Age of the Earth [Archive] - Christian Chat Forum

Indiana Possum

03-06-2006, 08:53 PM

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form and void and the darkness was on the face of the deep.

1 John 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

The heavens and earth were created in Genesis 1:1. Since there is no darkness in God this heaven and earth would have had no darkness. Yet in Genesis 1:2 we see that there is darkness on the face of the deep. Some event occured between verse 1 and 2 that brought darkness and destruction(earth was without form and void). Many believe that this event was the overthrow of Lucifer.

God is eternal and everlasting. He is also the creator. So I personally believe that He has always been creating and re-creating.

The age of man is around 6000 years. But that is counting from the day he sinned. No one knows how long he was in the garden of Eden before he sinned. Nor does anyone know how long the earth flourished before the darkness came between Genesis 1 and 2. So I don't think that we really know how old the earth itself is. I suppose scientists can take a stab at it but I don't know how close they would get.

You might as well count it from when man sinned because you'd never be able to determine the age of earth BEFORE man sinned. Lets say that God created the earth in these 'days' because it could be actualy days like we have or time accoring to God, it could be billions of years that he created it, and adam and eve could have been in the garden for several years. How to determine this would be quite simply impossible on a scientific and biblical sense methinks. How do we usually determine the age of something? Several ways. Deteriation or entropy(disorder) in a system is a common method. The dust stacked on the moon per year was a method I heard once.

Trying to determine an accurate age of the earth through deteriation of the Earth before man sinned seems futile because with the downfall of man also started the downfall of the earth and thus its deteriation(the breaking of the canopy and the flood etc etc).

This is all just my humble opinion though.

Therese

03-06-2006, 09:00 PM

Trying to determine an accurate age of the earth through deteriation of the Earth before man sinned seems futile because with the downfall of man also started the downfall of the earth and thus its deteriation(the breaking of the canopy and the flood etc etc).

This is all just my humble opinion though.

Counting on the age of the earth only from the time man sinned leaves me with a lot of questions. Which I can more than likely live with LOL.

Sara †

03-06-2006, 11:26 PM

I am curious to those people who believe that the first six "days" could have been million or even billions of years. Why is there such a reference to the actual days as we know them?......Ex.......

Gen 1:5 God called the light day , and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

any thoughts?

Rylee

03-06-2006, 11:32 PM

CheeseKing

03-07-2006, 02:09 AM

There couldn't have been any death, before the fall of Adam. It was when Adam took of the forbidden fruit, that death came about. Fossils, a million years in age, would clearly go against scripture, if that were the case. Like it is said that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. If that were so, they would have died, before the fall, which would make no sense....then again, this might just be my humble opinion, as well :-)

CheeseKing

03-07-2006, 02:12 AM

whoops, sorry blue. I thought you told me 11,000... I had made that poll choice, just for you. ;)

Tamara224

03-07-2006, 11:12 AM

I believe that days in the Bible mean days as we see them. I don't see how it's so impossible for people to believe that it would have taken God millions of years to create the earth... He is GOD... He can do ANYTHING... all He has to do is say the word, and it's done. ;)

Hey Rylee, can you clarify for me? When you say "I don't see how it's so impossible for people to believe that it would have taken God millions of years to create the earth" ... Do you think people who believe it took millions of years think it is/was impossible for God to have created the earth in 6 24 hour days?

If that is what you are saying...I would like to clarify something. These are common misconceptions I have encountered:

Christians who think it is possible that the 6 days were not 24 hour periods ...call us "Old Earthers" for this discussion ... do not think it is/was impossible for God to have done it in 6 24 hour periods. We know and believe that God can do all things. Only God can create - only He could have done it. He could have done it all in 1 second - he didn't need 6 days. He did not need billions of years.

The reason many people hold to the belief that the days were not 24 hour periods is because in our minds science can and should be reconciled with the Bible. Since God created everything, it stands to reason that if we observe the earth and the universe our observations should match what God has told us. Currently, to the best of our knowledge, all the observations point strongly to the conclusion that the earth is older than we once thought. I don't want anyone to think that we hold science above the Bible. That is not the case - if the two conflict and cannot be reconciled, the Bible is the authority.

Old Earthers are often accused of not believing in the inspiriation of Scripture. This is not the case. For some it may be... but there are many believers who hold to this view who yet believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

The theory that the 6 days were not 24 hour periods is, at present, the best theory I have seen that reconciles science with God's Word - it allows both to be correct. It could be wrong, it is just a theory. This is one of those things I have an opinion on - but it's not something I feel the need to be dogmatic about. As I see it, this view does not alter or take anything away from the nature of God or His plan for us.

Finally, I haven't seen this here, but in other discussions I have noticed that some people are confused about everything the theory entails. It does not support the theory of evolution. I think evolution is one of the biggest and most successful lies Satan has ever come up with. The Genesis account makes it obvious that God formed man out of the dust of the earth into a fully-functional adult man. Likewise, Eve was formed from a rib into a fully-functional adult woman.

To sum up: Old Earthers believe only God could have created the Universe and could have done it in any amount of time He wanted to; Old Earthers believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, accurate and truthful; Old Earthers believe science and the Bible are reconcilable; most Old Earthers do not believe in Evolution.

Tamara224

03-07-2006, 11:21 AM

There couldn't have been any death, before the fall of Adam. It was when Adam took of the forbidden fruit, that death came about.

As I understand it, the fall is when the death of mankind came about... where does the Bible say that animals did not die before Adam and Eve sinned?

Rufus

03-07-2006, 01:17 PM

Christians who think it is possible that the 6 days were not 24 hour periods ...call us "Old Earthers" for this discussion ... do not think it is/was impossible for God to have done it in 6 24 hour periods. We know and believe that God can do all things. Only God can create - only He could have done it. He could have done it all in 1 second - he didn't need 6 days. He did not need billions of years.

Agree. I'd add that he didn't need time either.

ifollowjesus2

03-07-2006, 02:09 PM

I believe in a young earth. I read an interesting article on the subject. I don't know if I am supposed to give out website adresses. Anyway this article says that the bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside. When I take the plain words of the bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death because of sin-- this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease before sin( which is why the fossil record makes more sense as the graveyard of the flodd of Noah's day).

A very intersting point.
Hard to dispute from the bible

thank you

Steve

CheeseKing

03-07-2006, 02:13 PM

The first animals that were ever mentioned dying, were those the Lord killed, to give Adam and Eve clothes, after they had sinned. All animals and humans were vegitarians, until the fall. No creatures ate other creatures. You showed that one Peter passage, previously. The one that says "... a day is like a thousand years...".(by the way, the greek word for day, is different then the hebrew one, used in genesis.) To the Lord, a day could be long, but it doesn't say a literal day to the Lord is longer then it says in scripture. If the actual days were longer, then there might have been death. I also think of that one passage...

Romans 8:18-22 "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."

The creation. What is God's creation? Is it just man kind? It is all the humans and animals God created. The whole creation feels the pains. This might also tie into Isaiah 65. The lion would eat the straw. The animals will go back to eating plants, like the Lord designed them. All life was affected by the fall of adam and in the new earth. If animals were unaffected by the fall, there would be no need to mention them more and describe things getting better for all creation.

Tamara224

03-07-2006, 02:27 PM

The first animals that were ever mentioned dying, were those the Lord killed, to give Adam and Eve clothes, after they had sinned. All animals and humans were vegitarians, until the fall. No creatures ate other creatures.

Yeah, I agree with all of that...I just wondered whether that necessarily means no animals ever died at all before the fall. I don't think we can assume that because the first mention of death of animals was when God killed them means that animals were immortal until the fall. Does that make sense?

You showed that one Peter passage, previously. The one that says "... a day is like a thousand years...".(by the way, the greek word for day, is different then the hebrew one, used in genesis.) To the Lord, a day could be long, but it doesn't say a literal day to the Lord is longer then it says in scripture.

I quoted the passage from Peter in response to Therese's post. My purpose was to add scriptural support for her statement that God's time is different than man's time. I wasn't trying to imply that that Scripture expounded on the meaning of the word 'day' in Genesis.

The creation. What is God's creation? Is it just man kind? It is all the humans and animals God created. The whole creation feels the pains. This might also tie into Isaiah 65. The lion would eat the straw. The animals will go back to eating plants, like the Lord designed them. All life was affected by the fall of adam and in the new earth. If animals were unaffected by the fall, there would be no need to mention them more and describe things getting better for all creation.

Okay, I see where you're coming from with that. One question, though... If the animals eating each other is due to the fall, then why did it not start being that way until after the flood? Wouldn't it have started happening immediately after Adam and Eve sinned?

Javert03

03-07-2006, 02:39 PM

I'm not Rylee, but I thought I'd respond to your post anyway. ;-)

Currently, to the best of our knowledge, all the observations point strongly to the conclusion that the earth is older than we once thought. I don't want anyone to think that we hold science above the Bible. That is not the case - if the two conflict and cannot be reconciled, the Bible is the authority.

