How Old Is The Earth?

[Historicist]

The problem is he has it in his head that dinosaurs are millions of years old, so how can dinosaurs have been part of the 6 day creation only 6000 years ago? The evidence he sees is millions of years old evidence. So I want scientific evidence that its 6000 years old. Do we creationists have this kind of evidence?

The problem is, you would have us believe that 90 foot dinosaurs were contemporary with people in the Bible narrative. Even more ridiculous is the idea that the thousands of animals in the fossil record were also on Noah's ark. And then you say, after the water you say, was over six miles deep, it all evaporated you say---in just a few weeks! It was then, you say that these 90 foot dinosaurs and thousands of other animals walked off the ark and repopulated the entire universe. And this you say was a mere 5000 years ago.

On top of this you would have us believe that all races of people somehow "evolved" from Noah's three sons. And this, you say, happened in just a few generations. Do you really think that people as diverse as African Pygmies "evolved" out of Ham, and in just a few generations? Do you really think that the Bible requires us to believe this dogmatic nonsense? It does not, and please stop promoting what is, obviously, a discredit to the authenticity of scripture.

 

[Historicist]

The standard of measurement is the same - "the evening and the morning."

How could there have been three cycles of day (light) and night (darkness) before the sun, moon and stars are mentioned on day four?

 

[Historicist]

You must have really flunked physics. The most basic principle of water behavior is that water seeks its own level. What this means is that no matter what the geographical typology, no flood can possibly cover the highest peaks of that region and remain so for 150 days unless it is a global phenomena.

What you refer to as "the peaks of that region" would have been hills (Strong's #2022, har). To insist that har includes 30,000 foot mountains, and on other continents, is ridiculous. The Bible is not telling us that Noah's flood was a deluge that covered the entire planet higher than the highest mountains.

 

[Historicist]

The idea of a universe a mere 6000 years old, and that of a flood that covered the highest mountains on the entire planet is the Achilles heel of the creation movement. It's the best friend of atheistic/anti-Christian university professors and others, out to disprove the Bible. Millions of young people, told, and believing that scripture teaches this, are rejecting the Bible entirely.

For a proper understanding of the creation, and the flood story, I highly recommend Biblical Antiquities: Book I by archaeologist and Bible scholar E. Raymond Capt. In it is explained, the ancient cuneiform method of writing, the key to understanding the creation and food story. It's available from Amazon and other Internet sources.

 

[jamie26301]

For a proper understanding of the creation, and the flood story, I highly recommend Biblical Antiquities: Book I by archaeologist and Bible scholar E. Raymond Capt. In it is explained, the ancient cuneiform method of writing, the key to understanding the creation and food story. It's available from Amazon and other Internet sources.

Oh goody, another scholarly book to add to my collection of wicked, heretical writings!

Thanks!

 

[oldhermit]

What you refer to as "the peaks of that region" would have been hills (Strong's #2022, har). To insist that har includes 30,000 foot mountains, and on other continents, is ridiculous. The Bible is not telling us that Noah's flood was a deluge that covered the entire planet higher than the highest mountains.

As a matter of fact, that is precisely what it says. You just do not like what it says so you try to find some way to discredit the text.

 

[Elizabeth619]

The idea of a universe a mere 6000 years old, and that of a flood that covered the highest mountains on the entire planet is the Achilles heel of the creation movement. It's the best friend of atheistic/anti-Christian university professors and others, out to disprove the Bible. Millions of young people, told, and believing that scripture teaches this, are rejecting the Bible entirely.

For a proper understanding of the creation, and the flood story, I highly recommend Biblical Antiquities: Book I by archaeologist and Bible scholar E. Raymond Capt. In it is explained, the ancient cuneiform method of writing, the key to understanding the creation and food story. It's available from Amazon and other Internet sources.

For a proper understanding of the flood story id prefer to read the bible. I'm pretty sure the writings and opinions of an archeologist isn't my way to salvation.

 

[jamie26301]

For a proper understanding of the flood story id prefer to read the bible. I'm pretty sure the writings and opinions of an archeologist isn't my way to salvation.

And understanding the Flood story as Moses saw it is? Sister, there is a distinction between salvation issues, and side issues that Christians can disagree on and still go to heaven. The Flood is one of those side issues that Christians get way too worked up over. They discredit their witness when they show that they would rather argue with an unbeliever about the Flood than to tell them about Christ. My opinion.

 

[oldhermit]

How could there have been three cycles of day (light) and night (darkness) before the sun, moon and stars are mentioned on day four?

