Old Earth vs Young Earth

[distantshores]

Since you mentioned the idea of the 'God is lying' theory, I did find articles about some scientists and apologists who believe that idea, but it's usually not discussed at length, and from what I've seen, there aren't really any more good reasons for it than there are against it. It's probably one of those ideas that some people consider convincing and other people either find unconvincing or don't really care about it. I can sort of understand how some people find it convincing, but I still think that (apart from other concerns, such as whether one really does believe that the evidence supports an old earth) it's too extensible, that it could be used against just about any believe which is at least slightly ambiguous or uncertain -- God must be deceptive or unclear regarding this or that.

Anyway, I'll be on the lookout for it in any books that I read, and if you do find one that covers it extensively, please do tell me the title and author.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I posted a link:

Here's JUST ONE that I was reading.

A day or two later, you responded and said:

Your link is to a very short blog post by someone who discusses supernovas, and spends maybe a paragraph explaining that young earth creationists might believe in a deceptive God, or that God would need to be lying for their theory to be true.

I just went back to that link. I was going to try to find out what I had done wrong. I figured maybe the link always took you to the most recent blog of the author, so that to get the one I was trying to point to, I would have to go into archives or something. Well, the link I provided was perfect.

It does not discuss supernovas. There was more than "a paragraph" discussing the matter at hand -- the entire post (I counted seventeen paragraphs, not including two extensive quotes from other sources, which were well-documented) was about creationism vs. theistic science.

So I have to ask: Did you decide not to follow the link at all, and just BS your way? Or did you follow the link, brush through it, not really reading it, and then come back to this thread and make up something? Or did you follow the link, read it, think, "Uh-oh, this is exactly what she is talking about, and it sounds really well put-together, scientific and thoughtful. This totally supports her theory," so you had to intentionally lie to support your own ego?

Honestly, I don't know which of the above it is, but none of them speaks particularly well for you.

Yesterday, I thought I would continue to try to educate you. I said maybe it was the Spirit moving within me, asking me to reach out and help one of God's children see that He uses all sorts of ways to communicate with his children, and that one does not have to set oneself against science in order to stand with God.

This realization has disheartened me. Although I knew there was some level of dishonesty on your side from the beginning (as you still haven't admitted even that your were mistaken in what you have accused me of saying, the one "out" you have to avoid bearing false witness against me), I didn't realize the lengths to which The Dark One would go to keep you in his clutches.

I will have to pray on this. I'm not sure I want to be involved any more.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God, Cliff Books 1999
Dr. Miller is a biology professor at Brown University and also an Orthodox Christian

I also invite you to listen to this fascinating radio article published by NPR about a year ago. The head scientist of this particular project is an extremely conservative Christian. I happen to know that, because he is also my uncle, and even though he and I disagree on almost any political issue, I love him dearly. He is a biblical literalist, and even he rejects YEC, because he has been studying biology, and he has seen first-hand this beautiful planet that God has created. He knows that God doesn't lie.

I will find more if anyone is interested.

 

[distantshores]

'Well, the link I provided was perfect.'

When I clicked the link, it went to an article about supernovas. When I clicked the link this time, it went somewhere different.

'So I have to ask...'

It's not worth arguing about, especially with all your presumptuous posturing. Seriously, do all those thoughts really go through your mind on the spur of the moment, or do you go out of your way to think badly of people?

'I didn't realize the lengths to which The Dark One would go to keep you in his clutches.'

Hey, don't bring Voldemort into this. I clicked your link, and the article it went to isn't the one it's going to now. I think you're really being a bit too strange about this now, what with all the talk about the dark one's clutches over what is probably a webserver glitch.

 

[Nautilus]

a day to us is a thousand years to God, is a common argument and why not, it certainly seems like that could be the case. Or God created the Earth in six days. I wasn't around I cannot say exactly what the answer is outside of the fact that I do know that God was responsible for our creation regardless of the timeframe, and I personally believe the fact that He created us out of love is far more important than any debate on the timing of it.

 

[Moe]

Ultimately, there are generally three options when it appears that God and science contradict. Firstly, God is false. Secondly, the science has been misinterpreted. Thirdly, God's Word has been misinterpreted. Often, it is the last problem that causes the most harm when believers stubbornly stick to old interpretations without examining new and more reasonable explanations.

I am a old believer, 70 years of age, and I stick to the only explanation there is and that is God's word. A Christian MUST believe the the Bible and God's word without a doubt what so ever, there are no gray area's when it comes to God's word. It is either 100% or it is zero. Unfortunately, a true believer can not pick and choose what he or she will believe concerning God's Holy Word. Cheers

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Seriously, do all those thoughts really go through your mind on the spur of the moment, or do you go out of your way to think badly of people?

