Quoted: Quoted: Please explain. He can't, he's just repeating the same old incorrect theories www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html 1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.) But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to "get" a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers "handwave away" mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:    "There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." ( Morris 1974, p. 151 ) But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:    "Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 ) Dalrymple's references:    * (12) Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74, pp. 6317-6332.    * (112) Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals" in Journal of Geophysical Research 77, pp. 6194-6201. This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:    Baker (1976, pp. 25-26)    Brown (1989, pp. 16 and 52)    Jansma (1985, p. 61)    Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 384-385)    Wysong (1976, pp. 161-163)

Thanx. I had always heard that there is no scientific eveidence to suggest 6000 years and lots to discredit it(grand canyon, continental drift, mountain creation and erosion). Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something.

Quoted: [....but let's say I started with a "clean knowledge slate" and reviewed the available evidence. Would you come up with anything close to 6000 years?

You mean how scientists reviewed the "available evidence" and came up with leeches as the medical solution to get that icky blood stuff out of a sufferring patient?

Or ....


...do you mean how scientists reviewed the "availabe evidence" and decided the Galapgos island finch beaks were proof of macro evolution?

Or....

...do you mean how scientists reviewed the "available information" and dogmatically made any of a thousand statements they have recently backed away from.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, you'll praise this as evidence of scientific learning...)

In EACH AND EVERY case they made these dogmatic statements, and in EACH AND EVERY CASE they were wrong.

You'll just have to excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about their dogmatic statements now based on "available evidence."

For the record, I shy away from ANY assertions as to the age of the earth.

Thank you for the link, Dino (sincerley).  I hadn't heard of the solar wind idea.  I'm still reading.

Quoted: Except that God pronounced the "Adamic" creation "Good", i.e. Lucifer's fall, Adam's sin, and death coming into God's perfect creation had to happen later.

This is the first time I have heard anyone claim that the heavenly rebellion happened after Adam's creation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Other than the Bible, it there any credible evidence to suggest that the earth is less than millions of years old? Why would you begin with the hypothesis that the earth is millions of years old? If you were unbiased, you would ask the question, "What evidence do we have regarding the age of the earth, and what age does that evidence suggest?" As others on this thread have pointed out, all we can do with modern science is make gueses as to the age of the earth. By the way, for all of you who have suggested an age of the earth of just a few billion years, I have to assume that you don't believe in evolution. read my second post I would begin with the hypothesis that the geological record should be able to establish some baseline number

I guess I didn't make my point clear enough. What I am saying is that beginning with a hypothesis is not good science. Instead, you should begin with an observation. I guess maybe you are doing that (an observation in the geological record). But even then, you should let the geological record speak for itself, rather than approach the data with a bias toward a specific conclusion (namely, that it can "establish some baseline number).

It should be simple:
1. observe the geological record
2. ask, "What can/does the data tell me about the issue in question" (the age of the earth)

To do it in this order . . .
1. assume an old earth
    (or  1. assume that the geological record can establish a baseline, your hypothesis)
2. go to the geological record for support of (1)
. . . is simply not good science.

Nothing wrong with my hypothesis. I've observed sedimentation layers. What's that all about? MAybe it can be used to count years like rings on a tree. Where did I say that it was my goal (in my hypothetical situation) to prove the earth is millions of years old?

Quoted: Nothing wrong with my hypothesis. I've observed sedimentation layers. What's that all about? MAybe it can be used to count years like rings on a tree. Where did I say that it was my goal (in my hypothetical situation) to prove the earth is millions of years old?

At this point I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

But still I think there is a very important point here. (important, but minor in the whole discussion)

I am not saying there is anything wrong with your hypothesis. How could there be? It is only a hypothesis!

What I am saying is that it is not science to begin with the hypothesis and then observe data. The data should lead you to a hypothesis and not the other way around. Perhaps you aren't doing anything wrong at all in your approach, and maybe it is only the way you presented it here. But if you are trying to win anyone over to your way of looking at things, I'm not sure your presentation was a good one.

In your first post on this thread, you said:

Other than the Bible, it there any credible evidence to suggest that the earth is less than millions of years old?

It seems to me that you would have made your point better (and perhaps avoided alienating those who believe the Bible to be true) to come out and say what you believe, which is (I think):
"The preponderance of observable data seems to indicate that the earth is indeed millions of years old."

Quoted: Around 6000 years.

OMG

Two things are absolute truths with regard to your question:

1.  God made the earth.

2.  The earth's age, when measured with the tools that God has given us, is about 4.5 billion years old.

Life on earth is also much older than a traditional Biblical timeline (when taken literally) when measured by carbon-14 dating.  This means that 2 different possibilities exist:

1.  God created the earth to appear to us to be as old as we think it is as measured via the scientific tools that He gave us.

2.  The timeline of the Bible is figurative, not literal.  The creation may have taken billions of years and Adam and Eve may have been relatively primitive people.  Perhaps once we had evolved enough (guided by God), he gave us a soul and made us sentient beings.

We'll know the answer sooner than we realize.

I think Gen 1:1 describes the creation of the earth and heavens from the VERY beginning. I believe there is a "gap" between vv 1 and 2 in which an inestimateable time exists.
In theology this is known as the "Gap Theory" and I, personally, believe it.

In vv2 the literal translation is: "The earth became waste and desolate ..." This is always a mark of judgement. I think Jeremiah 4:23 and Ezekiel 28 will bear this out that there existed prior to the "recreation" a previous world ruled by Lucifer. I believe the "recreation" begins in vv3 of Gen 1.

Obviously, evolutionists are wrong. But I think "creationists" are wrong also in their timing at least. For it is inconceivable to me, that our God would sit in eternity past in nothingness. So I believe that the time of the recreation and Adam can be traced back about 7,000 years.

I apologize if I have not explained myself and what I'm trying to pass on clearly.

(oh yeah and ETA: the earth is a little less than 5770 years old)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see this is going to get weird pretty quick.  Please give reasons for your beliefs if possible. carbon dating Carbon dating and the fossil record is what I base my theory on.  I don't see why this causes ripples in the church (Freewill Baptist by the way)

The OT has G-d stopping the sun and earth's rotation unmberous times, and it's been proven (at least by Jewish scholars) that the earth rotated regularly before the flood and was shifted off its axis afterwards, thereby defeating carbon dating.  I'm not sure how.  I'm not a scientist.