You are operating form a false premise. You are under the impression that things in the natural world are confined to natural processes. You are assuming that evening and morning are determined solely upon earth's relationship to the sun. This is a false premise. What scripture shows us repeatedly is that God is the causative agent of all things and that he alone is determinate. The phenomenon of evening and morning are NOT determined by earth's relationship to the sun but by the determinacy of God. He has already set this in motion in verses 3 and 4. Light is created that has no relation to celestial bodies. There is not sun yet, light exists, thus the existence of light is not dependent upon the existence of stars. This light is then separated from the darkness. Now I want you to think about the implications of this one statement. What this tells us is that light and darkness do not naturally separate. It required divine intervention to separation light from darkness. How this light is separated seems to be represented in the fact that there is now a morning and an evening in relationship to the earth. This also suggests that the rotation of the earth has now been set in motion with darkness on one hemisphere and light on the other. It is the rotation of the earth that provides the evening and the morning effect which would tell that the laws of physics have now been put in place by the Creator.

 

[oldhermit]

The problem is, you would have us believe that 90 foot dinosaurs were contemporary with people in the Bible narrative. Even more ridiculous is the idea that the thousands of animals in the fossil record were also on Noah's ark. And then you say, after the water you say, was over six miles deep, it all evaporated you say---in just a few weeks! It was then, you say that these 90 foot dinosaurs and thousands of other animals walked off the ark and repopulated the entire universe. And this you say was a mere 5000 years ago.

On top of this you would have us believe that all races of people somehow "evolved" from Noah's three sons. And this, you say, happened in just a few generations. Do you really think that people as diverse as African Pygmies "evolved" out of Ham, and in just a few generations? Do you really think that the Bible requires us to believe this dogmatic nonsense? It does not, and please stop promoting what is, obviously, a discredit to the authenticity of scripture.

WOW! What a quantum leap of illogic. First of all, the water did not just simply all evaporate. Much of the water was drained into the underground aquifers and the ocean basins are now much deeper than they were prior to the flood. Secondly, this took took place over a period of months perhaps years. We are only told that the water had sufficiently rescinded sufficiently for those within the ark to stand upon dry ground. Thirdly, there is no suggestion that such creatures as the massive dinosaurs were take aboard the ark. These creatures could have easily been taken aboard while they were young and relatively small.

If we begin with the existence of only one family that produces four offspring and these four offspring in turn have families of their own, and that each set of parents lives to see all their grandchildren, the population at the end of 5 generations would be 96, after 10 generations, 3,070; after 15 generations, 98,300; after 20 generations, 3,150,000; and after 30 generations, 3,220,000,000. In one more generation (31) the total would increase to 6.5 billion. All of this from only one family over the space of 31 generations. From the time of Noah to the time of Christ there were 66 generations. You do the math.

 

[oldhermit]

What you refer to as "the peaks of that region" would have been hills (Strong's #2022, har). To insist that har includes 30,000 foot mountains, and on other continents, is ridiculous. The Bible is not telling us that Noah's flood was a deluge that covered the entire planet higher than the highest mountains.

This theory still does not answer the problem of physics.

 

[Bowman]

[/SIZE][/FONT]Come on Bowman. You know it doesn't say "from morning TO evening." Yes that would represent a 12 your period. It says "the morning AND the evening," each represented by a 12 hour period completing a 24 hour day.

The Hebrew declares 'evening' first and then 'morning'.

The significance of evening being mentioned first is that it represents closure to the first time period.

Morning represents the beginning of a new time period.

 

[oldhermit]

The Hebrew declares 'evening' first and then 'morning'.

The significance of evening being mentioned first is that it represents closure to the first time period.

Morning represents the beginning of a new time period.

It does not matter in what order they are represented. It is still a 24 hour period.

 

[Bowman]

Well alot of fluff here yet again.

He finished out the day, thus he did not have to use the full 24 hour period.

God said, For in the seventh day I rested, Thus shall you rest also. And he called this day a 24 day, since he told us to rest.

Where are the words '24 hr' in the Hebrew?

 

[Bowman]

It does not matter in what order they are represented. It is still a 24 hour period.

Every word in the Holy Bible has a specific order, brother.

You can't change the order just to fit with your worldview...

 

[oldhermit]

Every word in the Holy Bible has a specific order, brother.

You can't change the order just to fit with your worldview...

Granted, still, the combination of the evening and the morning represent the completion of one day, a 24 your day.

 

[Bowman]

old earth ( a non literal translation of scripture) is more harmfull.

OEC is taking the Bible literally.

The YEC interpretation will go the way of the 'flat-earth' society.

Extinction...

 

[Bowman]

Granted, still, the combination of the evening and the morning represent the completion of one day, a 24 your day.

It represents the completion, and initiation, of an epoch of time, as demarked in the sequence counting up to seven.

This is completely consistent with a literal reading of the text and with the record of nature.

The two cannot be in conflict with each other.

 

[oldhermit]

It represents the completion, and initiation, of an epoch of time, as demarked in the sequence counting up to seven.

This is completely consistent with a literal reading of the text and with the record of nature.

The two cannot be in conflict with each other.

Give it up Bowman. You and I have been down this road before. There is no way you can prostitute the language of this text to make it say what you want it to say.

 

[Bowman]

What are ya trying to say?

It looks mire like the picture painted By God in Genesis, rather than the picture painted by scientists trying to disprove genesis and a creator?

I would hope so

Science has already proved the Biblical creation accounts to be true.