Was I born under a rock?(CC)(Young earth vs. old earth)

[KingM]

You're correct. My point is that the scientific community doesn't want to talk about anything other than Darwinism. That's why she hasn't come across the information she was referring to.

 

There are times when the theory explains things so well and fits so well with the evidence that there is no reason to talk about anything else. Before Euclid, the Greeks believed that sight resulted from something emanating from the eye, not entering it. Empedocles believed that vision ensued when the element of fire emerged from our eye and interacted with the element of fire emerging from the sun. Of course we now understand photons and radiation in general, so we don't discuss other theories except for the sake of historical interest.

 

It's the same thing with our modern understanding of the age of the earth. It is so well founded in science and checks out across so many disciplines that there's no need to continue believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The only reason that it is still controversial is that some interpretations of some ancient religious texts make it sound like the earth might be only a few thousand years old. Some people are invested in the defense of an archaic theory through religious conviction, which is not science.

 

The fact is, the earth is billions of years old and the universe billions of years older than that. This is absolutely non-controversial in the sciences and the reason scientists who believe otherwise are "shunned" is because they come across as quacks with a religious agenda to those who are actually working in the field.

 

An ophthalmologist would similarly shun someone who tried to resolve disease in the eye by postulating an Empedoclian theory of the origin of sight.

[Unicorn.]

My apologies for a poor choice of words. I was replying to a pp saying the scientific community didn't want to hear from scientists who might also be religious, or that religion and science could go hand in hand, etc. My point was supposed to be that the church had a history of not wanting to hear that science might differ from what they believed, and that both sides had extreme views. I'm sorry that I posted when tired, and didn't make that clear.

[JenC3]

There are times when the theory explains things so well and fits so well with the evidence that there is no reason to talk about anything else. Before Euclid, the Greeks believed that sight resulted from something emanating from the eye, not entering it. Empedocles believed that vision ensued when the element of fire emerged from our eye and interacted with the element of fire emerging from the sun. Of course we now understand photons and radiation in general, so we don't discuss other theories except for the sake of historical interest.

 

It's the same thing with our modern understanding of the age of the earth. It is so well founded in science and checks out across so many disciplines that there's no need to continue believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The only reason that it is still controversial is that some interpretations of some ancient religious texts make it sound like the earth might be only a few thousand years old. Some people are invested in the defense of an archaic theory through religious conviction, which is not science.

 

The fact is, the earth is billions of years old and the universe billions of years older than that. This is absolutely non-controversial in the sciences and the reason scientists who believe otherwise are "shunned" is because they come across as quacks with a religious agenda to those who are actually working in the field.

 

An ophthalmologist would similarly shun someone who tried to resolve disease in the eye by postulating an Empedoclian theory of the origin of sight.

 

Exactly! Science is God for goodness sake! Science explains God's work.

If God gave us the abilities to discover scientific facts, etc. why are we in such conflict? It makes no sense to me. God also gave us the ability to write amazing literature that can be interpreted in MANY ways, why would His Word, His writing, be any different? Are we so easily able to understand what God is saying? Why is HIS WORD taken so literally? Jesus spoke in parable repeatedly, again, why not God as well? Theologians study the Bible for YEARS without unraveling it's mystery, so why is it so definite for some Christians that it's 6 days and nothing else?

 

All the work science does IMO is unravel the work of God.

[Marylou]

All the work science does IMO is unravel the work of God.

 

And then there are those who don't believe there's anything needing to be unraveled ;)

 

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20

[MSNative]

The fact is, the earth is billions of years old and the universe billions of years older than that. This is absolutely non-controversial in the sciences and the reason scientists who believe otherwise are "shunned" is because they come across as quacks with a religious agenda to those who are actually working in the field.

 

An ophthalmologist would similarly shun someone who tried to resolve disease in the eye by postulating an Empedoclian theory of the origin of sight.

 

I am a Christian, but I really don't know, nor do I believe I ever will know how the universe began. I think these questions tend to divide and distract us from the real work of God. I also agree that God is the God of science and reason. Anything we learn that does not conform to our preconceived notions does not negate God. It proves that we did not understand properly.

 

However, I do not think the question of the age of the earth and universe has been settled. I think it is dangerous to think like that. What if Einstein, Stephen Hawking or Max Planck or any of the other great modern scientists had just believed that physics was settled? We wouldn't have quantum theory (which provides a basis for many who argue that the universe is billions of years old.) My point is that science doesn't prove anything. It merely guides us and gives us best guesses based on current data. Euclid thought he was spot on and for ages everyone KNEW he was. But...he wasn't. He was close, but not really right. The same can be said about our knowledge today. I firmly believe that our current scientific beliefs will be shown to be lacking in several major areas as we develop better techniques, equipment, theories, etc. Most of science is controversial and that is exactly what spurs future developments. It is good for science to have people question, debate and never agree that something that cannot be proven (like evolution, the age of the universe, etc.) is settled.

[Melissa in CA]

I am a Christian, but I really don't know, nor do I believe I ever will know how the universe began. I think these questions tend to divide and distract us from the real work of God. I also agree that God is the God of science and reason. Anything we learn that does not conform to our preconceived notions does not negate God. It proves that we did not understand properly.

 

However, I do not think the question of the age of the earth and universe has been settled. I think it is dangerous to think like that. What if Einstein, Stephen Hawking or Max Planck or any of the other great modern scientists had just believed that physics was settled? We wouldn't have quantum theory (which provides a basis for many who argue that the universe is billions of years old.) My point is that science doesn't prove anything. It merely guides us and gives us best guesses based on current data. Euclid thought he was spot on and for ages everyone KNEW he was. But...he wasn't. He was close, but not really right. The same can be said about our knowledge today. I firmly believe that our current scientific beliefs will be shown to be lacking in several major areas as we develop better techniques, equipment, theories, etc. Most of science is controversial and that is exactly what spurs future developments. It is good for science to have people question, debate and never agree that something that cannot be proven (like evolution, the age of the universe, etc.) is settled.