Also If you believe a diety created the world, then its entirely rational to believe that he could make it LOOK however old he wanted it to look.  We've had this discussion before and I recommend :

a) for the scientific aspect there's a book that is amazing and bases all it's proofs on Science, scientific method AND (not against, but WITH) the Talmud and OT (what we jews would call non-mystical sources, e.g. no kabalah hocus pocus). It is VERY intelligently written and I recommend it to all who need an answer when asked questions such as this thread's:

www.judaica-world.com/product.asp?dept=91&Product=BFELD1033 Mysteries of the Creation A Cosmology Derived From Tanach And Chazal As the blueprint of the universe, the Torah contains within it all the secrets of our world. Mysteries of the Creation presents a fascinating look into the depths of the complex world G-d created, as derived from traditional Torah sources. This is the posthumous work of Rabbi Dovid Brown, a noted Torah scholar of our generation. Rabbi Brown does not dismiss scientific method, he examines it with the perspective of one who knows that there exists a wisdom greater than that of scientists, accepting that which accords with Torah, rejecting that which contradicts its teachings. (ITALICS ADDED BY CHAPPERJOE) Beginning with the Beginning, the author gives a lucid and readable discussion of the world's creation, including the seven "restructurings" of the universe and the 974 generations that preceded our own. The Messinanic era, the location of Gan Eden and Gehinnom, plate tectonics, solar radiation, radio isotope dating and the theory of evolution are just some of the natural and metaphysical concepts discussed. Rabbi Brown finds references to today's most exciting discoveries and theories in the natural sciences within the words of the Torah, giving stunning evidence of the genius of our Sages. Mysteries of the Creation makes use of modern scientific discoveries to enrich our understanding of the Holy Scripture; at the same time, it turns to the Scripture to shed light upon today's most important scientific theories. It is a book for scientists, scholars, and layman, a book for anyone who has ever looked around in wonder at the grand, mysterious universe G-d has prepared for us.

Next is a cute book called  "If you were G-d" for all the logical and rational non-religious folk out there - entire text below (NOT MY F'ING WORK - if you have an argument or criticism, you can write a letter to teh author's tombstone!):