Oh, I don't go out of my way at all. In fact, I try to think the best of people, but when all attempts have failed, I'm left with little choice.

I've met enough trolls to spot one when I see one.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I am a old believer, 70 years of age, and I stick to the only explanation there is and that is God's word. A Christian MUST believe the the Bible and God's word without a doubt what so ever, there are no gray area's when it comes to God's word. It is either 100% or it is zero. Unfortunately, a true believer can not pick and choose what he or she will believe concerning God's Holy Word. Cheers

With all due respect, I think you completely missed BFA's point.

The third option is not rejecting God's Word. It is accepting God's Word, but understanding it in a different way than others might understand it.

Let me give you an example -- just a parable, if you will. You may be familiar with the various theories about "The Last Days." You will hear some talk about "pre-tribulation" and some say "post-tribulation," and all sorts of theories in-between. Theologians will point to Scripture and argue, based on the Bible, what they believe. It is not that some of them are rejecting Scripture and some of them are accepting it. They all accept Scripture is the Word of God; they just understand it differently.

Now, I do not want to get into a debate about which end-of-the-world theory is (theories are) correct. There are plenty of other threads for that. My purpose was to point out that two people can read the same Bible, accept it as 100% The Word Of God, and come out with different interpretations or understandings.

If you say, "Well, I disagree with your interpretation," that's fine. We agree to disagree. But it's really frustrating for me and a lot of other Christians when you and Christians who believe as you do pretend like you have a monopoly on God. Your interpretation is NOT the only one. There are MILLIONS of devout, Christ-loving Christians who have read the Bible their whole lives, who love the Lord, who pray daily, and just see it differently.

Is it too much to ask that you folks have a little Christ-like humility for once, and admit that you are NOT God?

 

[twosparrows]

www.reasons.org Hugh Ross Fazale Rana Dave Rogstad Kenneth Sampels (sp) They are old earth literalist. That which appears contradictory to us, may not be so with God. His ways higher than ours. I understand what Diva is talking about. How one interprets the word is between that one and God. I am an old earth creationist. I am also a literalist. I know the interpretation that led to this conclusion, thogh others may not. God did it!!!!We ALL drew THAT conclusion didn't we? So that's all that matters. Everything else is to bring Him glory. God bless.

 

[twosparrows]

I mean that if you insist on a literal reading of Genesis, then you worship a god who lies in his creation.

Your choices are as follows:

1) The world was created in six 24-hour days, and then tricked-out to make it appear that it was older, making said creator a sneak and a trickster.
OR
2) The world was created exactly as it appears to have been created, and God wrote Genesis as a beautiful parable describing the events poetically, not intending them to be taken literally.

If you would rather worship a trickster god (and yes, "Satan" would be one possible name for such a deity, if it exists), then I will support your right to do so. I believe in freedom of religion, and that means even if someone is worshiping what I perceive to be a false god, they have the right to do that.

Just know that a god who would fake things, make it look like the world is older than it really is, lie about its age .... such a god is not the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Jesus told us about a God of Truth and Love. Jesus spoke in parables, so there is no reason not to think God would not also, from time to time, speak in parables. That is, if you believe that Jesus is God.

But then, you've already admitted that your god is not the same as Jesus, so who knows.

To this end I think the "days" Moses was seeing on the mount were long time periods in a vision. I also agree that God would not have the earth tell us that it's an age that it isn't He is not the author of confussion, and where is the scripture that says "speak to the earth and it shall tell thee"? The bible supports that a day for God isn't the same as for us. Also "For the invisable things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse" also please note in Gen where it talks of the 6 day there is an evening and a morning. A begining and end. Then God rested on the Seventh day. Only look there is no "and the evening and morning were the seventh day" Only that God rested. God bless

 

[resurrection33]

First of all, I wanna point out that this is not a matter of salvation. I dont see any harm in believing in an old earth or a young earth. So lets be friendly in the discussion. This is something I haven't made up my mind about. All I am sure of is that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. Was the beginning six thousand years ago? Six million years ago? Six billion years ago?

What do you think?

I agree this is not a matter of salvation. It is an interesting topic to debate, though. It occurs to me that time is nothing with the Lord.

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

 

[distantshores]

You know a troll when you see one? Throughout this thread:

1. You've accused people who disagree with you (such as myself) of being deluded by or in league with Satan.

2. You've accused people in this thread of intentionally breaking the ten commandments when it does not pertain to the discussion.