 

Thank you for posting! I had so many things I wanted to say in response to the pp you quoted, but I was sort of flabbergasted and rendered speechless. :lol: Such a 'fact is' dogmatic statement for something that HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Wow. :blink: I'm still speechless. My dh says that is possibly a good thing. :D

 

Personally, I could care less how old the earth is. It JUST doesn't matter to me, and is most definitely not the hill I want to die on. I believe the bible over science because man is often proven wrong, but the bible never. Until I am shown BY THE BIBLE that God did NOT mean a literal 24 hour, what we experience every day, DAY when He said, "And then there was evening and then there was morning the 1st (2nd 3rd, etc.) day" I will continue to believe in a literal 6 day creation account. I can't imagine Him making it any clearer, not only in His words, but in our human experience. :confused:

 

I mean, why would He say what He said about how He created, have us EXPERIENCE a day each and every single day, but in reality mean each day was thousands or millions of years, and that instead of speaking creation into being, aw well shucks what He really meant to say was that He used evolution over a looooong period of time. :confused:

 

I'm sorry, but in my book God's Word trumps science each and every time. Call me an uneducated idiot. ;) (I'm in good company)

Edited November 14, 2010 by Melissa in CA

[asta]

Except that... religion does not equal Christianity. God does not equal Christianity. God does not equal "He". God does not equal any tangible thing conceivable by the human mind.

 

Humans are perpetually placing human constructs on GOD. To place one of my own: how incredibly insulting and presumptuous! Humans are not gods! (and please, don't throw Jesus quotes at me - there aren't any - Jesus of Nazareth didn't write anything down)

 

This is where atheists win their arguments (from what I've read, anyway) - they recognize that they are HUMAN. They do not attempt to ascribe their own feelings or thoughts to anything else.

 

Life is one big attempt to explain the unexplainable. Every age of peoples has done it in their own way. Who is to say one age is right and another is wrong? What, because we live in 2010 and the posters of this thread are predominately Christian, all answers MUST be found ONLY in a book called the Christian bible? How does that explain all of the "heathens" on the planet? Did god not make them? Or did god just make them as a sort of "after school project" for the Christians to wander the planet converting?

 

Why bother with thought at all? Carbon dating? Who needs it! That's SCIENCE! Let's pick and choose which bits we want to believe: show the world that a nation did, indeed explode a nuclear bomb over their own people, good. Explain a fossil of a T-Rex, bad.

 

Here's the difference: religion is faith. Faith that there is something when this... this LIFE on planet earth... is all over - will lead to something better (or, in some religions, simply different). It is not difficult to see why religion has flourished (and continues to) in times and places when/where life is the most dire. Science is reason. The reason that things happen independent of faith. It doesn't purport to know everything, explain everything, or say it will ever have all of the answers (or that the answers it does have won't morph over time). Science doesn't pretend to be god. It doesn't pretend to speak for god, or to know the intent of god. That is something that religion does.

 

 

a

[KingM]

Thank you for posting! I had so many things I wanted to say in response to the pp you quoted, but I was sort of flabbergasted and rendered speechless. :lol: Such a 'fact is' dogmatic statement for something that HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Wow.

 

An ancient earth has been proven, except among certain religious communities. This fact is non-controversial in any other context. There are so many different pieces of evidence, all of which point to an ancient earth and an ancient universe.

 

I know that some people are invested in an archaic understanding of the universe and will continue to believe otherwise. This doesn't make them stupid or brainwashed or narrow-minded, it just makes them wrong.

[Tea Time]

Except that... religion does not equal Christianity. God does not equal Christianity. God does not equal "He". God does not equal any tangible thing conceivable by the human mind.

Which is exactly why I pointed out that it is perfectly possible to turn science into religion. Indeed, Christianity seems to have certain predictive value (a trait shared with science) to life and especially to human behavior. It also has a value system so unique that it fostered (in its bosom-as I also pointed out) the entirety of Western civilization including all the the most cherished developments of science. Some people may deny the cause and effect there, but they cannont deny the history.

 

So, it is true that Christianity may be just another religion. The question, to me, may be like looking at a pile of cut class but thinking their might be a diamond in there somewhere. Some will find it and some will not. But, don't think that Christianity is too concerned with whether or not it is found (Some people and some Christians think that is paramount). I rather think God is more concerned with whether or not you believe it is there to be found or if He is there to be found.

 

(No one, BTW, who is a serious Christian thinks "he" in the way you are projecting and fearing it is meant. But that accusation does effectively inflame some people, doesn't it?)

 

Humans are perpetually placing human constructs on GOD. To place one of my own: how incredibly insulting and presumptuous! Humans are not gods! (and please, don't throw Jesus quotes at me - there aren't any - Jesus of Nazareth didn't write anything down)

Yes, some people do that who are religious, but so do some people who are atheists. Pride. It is claimed to be the greatest sin.

 

This is where atheists win their arguments (from what I've read, anyway) - they recognize that they are HUMAN. They do not attempt to ascribe their own feelings or thoughts to anything else.

Of course they do this in many ways. Isn't that what you said humans do? It is perfectly natural after all. As materialists seek to send Christians to the back of the bus, I am pretty sure they are going to ascribe all their own thoughts and feelings to that process. It is already happening. But it has been predicted, so I am not surprised. I am still going to try my best to discourage it, however.

 

Life is one big attempt to explain the unexplainable. Every age of peoples has done it in their own way. Who is to say one age is right and another is wrong? What, because we live in 2010 and the posters of this thread are predominately Christian, all answers MUST be found ONLY in a book called the Christian bible? How does that explain all of the "heathens" on the planet? Did god not make them? Or did god just make them as a sort of "after school project" for the Christians to wander the planet converting?

So this is really about feeling icky because Christian posit a Truth . Yeah, yeah. We know. How arrogant to know the Truth, etc. It does tick people off. I suggest reading Truth and Tolerance by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (you know who he is) if you want to explore the idea further. But if you want to assume it is all just based on a superiority complex then fine. But do not tell me materialists don't have their own superiority complex going on. I pointed that out in the ignored post.

 

Why bother with thought at all? Carbon dating? Who needs it! That's SCIENCE! Let's pick and choose which bits we want to believe: show the world that a nation did, indeed explode a nuclear bomb over their own people, good. Explain a fossil of a T-Rex, bad.