First, I for one have never seen any solid evidence supporting the belief that the world is billions of years old. Secondly, yes the Bible is the authority, and the Bible clearly teaches that the world was created in six literal 24-hour days. Before I go any further, I want to say that I'm not accusing you of holding science above the Bible, but I do think that it is a very real danger for people who believe that each "day" was millions of years. I personally have a friend who falls into this trap, though he would never admit it. He's even stopped believing in a world-wide flood. But now to back up my claims. :-D

First from the Bible. The word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yom". Yom can mean either a literal or a figurative day, depending on context. Whenever yom is used in the same phrase as "evening" or "morning", it means a literal, 24-hour day. Whenever yom is used with a numerical coefficient it means a literal, 24-hour day. And just so you don't have to take my word for it, here's what Dr. John Whitcomb has to say:

John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth, p. 28
Although the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) is used nearly two thousand times in the Old Testament, only in rare cases can it refer to a time period longer than twenty-four hours, and then only if the context demands it (e.g., "day of the Lord"). However, when a numerical adjective is attached to the word "day" (two hundred known cases in the OT) its meaning is always restricted to twenty-four hours (i.e., "first day," "second day," etc., with a precise parallel in Numbers 7:12-78). Over seven hundred times the plural form "days" (yamim) appears in the Old Testament, and it always refers to literal days (e.g., Exod. 20:11--"in six days").

Finally, I haven't seen this here, but in other discussions I have noticed that some people are confused about everything the theory entails. It does not support the theory of evolution. I think evolution is one of the biggest and most successful lies Satan has ever come up with. The Genesis account makes it obvious that God formed man out of the dust of the earth into a fully-functional adult man. Likewise, Eve was formed from a rib into a fully-functional adult woman.

Well I'm glad you don't agree with evolution, but if you don't believe in it, why do you see the need for billions of years? Just curious. My friend (mentioned previously) holds this view primarily because he believes God directed evolution.

But now onto my first claim, that science doesn't support an old earth. Here's a short list of problems with the old earth view, that fit perfectly with a young earth:

1. Carbon Dating
The method of carbon dating measures the amount of C14 in whatever you're trying to date. Most carbon is C12, which is stable. C14 is very unstable and thus decays till it becomes stable. When an animal (or plant) is living, it takes in C14 from it's environment, so as the old C14 decays, it's replaced with new C14. Thus the animal will always have about the same amount of C14 as its surroundings during life. When the animal dies, it begins to lose C14. Scientists can look at the amount of C14 to determine an upper limit of how long ago it died. All the C14 decays in less than a million years, yet scientists have found C14 in coal beds that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. If the coal was over a million years old, the C14 would've been all gone.

2. Salt in the Ocean
Each year, 450 million tons of salt are dumped into the sea. Only about 27% of that ever comes back out. This combined with evaporation cause the ocean to get saltier each year. At this rate, the ocean would've had no salt in it at all just 62 million years ago. You can't have less salt than no salt. Yet the ocean is supposed to be 3.8 billion years old. If the ocean were 3.8 billion years old, it would be so salty that there would be no life in it. Life in the ocean procuces more than half of the world's oxygen. If there were no life in the ocean, there would be no life on Earth.

3. Recession of the Moon
The Moon moves a little less than 1.5 inches further from the Earth each year. This means that if the world were created 6000 years ago, the Moon would be approximately 730 feet closer to Earth. This isn't a problem for young-earthers, but it gets difficult when you believe the Earth is billions of years old. Why? Because just 1.4 billion years ago, the Earth and Moon would have been touching.

We can see that God's Word clearly teaches that the Earth was created in six literal 24-hour days. We can also see from science that there is simply no way the world could be more than thousands of years old, certainly not millions.

CheeseKing

03-07-2006, 02:48 PM

Oh, ok. I was just checking about the peter passage. Well, Noah was commanded to eat animals after the flood, but it doesn't exactly state when animals started eating animals. Whether it was before or after the flood. I might argue that the bible mentioned carnivores after the flood, but they came about before the flood, but right now, I find little support. It could have started immediately after Adam sinned. There were many major things happening during the time, but mostly the geneologies, the fall, and certain things were mentioned, leading to the flood. I will look more into it. Take care.;)

Tamara224

03-07-2006, 03:39 PM

Before I go any further, I want to say that I'm not accusing you of holding science above the Bible, but I do think that it is a very real danger for people who believe that each "day" was millions of years. I personally have a friend who falls into this trap, though he would never admit it. He's even stopped believing in a world-wide flood. But now to back up my claims. :-D

First: Thank you for not accusing...I have been accused of that in the past and your method is far better. :-D
Second: What is the "very real danger" in a person believing that yom might indicate more than 24 hours in Genesis? I understand the danger in not placing God's Word as our ultimate authority. However, I do not see any danger in defining yom differently...

First from the Bible. The word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yom". Yom can mean either a literal or a figurative day, depending on context. Whenever yom is used in the same phrase as "evening" or "morning", it means a literal, 24-hour day. Whenever yom is used with a numerical coefficient it means a literal, 24-hour day. And just so you don't have to take my word for it, here's what Dr. John Whitcomb has to say:

I think this is an honest disagreement in which both sides have reasonable arguments. Therefore, I will just state simply that I believe it is plausible and not doing harm to God's word to say that yom can be interepreted as meaning more than 24 hours in Genesis. I respect you and John Whitcomb...but there are those who disagree. Rather than posting it in its entirety here (I'm short on time)...I'm just going to provide a link that will take you to articles written by other people:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth

Well I'm glad you don't agree with evolution, but if you don't believe in it, why do you see the need for billions of years? Just curious. My friend (mentioned previously) holds this view primarily because he believes God directed evolution.

I don't need the old earth theory in order to justify another theory. That is not why I currently lean toward that view. The reason I think it is a good theory is because of certain scientific observations, especially in the area of astronomy, that have persuaded me toward the conclusion that the universe is older than 6,000 years.

But now onto my first claim, that science doesn't support an old earth. Here's a short list of problems with the old earth view, that fit perfectly with a young earth:

1. Carbon Dating
There are several theories as to the accuracy and dependability of carbon dating. I personally am not persuaded that carbon dating can be always and completely accurate. However, carbon dating is not the only evidence of the age of things. As to fossil life, especially, I think carbon dating is going to be inaccurate beyond a few hundred or thousand years. Also, as to carbon dating of coal, in particular...recent discoveries in science have suggested that coal is not fossil matter as we have thought. Some now suggest that coal (as well as oil) are byproducts of volcanic activity. If that is true, carbon dating coal could not indicate anything about previous plant or animal life, because it may not be made up of plant or animal life. I hope I'm not going off on tangents...I just want to make the point that the old earth theory doesn't hinge on the accuracy of carbon dating.

2. Salt in the Ocean
Okay, this is only evidence against the old earth theory if you begin with a faulty assumption about that theory. The faulty assumption is that the earth has been in the same state of environment since the moment of its creation. We know from the Bible at least one way in which the environment of the world is not the same as it was when it was created...Before the flood it never rained. The earth was watered from the ground up - not from the sky down. The process of rain and evaporation did not begin until after the flood. Therefore, the calculations of salinity of the oceans and the idea that evaporation has been occurring for millions of years are not accurate. Accocrding to the theory, evaporation of the oceans began about 4 thousand years ago.

3. Recession of the Moon
This isn't a problem for young-earthers, but it gets difficult when you believe the Earth is billions of years old. Why? Because just 1.4 billion years ago, the Earth and Moon would have been touching.

Again, you are making a faulty assumption about the old earth theory. The theory does not hold that all things have been in the same state they are now since the time of creation. According to the old earth theory, the moon and the earth were touching at one point. The theory goes - based on astronomical data - that the moon was once a piece of the earth that got knocked off, probably due to collision with another 'space rock'. In fact, this theory is supported by the fact that the Moon's orbit around the earth is deteriorating. The moon is moving away from us. At some point after the creation of the earth, but before the creation of life, the moon broke off from the earth and was caught in the earth's gravity. But the laws of gravity indicate that all orbits will eventually degrade. Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else in the universe.

There are many other scientific observations, data and theories which, in my opinion, support the idea of an earth/universe that is older than 6000 years. Like I said before, though, this isn't an issue I feel dogmatic about. I just want other Christians to understand that acceptance of this theory does not mean rejection of the Bible.

blueheron32

03-07-2006, 05:06 PM

The theory that the 6 days were not 24 hour periods is, at present, the best theory I have seen that reconciles science with God's Word - it allows both to be correct. It could be wrong, it is just a theory. This is one of those things I have an opinion on - but it's not something I feel the need to be dogmatic about. As I see it, this view does not alter or take anything away from the nature of God or His plan for us.