and b) "If You Were God" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan We often question God's ways. But given the chance, how would we do things differently? The Problem: You are given an island where several tribes live. By nature and culture, these tribes are exploitative and belligerent. This results in much suffering on the island, caused by war poverty and prejudice. They have been living this way for centuries without any sign of improvement. Your Assignment: To try to improve this society. To teach its members to live together in harmony and reduce suffering to a minimum or eliminate it entirely. To create a healthy society. Your Resources: You have all the resources that a highly advanced technology can offer. You have the entire island under surveillance and can see what is happening in any place at any time. You have such devices as cloud-seeding equipment and can plant underground explosives. Within reason, you can control weather, flooding, volcanoes and earthquakes, and produce any "natural" phenomenon on cue. You also have devices that can be used to implant ideas through subliminal suggestion. You can implant ideas to entire populations or to certain select leaders. However, you must take into account the sever limitations of subliminal suggestion. If you try to implant any ideas that go against the basic nature of the populace, they will be totally rejected and your efforts will be in vain. One alternative would be to implant ideas that somehow would make use of the acknowledged bad nature of these people. Your Restrictions: Under no circumstances are the natives of this island to be aware of your presence. This supersedes all other considerations. The cultural shock caused by your revealing yourself would disrupt the entire fabric of the island culture. It would cause much suffering and more than offset any good that you could possibly accomplish. The natives would be reduced to a state of almost vegetable-like dependence from which they would be unlikely to recover. If they did recover, they might rebel so violently as to eliminate any positive values they might have originally had. Therefore, the restrictions that you not reveal yourself must be followed without exception under any circumstances. But aside from this restriction, you have a free hand to proceed as humanely or as ruthlessly as you see fit. In short, you have the opportunity to play God. What would you do? THE QUESTIONS Many people say that these days it is very difficult to believe. We live in a generation that has seen the brutal murder of the 6 million. We have seen children burned to death in Vietnam, babies starved in Biafra, and a nation systematically decimated in Bangladesh. We see starvation, poverty and inequality wherever we look. Good people suffer and the dishonest seem to thrive. Many people ask what seems to be a legitimate question: Why does God allow these things? Why doesn't He do something about it? To some extent, the answer should be obvious. It is man, not God, who brings most evil to the world. God does not make wars -- men do. God did not kill the 6 million -- men did. God does not oppress the poor -- men do. God does not drop napalm -- men do. But people come back and argue that this does not really answer the question. The basic dilemma still remains: Why did God create the possibility of evil? Why does He allow it to exist at all? To even begin to understand this, we must delve into the very purpose of creation. This purpose requires a creature responsible for its own actions. This in turn requires that people have free will. If God would have wanted a race of puppets, then He would have created puppets. If He would have wanted robots, then He would have made robots. But this is not what God wanted. He wanted human beings, with free will, responsible for their actions. IMAGE OF GOD But as soon as you have free will, you have the possibility of evil. The deeper we probe, the clearer this becomes. To the best of our understanding, God created the universe as an act of love. It was an act of love so immense that the human mind cannot even begin to fathom it. God created the world basically as a vehicle upon which He could bestow His good. But God's love is so great that any good that He bestows must be in the greatest good possible. Anything less would simply not be enough. But what is the greatest good? What is the ultimate good that God can bestow on His creation? If you think for a moment the answer should be obvious. The ultimate good is God Himself. The greatest good that He can bestow is Himself. There is no greater good than achieving a degree of unity with the Creator Himself. It is for this reason that God gave man the ability to resemble Himself. God therefore gave man free will. Just as God acts as a free Being, so does man. Just as God operates without prior restraint, so does man. Just as God can do good as a matter of His own choice, so can man. According to many commentators, this is the meaning of man being created in the "image" of God. FREEDOM OF CHOICE But if God's purpose does not permit man to be a robot, neither does it permit him to be a prisoner. Just as man has free will, he must also have freedom of choice. A man locked up in prison may have the same free will as everybody else, but there is little that he can do with it. For man to resemble his Creator to the greatest possible extent, he must exist in an arena where he has a maximum freedom of choice. The more man resembles God in His omnipotence, the closer he can resemble Him in his free choice of the good. To make this freedom of choice real, God also had to create the possibility of evil. If nothing but good were possible, it would produce no benefit. To use the Talmudic metaphor, it would be like carrying a lamp in broad daylight. The Zohar thus states, "The advantage of wisdom comes from darkness. If there were no darkness, then light would not be discernible, and would produce no benefit...Thus it is written, "God has made one thing opposite the other" (Ecclesiastes 7:14). Just as God's purpose does not allow man to be a physical prisoner, neither does it permit him to exist in an intellectual prison. How would man behave if God were to constantly reveal Himself? Would he really be free? If man were constantly made aware that he was standing in the King's presence, could he go against His will? If God's existence were constantly apparent, this awareness would make man a prisoner. This is one reason why God created a world which follows natural laws, and in this way conceals Himself. Thus, our sages teach us, "The world follows its natural pattern, and the fools who do evil will eventually be judged." This is the concept of the Sabbath. After the initial act of creation, God withdrew, as it were, and allowed the world to operate according to laws of nature which He had created. The "clock" had been made and wound up, and now could run with a minimum of interference. When we observe the Sabbath, we similarly refrain from interfering or making any permanent changes in the order of nature. TREE OF KNOWLEDGE But the questioner can probe still deeper. He can ask: Why did God allow so much evil to exist in man's nature to begin with? Why does it seem so natural for man to oppress his neighbor and make him suffer? But here also, we must realize that man's arena of action is here in the physical world, and therefore he must be part of a universe where God's presence is eclipsed. The spiritual in man may soar in the highest transcendental realms, but man's body is essentially that of an animal. Our sages teach us that man partakes of the essence of both angel and beast. The Zohar goes a step further and tells us that in addition to the divine soul which separates man from lower forms of life, man also has an animal soul. When man first came into existence, there was a basic harmony existing between these two parts of his nature. His intellect and animal nature were able to exist together without any intrinsic conflict. He had the opportunity to live in harmony with nature, devoting all his energies to the spiritual. However, there was an element of temptation in this Garden of Eden. Man's destiny was to transcend his animal nature on a spiritual plane. But he also had the temptation to transcend it on a physical level, to partake of the Tree of Good and Evil. Man succumbed to this temptation. This knowledge then came between the two basic elements in man, the animal and the human. Man was no longer like the animal, bound to nature, in harmony with his basic nature. He still had all the desires, lusts and aggressive nature of the animal. But he also acquired the ability to use his intellect so that his animal nature would be directed against his fellow human beings. It is this conflict between his animal and human nature that thrusts man in the direction of evil. We are therefore taught that it is man's animal nature that is responsible for the Yetzer Hara, the evil in man. But here again, God cannot be blamed. The decision to partake of the Tree of Knowledge -- to transcend his animal nature on a worldly plane -- was a decision that man made as a matter of free choice. As soon as man partook of the Tree of Knowledge, he knew good and evil. Morality became a matter of knowledge and conscious choice, rather than part of man's basic nature. He would now have to wrestle with a new nature, where the animal and angel in him are in conflict. TECHNOLOGICAL STRIDES But we can probe still further. We can ask: Why could man not have been made better? Why did God not make him into something that was more angel and less animal? Here too, the fault was man's. Our sages teach us that the prohibition against tasting the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was only temporary. Man's spiritual nature was gradually developing in such a manner that he would have eventually been strong enough to master his animal instincts. When this time arrived, he could have partaken of the Tree of Knowledge without endangering his spiritual essence. Man was indeed destined to be more angel and less animal. However, this was now to be a gradual process. It was aborted by man's impatience, his partaking of "knowledge" before its time. It was this knowledge that brought him in conflict with his animal nature, and stunted his spiritual development, making the beast dominant. This thread runs through the entire history of mankind. Man's knowledge gave him a technology that could create instruments of destruction, but his moral strength was not great enough to avoid misusing them. This has reached its peak in our generation, where man has the power to destroy his entire planet, either with nuclear weapons, or by poisoning his environment. Man's knowledge gives him tremendous power, but he still has not learned how to use this power for the good. This is the reason why the Messianic Age must soon arrive. Only then will man learn how to use his knowledge for the good. Until then, man is faced with this great dilemma. He has the knowledge to create great societies, but they always get out of control and degenerate. He can make great technological strides, but he does not have the moral strength to use them for good. One of the saddest comments on the human predicament is the fact that many of our greatest technological advancements have been made to further the cause of warfare. REACTION TO MIRACLES Still, the basic question does not seem to go away. Admittedly, man has an evil nature and it is his own fault. But why doesn't God intervene? Why doesn't He open up the heavens and stop all this evil? Why didn't He send down a bolt of lightning and destroy the concentration camps? Why didn't He send down some kind of manna for the starving babies of Biafra and Bangladesh? Why didn't He stop the napalm bombs from burning innocent Vietnamese children? Why doesn't He pull off a miracle and make all the world's nuclear bombs disappear? After all, He is God. He certainly can do it. So why doesn't He? We are taught, however, that an overabundance of light does not rectify the vessels, but shatters them. What would happen to our society if miracles suddenly started taking place? How would we react to it? Could we go about our daily affairs as if nothing had happened? Could the vast, complex structures, upon which our civilization rests, continue to exist if this direct awareness of God were suddenly thrust upon us? Take a city like New York. It takes the efforts of tens of thousands to provide food and other necessities to such a huge city, and further thousands just to transport these needs. It takes another army