Indeed. Why bother with thought at all? It is, after all, the result of random forces acting on a randomly existing system with no purpose. Naturally all the materialists will have pure, unadulterated motives for good. I don't know how that will happen though since "good" is a relative concept with no foundation in anything. A meaningless accidental event in an ever increasing, dying universe.

 

Here's the difference: religion is faith. Faith that there is something when this... this LIFE on planet earth... is all over - will lead to something better (or, in some religions, simply different). It is not difficult to see why religion has flourished (and continues to) in times and places when/where life is the most dire. Science is reason. The reason that things happen independent of faith. It doesn't purport to know everything, explain everything, or say it will ever have all of the answers (or that the answers it does have won't morph over time). Science doesn't pretend to be god. It doesn't pretend to speak for god, or to know the intent of god. That is something that religion does.

 

 

a

No, science does not pretend to be God, but people do. Heathen religions made human sacrifices (Which is why they are "bad" - not just because they are not Christian, okay?). The "new religion of science" (a perversion of the real scientific method) will do the same (I am sure they will have a really, really good reason for it though). As far as I know, historically speaking, it was Christianity that said sacrifices (animals or humans) would never, ever be needed again. Some centuries later, when the notion had time to spread, they were outlawed.

 

That is reason enough for me to think IT is the diamond.

 

Your take on faith is not everyone's, and no, not everyone thinks it is just about an afterlife. I personally think it is simply noticing that, while there seems to be a lot going on that we can observe directly, there seems to be an awful lot of subtext to the story, and we seem to work in the subtext an awful lot. I think faith is just believing that there is more than meets the eye going on here.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Tea Time

[elfgivas]

 

 

Indeed. Why bother with thought at all? It is, after all, the result of random forces acting on a randomly existing system with no purpose. Naturally all the materialists will have pure, unadulterated motives for good. I don't know how that will happen though since "good" is a relative concept with no foundation in anything.

 

.

 

i could not disagree more. there are intrinsic understandings of good that transcend religion, time and culture. clustered together, they might be called "things/actions that lead to thriving" (sam harris is where i first heard this).

 

eg. having enough to eat is "good"; not having enough to eat is "bad".

 

blessings,

ann

[elfgivas]

An ancient earth has been proven, except among certain religious communities. This fact is non-controversial in any other context. There are so many different pieces of evidence, all of which point to an ancient earth and an ancient universe.

 

I know that some people are invested in an archaic understanding of the universe and will continue to believe otherwise. This doesn't make them stupid or brainwashed or narrow-minded, it just makes them wrong.

 

an example:

 

look at a map. it is possible to see that south america and africa used to fit together.

 

use a gps. discover that the plates are moving away from one another at approx. 1 inch a year. the atlantic ocean is 150 million inches wide. there is strong evidence that this has been a consistent rate.

 

that is not belief. it is not religion. it is observation.

 

ann

[KingM]

an example:

 

look at a map. it is possible to see that south america and africa used to fit together.

 

use a gps. discover that the plates are moving away from one another at approx. 1 inch a year. the atlantic ocean is 150 million inches wide. there is strong evidence that this has been a consistent rate.

 

that is not belief. it is not religion. it is observation.

 

ann

 

And there are thousands of pieces of evidence across various disciplines. I suppose one could say that God made the earth look like it was billions of years old. But I don't think it likely. It might have been created five minutes ago, for that matter, and we're all suffering the illusion that we've got years of life behind us.

 

The most likely answer is that the earth looks really old because the earth is really old.

[Melissa in CA]

). Science doesn't pretend to be god. It doesn't pretend to speak for god, or to know the intent of god. That is something that religion does.

a

 

No, the secular scientific community is trying desperately to disprove God. They DO have an agenda even if you want to call it something else. In truth, science and human reasoning has become their god.

 

The science community is starting to acknowledge intelligent design though. In their discoveries of DNA and the intricacies of what goes on inside an atom, etc., more and more are becoming convinced of an 'intelligence' behind creation. BUT, I can pretty much guarantee that they, on a whole, will choose to believe it was designed by anything and everything but God. And in any-way and every-way but the way told of in the Bible. I've already heard tales that we were actually created by an alien life force. Who created that alien life force is beyond me, but hey, let's come up with anything as long as we don't come up with God. If it weren't so terribly sad, it would be funny.

 

As opposed to other religions, Christians believe the bible....a book that has proven itself true time, and time, and time, and time again. It is the book God has given to reveal aspects of Himself (and yes, it refers to God as a Him...sorry if that irritates), His creation, His chosen nation, etc. We cannot speak for God, but we can surely speak about Him and what He has chosen to reveal to us. He is too huge, too vast to fully comprehend...but He has given glimpses of Himself in the Scriptures. He has told us how creation came about, and in my opinion He made it very simple and clear. He has also told us how life will end and what will happen to anyone who has not believed in Him, the one and only true God.

 

If I am actually wrong, and the God of the bible does not exist, then at the end of this life I will be no better off, or worse off, than the rest of humanity. But if we Christians are right, then you Atheists, Humanists [insert religion of choice] are in for a very rude, and very sad awakening. Your human reasoning and intellect will not save you from the wrath of God....your Creator. ;)

 

By the way...there are MANY great thinkers and movers in Christianity. Great theologians who have AMAZING intellect...yet, still believe in the God of the bible (and yes even a literal 6-day creation). The difference is that they know who gave them their intellect; they worship the Creator [God] and not the creation [themselves].

[Melissa in CA]

an example:

 

look at a map. it is possible to see that south america and africa used to fit together.

 

use a gps. discover that the plates are moving away from one another at approx. 1 inch a year. the atlantic ocean is 150 million inches wide. there is strong evidence that this has been a consistent rate.

 

that is not belief. it is not religion. it is observation.

 

ann

 

BUT, we don't know WHEN the plates began moving. Some, I believe, think it began as result of the worldwide flood told of in Genesis. So, until you can prove WHEN the plates began to move...I am unconvinced by your example. ;)

[MSNative]

an example:

 

look at a map. it is possible to see that south america and africa used to fit together.

 

use a gps. discover that the plates are moving away from one another at approx. 1 inch a year. the atlantic ocean is 150 million inches wide. there is strong evidence that this has been a consistent rate.