Can you explain this for me Tamara...

God uses terminology for a reason....In the first verses of genesis...he uses the terms evening and morning to describe the day....this first verse describes day one...before there was a sun or a moon...

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

the next verse describes day five....the day after the sun moon and stars were created..again the same terminology... evening and morning..

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Just a side note....on the seventh day..God omitted the terms, eveing and morning....thats interesting...dont you think..:-)

But going on...

Exo 27:21 In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel.

The above verse is an example of a 24 hour day is it not..?? Again the terms....evening and morning to describe it

Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.

can this be anything but describing a 24 hour day...?

When I study the Bible I try to use the bible to define its own terms...I can imagine no other definition for evening and morning other than a 24 hour period...I see no sign of anything else in the bible to indicate anything different...

Also...light and darkness were both present on day one.. even though there was no sun or moon... so there was a cycle of light and dark....each day... if the day was speculatively...lets say a million years...would that mean it was dark for five hundred thousand years, and light for five hundred thousand years.....it would get pretty cold in a dark night that long...the plants you recall were created on day three...pretty hard for plants to be in the dark five hundred thousand years....:-) on the other hand, if the would was rotating every 24 hours... in that first "day" , that would mean hundreds of millions of light and dark sequences....which would hardly be able to be described by God as evening, singular...morning, singular.... do you see my problem...

Also, it seems to me that the passage....a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years, is not really related to this issue... I think it is just a comparison to the difference between mans view of things and Gods view..

For instance....as God views a thousand years, it is no more significant or complicated to him as if man were looking at just a day....a 24 hour period... At the same time, man looks at a day as a simple 24 hour period, chopped up into eating sleeping working, etc...from a pretty simple perspective, But as we look at how God sees a day, a 24 hour period compared to man... he sees all the minute details of the universe, hung in space in perfect harmony, every atom, every particle of his creation working together in perfect unison, as mans primitive scrapings of science discovers new things that magnify the complexity of the world we live in.... the omniscience of God is compounded infinitely beyond anything we could possibly imagine....Its like saying the more we know, the more we know we dont know...:-)

Genesis 1 however was written with those words, evening morning... to define how we are to understand those days of creation, Im still going to stick with that definition til I hear something better. :-)

I look at my fifty acres and say...wow..look what Ive done...God holds the universe between his thumb and forefinger, and says.... nothing...maybe he smiles a little...:-) I made that up of course....lol

blue

Rheged

03-07-2006, 05:42 PM

As a physicist and a christian, I consider any attempt to calculate the age of the Earth, whether by radio-carbon dating or through the scriptures, to be a futile and fairly fruitless project. The problem with the scientific method is that we just don't know enough about the universe to make anything resembling an accurate calculation in this area.

The problem with scripture techniques is that a) God is omnipotent and therein it is assumed he can manipulate the flow of time or else is indepedent of it, as such time as we know would have little or no meaning
b) so many points in the old testament where we have no idea of how much time has passed from one point to the next

The best we can do is just measure time from when we think Christ was born (error measurement of about +/- 6 years at the moment by common consensus)

blueheron32

03-07-2006, 06:08 PM

b) so many points in the old testament where we have no idea of how much time has passed from one point to the next

So say you...:-) there are others that would disagree and have compiled pretty compelling evidence to prove it...13,012 is pretty close to exact according to biblical evidence....

blue

blueheron32

03-07-2006, 06:10 PM

Tamara224

03-07-2006, 06:19 PM

Can you explain this for me Tamara...
When I study the Bible I try to use the bible to define its own terms...I can imagine no other definition for evening and morning other than a 24 hour period...I see no sign of anything else in the bible to indicate anything different...

First, let me say that I am not necessarily advocating for acceptance of the old earth theory. As I have said before, I do not believe this is an issue worth fighting over because I do not think it takes anything away from God or our understanding of Him. That being said, I will post a response in the spirit of friendly discussion.

Okay, this is long and taking me away from work:r So I hope nobody minds, but instead of putting it in my own words, I'm going to copy an article which I think makes very good points on the yom discussion.

Claim 1: Occurrences of yom with the words "evening" or "morning" outside Genesis 1 always refers to 24-hour days.
The Hebrew word yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 1, the word yom is used in combination with Hebrew words ereb (the word for "evening") and boquer (the word for "morning"). The claim has been made that when yom is used with the words "evening" or "morning," it always refers to a 24-hour day:

"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?"

Actually ... there are 41 verses (not 23) outside Genesis 1 in which yom is used in combination with either "evening" or "morning" (or both). The Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" are juxtaposed only 12 times outside Genesis 1. In seven of those verses, the word order is reversed from that found in Genesis 1. Most of these verses do refer to 24 hour days, since they discuss the sacrificial system. However, a verse from the Psalms does not refer to a 24-hour day:

They who dwell in the ends of the earth stand in awe of Your signs; You make the dawn [boqer] and the sunset [ereb] shout for joy. (Psalms 65:8)

Moses, the author of Genesis 1, also wrote Psalms 90. In this Psalm, Moses compares 1000 years to a single day or a watch in the night. In the next verse, he compares human lives to grass. He says that the grass sprouts in the morning and withers in the evening. Realistically, grasses live at least several days or weeks before dying. Evening and morning in this example do not refer to a 24-hour period of time:

You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning [boqer] they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning [boqer] it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening [ereb] it fades and withers away. (Psalms 90:5-6)

Later, in the same Psalm, Moses includes a plea that God satisfy us with His love in the morning (boqer) that we may sing all our days (a lifetime of days, again, is usually longer than 24 hours):

O satisfy us in the morning [boqer] with Your lovingkindness, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days [yom]. (Psalms 90:14)

Another verse, from Daniel, refers to a period of prophecy:

He said to me, "For 2,300 evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer]; then the holy place will be properly restored." (Daniel 8:14)

Some interpret the period of 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 days, while other calculate it as 1,150 days (2,300 divided by 2). Still others interpret the 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 years. It is not absolutely clear that the reference is to 24-hour days.

Outside Genesis 1, yom occurs only 4 times in combination with both Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning." The actual word order of "evening" followed by "morning" in combination with yom (as seen in Genesis 1) occurs only once outside Genesis 1. It is ironic that this one verse comes from Daniel 8:26, which defines yom as a period of time at least 3000 years long:

"The vision of the evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer] Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days [yom] in the future." (Daniel 8:26)

Obviously, the claim that "All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day-why would Genesis 1 be the exception" is false, just from this verse - the only verse that perfectly matches the usage found in Genesis 1.

"Evening" has the additional meaning of "ending" and "morning" has the meaning of "dawning" or "beginning". The order of "evening morning" is not insignificant. Each day described in Genesis 1 is completed by "evening" (ending) juxtaposed with "morning" (beginning). So, the usage fits the interpretation of the ending of one day and the beginning of the next.

Claim 2: Yom with a number (ordinal) always refers to 24 hour daysThe claim has been made that when yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day:

"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?"

Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad, which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.

In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul." Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.

A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered." The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!

There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length. Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:

'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)

For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)

"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)

If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..." These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not always refer to 24-hour days.

Also, it seems to me that the passage....a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years, is not really related to this issue... I think it is just a comparison to the difference between mans view of things and Gods view..

Yes, please see my response to Cheeseking...I wasn't quoting that verse in order to support the non-24-hour interpretation of yom. I was posting that as a response to Therese's statement that God's time is different than man's. I wasn't saying that the verse in James helped us to define yom.

Tamara224

03-07-2006, 06:22 PM

Tamara...

I agree with you completely...the earth is much older than six thousand years...at least twice that old.... in fact it is exactly 13,012 years old....give or take a few months...lol...

blue

How did you come up with 13,012 years? That's the first time I've ever seen that number... I'm very curious now.

blueheron32

03-07-2006, 06:45 PM

tamara...

you thought that was just a silly number didnt you....its not..I believe it to be a number that results from a very careful study of scripture...you might profit by taking a look...If you go to...http://worldwide.familyradio.org/zusa/ and then click on ..."english" and then on "literature online".... and then look in the left hand column, you will see a place where it says...."first time online", and a title named..."Adam When"....take a look...I suspect you will want to print it out...and spend some time with it...it is a walk through the bible using the time references in the bible to determine the history of mankind...it may not convince you of the time before adam....but it is compelling...I dare you....:-) while you are there...you may find some other things of interesting.....camping is a friend of mine....a valued friend...

blue

Tamara224

03-07-2006, 07:05 PM

tamara...

you thought that was just a silly number didnt you....

At first I thought you were throwing a random number out there to be facetious... ;) then I figured you were serious and that you must have something to support it, knowing you. Thanks, I'll take a look at the link you gave...sounds very interesting.

Therese

03-07-2006, 08:07 PM

. I think evolution is one of the biggest and most successful lies Satan has ever come up with. .

