Exact Young Earth Age?

[michel]

I think it's safe to say that you and I do not view the creation of Adam and Eve in the same light at all. I do not read Genesis in the literalist way that you appear to.James

James, I don't mean to be crass, but was this answer evasive or what?

I'll try once more, though:

Do you think Adam and Eve were full-grown?

Literally, figuratively, metaphysically, comically, radically, or however YOU view it - do you think they were full-grown?

Or is it you don't think they existed at all?

If not, just say so, please, and let's simplify this discussion. I don't have time for wordplay --- Judge Mathis is coming on in 10 minutes.

 

[michel]

They adapted to their new environment via a change in diet? That doesn't sound like evolution to you?

No it doesn't. Adaptation and evolution are two different things.

 

[Fade]

No it doesn't. Adaptation and evolution are two different things.

You sound so sure of that. I recommend reading up on evolution...and by that I mean evolution as it is understood by scientists rather than the confused ramblings of Creationists. You may be surprised to learn that adaptation is one of the primary elements of evolution. It is practically the definition of it.

 

[James the Persian]

James, I don't mean to be crass, but was this answer evasive or what?

I'll try once more, though:

Do you think Adam and Eve were full-grown?

Literally, figuratively, metaphysically, comically, radically, or however YOU view it - do you think they were full-grown?

Or is it you don't think they existed at all?

If not, just say so, please, and let's simplify this discussion. I don't have time for wordplay --- Judge Mathis is coming on in 10 minutes.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be evasive, I just don't see the relevance of your question. I don't actually see the creation of Adam and Eve as being the beginning of our biological nature at all (for reasons which would take a very long time to go into) so whether or not they were fully grown at the time is irrelevant. Just so that you can't say I'm being evasive, however, I do believe they existed, I do believe they were physically adult and I do read the Genesis creation account much less literally than you do. If you are willing to do a little reading, the following article sums up my own position (because I agree with it wholeheartedly) much better than I can (see in particular chapter 9):

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm#_Toc67449472

James

 

[painted wolf]

why don't we ever find mammoths and Dinosaurs together?
Trilobites and turtles or icthyosaurs?

Why did everyone have to good sence to die in the right order to suggest evolution and why did god arrange it so that some would "age to the right degree" so that it would seem that dinosaurs are 65+ million years old but Mammoths are only 10,000 odd years old?

Is the only evidence for a young earth a certen interpretation of the bible?
wa:do

 

[michel]

You sound so sure of that. I recommend reading up on evolution...and by that I mean evolution as it is understood by scientists rather than the confused ramblings of Creationists. You may be surprised to learn that adaptation is one of the primary elements of evolution. It is practically the definition of it.

I'll respectfully pass on that, Fade. I started off this post by saying that God embedded age into His creation, and I showed how the earth has only been in existence for 6000 years, using just the Bible in one hand, and a calculator in the other. Then questions came up, about, of all things, evolution, and I'm trying my best to answer them as I can. Now you want me to read up on it, and, believe me, evolution is not on my best-readers' list. For every book/website you can recommend, I could probably find an equal number to counter them. I'm more interested in what YOU have to say than some author who couldn't care less that we're even here debating this. In my opinion, we're off-topic. If you need help in calculating the earth's age using just the Bible and a calculator alone (with some secular history), just ask. If you're not interested, fine. Please don't change the subject from Chronology to Archeology though and expect me to follow suit.

But thanks for the offer, anyway.

 

[joeboonda]

The fact that the light from stars takes light years to reach us I would think would prove at least that the universe is much older then a few thousand years. The notion of the young earth theory to me sounds like people trying to make it sound like the world is flat and you'll fall off if you go too far. Guess what people, the Church can be wrong! It thought the world was flat and then said "oops, we're sorry for persecuting all you heretics... turns out the world is round. sorry".

Glad to hear the orthodox church no longer holds the young earth theory, and I think catholics don't (at least most). This concept seems to be most pushed by the southern baptists and other "right wing" churches in the American Bible Belt.

np: Skinny Puppy- Icebreaker

There are theories about the time it takes light to reach earth from stars that are pretty logical and still support a young earth. Isaiah40:22 takes care of the light from stars, and the flat earth idea (why people thot the earth was flat is beyond me, lol)

Isaiah 40:22 "It is he (GOd) that sitteth upon the CIRCLE ( in Hebrew also can mean sphere) of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that STRETCHET out the heavens as a curtain, and SPREADETH them out as a tent to dwell in;"

There are many explanations, but time does not permit, I might say that just as God created Adam as a man he may have created the stars and their light already enroute, but that is just a supposition. The whole stretch and curve deal and the possibility of gravity and other things acting on light is more than i can bite off right now. Anyway, I stick to the Bible, and let science catch up. PEACE!

 

[michel]

Is the only evidence for a young earth a certen interpretation of the bible?

Again, for about the third time now, who mentioned a young earth?

 

[Ceridwen018]

There are theories about the time it takes light to reach earth from stars that are pretty logical and still support a young earth.

Are you certain that they didn't say "light years" instead of plain old years?
http://cmb.phys.cwru.edu/boomerang/press_images/cmbfacts/cmbfacts.html

Anyway, I stick to the Bible, and let science catch up.

Science has already far surpassed a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Fade]

I'll respectfully pass on that, Fade. I started off this post by saying that God embedded age into His creation, and I showed how the earth has only been in existence for 6000 years, using just the Bible in one hand, and a calculator in the other. Then questions came up, about, of all things, evolution, and I'm trying my best to answer them as I can. Now you want me to read up on it, and, believe me, evolution is not on my best-readers' list. For every book/website you can recommend, I could probably find an equal number to counter them. I'm more interested in what YOU have to say than some author who couldn't care less that we're even here debating this. In my opinion, we're off-topic. If you need help in calculating the earth's age using just the Bible and a calculator alone (with some secular history), just ask. If you're not interested, fine. Please don't change the subject from Chronology to Archeology though and expect me to follow suit.