 

that is not belief. it is not religion. it is observation.

 

ann

 

It's an observation, but it is not a fact. There are geologists who suggest that the notion of plates floating along on the earth is incorrect. They argue that the plates "cracked" to allow for the expansion of the earth - if the earth is expanding, then the top layer would naturally have separate to allow for expansion. Some geologists argue that the whole concept of Pangea makes no sense. If all of the earth's rock and crust were on one side of the globe and water on the other, then one side of the earth would be 4 times more dense than the other. Other geologists argue that no, there were two supercontinents - one on each side of the earth that then broke apart. And on and on. My point - it's not proven.

 

An ancient earth has been proven, except among certain religious communities. This fact is non-controversial in any other context. There are so many different pieces of evidence, all of which point to an ancient earth and an ancient universe.

 

I know that some people are invested in an archaic understanding of the universe and will continue to believe otherwise. This doesn't make them stupid or brainwashed or narrow-minded, it just makes them wrong.

 

Right now, the scientific community agrees on several different methods to date the earth and the universe - carbon dating, expanding universe theory, etc. Each of these theories relies on assumptions and unknowns.

 

Carbon dating - do we really know what effects high temperature, pressure and speed have on the decay of the materials we use for carbon dating? Nope. Has science PROVEN that it can actually date materials that are 10,000 years old? Of course not since we don't have independent sources that can verify that the item tested is actually that old. Scientists have taken a method that has been fairly accurate in dating materials that are a couple of thousand years old and are extrapolating to billions of years. They may be right, they may be wrong, but it isn't proven. Yes, I know they also use potassium argon dating, but again, scientists are extrapolating based on statistics. You cannot prove that something has a half-life of a billion+ years. No one's been around to verify independently. You can make an educated guess but we can't know. Great site on potassium argon dating, though the scientist here declares the age of the world even though his own slides show uncertainty. http://brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu/a102//handouts/lecturenotes/20060901.pdf

 

The expanding universe theory -this is a fairly new theory set forth by Stephen Hawking. Fascinating stuff and def. worth the read. Great brief explanation here: http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp However, there are questions with this theory, too. One problem is that scientists can't make their equations work as they ought to so they are positing "dark matter."

 

My point is not to argue that YE is correct or incorrect. I just think that science has limitations and ought to not say that something that is assumed is proven. All of our "proofs" are based on premises that may or may not be proven incorrect in the future. We have numerous examples in history where "proven" science has been proven to be incorrect. The very act of questioning advances science - one could argue it is the very goal of science.

[LND1218]

An ancient earth has been proven, except among certain religious communities. This fact is non-controversial in any other context. There are so many different pieces of evidence, all of which point to an ancient earth and an ancient universe.

 

If the ancient earth has been proven, how about some facts then to support this? I would love to hear the facts and the evidence.

 

 

an example:

look at a map. it is possible to see that south america and africa used to fit together.

 

use a gps. discover that the plates are moving away from one another at approx. 1 inch a year. the atlantic ocean is 150 million inches wide. there is strong evidence that this has been a consistent rate.

 

that is not belief. it is not religion. it is observation.

 

ann

 

Yes, that is an observation, but how do you know they have always moved at that rate? While this is what Uniformitarianism states, we know that catastrophic events occurr through time that change the landscape of earth. Just look at what a hurricane does or an earthquake, maybe a volcanic eruption or tsunami. These have to be taken into account.

 

So isn't it possible that that rate has varied and this doesn't accurately reflect the age of the earth?

 

And there are thousands of pieces of evidence across various disciplines.

 

Please share some specifics.

 

BUT, we don't know WHEN the plates began moving. Some, I believe, think it began as result of the worldwide flood told of in Genesis. So, until you can prove WHEN the plates began to move...I am unconvinced by your example. ;)

A world wide flood certainly could have caused this to happen rapidly.

 

There is evidence in the fossil record of a world wide flood.

 

The Cambrian jellyfish fossils for example can be evidence of this. I mean how on earth does a jellyfish fossilize over many years? Wouldn't a soft body creature like that just deteriorate?

[asta]

Your take on faith is not everyone's

 

Actually, it isn't my take on faith, I just like arguing. :001_smile:

 

I haven't revealed my "take on faith" on this board.

 

 

asta

[KingM]

If the ancient earth has been proven, how about some facts then to support this? I would love to hear the facts and the evidence.

 

 

Don't you think proving the age of the earth is beyond the scope of a message board? I would suggest starting with subscriptions to Nature and National Geographic.

 

For people with a little more background, I suggest subscribing to the science blogs on Gene Expression. If you don't have a background in science, or at least a lay understanding, they will be difficult to follow.

[lionfamily1999]

I know there has been talk over young earth vs. old earth. And to be honest, since I didn't know a ton of facts, and just was going by what I gathered over the years, I had a really hard time justifying the millions of years things with God and the Bible. I have faith, so I just pushed it aside as something that was beyond my understanding (and it probably still is).

 

However, wow, I have been gobsmacked this week by my 5th grade son's science program. I LOVE IT!! (The Fossil Book from the Wonders of Creation Series by Gary and Mary Parker).

 

I finally had the Geologic Column Diagram explained to me in such a way that it makes tons of sense. Tons. It doesn't have to fight with my view of God's timeline. And it makes logical sense!! I can't tell you how happy I am, spiritually, just thinking about it. So, I guess I'm officially on the young earth side, now.

 

What I can't understand is why if all the world believed in flood science until 1800, why did Darwin have such an impact? Darwin's theory is, of course, arguable, but it just seems that there is so much evidence to support flood theory. Why is this information not being taught alongside evolutionism? Why is it not being presented clearly. Why, at age 44 am I just finding out about this? I think there would be more of a turning back to God if this was widely taught (if it were taught seriously.).

 

Interesting week!

Late to the :party: OP, where did you get this? I've been finding plenty of great resources, but I'd really like something I can use with my kids.

 

Thank you :D

[Greta]

Oh wow! I did not know Christians thought that. Well I guess that answers that question. But isn't death equated with sickness and violence and tragedies and accidents and sorrow and crying and "yucky and bad"...to quote my 6 yo. How could God create that and call it good? I don't know if my brain could wrap around a paradigm shift of that magnitude.

