ok. going to add one more comment then set this aside. If a book claims to be fiction, you can read it for inspiration or to enjoy the story, but that's pretty much it. If it claims to be fact, but makes false statements, then it is of limited use at best. The Bible presents itself as God's word - facts of history, not just stories to inspire. Wherever the Bible makes claims about history or science, if it can be proven unequivocally false, then that would move it into the category of myth/not a source of truth to build one's life around. I firmly believe that there's no point in trusting statements in the Bible about who God is or what sort of relationship we are supposed to have with him if He is supposed to be all-knowing, but His book is riddled with errors. So...I know there are some who have posted above that believe that they have already proven the Bible false - if you are correct, then you are right to throw it out. Others are less confident that the "proofs" against it are objective and accurate so are still on the fence. And still others have tested and feel confident that they can trust it with their lives. Given that God is an emotional subject (yes, I realize there are some who conduct science with an open mind, but a large portion of humanity does care very deeply one way or the other), I doubt we will ever reach a time when everyone can agree that the evidence is clearly 100% in support or 100% against the existence of a God or which God it is or what involvement He might have had with our origins. I do, though, think it is worthwhile is for us to share thoughts/ideas - even if we haven't had time to research them thoroughly ourselves - so that others can decide whether to investigate in order to draw their own conclusions. If you have an open mind, you should never be afraid to hear a view that contradicts your own (I include myself in this). Instead, it should inspire you to further explorations/studies. As I at least implied above, I do not pretend to be an expert, nor do I claim to have researched the subject thoroughly. I just thought I would share an idea that seemed plausible to me and let others decide whether they wanted to examine it in any detail themselves.

Perhaps am reading into things, but there is more than one for which the tone seems a bit condescending or hostile. Gotta go.

I had not responded for 2 reasons. First, because I had already addressed at least some of your criticism in prev posts and, second, because I had already said that it was time for me to sign off and focus on other responsibilities. I had thrown it out there as a quick food for thought for any who wanted to consider the idea, not expecting to have people demand that I provide a full treatise for why I am willing to consider the option. As I also mentioned above, I will revisit the subject in my own research over the summer when I have more time - this post was intended for people to use themselves and conduct their own research to determine whether they see it as plausible. I understand that not everyone shares the same views, but I am disappointed by the tinge of disdain that seeps through in some of the criticisms. This forum should be a place of mutual respect - even if you feel someone's perspective is wrong.

Even though I am really supposed to be working on other tasks right now :glare:, one person's post that there wasn't evidence for Noah's flood got me curious so I did a quick search and came across this write-up. It is quite extensive so I have only skimmed through less than half and haven't had time to look up the references, but I thought I would post in case anyone was interested in reading it: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

Thx, albeto for the responses. When I have more time in a few weeks, I will read through it all again and do additional research.

Perhaps, but the same can be said about anything that a person is emotionally invested in - which includes stem cell research, global warming, abortion, earth origins.... Regardless of whether you believe there is a God behind things or not, if you have a strong emotional investment in your belief being right, you can't help but have it affect the types of questions you ask, where you look for answers, and whether you discard any information as irrelevant along the way. What the presence of confirmation bias cannot prove is whether any particular belief is true or false. You may very well have a "confirmation bias" toward one view on a subject, and it can still be true. Time to sign off and get back to studies for now. I'll start exploring materials in a few weeks.

I haven't read either of these, but pulled them from a prev thread, from what I understand both support Creation (without Evolution) and Old Earth: Hugh Ross's book "Creator in the Cosmos" Does God Exist? is another ministry that examines science and faith together, they hold an OEC view. Their materials are free, including a monthly magazine and various books and DVDs that can be viewed online. All materials are free for loan, although there may be a fee for some - the fee is refunded when the materials are returned. http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Actually I am not wed to the idea that there has to be a young earth. I find option C plausible, but do not rule out option A (that God created it all a long time ago). I haven't dug into this topic in some years...something happened to come across my radar a couple of days ago that brought it to mind so I thought I would post the option C idea as possible food for thought. Once we scale down school for the summer I will investigate the materials mentioned above to see how they address the topic.