to provide the city with water, electricity, heat, and the removal of waste. Could this structure survive the awareness of miracles? And if it did not, would not the suffering be all the greater? If God began a miraculous intervention, would He not have to do it all the way? Indeed, this might take place in the Messianic Age, but then, the time must be ripe. How would we react to miracles? Probably very much in the same way primitive societies react to the "miracles" of those that are more advanced. The first reaction is one of shock, or what sociologists call cultural shock. The natives first lose interest in everything and become completely dependent on the more advanced culture. They cease to have a mind of their own and develop a lethargy where life grows devoid of meaning. The degeneration of the proud self-sufficient savage into the shifty, no-account native is often as tragic as it is inevitable. If a society is not completely destroyed by the initial cultural shock, it undergoes a second stage, that of rebellion. The primitive culture rebels against both the invaders and their values. This is why so many missionaries ended up in the proverbial cooking pot. If man resembles an animal, then he resembles a wild animal rather than a domestic one. It is man's destiny to be free, not subject to other men. Thus, the inevitable result of the introduction of a higher culture is to overwhelm a more primitive one. When a higher culture is introduced, the initial reaction of the natives is to become domesticated, to become like cattle or sheep. If the domestication is complete, the humanity of the native is obliterated, at least, until he assimilates the dominant culture. Otherwise, the natives rebel and reassert their natural humanity. The same is essentially true of our relationship to God. As long as He is hidden, we can strive toward Him, and attain the Godly. But we do this as a matter of free choice and are not overwhelmed by it. But if God were to reveal Himself, then man would no longer be able to exist as a free entity. He would know that he was always under the scrutiny of his Master, and that would make him into something less than human. He would be come some kind of puppet or robot, with an essential ingredient of his humanness destroyed. The only alternative would be rebellion. But either alternative would cause more evil and suffering than would be alleviated by God's original intervention. There would be too much light, and the vessels would be shattered. NATIONAL REVELATION There was only one time when God literally revealed Himself and visibly stepped in and changed the course of history. This was at the Exodus from Egypt, where He performed miracles both in Egypt and by the Red Sea. This episode was climaxed by the Revelation at Sinai, where an entire nation literally heard the voice of God. What happened then? The first reaction at Sinai was one of shock. The people simply could not endure the majesty of God's word, and our sages teach us that their souls literally left them. Their reaction is expressed in the Biblical account of Sinai, where immediately afterward they told Moses (Exodus 20:16), "You speak to us and we will listen, but let not God speak with us any more, for we will die." When the people overcame their initial shock, they proceeded to the second stage, that of rebellion. This took place just 40 days after the Revelation at Sinai. They went against God and all His teachings, reverting to idolatry and worshipping a golden calf. They had heard the Ten Commandments from God Himself just 40 days earlier, and now they were violating every one of them. We learn a very important lesson from this. For God to reveal Himself to an unworthy vessel, it can do more harm than good. This is one important reason why God does not show His hand. Many people say that they would believe if only they could witness some sign or miracle. Sinai showed us that even this is not enough, if people do not want to believe. From all this we can begin to understand one of the most basic restrictions that God imposes upon Himself. He is a hidden God, and does not reveal Himself. This is required by man's psychology as well as God's very purpose in creation. God only reveals Himself to such people whose faith is so great that the revelation makes no difference in their belief. As Maimonides pointed out, the only major exception to this rule was the Exodus. THE SOLUTIONS Taking into account God's most basic self-restrictions, we can now make some attempt to place ourselves in God's place. Our most basic restriction is that we not reveal our hand. Taking this restriction into account, we can return to our opening problem, and imagine a microcosm where we are in a position to play God. This opening problem was discussed in a number of groups, and much of what follows is a result of their conclusions. However, before reading on, you might wish to re-read the problem, and attempt to draw your own conclusions. Much of the discussion revolved around solutions involving something like a huge chess game with the entire island as the board. There would be moves and countermoves, with a strategy to attempt to maneuver the natives into a desired position. Like a chess grandmaster, you would attempt to keep control of the game at all times. Your "win" would be to achieve the desired result. While you have enough resources to eventually win, certain problems immediately become apparent. Not the least is the fact that every move may take decades or even centuries. You might achieve results, but it is a very long, drawn-out process. You might have all the time in the world, but each year brings all the more suffering. There is an even more profound problem. Even more important than influencing events is our ultimate goal of improving the values of the natives. However, even though a lesson may be learned by one generation, it may be equally forgotten by a succeeding generation. To make positive values an integral part of the island's culture is a most formidable task. A constant thread of suggestion in these discussions involved infiltration. We could try to influence the island through infiltrators. As long as it was not obvious, it would be within the rules. Such infiltration could serve two purposes. First of all, we could use the infiltrators as an example. They could set up a model society, and if it endured long enough, it might interest people in attempting to emulate it or learn from it. The infiltrators could also be used to teach the natives directly. Gradually, parts of their culture could be introduced to the island, raising its moral level. This could rapidly accelerate the game's conclusion. These infiltrators would always be in a position of great peril. Operating on a different value system, they would always be considered outsiders. The more their message diverged from that of the majority, the more they would be resented. Scattered throughout the island to spread their message, they would very likely become a persecuted minority. By the rules of the game, there would be very little you could do to help them. At best, you would play your game in such a way as to protect them as much as possible. Because of the danger of revealing your hand, communication with your infiltrators would have to be kept to a minimum. They would have to live on this island for many generations, scattered among the natives, and you would have to set up many safeguards to prevent them from assimilating the corrupt values of the island. To some extent, their status as a persecuted minority may also help prevent such assimilation. But essentially, they would have to play their role in ignorance of your overall strategy. Gradually, the islanders would eventually become aware of your presence. Once the game was ended, you might even be able to reveal yourself. The infiltrators' role would also then be revealed. As part of your organization, they would become the natural leaders and teachers of the island. THE CONCLUSION As you might have already guessed, examining this microcosm gives us considerable insight into the way that God interacts with the world. He is working to bring the world to a state of perfection, which in our tradition is the Messianic promise. It is a slow process, whereby God constantly maneuvers the forces of history toward this end. This "game" is essentially all of human history. You might have also recognized the infiltrators. They are the Jewish people, who were given the basis of a perfect society in the teachings of the Torah. A society living according to these God-given principles can set itself up as an example of a healthy society, free of the social diseases of its surrounding culture. When God first gave the Torah, He told the Jewish people (Leviticus 20:26), "You shall be holy unto Me, for I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the peoples, that you should be Mine." It is Israel's mission to set such an example, as the Torah states (Deut. 4:6), "You must observe [these commandments] carefully and keep them, for they are your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the nations. When they hear of these statutes, they will say, 'Surely, this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'" It is our task to bear witness to God's plan for humanity, as we find, "You are My witnesses, says God, and My servant, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 43:10). Likewise, God told His prophet, "I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness...and have set you for a covenant of the people, for a light unto the nations" (Isaiah 42:6). We are thus taught that Israel is like the heart of humanity, constantly beating and infusing all mankind with faith in God and His teachings. It was in this spirit that Judaism gave birth to both Christianity and Islam. Although far from perfection, these religions are a step in the right direction away from paganism. The final step is yet to be made. More important, however, is the fact that the Jewish people, at least those who keep the Torah, continue to stand as an example of a perfect society designed by God. The Torah and its commandments indeed represent the highest wisdom in perfecting human society. The tzaddik is the closest that we can come to the perfect human being. Israel's unique position in accepting God's Torah will eventually result in the [dissolution] of all competing cultures. It would also temporarily result in Israel's earning the hatred of these cultures. Our sages teach us that just as an olive must be crushed before it brings forth its oil, so is Israel often persecuted before its light shines forth. Thus, God told His prophet, "A bruised reed, he shall not break; a dimly burning wick, he shall not be extinguished; he shall make justice shine forth in truth. He shall not fail nor be crushed, until he has right in the earth, and the islands shall await the teachings of his Torah" (Isaiah 42:3,4). QUESTIONS & ANSWERS We live in an age of many questions. The newspapers and television bring the horrors of the word onto our front doorstep and our living rooms. What was once hidden by the barrier of intercontinental distance is now before our very eyes. We see the suffering and killing and starvation, and ask how God can tolerate such evil. For the Jew, the question of the 6 million always looms in the foreground of any such discussion. But for one who understands the true depths of Judaism, there is no question. When you have probed into the very reason for existence and purpose of creation, not only do you find answers, but the questions themselves cease to exist. One of the great Jewish leaders of [recent memory was] the Klausenberger Rebbe. He lost his wife, children and family to the Nazis, and himself spent two years in the hell of Auschwitz. Yet, he emerged from all this to rally a generation of concentration camp refugees back to Judaism, found a community in Williamsburg, and eventually build a settlement in Israel. I often heard this great leader discuss the concentration camps and the 6 million. There are tears and sadness, but no questions. For here we have a tzaddik, whose great mind can see beyond the immediate. When one's gaze is on the Ultimate, there truly are no questions. The most important thing to remember is that God is the ultimate good, and therefore, even the worst evil will eventually revert to good. Man may do evil, but even this will be redeemed by God and ultimately be turned into good. The Talmud teaches us that in this world we must bless God for both good and evil, but the in Future World, we will realize that there is nothing but good.