 

Thank you for the podcast info. I am quite behind the times technologically (apparently theologically too. :001_smile:) but I at least have an inkling of an understanding to google around and find some articles.

 

I'm sorry for my very delayed reply. We had a rather trying weekend. Anyway, I should clarify my statement. I'm not really knowledgeable to eloquent enough to explain it well, which is why I pointed out Father Thomas Hopko. But basically, the view that the Eastern Orthodox Church has always had is that God did not punish us or curse us with death, but Adam and Eve chose death when they ate from the free; in a sense, they committed suicide. God sent His Son to save us, not from a punishment that He Himself gave us, but essentially, from ourselves. It may sound like a subtle difference to others, but to me it is a profound one. I could not bring myself to believe in a God that would punish millions of people for the sins of two, and I was an atheist for many years. But the Orthodox view helped me to better understand God's love and restored my faith.

 

But I was getting a bit off track, and I realize that this doesn't fully answer your question, which was, I believe, how could God have called it "good" if there was death in the world? And it is a good question. I have my own ideas about the subject, but they are not well-formulated at this point. I can't express them well. I do know that as someone who has spent some time studying biology, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. So to accept the interpretation that some people insist upon of the creation story in the Bible, I would have to believe that God instantly brought into existence a universe which looked very old, because he was playing a little joke on us or trying to deceive us. Obviously, I cannot accept that. What seems far more logical to me is that the story in Genesis is meant to teach us about our relationship with God, and was never intended to be a blow-by-blow logical account of how He did it. Afterall, there are two different accounts, and if we insist on reading them in a literal step-by-step manner, they contradict one another. I think when we do that we're actually cheapening the Bible, reducing it to something it was never meant to be. We're making it seem silly. And that bothers me.

 

So I accept the Bible as God's word, as his message to us about who we are, what our purpose is, what He can do for us if we will allow Him to work in our lives. I don't take it as a mere accounting of facts.

 

But that's just me. Obviously others disagree. :001_smile:

Edited November 15, 2010 by GretaLynne

[Haiku]

Why is this information not being taught alongside evolutionism?

 

Because it's a religious idea and its place is in the home or church, not in a non-religious setting like a public school.

 

Tara

[Greta]

I forgot, I was also going to briefly mention that I personally feel that to insist that "day" means 24 hours is imposing a meaning on the scriptures that was never intended. I do not believe that is a "literal" interpretation, but a mistaken one.

 

Later on, in the same book of Genesis, chapter 2 verse 17, God says to Adam and Eve:

 

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

Emphasis mine, of course. Since Adam and Eve went on to have children and live for many years, God was clearly not speaking of a 24-hour period.

 

There are also many, many scriptures in both Old Testament which are prophesies about "the day of the Lord". I don't think anyone would insist that this means a mere 24 hour period.

 

"Day" in English can mean either 24 hours, or an unspecified period of time. The same must be true in Hebrew, because my understanding is that the same Hebrew word for "day" is used in the creation account, in Ch2vs17, and in all of the scriptures that speak of the day of the Lord. So insisting on one particular meaning of a word, when that word has more than one commonly used and broadly understood meaning, is not being "literal". IMO.

[mytwomonkeys]

 

Later on, in the same book of Genesis, chapter 2 verse 17, God says to Adam and Eve:

 

 

 

Emphasis mine, of course. Since Adam and Eve went on to have children and live for many years, God was clearly not speaking of a 24-hour period.

 

yes, but many christians interpret that as correct. they did die that day spiritually (and i for one believe that is what scripture is referring too), & their spiritual death is why all men are born with sin and need to be born again.

[Lovedtodeath]

Interesting thread. I am still not a YEC but I have enjoyed many of the books and explanations. Much of the evidence that is used to prove an Old Earth can be explained with a Young Earth as well... in fact IMO some of it makes more sense that way. Here is an article about the geological column. http://biblicalgeology.net/General/geologic-column.html

 

The best I can figure I'm an old earth evolutionist who thinks evolution was instituted by God. I'm sure there is a shorter name for it.

 

People who believe in a young earth believe that earth is +/- 7000 years old. They believe a very literal interpretation of Genesis. I've heard some as young as 5900 years old and as old as 9000 years.

 

Old earth believers believe in the current scientific model that says earth (and the solar system) is billions of years old.

 

I'm not sure if there are any young earth evolutionists. There may be old earth creationists, but I'm not sure.

I saw a question about Young Earth Evolutionists? You may find it interesting that many YEC believe in Natural Selection and speciation as a result. Todd Wood is one example of a scientist working on this theory. There are also people who fall in the middle, believing that the earth itself and the universe are old, but that life is young, and/or that mankind is young.

 

I know it's much too early to feel this tired, and yet the fact remains that I am somehow too tired to address your question coherently. Tonight, I will just leave you with the thought that not all Christians view death as a punishment that God meted out for our sins. Strange, but true. :001_smile:

Death was a consequence of the first sin. God warned of the consequence, that does not equal to meting out a punishment. It is unfortunate that Adam's descendents also die. That is why Jesus died as a propitiatory sacrifice.

 

3 He was despised and was avoided by men, a man meant for pains and for having acquaintance with sickness. And there was as if the concealing of one’s face from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account. 4 Truly our sicknesses were what he himself carried; and as for our pains, he bore them. But we ourselves accounted him as plagued, stricken by God and afflicted. 5 But he was being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors. The chastisement meant for our peace was upon him, and because of his wounds there has been a healing for us.(Isaiah 53)

Edited November 15, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

I forgot, I was also going to briefly mention that I personally feel that to insist that "day" means 24 hours is imposing a meaning on the scriptures that was never intended. I do not believe that is a "literal" interpretation, but a mistaken one.

 

:iagree: Now I need to read the rest of this thread. Time to charge my batteries. :P

[LND1218]

Don't you think proving the age of the earth is beyond the scope of a message board? I would suggest starting with subscriptions to Nature and National Geographic.

 

For people with a little more background, I suggest subscribing to the science blogs on Gene Expression. If you don't have a background in science, or at least a lay understanding, they will be difficult to follow.