This is the kind of statement that I hate to see. It is a definite jab to anybody who believes in evolution. I don't see the need for such statements. I am sure no one on this board is of satan.

Therese

03-07-2006, 08:21 PM

The Hebrew word yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 1, the word yom is used in combination with Hebrew words ereb (the word for "evening") and boquer (the word for "morning"). The claim has been made that when yom is used with the words "evening" or "morning," it always refers to a 24-hour day:

Human beings understand a 24-hour day. That does not mean that God has to be limited to our concept of a day. Maybe God created in 7 or 6 man days and maybe not. God inspired, the bible still was written by men who understood human concepts.

SemperReformanda

03-07-2006, 09:48 PM

Blue should know.. he was there :P

Godsent

03-07-2006, 09:52 PM

Im not quite sure how long the earth has been around but blue seems certain of himself so im gonna say what he said ;)

SemperReformanda

03-07-2006, 09:55 PM

intresting that that would allow plants to live for a thousand years prior to the formation of the sun :)
thats about as miraculous (and contrary to the current "experts" who hold that a star must be created for millions of years before its planets.) as a literal 6 day creation.

Rylee

03-08-2006, 12:02 AM

I'll tell ya' the truth - I worded what I said incorrectly. I feel as though it could have taken him one second... if the days were in 24 hour periods, then I don't see how that's so hard to believe. I don't think that each day was millions of years. Human years to God go by in a twinkling of an eye... so maybe the world was created in a twinkling of an eye. That's possible too. What I meant to say was, whether He created it all in a split second, or throughout the course of 6 "days" (day in quotations equalling 24 hours), it shouldn't be unbelieveable.

Rylee

03-08-2006, 12:08 AM

Therese

03-08-2006, 01:15 AM

How's it a 'jab'? I mean, believing in evolution clearly goes against creationism. Either you believe that God created man (NOT an ape that later evolved in to a man, but a man in His image), or you don't. No 'jab', just fact.

There are ways of saying things that do not stir up the insides of the people who believe what you happen to not believe. Right is not something that you, or anybody else for that matter, has the corner on. Why ruffle feathers when you can say it, whatever it is, a better way.

Rylee

03-08-2006, 01:23 AM

Finally, I haven't seen this here, but in other discussions I have noticed that some people are confused about everything the theory entails. It does not support the theory of evolution. I think evolution is one of the biggest and most successful lies Satan has ever come up with. The Genesis account makes it obvious that God formed man out of the dust of the earth into a fully-functional adult man. Likewise, Eve was formed from a rib into a fully-functional adult woman.

To sum up: Old Earthers believe only God could have created the Universe and could have done it in any amount of time He wanted to; Old Earthers believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, accurate and truthful; Old Earthers believe science and the Bible are reconcilable; most Old Earthers do not believe in Evolution.

It's easy to pick apart a sentence when it's taken out of context. This is the entire context in which Tamara had the sentence in question; the sentence is in red. I suppose if you read it a certain way (although I can't see what way) you *could* see it as being offensive, but I'm sure that it was just meant to be stated as a comment about a theory that doesn't agree with scripture (obviously, if it doesn't agree with scripture, then it's wrong, no arguement can be made there). If you add tone of voice to it, it could be offensive, but that's unfair to do because we don't know if that's how the person truly meant it to sound. Anyway, in Tamara's defense, I don't see anything offensive about the statement. Just the truth... and I'm praying for anybody who is offended by the truth of the Word. God bless.

CheeseKing

03-08-2006, 03:10 AM

You know what? I thought of something. Fossils are supposed to be millions of years, right? There are fossils of animals eating other animals. Now Genesis clearly says the animals before the fall were vegitarian. If they were vegitarian, they wouldn't be eating each other. These fossils would have had to come after the fall and not in millions of years. Most likely fossilized by the flood. These fossils were found with other ones, said to be millions of years old.

blueheron32

03-08-2006, 08:15 AM

Godsent....

NEVER.....NEVER.....NEVER... believe something just because i say it....There is one truth, and tht is the Word of God...and the last time I checked, Blueheron32 authored none of it....

blueheron32

03-08-2006, 08:16 AM

Thank you semper....:P... sigh...

Javert03

03-08-2006, 03:14 PM

What is the "very real danger" in a person believing that yom might indicate more than 24 hours in Genesis? I understand the danger in not placing God's Word as our ultimate authority. However, I do not see any danger in defining yom differently...

The "very real danger" that I speak of is just what you said: not placing God's Word as our ultimate authority. It's acceptable to redefine a word, but it can't just be an arbitrary definition. In the context of Genesis 1, there is no Biblical basis for redefining yom to mean anything other than a literal, 24-hour day. If we redefine the Word of God because "science" doesn't match up, we've quite simply placed "science" above the Bible. Let me give an example.

In Numbers 7, we see wording that precisely parallels the creation account in Genesis 1. Notice there's twelve days (yom), and in context we see that they're literal, 24-hour days (first day, second day, etc).

Numbers 712 And the one who offered his offering on the first day was Nahshon the son of Amminadab, from the tribe of Judah...
18 On the second day Nethanel the son of Zuar, leader of Issachar, presented an offering...
24 On the third day Eliab the son of Helon, leader of the children of Zebulun, presented an offering...
30 On the fourth day Elizur the son of Shedeur, leader of the children of Reuben, presented an offering...

Do we read this and think it took millions of years for each person to present his offering? I can't speak for you, but I don't. Do we redefine our terms? What changes when we look at Genesis 1?

Genesis 15...So the evening and the morning were the first day...8...So the evening and the morning were the second day.

As I said before, I don't want to accuse you personally of anything, but here's what I see in the old-earth movement. The only way that Genesis 1 differs from Numbers 7, is that it stands in opposition to the accepted "science" of the day (notice how differently "day" sounds when I use it figuratively: you know right away that I don't mean 24 hours). And because God's Word disagrees with man's science, Christians change what God's Word means.

If I can redefine "day" to fit my presuppositions, what keeps me from redefining adultery? Or how about murder? This may sound extreme, but it's just one step down the slippery slope of relativism. Man's understanding becomes the ultimate authority. This is the "very real danger" I see.

I respect you and John Whitcomb...but there are those who disagree.

I checked out the link you gave, and interestingly, the definition that Hugh Ross gives agrees with what Dr. Whitcomb said. It says that yom is "defined by an associated term." Exactly what I was saying. :-D

The reason I think it is a good theory is because of certain scientific observations, especially in the area of astronomy, that have persuaded me toward the conclusion that the universe is older than 6,000 years.

Could you perhaps tell what those observations are? I'm not very familiar with astronomy.

As to fossil life, especially, I think carbon dating is going to be inaccurate beyond a few hundred or thousand years.

The reason carbon dating is innacurate beyond a few thousand years is because after that amount of time, all the C14 is gone. When there's no C14 left, we simply can't tell how old it is. My point however was that some things (such as coal) still contain C14, thus they can't be more than a few thousand years old. Even if coal has nothing to do with plant and animal life, it still contains C14 and thus still can't be more than a few thousand years old.

Again, you are making a faulty assumption about the old earth theory. The theory does not hold that all things have been in the same state they are now since the time of creation.

There are three ways we can look into the past. The first is by knowing Someone who was there. The second is by observing what we see in the present and applying it to the past. The third is by making it up. There are no other ways. The third one is commonly known as story-telling. The second one is as you say, faulty. The first is the only one we can trust.

Let's take a look at the "Giant Impact" hypothesis for example(moon breaking off the earth). First we see that the second way is used. Scientists have found rocks on the moon that have chemicals in them that closely resemble some rocks on the earth. This is what has been observed in the present. From this they arrive at the conclusion that the moon and earth were once the same planet. That's where the third way of seeing the past came into play. It makes a nice story, but it all contradicts the first method. Not only did God create the earth before the moon, but He even made the oceans and continents and put plant life on them. If something the size of the moon broke off the earth, the earth would crumble inward due to its own gravity, destroying everything that had been created on it already. The earth would practically have to created all over again.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters...
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day...
16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also...
19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I hope you don't take any of this personally, it's just something I feel very strongly about because I saw how much it weakened my friend.

Tamara224

03-08-2006, 07:32 PM

As I said before, I don't want to accuse you personally of anything, but here's what I see in the old-earth movement. The only way that Genesis 1 differs from Numbers 7, is that it stands in opposition to the accepted "science" of the day (notice how differently "day" sounds when I use it figuratively: you know right away that I don't mean 24 hours). And because God's Word disagrees with man's science, Christians change what God's Word means.

Okay, but what is wrong with trying to reconcile things? I'm not trying to arbitrarily redefine anything. There are many people who have taken a very hard look at the meaning of yom and some have concluded as you have, while others believe differently. Many/most of the people who have done so have done it properly, with proper exegesis (i.e. comparing Scripture to Scripture).

