally can be 1,000 years, then if we continue his statement
“and a thousand years are like a day”. Either he is speaking of
timelessness, which is possible, or, if he takes a Day to be 1,000 years in
the litteral sense, then, 1,000 years equalling a Day could also be meant to
be taken litterally. If so, he
must be speaking of 2 separate and disntinct type of Days. The first mention
of Day is symbolically equal to 1,000 years. Now, he maybe saying that 1,000
years “of such a Day” is equal to the 2nd definition of Day, and let “this”
be a "Lord’s Day.
So, 1,000 years of a Day equalling 1,000 years =
364,000,000 years; and this would be equal to a Lord’s Day; and 364 million
years x 7 = 2.5 billion years.Now, if the Genesis Day speaks of
a Lord’s Day plus “morning till evening”, then, the 2.5
billion is to be doubled into 5 billion years.Even closer would be the belief that we are still within the 7th Day, reducing 5 billion by 364 million years (from evening till morning),for Genesis does not mention the evening to morning period in the 7th Day, which is equal to 4.636 billion years.

Certainly, I am speculating; however, it
matches one interpretation of scriptures with scientific data…

Andre

 

[BRB]

The author of Epistle of Barnabas … perhaps Paul’s Barnabas ?? … believed in chiliasm [one day = 1000 yrs].

The belief that since days of Adam to judgement will also encompase 6 days [6000 yrs] … then will come the judgement on day # 7 followed by 1000 yr reign of Christ on earth].

If this be the case … Adam was around 4000 BC, and we be 2000 AD. Price of oil /food are going sky high … as foreseen in Revelations by John.

So … we have had our 6 days … the Judgement is near at hand.

 

[buffalo]

I was curious about this whole thing myself… so now that the thread got started I just kind of skimmed through what was said. My question is how old is humanity? Could it be possible that the earth is old but humans are younger? Is this maybe what they refer to? Please dont beat me with your forum rage it is just an honest question.

God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them into the timeline wherever He wished, regardless of what may or may not ahve been happenning in the universe at that time.

Usually these arguments are framed as an either or. Evolution could have been going on, but we are concerend with the creation of man.

 

[mich2]

The author of Epistle of Barnabas … perhaps Paul’s Barnabas ?? … believed in chiliasm [one day = 1000 yrs].

The belief that since days of Adam to judgement will also encompase 6 days [6000 yrs] … then will come the judgement on day # 7 followed by 1000 yr reign of Christ on earth].

If this be the case … Adam was around 4000 BC, and we be 2000 AD. Price of oil /food are going sky high … as foreseen in Revelations by John.

So … we have had our 6 days … the Judgement is near at hand.

I “personally” would identify the litteral 6000 years period starting at the Fall, or maybe even after the Flood. However, Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall could have potentially existed for billions of years relative to our time keeping.

Andre

 

[rossum]

What if the speed of light is slowing down?

The speed of light has been measured by astornomers to have been constant for the last 10 billion years, and probably constant for the last 12 billion years. See Fine Structure Constant. The maximum possible measured variation is very small, less than one in 10,000.

If you want to have a changing speed of light then you have to go back at least 10 billion years and you are only allowed a very small change.

Scientists do not like assuming things, so wherever possible they measure them - that includes checking that constants really are constant. The constancy of the speed of light has been checked by observation, and there is no posibility of a young earth there.

rossum