 

No I don't think it's beyond the scope of a message board to give some examples and support to, as you stated, the fact that the earth is old. If it's a fact, it should have some examples that can be shared especially if there are thousands of them. Maybe it's more than can be fully explored on a message board. But surely we can have a discussion of it - right?

 

I would assume if you have studied the fact that the earth is old that you could site some supporting evidence/examples of that.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

No I don't think it's beyond the scope of a message board to give some examples and support to, as you stated, the fact that the earth is old. If it's a fact, it should have some examples that can be shared especially if there are thousands of them. Maybe it's more than can be fully explored on a message board. But surely we can have a discussion of it - right?

 

I would assume if you have studied the fact that the earth is old that you could site some supporting evidence/examples of that.

 

I would visit the Smithsonian Natural History Museum to see tons of evidence for old earth:).

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Because it's a religious idea and its place is in the home or church, not in a non-religious setting like a public school.

 

Tara

 

:iagree: Plus there are many different religions and religious ideas on creation:) Plus, I am sure they would all say that their view was the truth:D Lastly, Christians do not all have the same view on creation and old earth/young earth, etc. So which flavor of Christianity do we choose to teach? Mine?:D

[Melissa in CA]

I personally feel that to insist that "day" means 24 hours is imposing a meaning on the scriptures that was never intended. I do not believe that is a "literal" interpretation, but a mistaken one.

 

 

I have to respectfully disagree. :) Yes, the word day (yowm, I believe) has several usages as do most words, but I could also say that your imposing it to mean thousands of years was never intended either, due to the very words used alongside it..."And then there was evening, and there was morning, the first day." Why was the author SO specific. Why not just say...'and that was the first day'. It seems...to me...that the author is specifically clarifying the meaning of day in the creation account. It's when you bring in mans 'science' and man-centered, opposed to God-centered, reasoning into the equation that one begins to question it. To read it 'as is' one would conclude it to mean one approx 24 hour period of time...what we know as a day.

 

I can't imagine it being any clearer that that. :confused: I think people muddy the waters because they so badly want to fit in their scientific beliefs/theories.

[LND1218]

I would visit the Smithsonian Natural History Museum to see tons of evidence for old earth:).

 

We have been there a few times.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have to respectfully disagree. :) Yes, the word day (yom, I believe) has several usages as do most words, but I could also say that your imposing it to mean thousands of years was never intended either, due to the very words used alongside it..."And then there was evening, and there was morning, the first day." Why was the author SO specific. Why not just say...'and that was the first day'. It seems...to me...that the author is specifically clarifying the meaning of day in the creation account. It's when you bring in mans 'science' and man-centered, opposed to God-centered, reasoning into the equation that one begins to question it. To read it 'as is' one would conclude it to mean one approx 24 hour period of time...what we know as a day.

 

I can't imagine it being any clearer that that. :confused: I think people muddy the waters because they so badly want to fit in their scientific beliefs/theories.

Yes but you are imposing your religious ideas on this text as well.

[Greta]

yes, but many christians interpret that as correct. they did die that day spiritually (and i for one believe that is what scripture is referring too), & their spiritual death is why all men are born with sin and need to be born again.

 

Okay, the day is "literal" but the death is "figurative"? :001_smile: I can get with that! But it does show that wisdom is needed to understand the Bible, because interpretation, as much as some Christians seem to hate that word, is critically important.

[Mrs Mungo]

No, the secular scientific community is trying desperately to disprove God. They DO have an agenda even if you want to call it something else. In truth, science and human reasoning has become their god.

 

This is not necessarily true. It is rudely and wrongly ****ing to all sorts of Christians who are scientists. Again, science and reason are not mutual exclusive from religion. That is a false dichotomy. Don't warp the Word of God to claim that people must choose between science and religion. That is being a false witness and is one of the things that leads people away from God.

 

Here is what Billy Graham had to say on the topic:

I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God.

 

As opposed to other religions, Christians believe the bible....a book that has proven itself true time, and time, and time, and time again. It is the book God has given to reveal aspects of Himself (and yes, it refers to God as a Him...sorry if that irritates),

 

The Bible also refers to feminine aspects of God. Man and woman were created in His image.

 

His creation, His chosen nation, etc. We cannot speak for God, but we can surely speak about Him and what He has chosen to reveal to us. He is too huge, too vast to fully comprehend...but He has given glimpses of Himself in the Scriptures. He has told us how creation came about, and in my opinion He made it very simple and clear.

 

I also think it's simple and clear. I think it's allegory, not literal. That is my opinion. Anything else paints a picture of a God who is intentionally deceiving His people. What would be the point of that? It's fine if you believe differently. It's not fine if you insist you can't be a Christian unless you believe your way.

 

No I don't think it's beyond the scope of a message board to give some examples and support to, as you stated, the fact that the earth is old. If it's a fact, it should have some examples that can be shared especially if there are thousands of them. Maybe it's more than can be fully explored on a message board. But surely we can have a discussion of it - right?

 

I would assume if you have studied the fact that the earth is old that you could site some supporting evidence/examples of that.

 

Multiple links to articles and websites have been given in this thread. Go read them if you are truly interested.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I'm sorry for my very delayed reply. We had a rather trying weekend. Anyway, I should clarify my statement. I'm not really knowledgeable to eloquent enough to explain it well, which is why I pointed out Father Thomas Hopko. But basically, the view that the Eastern Orthodox Church has always had is that God did not punish us or curse us with death, but Adam and Eve chose death when they ate from the free; in a sense, they committed suicide. God sent His Son to save us, not from a punishment that He Himself gave us, but essentially, from ourselves. It may sound like a subtle difference to others, but to me it is a profound one. I could not bring myself to believe in a God that would punish millions of people for the sins of two, and I was an atheist for many years. But the Orthodox view helped me to better understand God's love and restored my faith.