If I can redefine "day" to fit my presuppositions, what keeps me from redefining adultery? Or how about murder? This may sound extreme, but it's just one step down the slippery slope of relativism. Man's understanding becomes the ultimate authority. This is the "very real danger" I see.

Well, but the way I see it is you are attempting to enforce your exegesis on others and saying that any new or different understanding of the text is faulty per se. If the meaning of yom in Genesis is different than we have understood it previously, it wouldn't be the first time we humans have erred in our interpretation. For example, the Bible says stuff about the "four corners of the earth." That Scripture was used to refute claims that the earth is round. Likewise, the Bible continually refers to the sun rising and setting rather than to the earth going around the sun...should we use those passages to refute science's claim that the earth revolves around the sun?

The only way I'm going to slide down that slipperly slope of yours is if I abandon my belief that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God and if I start saying that proper exegesis is not required. You'll never hear me say that. You may argue that I'm wrong in my interpretation...but there is no evidence to suggest that I am arbitrarily changing the meaning of words without at least trying to support it from the Bible.

I checked out the link you gave, and interestingly, the definition that Hugh Ross gives agrees with what Dr. Whitcomb said. It says that yom is "defined by an associated term." Exactly what I was saying. :-D

Yes, exactly! We're not trying to arbitrarily change the meaning of the word. The argument is that in the context it could mean more than 24 hours. I assure you, Hugh Ross is an old-earther.

Could you perhaps tell what those observations are? I'm not very familiar with astronomy.

Not here, I couldn't. :p Not all of them. The earth-moon theory is one... The size of the universe and the speed at which all objects in the universe are moving away from one another allow scientists to calculate back to the time which it all began and they came up with the figure 14.5 billion years. The heavy elements found in planets is another...only second generation stars can produce heavy elements; the planets were/are formed from supernova explosions. The life span of stars can be determined from (something I can't remember from my college astronomy class;) ) So we can approximate how long it would take for 2 generations of stars to go thru their life cycles.

There are three ways we can look into the past. The first is by knowing Someone who was there. The second is by observing what we see in the present and applying it to the past. The third is by making it up. There are no other ways. The third one is commonly known as story-telling. The second one is as you say, faulty. The first is the only one we can trust.

I don't think I'm going to stipulate to your 3-ways of looking at the past theory. First, your first way implies that we can know every detail about what happened at creation if we know "Someone who was there." We can't. We can only know what that Someone has told us about it. We can also know the clues that Someone left for us in the world we observe.

I think all three of your three-types can be combined and they do not have to be one or another of them. In fact, I think when we try to combine at least the first two is when we are going to be the most accurate.

I will say again, that the Bible is our ultimate authority. However, I don't presume to know everything God has done or will do or the way in which he does it. I don't presume that the Bible tells me absolutely everything. Most importantly, I don't presume that I accurately understand everything it does tell me.

Let's take a look at the "Giant Impact" hypothesis for example(moon breaking off the earth). First we see that the second way is used. Scientists have found rocks on the moon that have chemicals in them that closely resemble some rocks on the earth. This is what has been observed in the present.

Well, I sort of agree...that isn't the only piece of evidence they have for it. It's about following the scientific method. They try to come up with a theory that harmonizes all of the data they have.

Not only did God create the earth before the moon, but He even made the oceans and continents and put plant life on them. If something the size of the moon broke off the earth, the earth would crumble inward due to its own gravity, destroying everything that had been created on it already. The earth would practically have to created all over again.

You make some very good points...I need to think about them and research a little...I'm not ready to agree yet because I'm stubborn. JK.;) But, seriously, I think that the earth being created before the moon is in harmony with this theory. I'm not an expert in science, by any stretch of the imagination. All I can do at this point is go online and find someone who has explained this theory...I don't see the need to post it here.

I hope you don't take any of this personally, it's just something I feel very strongly about because I saw how much it weakened my friend.

No offense taken. I appreciate your attitude here...we can present opposing arguments without getting personal. I enjoy that. However, I would just like to say that although I understand how you believe this theory 'weakened' your friend...I suggest he was probably weak to begin with. No offense to you or your friend is meant by this... I'm only suggesting that there were probably other causes and reasons if in fact your friend was 'weakened' in His faith due to his beliefs about science. Someone with a strong Biblical foundation isn't going to be snatched out of God's hands by the old earth theory, in my opinion.

My foundation is in Jesus Christ. Speculating about the hows and whens of creation is not a bad thing. God is my loving Father and I believe it pleases Him when I take an interest and try to understand his Works. Just as our earthly fathers are pleased when their children take an interest in and try to understand their work. I believe God gave all of us the ability to at least try to fathom his awesome Glory. I further believe that to make this argument into a 'salvation issue' is wrong. By assuming that a person is rejecting the inspiration of Scripture in adopting this view-point, many people turn it into a 'salvation issue.' Believing that there is Scripural support for yom meaning more than 24 hours and believing that science can be reconciled with the Bible has no impact on my personal relationship with Christ. Unless it is that it leads me deeper by pondering God's Word and his nature.

Whew...longer winded than I meant to be. Thanks for letting me share. I respect your opinion and your style Javert.

Tamara224

03-08-2006, 07:39 PM

Anyway, in Tamara's defense, I don't see anything offensive about the statement. Just the truth... and I'm praying for anybody who is offended by the truth of the Word. God bless.

Thank you Rylee! :) I appreciate your defense, it was well put!

Tamara224

03-08-2006, 07:44 PM

This is the kind of statement that I hate to see. It is a definite jab to anybody who believes in evolution. I don't see the need for such statements. I am sure no one on this board is of satan.

Therese...I'm very sorry that my words were offensive to you.:-( I did not mean to offend anyone who believes in evolution. Nor did I mean to imply that anyone who believes it is 'of Satan'. Please forgive me for not choosing my words more carefully. However, I would like to point out that if it was a 'jab' at anyone - it was a 'jab' at Satan. It is my own personal belief that evolution is a lie and that it was a lie manufactured by the devil. I believe this because I have seen that the theory of evolution has impacted more than the field of science. The belief that we are descended from apes has permeated our culture and led to an ideology of secular-humanism. I believe it has deceived many people into believing that things and humans are getting better and better all the time when in fact things are deteriorating rapidly.

I would hate to find out that my words have caused hurt to a fellow Christian. I think that a Christian might believe the theory of evolution without necessarily rejecting God's word. I did not mean to imply that I was judging you, your heart or your faith.

In Christ,
Tamara

CanisMortuus

03-09-2006, 05:49 AM

Science is a religion in and of itself, for those who strictly follow it. Yes, experts do say that our planet is about 4.6 billion years old and at one time was mostly valcanic. However, the layering of earth that some of these experts say takes millions of years has been seen to happen in a matter of seven days due to a valcano errupting. Now, taking that into consideration and coupling it with the idea that the planet was once mostly valcanic it would be easy to conclude that the earth is younger then the experts say it is. Yet, most of these experts refuse to believe in such an idea because it would go against what they have been taught and believed in for so long.

db14

03-09-2006, 12:33 PM

Yes but we have scientific evidence to proove that it did take millions of years. I believe that God created the world, but it took him longer.

Also, the bible was written thousands of years after the earth began, and so the earliest stories of creaton and adam and eve are not necessarily 100% true. They would be like parables i think, adam and eve more so.

lucianBrad

03-11-2006, 10:51 PM

Check out this site as well as many other young earth creation sites...lots of info on evolution, and different creation theories

WWW.answersingenesis.org

Peace out;)

Rylee

03-11-2006, 11:55 PM

...different creation theories

I looked on the site for these different 'theories', but I couldn't seem to locate them. I went to look because I have this question, but since I couldn't find the answer, I'll just ask you: Shouldn't Christians only believe in ONE 'creation theory'?

Gawd

03-12-2006, 12:14 AM

We can look at the dates from the Book of Kings and calculate roughly when the first King descended from heaven right? I'd say that puts us at around the 6500 mark (roughly).

That is fine and dandy and all. But what I have a real problem getting my brain around is this.

I'll toss two scenarios that have been bothering me.

1st - When rock is in a liquid state (molten magma) and cools (Hardens into rock) the crystals in the rock will always point Do North. We have determined through careful studies that the Earth has flipped its polarity several times in the past.
How do we know this? Because after studying these rocks we can find layers of rock where the crystal point South instead of North, much in the way that iron filings on a piece of cardboard align themselves to the field of a magnet held beneath it.

We can follow this pattern back several times by looking at these rock layers and the directional these crystals were pointing when the lava hardened.

We have determined that this cycle repeats itself every 200,000 with the last reversal of the polarity happening 780,000 years ago.

2nd - We can all see the twinkle of the stars in the sky right? All stars except for our sun are 100,000 of thousands of light years away or more. How is it that we are seeing light from these stars 100,000 light years away, when the earth according to the Genesis and the book of kings is less than 10,000 years old? Technically speaking we shouldn't see anything in the sky except for our own sun.