First off, I’d like to apologize to everyone who I’ve replied to in this thread. 1) For being an ignorant prick (and probably coming off like one), and 2) For purporting ideas that are less than intellectually honest.

Dino posted a link to a scientific refutation of the idea of Helium concentration as evidence of a young earth.  I dutifully followed the link, with the idea that I could easily disprove any “evidence” of an old earth (which in my mind had to be linked to the mechanism of macroevolution).

I couldn’t.

For the first time in my life (at least on this subject), I decided to set aside my bias and look objectively at what I’ve been taught for the last 30 or so years by folks purporting to have the answers.  Last evening (and well into this morning) I tried to read further into the facts with an open mind and heart.  The “junk science” that many young-earth creationists hold forth as evidence I found disturbing, and in all likelihood, will force me to revise my personal position of a ~6000 year old planet .

I’ve been dogmatic in my statements, and, while not completely won over to a view I considered heresy 24 hours ago , am willing to admit that I have been wrong in repeating that dogma without considering the alternatives. I’d appreciate anyone willing to share links to non-secular (this is the religion forum) sites holding to the idea of an old-earth.

this must be a first

Quoted: this must be a first

And probably not the last . . .

I have known lots of people who have made transitions from believing young-earth to believing old-earth, and I have known lots of people who made transitions from believing old-earth to believing young-earth.

This just goes to show that (at best) the "evidence" doesn't lead to a firm conclusion one way or another.

Quoted: this must be a first

His arfkom-religion-forum-fu is weak.

Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first His arfkom-religion-forum science -fu is weak.

Fixed it.

Not a first for me, but not a regular occurance (humility isn't one of my strong points ).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first His arfkom-religion-forum science -fu is weak. Fixed it. Not a first for me, but not a regular occurance (humility isn't one of my strong points ).

Gen 1:2 leaves open the possibility of an old earth.

At one time the earth was without form, and void. Scripture says "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

It DOES NOT say how long a period that was. Could have been millions of years. Who knows? Scripture DOES NOT speak definitively on the subject. God being eternal its quite possible the earth existed in this form for some time.

That said, Scripture IS very clear the "creation" happenned in six 24- hour days.

The trick is to stand dogmatically on what Scriture DOES say, and NOT overr reach in our dogmatism.

Lastly, there is NO means to make ANY defintive statements as to the age of the earth. While "available evidence" might suggest an old earth, had I a nickel for every time scientists mis-interpreted the "availalbe evidence" I'd have more money that Donny Trump.

Quoted: I’d appreciate anyone willing to share links to non-secular (this is the religion forum) sites holding to the idea of an old-earth.

This page is one I have bookmarked, it has a ton of links to old earth creationist sites as well as theistic evolution sites.  It might take a while to work through em all, but you get the issue from all sides.

www.nwcreation.net/ageold.html

hope this helps


p.s. hightly recommend the link to the Affilliation of Christian Geologists, they address the old earth from the view of men of science who are also men of faith.

Quoted: By the way, for all of you who have suggested an age of the earth of just a few billion years, I have to assume that you don't believe in evolution.

Yes I believe in the THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION

I used my brain that God gave me to come to that conclusion AFTER I studied biology and geology.

What you EVER studied those two subjects?


Do you understand how genes/DNA wroks?

I am assuming you do not.


SGat1r5

Quoted: ...do you mean how scientists reviewed the "availabe evidence" and decided the Galapgos island finch beaks were proof of macro evolution?

Do you know what the word Theory means?


Do you understand that a theory is arrived at after multiple souces of info are obtained?


No offense Gman, but you don't understand how the science wqorld works.  Or if you do then you are purposefully giving out false info.


In the mean time you have only one source for your position.


Sgat1r5

Quoted: That said, Scripture IS very clear the "creation" happenned in six 24- hour days.

But I would say that it does NOT claim that these days were in chronological order,
one following the next in succession.The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church also reveals much here.
Check  CCC337 at the bottom of this.

Again, in case you didn't read it, Pius XII gives a fascinating possibility here:

Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account. That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36). The Topical Reading This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order. The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different aspects of the environment. On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form. But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day. Real History The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such. Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did. The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338). It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

Quoted: Do you know what the word Theory means?