3. You've stated at least one thing in this thread that was obviously untrue, though you should easily know better.

You've done other things like belittling people by claiming to 'educate' them, claiming that people have impure motives, etc., but this is enough to point out for now who is closer to being a troll.

By the way, I ordered the book that you mentioned.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

You've accused people who disagree with you (such as myself) of being deluded by or in league with Satan.

Although you did not mention me by name, I am fairly certain you are speaking to me. In this, you are correct. I have done this, and it is wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize, and ask for your forgiveness, and the forgiveness of others on this board, and most importantly, forgiveness from God. I have lost my temper, and that is no excuse for such extreme taunts. Please forgive me.

By the way, I ordered the book that you mentioned.

Awesome! Let me know when you have read it, we can discuss it.

 

[distantshores]

The problem with both old-earth and young-earth theories is that no one that we know of was present during the time of creation to know exactly what happened. Due to time and space being relative and the possibitilies of gravitational time dilation and the expanding universe, time could have passed more quickly in some places than in others. There are too many variables and unknowns to state definitely how old the earth is. Some people say that the scientific evidence is on the side of an old earth, but frankly, I have never seen any of this evidence or dating equipment with my own eyes. If I chose to believe it, it would be because of faith in the scientists who claim it to be true and trust in their authority. The same goes for the scientists who claim that the earth is young.

I have no definite reason to believe that the universe is old, nor do I have any definitive reason to believe that God is deceptive if the earth is young. If God placed light between us and distant galaxies, I would not consider it deceptive; rather, I would consider that God was telling us that other galaxies existed. We have never traversed the space between us and the distant galaxies to know what lies between us and them, and we have never traversed the time between us and their moment of creation. God could have created the entire universe in its present state instantaneously, or he could have taken any number of intermediate steps. Present science can only guess using very limited methods, and when it comes down to it, the age of the earth doesn't matter. Age is just a number, and furthermore, time is relative, so some parts of the universe could be older or younger than others. The days of creation could be billions of years long, but evolution could still be untrue and Adam and Eve could still be literally true.

I didn't mean to spend so much time in this thread because to me, whether the universe is 6,000, 100,000, 50,000,000, or 14,000,000,000 years old is not incredibly important. If I had not offered to read a book about a particular topic in response to someone else, I would probably not even be checking it. I don't enjoy being accused of being deluded by Satan or lying intentionally, nor do I enjoy arguments about who committed such-and-such a sin in an Internet forum, when it can easily go both ways. If I don't reply any more, it's not because I have nothing good to say, but rather it's because I'm tired of the bickering that I've seen and unfortunately participated in so far.

 

[nathan3]

Genesis 1: 1 says it was made in the beginning. It dose not tell you, when the "beginning was ". That is the only time your given. After that you have to use common sense. Science has show this earth is millions and billions of years in age. very old. God's word is complete. All we have to do is not give up when looking for answers . Because they are there in His word in the world He created.

 

[carolineh]

here is a fantastic site full of videoclips that will help grow you in your understanding of the young earth vs old earth debate FreeHovind -

 

[carolineh]

please click on the link FreeHovind -

 

[LT]

If we can see the stars, and they are billions of light years away: either there were billions of years before we could see them, or God created the history of the star when he created it.
Like when God created Adam, He created him as a man, not a fetus: God created him with history already place in him.

If God had the goal of making the world, and making it inhabitable by man in 6 days, then He could have done it, and He did do it. And He would have done it with rocks that were cool, not lava, and trees that were grown.

I'm sure someone has explained how the pressure of a global flood explains everything else. I will give a run-down of Catastrophism if no one else has.
It actually involves less of a narrative than the evolutionary theory.

 

[CoooCaw]

First of all, I wanna point out that this is not a matter of salvation. I dont see any harm in believing in an old earth or a young earth. So lets be friendly in the discussion. This is something I haven't made up my mind about. All I am sure of is that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. Was the beginning six thousand years ago? Six million years ago? Six billion years ago?

What do you think?

well it is important

you either believe the Bible or you do not

if you do not believe the Bible then you cannot even be sure you are saved

 

[overcomer2]

I suppose it is possible, but we have to also ask ourselves what is most probable? Hypothetically, if it were true, why would God do such a thing if he knew it would deceive many in future years? It doesn't make sense from my perspective.

[h=3]2 Thessalonians 2:11-12[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

[SUP]11 [/SUP]And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: [SUP]12 [/SUP]that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.



God is sending the delusion and the people will believe it even though it is a lie. They would not believe the truth. He is going to damn them. I believe this has to do with the bogus rapture teaching.