And technically speaking, if the heavens and stars were created at the very same time. The night sky would be bright as the Sun. All the light from the stars would begin and arrive at Earth at the same time.

What is our closest Solar system besides the Milky Way? Andromeda? Now see how many light years away it is and do the math as to when the Earth began.

Sara †

03-12-2006, 12:28 AM

We have determined that this cycle repeats itself every 200,000 with the last reversal of the polarity happening 780,000 years ago..

Hey, I am a little bit confused, if you could explain this to me I would appreciate it. What am I missing here?..

IF this cycle happens every 200,000 years but the last one happened 780,000 yrs ago, then it can't be that it happens EVERY 200,000 yrs?

Like I said, maybe I am missing something here........

Javert03

03-12-2006, 08:07 PM

Here's an article talking about the starlight problem you mentioned:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

It's interesting to note however that starlight also poses a problem for a "big bang". According to that hypothesis, parts of the universe should be hotter than others. What we see is that the universe is all about the same temperature. Even in 15 billion years, there wouldn't be enough time for stars to share heat and light to reach the equilibrium they're at now.

brenn

03-13-2006, 09:40 AM

you are so right cheeseking. as a matter of fact we have been stydying that very subject in adult sunday school at church these past few weeks. and the word Yom or waht ever does mean a literal day. you can also know this because whenever a word is used the first time in reference to something it IS literal in meaning. all anybody has to do is read the KJ Bible and it's all there In the begining GOD ......

we need nothing else but His word to answer questions. all these so called experts are continually looking for anything to disprove Gods word so they don't have to face the fact of their sinful state. That way they and everyone else who is lost will "feel" good about bein bad. If they can convince anyone that God s Word is mistaken on one thing then it has to be mistaken on everything.

brenn

03-13-2006, 09:46 AM

given the fact that God seperated the light from dark and called it moring and night being the First "

brenn

03-13-2006, 09:54 AM

given the fact that God seperated the light from dark and called it moring and night being the First "LITERAL" day it really boggles my mind that people can't grasp the simplicity of that. are there millions of years between our days now. they are the same that God created in the beginning . I hate to think I've been living a rumplestiltskin kind of life goin to bed and waking up millions of years later to take up where I left off what seemed to be just yesterday. think a bout it people. Gods word is not that hard to understand and I mean this in the kindest tone. Our "days" are measured the same yesterday today and forever just as God meant them.
brenn

ifollowjesus2

03-21-2006, 06:39 PM

Blue,

When I first read your answer of 13,012 years for the age of the earth I was skeptical. I read the explaination of those years on the website you suggested. I am definately leaning toward that explaination than any other. I can't argue against it. I am sure others will. Thanks for the site.

Ifollowjesus2

zarxs

03-22-2006, 02:00 AM

As a science and language buff, Rheged, I have to agree with you.

Mainstream science has come up with some great dating methods but no way to truely prove them. They all have one issue or another.

The Bible discription of creation has the literary qualities of a fable told to young children to teach them principles. It lacks depth or detail. It appears to be the culmonation of several writers based on the mix of writing styles. The Conservative Chrisitian University translators that I've listened to lean toward interpretting the creation story figuratively rather than literally. It's important to remember the Bible makes use of poetry, prose, metaphors similies, histories and fables. Each with it's own method to interpretting. It'a also important to remember that while Greek was a very literal and exacting language which colored the flavor of all written in it, Hebrew is a very flowing language filled with symbolism.

Both the lack of solid science behind the science and the lack of solid history behind the history tend cause me to keep an open mind.

cole007

03-22-2006, 07:43 AM

Nobody knows except God. Even adam and eve cannot know because the world has already been created before they were.

Science suggestions are all fictions. Trying to know is all vanity and trying to source Gods ability.

God bless you.

Tamara224

03-22-2006, 01:39 PM

Science suggestions are all fictions. Trying to know is all vanity and trying to source Gods ability.

That's a little harsh, don't you think? First, not everything about science is fiction. You really can't honestly deny that we can learn a lot about our world through science. There's no reason, that I can think of, for us to remain ignorant of scientific knowledge by calling it all 'fiction.' I agree that as to the origins of the earth, there is a lot of speculation and assumption. However, there are a lot of pure observations too...whether the conclusions we draw from the observations are correct or not we can't really know, yet. But to call it all fiction is not accurate.

Second, trying to know something is not vanity. Assuming that you can know everything is prideful. It is only when we seek to be like God through knowing that we cross the border of what is acceptable or not. Also, trying to figure these things out is not the same as 'sourcing God's ability' as you put it. The questions and answers presented by people on this thread (whatever those happen to be) all start with the premise that God created it. Nobody's trying to figure out how God had the ability to do it...we accept that He did it and only He could. We're just pondering the manner in which He chose to do it. There is nothing wrong with pondering God's Works. Indeed, studying the awesome works of God brings us into a fuller understanding of Him. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1.

gitdead

03-23-2006, 12:11 AM

Tamara224

03-23-2006, 12:18 AM

but also, God will make foolish the knoledge of the wise... knoledge can be good, but not when it becomes more important than our focuss on God

Yes, I absolutely agree with that!!

Psalm 111:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise."

Proverbs 9:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

cole007

03-23-2006, 09:23 AM

That's a little harsh, don't you think? First, not everything about science is fiction. You really can't honestly deny that we can learn a lot about our world through science. There's no reason, that I can think of, for us to remain ignorant of scientific knowledge by calling it all 'fiction.' I agree that as to the origins of the earth, there is a lot of speculation and assumption. However, there are a lot of pure observations too...whether the conclusions we draw from the observations are correct or not we can't really know, yet. But to call it all fiction is not accurate.

Second, trying to know something is not vanity. Assuming that you can know everything is prideful. It is only when we seek to be like God through knowing that we cross the border of what is acceptable or not. Also, trying to figure these things out is not the same as 'sourcing God's ability' as you put it. The questions and answers presented by people on this thread (whatever those happen to be) all start with the premise that God created it. Nobody's trying to figure out how God had the ability to do it...we accept that He did it and only He could. We're just pondering the manner in which He chose to do it. There is nothing wrong with pondering God's Works. Indeed, studying the awesome works of God brings us into a fuller understanding of Him. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1.

Don't misquote me mate!!! Not all scienctific facts are fictions but some becomes fictions because they are not quite important to our spiritual growth and it could lead to some people trying to investigate or imitate God. Do you believe human and animal cloning are pleasing before God? they are certainly not - it's a way of meddling with Gods work.

Human and animal cloning starts from looking to deep into His work, who knows what folly might happen next if all those earth philosophers can detect the actual age of the earth and how it was created.

Truly there's nothing wrong in pondering on Gods work as a true christians, but how about the unbelievers who believes they can imitate Him. Having much interest in such ideas increase the folly of others and probably there destruction. There are simply many other ways to appreciate Him. Always remember pursuing after things that can't save your soul and that ain't quite important like Christ are all vanity.

You don't have to keep pondering on what you'll never going to know thats a symptoms of anxiety - God warns us not to be anxious of anything.

Yours Truly.

blueheron32

03-23-2006, 07:26 PM

Both the lack of solid science behind the science and the lack of solid history behind the history tend cause me to keep an open mind.

It sounds to me zarxs, that you are moving away from knowing anything for sure, rather than coming closer to the knowledge of truth... More and more your beliefs concerning the trustworthyness of the bible, resemble gnosticism...That is a sad thing for a man attending seminary, with the presumed hope of becoming a pastor....It is however not unexpected in view of the liberal nature of the seminaries today, whether you call them conservative or liberal.

blue.

blueheron32

03-23-2006, 07:43 PM

ifollowjesus2..

It is difficult to argue against such a meticulous study of the word of God. There are many who say the earth is about 6000 years old, and that figure is a result of a study of the bible done by a man named Usher. For the most part they just repeat the number they have heard and never investigate the work of Usher that produced the number 6000. I am grateful you took the time to investigate...it is no small task, and takes some time...But it is also worth the trouble. The bible is true, in every detail....and God has provided sufficient time clues in the bible to answer the earth age question. Reading Mr Campings study on the age of the earth, gave me a whole new appreciation of the Bible, and the great care God took in writing it. It is a treasure, that is rarely appreciated as it should be. Keep reading and studying...who knows what good things you might learn....:-)....God Bless my friend..

blue

blueheron32

03-23-2006, 07:54 PM

Nobody knows except God. Even adam and eve cannot know because the world has already been created before they were.

cole...

In a sense you are right cole.....only God does know...but you have not evidently taken into account revelation. If God has left a record for mankind in the scripture he has revealed for us, then the information we need to determine the age of the earth is present and available. The question is, will anyone search out the information God has provided... It is one thing to just say..only God knows for sure... It is another thing to prove that. I believe God has revealed that info in the bible...and it has been searched out... the answer is....13,012 years.... Just because you dont know...doesnt mean no one else can know...:-)

.If you go to...http://worldwide.familyradio.org/zusa/ and then click on ..."english" and then on "literature online".... and then look in the left hand column, you will see a place where it says...."first time online", and a title named..."Adam When"....take a look...I suspect you will want to print it out...and spend some time with it...it is a walk through the bible using the time references in the bible to determine the history of mankind...it may not convince you of the time before adam....but it is compelling...I dare you.... while you are there...you may find some other things of interest.

blueheron32

CheeseKing

03-23-2006, 07:58 PM

One can have a label as "conservative or label" but it doesn't really mean much, anymore. You must look at what the college or people truly believe, not their label.

blueheron32

03-23-2006, 08:26 PM

The Bible discription of creation has the literary qualities of a fable told to young children to teach them principles. It lacks depth or detail. It appears to be the culmonation of several writers based on the mix of writing styles. The Conservative Chrisitian University translators that I've listened to lean toward interpretting the creation story figuratively rather than literally. It's important to remember the Bible makes use of poetry, prose, metaphors similies, histories and fables. Each with it's own method to interpretting. It'a also important to remember that while Greek was a very literal and exacting language which colored the flavor of all written in it, Hebrew is a very flowing language filled with symbolism.

Both the lack of solid science behind the science and the lack of solid history behind the history tend cause me to keep an open mind.

So, cheeseking...in light of the above quote, would you say it came from a liberal or conservative university..???? :-)

blue

CheeseKing

03-24-2006, 06:33 PM

That looks pretty liberal. I believe bible is a history book. His story. The word of God. I don't think its a collection of fables or fictions. When it says 6 days, I think it means 6 days. When it says giants, I think it means giants. When it says the earth was flooded, I believe the whole earth was flooded. If you can say one part doesn't literally mean what it says, it leaves room for doing that in other parts of the bible. (there may be some exceptions or certain things described, that were figurative for something else, like in Daniel and Revelation, etc.)

Rylee

03-24-2006, 06:39 PM

So, we're not to take everything in the Bible literally? I know for a fact that the Bible is 100% truth. What it says happened, happened. The Bible tells us stories to teach us lessons, but these stories are not fabricated. They are exact retellings. The Bible is not a fairy tale.

Rylee

03-24-2006, 06:55 PM

AMEN Cheeseking! The Bible is the one and only Book of Truth in this world, let's not go saying that it's just a book of fables to teach us lessons.

zarxs

03-31-2006, 11:06 PM

Blue the only valid interpretation of the Bible is the authors intended intepretation. I'd say Blue, that if you give a strong outspoken opinion about something the Bible isn't clear on when ALL the verses on the subject have been explored, that makes you liberal because you would be reading into the Bible your desired meaning.

A university education is worth while Blue, while I've heard you publically scoff at higher education many times I think if you tried it you would actually like it. Now as for the charge of the school being liberal, I'm sure that the rational among us would consider the school started by Jerry Falwell, Liberty University, to be a conservative school.

As for the charge of suggesting I'm liberal. If being very very cautious about how I interpret the Bible, taking classes at university to learn how to properly interpret and understand Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and spending hours per single verse studying the Bible rather than jump to a conclusion, makes me liberal, then Blue I'd say your compass is way off. Translation is about finding what the author meant about a verse, not allowing society or personal desire to influence your interpretation. If being so careful Blue, is wrong, it's a good thing that God is my judge rather than you.

zarxs

03-31-2006, 11:14 PM

Rylee I didn't say, "t's just a book of fables to teach us lessons."

I said the Bible contains Prose, Poetry, similies, Metaphors, fables etc. That means that God communicates to us directly through different forms of speech. An example of a fable (not the actual term but close enough to be recognized) would be the Prodigal Son. No where in the story does it say this really happened, but some "Assume" that it really happened. Why make that assumption? It doesn't make it any less meaningful or powerful. Words of Wisdom from God are still Words of Wisdom from God. If God chooses to talk to use with Poetry or Stories that's his choice. The Bible provides histories as well. Those histories are true. They are given as histories which means that they actually happened. I think people get confused when God talks to us in server different Manors. However I think that it's our duty to rise to this challenge and come to learn what the Bible actually says.

Rylee

03-31-2006, 11:33 PM

You said: the Bible contains prose, poetry, similies, metaphors, fables, etc. I'm saying that everything the Bible contains is fact. These stories are used to teach us a lesson, but these stories are also true stories.

blueheron32

04-04-2006, 12:18 PM

zarx...

really this conversation is not of much value...:-) You and I have in the past had many conversations in the chatroom and on the message board. But that was months ago, and most of the people who are here now werent here then. You have not been very active on the message board, so they dont know what we are talking about. Maybe if you become active once again, and begin voicing your positions, we will let them judge whether your views are liberal or conservative. Biblical, or the wisdom of men... Until then....enjoy your "education"....:-)

blue...

Sara †

04-04-2006, 03:12 PM

Hey Cheeser!! I had originally said that I thought we had a 6,000 -/+ yr old earth..BUT I just found out something that is making me rethink my position. Here where I live a few years ago they found an OLD indian burial ground.............After extensive tests, they came to the conclusion that these bones were over 10,000 yrs old.....Let me see what I can find. I might actually end up agreeing with Blue.....*rolls eyes*...Just kidding guys.....

Elenar

04-05-2006, 05:26 AM

It is strange for me how many Christians believe this. Well, not actually. I once believed that God used the Big Bang and He used science to create everything. Which He probably did...

Backon topic, I believe it took no more than a few minutes for each of the 6 days for God to create everything. In fact, I believe that after he SAID it, it WAS there!

It is really simple... God said it took him six days. So, six, real, 24hr days it was. If you want to argue this, please tell me then how many days you think Jesus was dead before He rose again - 3 days or was he dead for 3000 years? it is all so simple. Have faith like little children and BELIEVE what God says in the Bible.

Rylee

04-05-2006, 09:40 PM

Elenar

04-06-2006, 02:37 AM

Hi Rylee. Yes indeed.

I listened to Pastor Pawson once. He mentioned the 'battle' of Armageddon once. He said he doubts there would be an actual battle. We'd all be there, ready to fight and Jesus would just say "Be dead" and that would be it. Battle over.

Back on the creation topic...

Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.

Note that the stars were created on the third day. After the earth was created. There's a really good song by Carman "There is a God." I agree with him. All these scientists have it wrong. They're guessing. The earth is indeed in the very centre of the universe! How can I say that? Easy. In the day, I see the sun moving from east to west. At night, I see the moon and starsmoving in the night sky. Like Carman says, every 24 hours the sun, the moon and stars ROTATE the Earth shouting in every language that there IS a God!

Look at space. In every direction there's blackness and an infinite number of stars. That, to me, places the earth slap bang in the centre of the universe that God created in 6 days.

Tamara224

04-06-2006, 11:33 AM

The earth is indeed in the very centre of the universe! How can I say that? Easy. In the day, I see the sun moving from east to west. At night, I see the moon and starsmoving in the night sky. Like Carman says, every 24 hours the sun, the moon and stars ROTATE the Earth shouting in every language that there IS a God!

Look at space. In every direction there's blackness and an infinite number of stars. That, to me, places the earth slap bang in the centre of the universe that God created in 6 days.

Oh...my....goodness....Are you serious?!!! You really think that the sun and stars move around the earth?!!! Look, we know that the earth rotates on its axis and that is why it appears to us that the stars move...it's really pretty basic, observable fact at this point.

You see, this is why rejecting science just because it's science is foolish!!!

By the way, I LOVE Carman and I'm very familiar with the song 'There is a God' and ... I think it's an awesome song. However, when it says: "Though they silently orbit, the sun, the moon, the stars are like celestial evangelists above, who circle the earth every 24 hours, shouting in every language that THERE IS A GOD!!"...it's just not an accurate depiction of the way things are.

Please, don't get your science from Carman...he's an awesome singer, annointed and I love his music...but he's not infallable.

And, btw, I've already posted on this and you've made the same assumptions that I tried very hard to make sure nobody on this thread would make... Believing that God took more than 6 24 hour days to create the earth does not mean that I don't believe in God. Like I said in This Post (http://www.christianchatforum.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=7266#poststop) I believe in God and I believe that all things are possible with Him. I believe He could have created the earth in a twinkling...but I also believe that He could have taken a lot longer, if He wanted to. I do not think I am limiting God by saying that the 6 days may not have been 24 hour periods...Only God can create - only He could plan the universe and make everything fit so precisely. He is Awesome.