Yes.

Do you understand that a theory is arrived at after multiple souces of info are obtained?

Yes.

Which actually damns those who used the Galapagos Island finch beaks as proof of macro evolution. Thanks for making my point.

No offense Gman, but you don't understand how the science wqorld works.  Or if you do then you are purposefully giving out false info.

Let's see.... so you say I'm either an idiot or a deceiver.

Yeah, no reason to be offended there.

In the mean time you have only one source for your position. Sgat1r5

And its the best source available.

Quoted:... Let's see.... so you say I'm either an idiot or a deceiver. Yeah, no reason to be offended there.

No, you're just ignorant.

Ignorant about the Military, US History, the basic concepts of the Earth and Life Sciences, etc.

That's not bad in and of itself, but 4 + years of reading your posts has taught me that you are happy to be ignorant.

That's your choice, but please don't be surprsied when people tire of trying to communicate with someone once they realize it is a one-sided conversation.

Quoted: No, you're just ignorant. Ignorant about the Military, US History, the basic concepts of the Earth and Life Sciences, etc. That's not bad in and of itself, but 4 + years of reading your posts has taught me that you are happy to be ignorant. That's your choice, but please don't be surprsied when people tire of trying to communicate with someone once they realize it is a one-sided conversation.

Thanx for tuning in.

Quoted: But I would say that it does NOT claim that these days were in chronological order, one following the next in succession.The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church also reveals much here.

And you would be wrong to say that.

Genesis 1: 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Well, you get the idea.

What I find intriguing is why people make statements about what the Bible says, NEVER actually quoting Scripture.

Not conincidentally, they usually get it wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first And probably not the last . . . I have known lots of people who have made transitions from believing young-earth to believing old-earth, and I have known lots of people who made transitions from believing old-earth to believing young-earth. This just goes to show that (at best) the "evidence" doesn't lead to a firm conclusion one way or another.

I'm just the opposite. I used to believe in an old earth / evolution... but not anymore.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first And probably not the last . . . I have known lots of people who have made transitions from believing young-earth to believing old-earth, and I have known lots of people who made transitions from believing old-earth to believing young-earth. This just goes to show that (at best) the "evidence" doesn't lead to a firm conclusion one way or another. I'm just the opposite. I used to believe in an old earth / evolution... but not anymore.

Why?

The geological record and fossil record makes me believe the ‘Old Earth’ theories are closer to being correct.   I can not see the point (I understand God does not need for me to see a the point for His actions) of placing all the sedimentation layers, fossils and long term erosion patterns (i.e. Grand Canyon) instead of just allowing them to happen naturally.  The Mississippi River changed it’s course after and earth quake in recent times why is it so hard to believe that this type of thing has not been happening for eons?   What would the purpose be in those actions and what glory would it bring God, other than our amazement but that amazement would be the same whether he spoke it into existence or just let it happen.  I have no doubt whatsoever the God has the power to speak everything into existence.

What would glory would God gain from us digging through a bunch of dirt & rocks to find some bones that have turned to stone?

I believe that the Bible is the divine word of God but I believe that there are some things that are not to be taken literally but to be believed none the less and I think the creation story is one of them.  The people that told these stories had no concept of the Earth nor did those translating it many times over so things have no doubt lost in translation or embellished with no ill intent. Some things just don’t pass on orally or translate well over time and across dead languages.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first And probably not the last . . . I have known lots of people who have made transitions from believing young-earth to believing old-earth, and I have known lots of people who made transitions from believing old-earth to believing young-earth. This just goes to show that (at best) the "evidence" doesn't lead to a firm conclusion one way or another. I'm just the opposite. I used to believe in an old earth / evolution... but not anymore. Why?

I was taught evolution in public schools, but I found out from personal research that there is a lot of evidence for a young earth.  The more I research the scientific validity of the bible, the more I believe in the scriptures.

Quoted: Quoted: But I would say that it does NOT claim that these days were in chronological order, one following the next in succession.The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church also reveals much here. And you would be wrong to say that. Genesis 1: 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day. Well, you get the idea. What I find intriguing is why people make statements about what the Bible says, NEVER actually quoting Scripture. Not conincidentally, they usually get it wrong.

And again, it does not say the second day followed the first immediately.  You infer that
but it does not say that.  


So your Theological education and authority are to be believed over at least 3 Popes
and the thoughtful theology of the Catechisms of the Roman Catholic, and other churches.

OK.  Where do you keep the Kool-Aid?

Quoted: And again, it does not say the second day followed the first immediately.  You infer that but it does not say that.

The use of "first....second...third" in connection with the same evening and morning we now experience is PRETTY  SOUND evidence of sequential  24 hour days of creation.

Inference would be your position.

So your Theological education and authority are to be believed over at least 3 Popes and the thoughtful theology of the Catechisms of the Roman Catholic, and other churches. OK.  Where do you keep the Kool-Aid?

Popes take a dump the same way I do. They don't have any special access to God.

Quoted: Yes I believe in the THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION  Yes the strong do survive, but there is no evidence that we came from monkeys I used my brain that God gave me to come to that conclusion AFTER I studied biology and geology. You need to study the fossil record What you EVER studied those two subjects?  What does this sentence mean ? Do you understand how genes/DNA wroks? You understand how genes and DNA works,  Wow i thought that mystery was still being unraveled. I am assuming you do not. You dont either SGat1r5

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first And probably not the last . . . I have known lots of people who have made transitions from believing young-earth to believing old-earth, and I have known lots of people who made transitions from believing old-earth to believing young-earth. This just goes to show that (at best) the "evidence" doesn't lead to a firm conclusion one way or another. I'm just the opposite. I used to believe in an old earth / evolution... but not anymore. Why? I was taught evolution in public schools, but I found out from personal research that there is a lot of evidence for a young earth.  The more I research the scientific validity of the bible, the more I believe in the scriptures.

such as?

Quoted: The use of "first....second...third" in connection with the same evening and morning we now experience is PRETTY SOUND evidence of sequential 24 hour days of creation. Inference would be your position.

You do know that the Bible was not written in English right?  
Then maybe you'd want to read some of the documentation provided.