 

But I was getting a bit off track, and I realize that this doesn't fully answer your question, which was, I believe, how could God have called it "good" if there was death in the world? And it is a good question. I have my own ideas about the subject, but they are not well-formulated at this point. I can't express them well. I do know that as someone who has spent some time studying biology, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. So to accept the interpretation that some people insist upon of the creation story in the Bible, I would have to believe that God instantly brought into existence a universe which looked very old, because he was playing a little joke on us or trying to deceive us. Obviously, I cannot accept that. What seems far more logical to me is that the story in Genesis is meant to teach us about our relationship with God, and was never intended to be a blow-by-blow logical account of how He did it. Afterall, there are two different accounts, and if we insist on reading them in a literal step-by-step manner, they contradict one another. I think when we do that we're actually cheapening the Bible, reducing it to something it was never meant to be. We're making it seem silly. And that bothers me.

 

So I accept the Bible as God's word, as his message to us about who we are, what our purpose is, what He can do for us if we will allow Him to work in our lives. I don't take it as a mere accounting of facts.

 

But that's just me. Obviously others disagree. :001_smile:

 

I love this interpretation:) Any good children's books to explain these thoughts?

[mytwomonkeys]

Okay, the day is "literal" but the death is "figurative"? :001_smile: I can get with that! But it does show that wisdom is needed to understand the Bible, because interpretation, as much as some Christians seem to hate that word, is critically important.

 

of course. i agree with you completely. but my viewpoint of a spiritual death is supported throughout the bible....it's not as if it's an opinion with no backing. i also understand viewpoints vary greatly here. that's obvious.

[KingM]

No I don't think it's beyond the scope of a message board to give some examples and support to, as you stated, the fact that the earth is old. If it's a fact, it should have some examples that can be shared especially if there are thousands of them. Maybe it's more than can be fully explored on a message board. But surely we can have a discussion of it - right?

 

I would assume if you have studied the fact that the earth is old that you could site some supporting evidence/examples of that.

 

Okay, here is an article talking about the genetic makeup of Europeans, what percent is descended from neolithic hunter gatherers and what percent from farmers spreading from the Middle East. Note that the science shows two distinct human populations 10,000 years ago.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/european-man-of-many-faces-cain-vs-abel/

[Lovedtodeath]

King M, that information is not in contrast to the Bible. It speaks of different groups of peoples descending from 3 different sons of Noah.

 

This is not necessarily true. It is rudely and wrongly ****ing to all sorts of Christians who are scientists.

Some Christian scientists create models, conduct experiments, have working theories, teach in universities, work in the field, have PHDs, have a peer reviewed journal, etc. etc. .... and are YEC, so I do not like this statement, as it seems to imply that all scientists believe in OEC or evolution. Just a clarification, not a bone to pick. :001_smile:

 

Like I said, I am not YEC, but I have gained a lot of respect for them after I was challenged to look into it. Now, I still need to read the rest of the thread and my battery is dead.:tongue_smilie:

[Melissa in CA]

Because it's a religious idea and its place is in the home or church, not in a non-religious setting like a public school.

 

Tara

 

But Secular Humanism is a religion as well. Just because it's not a religion with a big G God...doesn't mean it's not a religion. It's basically the worship of man. And Secular Humanists will staunchly defend their beliefs!

 

Evolution is taught as fact in our CA schools, yet it is unproven. I've yet to see a true transitional species. There should be thousands and thousands and thousands of them!! THOUSANDS!!! :blink: I think if the schools want to teach it, it should be taught as a theory alongside other theories...with an unbias...all given equal page space. ;)

[KingM]

King M, that information is not in contrast to the Bible. It speaks of different groups of peoples descending from 3 different sons of Noah.

 

You read that article and understood all the math and science, plus had time to write your response in four minutes? Wow.

 

(Go read the article, then come back and we can discuss it.)

[Melissa in CA]

This is not necessarily true. It is rudely and wrongly ****ing to all sorts of Christians who are scientists. Again, science and reason are not mutual exclusive from religion. That is a false dichotomy. Don't warp the Word of God to claim that people must choose between science and religion.

 

If you will reread what I said, I said "secular scientists". Please read what I said and not what you think I said. ;)

 

I also did NOT say that one must choose between science and religion, nor did I in any way warp the Word of God. You are seeing implications that are just not there. The study of God's World (science) clearly displays God's glory. We love science here. But we do not ascribe to secular thinking when it comes to creation. Sorry if that offends you. :001_huh:

 

[ETA Also, as much as I respect Billy Graham, he is not a Bible Academic, not a theologian, he is an evangelist. He is good at what he does, but I would never view him as an authority on Bible translation.]

Edited November 15, 2010 by Melissa in CA

[Melissa in CA]

Yes but you are imposing your religious ideas on this text as well.

 

How so? I am just quoting scripture? How am I imposing something to something clearly stated. I don't get it.

[lionfamily1999]

:iagree: Plus there are many different religions and religious ideas on creation:) Plus, I am sure they would all say that their view was the truth:D Lastly, Christians do not all have the same view on creation and old earth/young earth, etc. So which flavor of Christianity do we choose to teach? Mine?:D

Yes, but intelligent design is not an idea that is strictly religious. There are secular intelligent design theories out there, but they aren't given any time in science class.

[Mrs Mungo]

If you will reread what I said, I said "secular scientists". Please read what I said and not what you think I said. ;)

 

I also did NOT say that one must choose between science and religion, nor did I in any way warp the Word of God. You are seeing implications that are just not there. The study of God's World (science) clearly displays God's glory. We love science here. But we do not ascribe to secular thinking when it comes to creation. Sorry if that offends you. :001_huh:

 

What offends me is the insistence that one must choose to believe in "secular science" (which does not exist) or "Christian science" (which does not exist). Science is science.

[KingM]

I've yet to see a true transitional species.

 

Take a glimpse in the mirror. You belong to a species undergoing rapid evolutionary change.

[Wheres Toto]

As opposed to other religions, Christians believe the bible....a book that has proven itself true time, and time, and time, and time again.

 

 

Any links, etc. to back up this?

[Greta]

I have to respectfully disagree. :) Yes, the word day (yowm, I believe) has several usages as do most words, but I could also say that your imposing it to mean thousands of years was never intended either, due to the very words used alongside it..."And then there was evening, and there was morning, the first day." Why was the author SO specific. Why not just say...'and that was the first day'. It seems...to me...that the author is specifically clarifying the meaning of day in the creation account. It's when you bring in mans 'science' and man-centered, opposed to God-centered, reasoning into the equation that one begins to question it. To read it 'as is' one would conclude it to mean one approx 24 hour period of time...what we know as a day.