Tamara224

04-06-2006, 11:40 AM

I don't understand why Christians can't believe that it took 6 days, either. He is God... it is far from unbelievable that He couldn't just say "Let there be _____" and it was so. I don't know why it's even a debateable subject... If God wanted it done in the twinkling of an eye, it was done. I agree with you wholeheartedly when you said, "In fact, I believe that after he SAID it, it WAS there!" I couldn't have said it better myself.

Hi Rylee, I have to say, this kind of hurts my feelings. You've completely ignored me in this thread, I guess, otherwise, I don't see how you can say this.

Why is it that you can't just say that you disagree with me on this subject? Why does it have to be that I "can't believe that it took 6 days"? Especially after I've already said that I do believe it could have been 6 days, or 6 minutes, or 1 second, or a trillion years? Why do you need to turn this into an issue about my faith? I've never called your faith into question...:-(

godismydeliverer

04-06-2006, 04:32 PM

This topic facinates me because there are so many facets to it.
There is a science teacher named Kent Hovind. He has studied this from both a scientific and biblical viewpoint. He backs up his findings with a monetary reward to anyone who can scientifically prove evolution. He also goes into dinosaurs, the garden of Eden, specifics about the flood, etc...
You can listen to some of his seminar material at,
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
I am finding it takes a little time to download it, however, it is interesting.

Rylee

04-06-2006, 04:33 PM

Sara †

04-06-2006, 04:41 PM

Hey, I have listed to this guy for many years now, and he is VERY interesting indeed.....and up until the other day I agreed with his calculation on the "age of the earth"....BUT I just learned something new Sunday that has me rethinking it.. I do however need to study their findings and see if it is accurate.......But I am with you...this topic is fun to study!!

Elenar

04-06-2006, 04:52 PM

Tamara224, don't fear. I don't get my science from Carman. I am fairly well read on the topic of space and such. I just love that comment though.

I actually once held the very firm belief that God created the Earth and universe by using the Big bang. I also used to believe that the earth was indeed a few million years old and that God made it in such a way as to 'evolve'. God created science as the gears to keep His creation running.

I have since abandoned those thoughts. Why? I'll find out how God did what oneday. What's important now is that Jesus died for us all and that I need to work in my church and fulfil my calling to "Soul maintenance". There are many people in church that suffer and are sad and lonely. They need support, prayer and care. That is more relevant now...

Tamara224

04-06-2006, 06:29 PM

.....I have no clue what you're talking about.

When did I ever say that YOU didn't believe that it could have been "6 days, or 6 minutes, or 1 second..."? Show me where I said, "Tamara doesn't believe this and this and this..." I never addressed you personally, and I wasn't calling your faith in to question, and I have no clue how you got that idea. I'm simply stating that I find it hard to believe that some Christians can't believe that God is unable to perform any task He chooses in any amount of time. So, why is it that you feel that I've personally attacked you when I wasn't even talking about you?

Sorry, I misunderstood, I guess. The line of the thread made me think that yours and Elenar's posts were in response to mine... Also, I thought you were speaking generally to Christians who believe in an 'old earth.' Since I'm in that group, which fact I made clear in a previous post (in response to you), it seemed that your words were directly applicable to me.

You said: "I don't understand why Christians can't believe that it took 6 days, either." It seemed to me that your post was suggesting that 'some' people have lack of faith that they can't just believe. I thought, therefore, that you were questioning the faith of those who "can't believe that it took 6 days"...

I guess there might be a few out there...but I've personally never encountered an 'old earth' Christian who had any trouble believing that God is able to perform any task He chooses...You were calling someone's (or some group's) faith into question... If it was not 'old earthers' generally, then who was it?

I wrote my previous post (the long one in this sub-thread) in order to explain that it's not a faith issue...it's not about believing or not believing in God or His abilities. The 'old earth' Christians can believe, and they do believe that God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants and however He wants. What makes you think that 'old earthers' (any of them) accept the old earth theory because they can't believe in God's abilities?

I apologize for being too defensive and for taking it personally. I would appreciate it if you could try to see it from my point of view, though, so you could understand why your post kinda hurt my feelings.

Rylee

04-06-2006, 06:49 PM

I guess there might be a few out there...but I've personally never encountered an 'old earth' Christian who had any trouble believing that God is able to perform any task He chooses...You were calling someone's (or some group's) faith into question... If it was not 'old earthers' generally, then who was it?

It was referring to those who can't seem to believe that God can't do anything He wants in any amount of time He wants.

What makes you think that 'old earthers' (any of them) accept the old earth theory because they can't believe in God's abilities?
I don't feel that way, and furthermore, I never said that I did.

I apologize for being too defensive and for taking it personally. I would appreciate it if you could try to see it from my point of view, though, so you could understand why your post kinda hurt my feelings.
I do see it from your point of view, and it wasn't so much that I was responding under you as it was that I was responding to the one point that Elenar had made about why he can't understand why all Christians don't accept that God can and will do anything in any amount of time He wishes.

I think this is, largely, a misunderstanding. Let me just state as plainly as possible how I feel without directing anything at anybody: God created the world in 6 days. Whether this means 24 hour days, 1,000,000 hour days, or millisecond days, it doesn't matter. He still did it. I've heard people claiming to be Christian to say that even God couldn't do that. They don't believe that just because He says something, it happens right then. They don't think that the world could be created in a split second. I, on the other hand, do. This is not to say that you're one of these, as I understand that you're not.

I am sorry if I worded my post in a critical manner.

marturia

04-09-2006, 01:31 AM

As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing.
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.(just as the Bible does not say that bad people go to burn in hell or that when you die you go to heaven etc..)
Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth (and therefore the universe was already being formed and yes the universe is billions of years old as it is our planet earth) for human habitation. It says that this (the preparation of the already existing planet) was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days.

The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours

Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6000 years?
The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation as I have stated above.

Genesis creation account in a nutshell:
(1)a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible (they were already existing) in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters (it well may included dinosaurs) and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man

Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. This is the point were you decide who you want to put faith in: the Bible or Science.

It it always a good idea to read the first chapter of Genesis on your own and see for yourself these facts. The earth is very, very old.

Demon-Thrasher

07-21-2006, 02:36 PM

I have a question that was posed to me by my college profs. on which I would like to hear your opinions.

If evolution does not exist, every species of animal that presently lives and has ever lived all had to live on the earth at the same time. I wonder how they all fit at the same time. Must have been a tight squeeze!!! Even when using conservative numbers for species populations the numbers simply show that all animals that every animal that lives today and all animals that have ever lived simply could not have been housed on earth at the same time.

I really would like to hear your responces, I have brewed this over and spoke to many scientific minds and we all cannot muster up any explanation other than that we need to re-evaluate our position on evolution. This is only one of many troubling questions posed to me.

CheeseKing

07-21-2006, 07:22 PM

Are you saying there were more animals at the begining then now? They had all the types of animals on the earth, but not like billions of one type. The bible doesn't specify how many of each God created, but at the begining there were 2 people on the earth. They wouldn't have taken up that much room. There was a lot of space on the land and on the ocean. Once the flood came around, most of the animals were fossilized, caused by the pressure, the water, and all the shifts and commotions of the earth. There was a long time between the the beginning and the flood. The world was probably pretty crowded by the time of the flood. (it could have even been more crowded then we are now, but I have no idea). When the animals were created, we didn't have poodles, pugs, and pitbulls, etc. We had one type of dog. (other types developed later). With some of these animals, they could have been killed off by others, after the fall. What tells you the world would have been crowded?

Demon-Thrasher

07-25-2006, 02:05 PM

What I am saying is that we have many fossils of animals which are currently extict. We actually have quite a few! Assuming that evolution does not take place every species of animal that we currently have and ever had would have had to all lived on the planet at the same time. For populations of animals to remain healthy they must have populations of considerable size. (obviously there cannot only be one male and one female) When populations grow too small genetic deterieration makes their species grow weeker (mutations pile up too fast for natural selection to weed them out) this leads to exctintion. If all every species lived at the same time the earth would be shoulder to shoulder with animals!!! The earth cannot support such great amounts of Bio-Matter.

Rufus

07-25-2006, 02:58 PM

For populations of animals to remain healthy they must have populations of considerable size. (obviously there cannot only be one male and one female)

I suppose this would depend on whether or not you believe in the Bible's teachings or if you believe in other sources.

Genesis 7
1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

5And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

godslove

10-01-2006, 11:53 AM

that is an interesting theory, but notice evening and morning. unless the days were alot longer back then, your theory does not stand. as far as how long it takes for the stars light to appear on the earth what makes you think that God cannot take care of that problem. the solution is obvious. when God created man, was he an infant or an adult, how about the animals and plants. were they in the beginning of life or were they mature in growth? when God created the universe it was created in an adult condition, not in infancy. as far as the age of the universe it is no more then a few thousand years. as far as the earth it could be millions or just a few thousand years old also. (6000 to 13000 +/- depending who you ask)
it was created when God created heaven...God bless :-)

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wa