I know you're just absolutely convinced, but I don't know that you have
put any real thought behind why. "cause the Bible says so", in all honesty,
doesn't do it justice.  You are not reading the Bible, you are reading
the third and perhaps fourth level of translation away from the original.

And finally, you are telling every Roman Catholic on the planet, and most Protestants
who agree on everything but a couple of items, that they are wrong.

I quote, again, from the Roman Church's Catechism.

Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337) "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338)

The Catechism is considered by Romish folks to be infallible, and by Protestants like me to be
VERY well reasoned and of sound theological basis in nearly all cases, this being one.

I understand you have your mind made up, I post these things mainly for other readers so that
they might see the reasoning that goes into the other point of view.

I don't see any reasoning in yours at all.

Popes do take a dump the same as you and I, but in most cases they went
to seminary and spent years studying these things, which you and I did not.

I'm not going to try and convince anybody, and I'm not going to argue with anybody.  I'm going to just say what I believe, and why, and give an anecdote about another who believes the same, and why.

First, I believe the earth to be no more than 6800 calendar years old, and more likely closer to 6400.  This is based on the following:  I became a Christian, and from my personal experience what is said about God's character in the Bible is true.  Also, the historical events which can be verified provides enough evidence to convince me that those which cannot or have not been verified are also true.  Since then, I have personally gone through and counted how much time elapsed between the first day of the creation account and the fall of Judah in 587 BC.  I was not terribly precise in figuring months and partial years, only taking the data at face value.  My actual computed date is 6179 years, to which I applied a rough 10% to account for errors.
For reasons posted above, and others, I took the six days of creation to be solar days equal to today's solar day.  If anything, those days would be shorter because empirical evidence implies the earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning in the past they were faster, and therefore days were shorter.
I do not believe that the creation account refers to creation with unknown amounts of time between events, which is what I assume is what TexasSIG is trying to say.  It doesn't jive that if God works on Day 1, then waits 10,000 years, where nothing else is created, then does Day 2, takes a break, etc, that Day 7, some unknown many days after Day 6, would be a day of Rest any different than any of the other days where God does nothing creative.

That's my story.


Now here's my friend's:
He's got a PhD in Genetics (from UC Santa Barbara, I think), and currently works for the federal government doing genome research in hops plants.  I asked him his opinion, and he said he doesn't believein modern evolutionary theory (read: macroevolution) because it confliced with what he saw in the lab with bacterial cultures and the research he'd done with hops.
I don't know all the detailed reasons, because I don't have the educational background to better understand it.  I did, however, ask him if that belief is a problem at work, and he said he doesn't bring it up at work for two reasons.  One, the less important reason, is that it doesn't help maintain a civil work environment.  The other is that it's a minor issue when speaking with those who do not know God, and that ultimately, attempting to convince an agnostic or athiest in a young earth is not productive in helping them to know God, but civil work relationships are.

Quoted: Popes do take a dump the same as you and I, but in most cases they went to seminary and spent years studying these things, which you and I did not.

Interesting.

Have a nice day.

Well said, voilsb.

Well said.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first And probably not the last . . . I have known lots of people who have made transitions from believing young-earth to believing old-earth, and I have known lots of people who made transitions from believing old-earth to believing young-earth. This just goes to show that (at best) the "evidence" doesn't lead to a firm conclusion one way or another. I'm just the opposite. I used to believe in an old earth / evolution... but not anymore. Why? I was taught evolution in public schools, but I found out from personal research that there is a lot of evidence for a young earth.  The more I research the scientific validity of the bible, the more I believe in the scriptures. such as?

Why do you ask? Are you looking to change your mind, or just argue?  I would suggest that any person that cares about these things check them out for themselves. Most people on this forum only wish to argue endlessly with no thought of ever being wrong themselves, or having an open mind. If you didn't know there was scientific evidence for a young earth, it only shows you never cared enough to find out.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first And probably not the last . . . I have known lots of people who have made transitions from believing young-earth to believing old-earth, and I have known lots of people who made transitions from believing old-earth to believing young-earth. This just goes to show that (at best) the "evidence" doesn't lead to a firm conclusion one way or another. I'm just the opposite. I used to believe in an old earth / evolution... but not anymore. Why? I was taught evolution in public schools, but I found out from personal research that there is a lot of evidence for a young earth.  The more I research the scientific validity of the bible, the more I believe in the scriptures. such as? Why do you ask? Are you looking to change your mind, or just argue?  I would suggest that any person that cares about these things check them out for themselves. Most people on this forum only wish to argue endlessly with no thought of ever being wrong themselves, or having an open mind. If you didn't know there was scientific evidence for a young earth, it only shows you never cared enough to find out.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. You've been duped.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this must be a first And probably not the last . . . I have known lots of people who have made transitions from believing young-earth to believing old-earth, and I have known lots of people who made transitions from believing old-earth to believing young-earth. This just goes to show that (at best) the "evidence" doesn't lead to a firm conclusion one way or another. I'm just the opposite. I used to believe in an old earth / evolution... but not anymore. Why? I was taught evolution in public schools, but I found out from personal research that there is a lot of evidence for a young earth.  The more I research the scientific validity of the bible, the more I believe in the scriptures. such as? Why do you ask? Are you looking to change your mind, or just argue?  I would suggest that any person that cares about these things check them out for themselves. Most people on this forum only wish to argue endlessly with no thought of ever being wrong themselves, or having an open mind. If you didn't know there was scientific evidence for a young earth, it only shows you never cared enough to find out.

I don't know why he asked but I was curious where you found information other than the Bible for basing your belief on.  

As to the endless argument, there are some who feel that they are correct and everyone else is wrong and there are no other possibilities.  I think a healthy civil discussion is thought provoking and beneficial.

I have no idea one way or the other and it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of salvation but I like to see how other Christians feel and think about these subjects.

the Institute for Creation Research is a good place to start if you want scientific arguments for the validity of the bible. Books by Morris, Gish and other scientists are available from their online site or mail order.

Quoted: Why do you ask? Are you looking to change your mind, or just argue?

I'm always looking to change my mind, I love  learning knew things.   Thats not to  say I'll accept slipshod science or religion in science's clothing, but if there is credible evidence of a young earth, I would like to see it.

the Institute for Creation Research is a good place to start if you want scientific arguments for the validity of the bible. Books by Morris, Gish and other scientists are available from their online site or mail order.