But thanks for the offer, anyway.

Since evolution is clear evidence that the earth is in fact not very young at all, I would argue that we are quite definitely on topic...but anyhoo. You obviously don't like facing up to the inadequacies/contradictions of your belief.

But since you bring it up(again) please quote the passages of the bible that clearly state that the Earth is 6000 odd years old. Because if you can't, you are yet again guilty of putting words in Gods mouth.

 

[Ceridwen018]

No it doesn't. Adaptation and evolution are two different things.

Actually, they aren't. A synonym for "adaptation" is "microevolution", and macroevolution is merelt adaptation on a larger scale. If you believe that animals can adapt and change to survive in new environments, then you believe in evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

you fail to answer the rest of the questions posed.

You said that the earth was created 6000 years ago.... why should mammoths date at 10,000 years and be above dinosaurs who date at 65 million? Why don't we ever find a mammoth and a Dinosaur together... or a turtle and a triblobite.... and so on.

wa:do

 

[Fade]

Again, for about the third time now, who mentioned a young earth?

Do you have a split personality or something? YOU mentioned a young Earth...6000 years ringing any bells? Not to mention that it's the topic of this thread.

 

[michel]

There are theories about the time it takes light to reach earth from stars that are pretty logical and still support a young earth. Isaiah40:22 takes care of the light from stars, and the flat earth idea (why people thot the earth was flat is beyond me, lol)

Isaiah 40:22 "It is he (GOd) that sitteth upon the CIRCLE ( in Hebrew also can mean sphere) of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that STRETCHET out the heavens as a curtain, and SPREADETH them out as a tent to dwell in;"

There are many explanations, but time does not permit, I might say that just as God created Adam as a man he may have created the stars and their light already enroute, but that is just a supposition. The whole stretch and curve deal and the possibility of gravity and other things acting on light is more than i can bite off right now. Anyway, I stick to the Bible, and let science catch up. PEACE!

Joe, I agree with you on this. Especially about God stretching the Heavens. But I personally don't subscribe to the Earth being as young as we may think it is. It may be millions of years old, I don't know, or it may be just hundreds of thousands. IMHO, God, 6000 years ago, spoke into existence ex nihilo (out of nothing) a universe that is at least 10,000 years old or more.

 

[Fade]

Actually, they aren't. A synonym for "adaptation" is "microevolution", and macroevolution is merelt adaptation on a larger scale. If you believe that animals can adapt and change to survive in new environments, then you believe in evolution.

:biglaugh: :clap
I didn't want to be the one to point out the basic irony inherent in his argument. You see folks, that is what fundamentalism breeds...no sense of irony.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I started off this post by saying that God embedded age into His creation,

Could you please cite the verse in the Bible where this appears? I don't ever remember learning that...

I showed how the earth has only been in existence for 6000 years, using just the Bible in one hand, and a calculator in the other.

The Bible is theological evidence, not scientific evidence. If one chooses to believe in the Bible on a literal level, then they are blatantly flying in the face of modern scientific discoveries. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but it is the truth.

As for the calculator, I assume you are talking about "adding up the ages of patriarchs" and the rest. Again, you are following the Bible and not science. Science has discovered early humans and simple civilizations that date as far back as 2 million years. Ah yes, but I forgot the "embedded age" of the Earth. Again, could you show me where it says that in the Bible, or are you just making things up as you go in order to keep your beliefs justified in your own head?

http://users.hol.gr/~dilos/prehis/prerm3.htm

 

[michel]

But since you bring it up(again) please quote the passages of the bible that clearly state that the Earth is 6000 odd years old. Because if you can't, you are yet again guilty of putting words in Gods mouth.

Since the Bible was completed in 96 AD - or 2000 years ago - how can it have a passage in it that states the Earth is 6000 years old?

Do you see how you're putting the Bible into a Catch-22 situation, Fade?

Let's just say the Earth has been around as long as it is old, just for the sake of arguing.

Let's say that the Earth has been in existence for 1 million years.

Then people would be here posting that if you add up the years of the patriarchs, etc., the Earth has only been around for 6000 years! So either way, the Bible loses.

Believe me, I've debated this long before I joined this forum.

 

[michel]

The Bible is theological evidence, not scientific evidence. If one chooses to believe in the Bible on a literal level, then they are blatantly flying in the face of modern scientific
discoveries. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but it is the truth.

Where the Bible and Science disagree, Science is wrong.

Since God is the creator of science, the Two are in perfect harmony.

 

[michel]

Science has discovered early humans and simple civilizations that date as far back as 2 million years.

Again, if radiometric dating shows 2 million years, that's fine. It DOES NOT contradict the Bible. It's only showing age, not existence.

 

[Fade]

Since the Bible was completed in 96 AD - or 2000 years ago - how can it have a passage in it that states the Earth is 6000 years old?

Do you see how you're putting the Bible into a Catch-22 situation, Fade?

Let's just say the Earth has been around as long as it is old, just for the sake of arguing.

Let's say that the Earth has been in existence for 1 million years.

Then people would be here posting that if you add up the years of the patriarchs, etc., the Earth has only been around for 6000 years! So either way, the Bible loses.

Believe me, I've debated this long before I joined this forum.

Okay mister pedantic. Show me the passage that states the earths age at the time of writing.

As for your second point...That is exactly what people have been doing ever since we started scientifically investigating the world around us. You seem to have missed the point of the debate.