 

I can't imagine it being any clearer that that. :confused: I think people muddy the waters because they so badly want to fit in their scientific beliefs/theories.

 

I just think that you and I view this in very different ways. And ultimately, that's fine. I'm not going to convince you, and I'm not trying to. What I do hope to get across is that one need not choose between science and faith.

 

God's creation is His revelation to us, as much as the Bible is also His revelation to us. And that creation testifies very clearly to billions of years of existence. To me, far, far more clearly than the account in Genesis testifies to any "facts" or "chronology" (because to me, that just isn't the point of the story, it isn't the message I get from it.)

 

You say that science is merely man's creation. But God created us in His likeness and image, with the capacity to reason and observe. I believe that he meant for us to put those capacities to use. Now, some obviously misuse science and reason to push God out of the picture entirely. Any tool can be used properly or misused. But for many faithful Christians, science is a tool to understand God's creation, and therefore to understand God, more fully. This may sound silly to you, I don't know, but to me, the thought that God has been orchestrating things in this vast, mysterious, and incredible universe for billions upon billions of years, all leading up to bringing us around so that He could love us, so that He could send His Son to us to teach us and to bring us closer to Him - that just lifts my heart and brings me such an indescribable sense of gratitude and awe.

 

And I will lastly point out that Saint Augustine wrote that the "day" of the Genesis account surely should not be interpreted to mean any specific amount of time. And he wrote that a thousand years before Darwin was born. Many centuries before anyone knew just how old the earth was. So I do not feel that all that is going on here is modern Christians trying to make the Bible fit their science. I believe that the text itself allows plenty of room for what science has discovered.

 

I hope that I have somehow managed to make some degree of sense here. :001_smile:

[LND1218]

You read that article and understood all the math and science, plus had time to write your response in four minutes? Wow.

 

(Go read the article, then come back and we can discuss it.)

 

Wow that's a bit snarky....

 

4 minutes is pretty quick and you weren't talking to me....

 

But do you think that you are only one who reads and is familiar with or able to understand difficult concepts?

 

As for me, I happen to be a follower of Razib Khan's blog and this discover blog as well a few others. I particularly enjoyed Razib's post from today about the world becoming a village.

 

I didn't read this article right now because I already read it. And while it did take a bit more than 4 minutes, it is not hard to follow or understand. It's quite interesting....

 

I personally have read quite a bit of Rabiz Khan's writings - not as much I would like to have. He's has quite a mind - doesn't he? I particularly like his style of writing as well as the depth at which he tackles some difficult subjects. He doesn't shy away from details. The study of ancient DNA is fascinating to me. I could read all day on it. Genetics in general is one of my favorite things to study. I know that comes from my 7th grade science teacher! I will never forget him - I was failing science because I couldn't understand that darn dna double helix. He took the time to help me. He suggested among other things that I create one. It was pipe cleaners and styrofoam balls, but when I was done with that project, I got it! Since then, I have loved genetics.

 

 

So you can post resources and links but what about specifics? Can you explain why you have chosen to believe the earth is old as a fact? If you can't give examples - other than resources and links, can you at least share what led you to believe it's a fact?

[Greta]

I love this interpretation:) Any good children's books to explain these thoughts?

 

You meant the part of my post about God not punishing us? Hmm, I can't think of any children's books off hand that explain it that way. But I can get back to you on that.

[KingM]

Wow that's a bit snarky....

4 minutes is pretty quick and you weren't talking to me....

 

 

It was a bit snarky. I posted the link of a fairly complex article (I read Razib too, but that wasn't a throw-away blog post) and four minutes later got a rebuttal from someone who clearly hadn't read the article. How can you rebut it if you haven't read it?

 

But do you think that you are only one who reads and is familiar with or able to understand difficult concepts?

 

Of course not, and I can't understand them in four minutes, either. I spent about thirty minutes reading that article when it came out and still didn't get all the math. You can't skim it in two minutes and then spend two minutes rebutting it. It's not that kind of article.

 

So you can post resources and links but what about specifics? Can you explain why you have chosen to believe the earth is old as a fact? If you can't give examples - other than resources and links, can you at least share what led you to believe it's a fact?

 

I'm not interested in proving a large scientific theory that stretches across multiple disciplines. A web forum is not the place for that. I can recommend a few resources, but I suspect that few people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old would read them.

 

As to what led me to believe in an old earth, well, I have a minor in anthropology and have an in human evolution, astronomy, and physics, which I understand fairly well from a lay perspective. I wanted to be a paleontologist when I was a boy, so I accepted that the earth was ancient from about the time I was four, and thumbing through articles about dinosaurs in my grandparents' National Geographic. Looking at the pictures, I mean, not actually reading them at that age.

[Mrs Mungo]

So you can post resources and links but what about specifics? Can you explain why you have chosen to believe the earth is old as a fact? If you can't give examples - other than resources and links, can you at least share what led you to believe it's a fact?

 

I'm not King, but I ( along with others) have posted my beliefs on this board many, many times.

 

It can be summed up like this:

 

Does it make sense that there were random proteins floating in a primordial soup that somehow formed amino acids and then somehow formed single celled organisms? Does it make sense that they went through a series of beneficial spontaneous genetic mutations to form everything from tulips to whales to dinosaurs?

 

No, I don't think that makes sense. It's statistically impossible, imo.

 

Does it make sense that God created the earth to *look* old, including embedding fossils, dung, eggs, etc into the earth of animals that never really existed?

 

No, that doesn't make sense. Why would God intentionally mislead His people?

 

Does it make sense that dinosaurs co-existed with man? No, there is absolutely, positively no evidence of this and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

Therefore, what makes the most sense to me? God created the earth long, long ago and created animals in a variety of ways, including through evolution.

 

There was another thread on this extremely recently in which someone posted claiming that the flood was the ONLY way that sea creatures could be found on the top of mountains. That is an example of who people are completely misled and uninformed on the issue.

 

Or in this thread there was the "yom" argument claiming it only means a literal 24 hour day; that isn't true. Here is another perspective:

 

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm