Age of the Oyth

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Larry_Stotle

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2014
504
8
18
#1
Rise of Young Earth Creationism

Although many Christians were concerned about the implications they found in Darwin’s theory of evolution, by the end of the nineteenth century very few Christian authors argued for a young earth. Enthusiasm for this was largely confined to the Seventh-day Adventists, who followed the writings of their founding prophet, Ellen G. White. She claimed to have seen the creation of the earth in a vision from God. In another vision, God revealed to her that Noah’s flood produced the fossil record.12 Early Adventists thus explained the geological data found in the early nineteenth century with their interpretation of the flood story of Genesis 6-8.

Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Christians wrote a large collection of papers titled The Fundamentals. They clarified the beliefs of conservative Christians intent on preserving the faith from the threats of their time. Interestingly, The Fundamentals put no emphasis on Noah’s flood as an explanation of geological data and the contributors accepted an old earth. Even William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist who crusaded against the teaching of evolution in public schools, accepted an old earth.

Nevertheless, the modern Creationist campaign gained traction as an anti-evolution movement in the decades that followed. The 100th anniversary of Darwin’s publication in 1959 brought with it a cry from academics to make the public more aware of Darwin’s theory. Around the same time, the federal government funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), which produced a series of textbooks that taught evolution without reservation. Many conservative Christians at the time saw this as an attempt to “ram evolution down the throats of children.”

As if in response to this outcry, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris updated Adventist flood geology in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Whitcomb and Morris gave an explanation for how Noah’s flood could account for the geological evidence for an older earth. Soon after, small groups of conservative Christian scientists began to form in support of this research. They came to be known as Young Earth Creationists and referred to their flood geology as scientific creationism. The movement continued to grow, and by the 1970s the term “Creationism” increasingly came to mean only the narrow belief that God created in 6 days and the earth is young, not the larger, foundational belief that God is the Maker of heaven and earth, regardless of the time scale involved.

Conclusion

Going back to the original publication of Origin of Species in 1859, we have seen that the original Christian reception of Darwin’s theory was not universally hostile, and that Asa Gray even found it scientifically insightful. With his faith firmly grounded in the creeds of the early church, Gray conducted brilliant scientific research and maintained an unwavering commitment to Christ.

It was actually not until the second half of the 20th century that Young Earth Creationism became a mainstream view within the evangelical community. Knowing this, many Christians today have decided to stop perpetuating a “war” with science.

Prominent scholars like Asa Gray and BB Warfield demonstrate that it is indeed possible to maintain a high view of scripture and accept scientific evidence of evolution.

Soyce and full discussion:

How have Christians responded to Darwin’s “Origin of Species”? | BioLogos
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
44
0
#2
Meh, Darwin was a good science fiction writer about as much as Ellen White wrote good religio-fiction.

Both got some good points, but totally missed the the overall picture. Granted we can forgive them since they didn't have access to the tremendous amount of information and evidence we have today that does indeed point strongly to the fact that the Bible is spot on.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
28,622
2,532
113
#3
Very revealing; For one who doesn't take God's Word that literal will bend and yield to the currents of time.
Let's at least not pretend that evolution is science.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
44
0
#4
Very revealing; For one who doesn't take God's Word that literal will bend and yield to the currents of time.
Let's at least not pretend that evolution is science.
Well part of evolution theory is indeed scientific. Such as "natural selection" meaning all ready existing creations can inherit specific traits due to population isolation or mixture. Where Darwin went wrong is he thought all life descends from now disproven one single celled organism and branched out which is understandable because in his time they did not have much understanding on Eugenics and Breeding which clearly shows the Biblically based notion of separate Kinds created with common ancestor Kinds which thus proves all life was created by the Creator is indeed spot on.
 

Larry_Stotle

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2014
504
8
18
#5
Actually the thread name is Age of the Oyth - not about evolution, although evolution was brought up in the article quoted.

So yer Cnote went
...:p

The only thing sharp about you is yer mouth...
 

Larry_Stotle

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2014
504
8
18
#6
Radiometric Dating​

A Christian Perspective


Dr. Roger C. Wiens



Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

First edition 1994; revised version 2002.



Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them.

It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers.

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.


This is well worth the read.

Soyce and full text at:


Radiometric Dating









 

Larry_Stotle

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2014
504
8
18
#8
Oyth = earth, Staten Island accent I think, or could be Bronx.
 

Tintin

Senior Member
Jan 3, 2013
20,301
296
0
37
#9
We should welcome the compromising positions of theistic evolutionists, why exactly? We shouldn't celebrate when the Church decides to side with the world, we should be disturbed and mourn such a tragedy. I think we can see the repercussions of the belief in theistic evolution in the Church today. At the very least, those that believe in theistic evolution seem to have a low opinion of the authority of the Bible and have to create many non-biblical theories, based on eisegesis (instead of practicing exegesis) and therefore they don't seem to be all that confident about anything, except 'science' (eg. evolution).
 
Last edited:

pastac

Senior Member
Mar 27, 2014
1,322
10
0
#10
I find none of this useful to me at any level
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
28,622
2,532
113
#11
Actually the thread name is Age of the Oyth - not about evolution, although evolution was brought up in the article quoted.

So yer Cnote went
...:p

The only thing sharp about you is yer mouth...
Well ya, you're a little bit S-tayle yourself. :cool:
 

Larry_Stotle

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2014
504
8
18
#12
We should welcome the compromising positions of theistic evolutionists, why exactly? We shouldn't celebrate when the Church decides to side with the world, we should be disturbed and mourn such a tragedy. I think we can see the repercussions of the belief in theistic evolution in the Church today. At the very least, those that believe in theistic evolution seem to have a low opinion of the authority of the Bible and aren't consistent in their beliefs and therefore they don't seem to be all that confident about anything, except 'science' (eg. evolution).
You're entitled to your opinion Tintin - however, I would disagree with your statements totally - "At the very least, those that believe in theistic evolution seem to have a low opinion of the authority of the Bible and aren't consistent in their beliefs and therefore they don't seem to be all that confident about anything, except 'science"

But of course with a woody literal understanding you demonstrate I ain't surprised one bit.

I see you are a C.S. Lewis fan, well maybe you need classify him along with that "statement" of yours because he had no qualms with evolution (even though this thread is about the age of the earth) and believed Genesis was a myth and I think he believed Jonah was a myth as well - good myths, but myths.

I don't know of any Christian people that accept the finding of science in regards to the age of the earth relegating it to myth, they may not take it a literal as you young oythers.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
28,622
2,532
113
#15
And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

That wasn't hard, now was it?
 

Larry_Stotle

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2014
504
8
18
#17
And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

That wasn't hard, now was it?
For a woody literalist no..but yom can mean more that just a day. And I'll be going into that later.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
28,622
2,532
113
#18
For a woody literalist no..but yom can mean more that just a day. And I'll be going into that later.
Sure yom can (yum=yum) but evening and morning = 1day!

(re: 'woody literalist' ,I like your little adjectives which I suppose belittles the other side; next you'll be crying 'fundie! , really immature)
 
Last edited:

Tintin

Senior Member
Jan 3, 2013
20,301
296
0
37
#19
Larry, I don't know why I need to believe everything someone else believes to think what they say/write has value. C.S. Lewis was human, as was Martin Luther. Both are great men of God but they're also fallen and created beings, not God.

As for 'woody literalism'? Whatever, dude. I'd much prefer that than compromising by raising Science above Scripture.
 
May 14, 2014
611
4
0
#20
When Darwin wrote, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", did his throry of evolution cause scientists to believe the earth must be older than what the Bible says? What did Darwin mean by "favored races"?