I'm very familiar with ICR and its methods.   It reinterprets scientific findings to fit within Biblical parameters.   That is not science, its religion masquerading as science.  The fact that anyone with some cash can get a masters in Astrophysics from them is slightly scary.  Its a diploma mill to reward specious scientific credentials to people who couldn't earn them the right way.

Using the Bible for science is as foolish as using a biology textbook for moral guidance.  

Quoted: Using the Bible for science is as foolish as using a biology textbook for moral guidance.

Sadly I must say that the smartest comment in this whole thread comes from an athiest

Very weel said Dino.

The Bible is for spiritual guidance.  God gave us the sciences to use to help understand the world.  IMHO by rejecting the finding of science you are often rejecting the glory of God.

SGat1r5

Quoted: Quoted: Why do you ask? Are you looking to change your mind, or just argue? I'm always looking to change my mind, I love  learning knew things.   Thats not to  say I'll accept slipshod science or religion in science's clothing, but if there is credible evidence of a young earth, I would like to see it. the Institute for Creation Research is a good place to start if you want scientific arguments for the validity of the bible. Books by Morris, Gish and other scientists are available from their online site or mail order. I'm very familiar with ICR and its methods.   It reinterprets scientific findings to fit within Biblical parameters.   That is not science, its religion masquerading as science.  The fact that anyone with some cash can get a masters in Astrophysics from them is slightly scary.  Its a diploma mill to reward specious scientific credentials to people who couldn't earn them the right way. Using the Bible for science is as foolish as using a biology textbook for moral guidance.

I'm sure that anything that is in opposition to your opinion, would be considered by you to be "slipshod" science. And I must admit that I think the theory of evolution to be complete bullshit, with no real science to back it up. So maybe we'll just stick to our own opinions....

Quoted: Quoted: Using the Bible for science is as foolish as using a biology textbook for moral guidance.   Sadly I must say that the smartest comment in this whole thread comes from an athiest Very weel said Dino. The Bible is for spiritual guidance.  God gave us the sciences to use to help understand the world.  IMHO by rejecting the finding of science you are often rejecting the glory of God. SGat1r5

Your bible-fu is weak. You think the bible gave the ages of people like Adam, and Seth and the names of their children, all as an "allegory"?  Most of the bible is historical in nature. The bible is not a science textbook, but where it mentions anything related to science it is accurate.

Quoted: Your bible-fu is weak. You think the bible gave the ages of people like Adam, and Seth and the names of their children, all as an "allegory"?  Most of the bible is historical in nature. The bible is not a science textbook, but where it mentions anything related to science it is accurate.

Most, but not all.  And for creationalist it is the only source of info they use, which is their major failing.

If Moses was going to explain the way the world really was created then you would need a truck to carry around your Bible.

Instead he explained it in a way that people could understand.

The very fact that Moses says God created light and dark on the first day should be a clue that it is not 100% accurate.  Since you need darkness and light to have the start of a new day.


Sgat1r5

Quoted: Quoted: Your bible-fu is weak. You think the bible gave the ages of people like Adam, and Seth and the names of their children, all as an "allegory"?  Most of the bible is historical in nature. The bible is not a science textbook, but where it mentions anything related to science it is accurate. Most, but not all.  And for creationalist it is the only source of info they use, which is their major failing. If Moses was going to explain the way the world really was created then you would need a truck to carry around your Bible. Instead he explained it in a way that people could understand. The very fact that Moses says God created light and dark on the first day should be a clue that it is not 100% accurate.  Since you need darkness and light to have the start of a new day. Sgat1r5

I think Moses actually compiled already existing written records (these are the generations of...) to write the book of Genesis, while being guided by the Holy Spirit. Jesus thought the scriptures to be "unbreakable" and based an argument against the pharasees on a single verse "I AM". Jesus quoted from Genesis and always as if He believed it to be factual;  "in the beginning God created them male and female" (when discussing divorce).

The biblical writer of the first chapters of Genesis took GREAT pains in his wording of the creation week, so that it would be understood that these were literal 24 hour days. God created light, and that light was the reference for "an evening and a morning" until it was replaced by the sun. Why do you think we have a seven day week even now? God boasts over and over again in the bible, of His creation that He did in "six days". Also, the genealogy of the early patriarchs is given in detail.

The new testament clearly states that there would have been no death if not for sin. I believe that is true, since the bible says that Eve sinned, and then Adam as well, and only then did God say that they would "surely die". But if you believe in millions of years of life and death (of evolving lifeforms) before Adam was even created, then you have the problem of explaining why there was death before sin, when God's word says that there was no death before sin.

There is no reason to back down from the athiests and their false claims about the bible. The minute you do, you've lost the battle.

Quoted: There are differing Biblical interpretations that lead to different answers about how old the earth is. The Genesis account of Creation is not an EXHAUSTIVE account of creation, as it does not detail the creation of everything. Angels, for instance, are not shown to be created in Genesis, but already exist. There seems to be a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 where a whole lot of history isn't recorded. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and yet the earth was without form and void? The earth couldn't be a "was" unless at some time it was an "is", meaning the earth seems to have been here already when Genesis 1:2 picks up. Mighty difficult, it seems, for The Spirit to hover over waters of a planet that isn't there. We do know that there was a great rebellion in heaven before the creation of man, and that Lucifer and his angels were defeated in an attempted frontal assault on God. Some theorize that they carried their disorder into the physical creation after loosing in the spiritual realm. Thus whatever happened seems to have had an effect on planet Earth, which was without form and void and covered in water. Thus folks like myself refer to the Adamic creation, meaning the creation detailed in Genesis 1:2 and beyond, for it seems aparent in scripture that universal creation (creation of the universe, planets, etc...) happened an unknown period of time  before the creation surrounding Adam. So how old is the Earth? I have no idea. We can speculate given the information in The Bible that the Adamic creation is around 6,000 or so years old, but there is no such measure of the age of the planet itself, or any account of what was in creation prior to Lucifer's rebellion. Genesis, while it details the creation of man and life on this planet as we know it, is NOT a detailed account of universal origin. We have no idea what happened in Eternity past save for the precious few bits of information about that past given by the Bible. Extinct creatures and fossils could well be remains of the creation that existed here before the Adamic creation.

+1   It's more of a renewal than a brand new creation.

I thought the 7 day week was based on the phases of the moon.