I'll have to look into this further. I remember reading more than once of evidences that did actually support the idea of a world-wide flood - e.g., that sea shells have been found up in mountains (in a way that did not fit with them having been hand carried to the location). More substantially, a set of experiments conducted by sedimentologists about the way the sedimentary layers are laid down showing that it is, in fact, quite consistent with the occurrence of a world-wide flood. Been a lot of years since I read them so it might take some work to find the right key words to hunt things down.

How so? I guess I should clarify...if you are willing to consider that the God described in the Bible was behind it all, then you would be willing for science and the Bible to agree.

Again, I disagree (see earlier response to trickster comment). If God wanted us to choose to believe in and be in a relationship with Him rather than forcing us to, then He would provide the information and then leave it up to us to draw our own conclusions according to our willingness to consider Him. If a person doesn't want to believe that a God create the earth, then they are not going to be willing to consider the Bible as part of their investigations. If you consider it possible that a God is behind it all, then that opens you up to being willing for the Bible and science to agree. That, then, opens up the opportunity to take two pieces of a puzzle that seem at odds and study them side by side until you can discover how they fit. Again, if God wanted structure/order as well as beauty and He wanted there to be a wealth of resources for people and other creatures to use, it is logic, not trickery, for Him to have created the earth in a form that has those resources in place.

I don't see that as an issue. I agree that anyone who considers option C viable would not argue with scientists about the age of the earth. Those who struggle with the current explorations in geology about the age of the earth are those who think the only options available are A and B and don't realize option C is both viable and not at all inconsistent with the Bible.

I don't see this as a flaw. The logic I presented assumes that this creator God wasn't random but that He decided He wanted things to work a certain way, and therefore everything He created is consistent with that. If the Bible indicates that Adam and Eve were created as adults, and it that information is true, then that is the approach God chose. Yes he could have chosen any other, but once He chose a particular approach, then anything else He could have done instead becomes irrelevant. I will read the Biologos that was linked in a later post.

Not sure I agree. If He has told us what He did in the verses about creation then we have to interpret the data from scientific explorations hand in hand with the other information He gave us to in order to figure out the truth. The theory I posed above is very logical. There are no tricks about His having created an adult Adam/Eve, so it doesn't seem like a trick for him to have created an "adult" earth also.

I don't remember this angle being brought up in anything I've read previously so I thought I'd throw it out there since I think it adds an interesting twist to interpreting data (and figuring out how the data fits with beliefs) related to the age of the earth. I appreciate the challenge in dealing with anything related to origins. Most areas of science deal with forming/testing hypotheses to develop theories about how phenomena that we can observe and recreate work. When it gets to big sections of geology, your beliefs about the presence or absence of a God force you to make assumptions that drive your interpretation of the data. Since we can't go back and recreate the experiment, so to speak, we are limited in our ability to even determine whether our core assumptions are valid. If you do not believe that a God created the universe or that miracles can occur, but instead believe that everything came about through natural processes, then the only way for us to have everything in place that we have is for it to have taken many millions/billions of years to transpire...that will drive the assumptions in what questions to ask when testing geologic data. On the other hand, if you believe that an omnipotent God did create the universe and that miracles can occur, then you come in w an entirely different set of assumptions. (a) Some in this camp believe that the base assumptions used in geology are true - this group chooses to interpret that God created it all but that He did it millions/billions of years ago. {b} Others in this camp hold to a literal 6-day creation and are forced to conclude that there are major flaws with the base assumptions used by modern geologists, which then puts them at odds with much of the scientific community. -->> But there's a third group here that I find intriguing: {c} If there really is an omnipotent/omniscient God who really did create everything, well then if He created an adult Adam and an adult Eve, what would prevent Him from creating an "adult" earth in which they and their offspring (and all other creatures...) would live? If this is true and this God is a practical Being, then he would have (for example) created an earth already full of fossils at varying stages of decay so that humankind would be able (again, for example) to make use of fossil fuels without needing to wait billions of years for the decay of those first living animals. If this is the case, then all of the modern geologists' conclusions are both true and false simultaneously...true in that the earth really is millions/billions of years old, but false in that this really old earth was created that way only some 10s of thousands of years ago because that was the most practical form for it to be created in. (Having a "baby" earth that would take eons to get to a useable/functional condition would be no more practical than it would have been to create a newborn male and a newborn female (with no adults already having been created to take care of them)). Makes for interesting material to contemplate.