getting dates about a young earth

[Tintin]

Trying to make sense out of everything with what little we actually know to be true only causes division. Given the information that I have studied, my guess is that "humans" predated Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created special to tend Eden. Then they were cast out into the wilderness when they disobeyed. My question is who was Cain afraid of? Who did he build a city for, a city? Whats with all of the megalithic structures built with science we are just discovering, or haven't yet discovered. There's too many blanks to be filled. All I will say is history is probably not even close to what we think it is.

Your guess? There were no humans before Adam and Eve. Cain was afraid of his relatives who lived elsewhere (this would've been quite some time after his parents, Adam and Eve had been kicked from the Garden of Eden). Who were these relatives you might ask? His brothers and sisters, perhaps nieces and nephews and so on. I mean Adam lived for a very long time (930 years) and the Bible does tell us that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters, besides Cain, Abel and Seth. Cain built the first city for his first-born son, Enoch. Cities didn't have to be huge back then to be called cities. Maybe the translators could've found a better word for it.

 

[Tintin]

The problem with the world being 6000 year old is that we have archaeological evidence of sites which go back well beyond that, e.g. Jericho for one which goes back 9000 years +/_ 1000 years.

Based on the beliefs of people who have room for God in their lives? Why are we listening to them about such things when God tells us differently in His Word? He knows. He created every single one of us. Scientists are just as fallible as you and I.

 

[Tintin]

good question... one young earth site I read put the flood at about 2500 BCE... and there would need to be time for the humans to travel up there, and assemble the pieces (maybe argue about the instructions?)

Even if they were stopping several times along the way and broke off into smaller groups, they could easily have reached that part of the world only a handful of years after the dispersion at the Tower of Babel.

 

[Tintin]

Your guess? There were no humans before Adam and Eve? Cain was afraid of his relatives who lived elsewhere (this would've been quite some time after his parents, Adam and Eve had been kicked from the Garden of Eden). Who were these relatives you might ask? Cain's brothers and sisters, perhaps nieces and nephews and so on. I mean Adam lived for a very long time (930 years) and the Bible does tell us that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters, besides Cain, Abel and Seth. Cain built the first city for his first-born son, Enoch. Cities didn't have to be huge back then to be called cities. Maybe the translators could've found a better word for it.

Fixed my post.

Also, a city could be anything as small as a walled settlement.

 

[Tintin]

By the way, it's Question Evolution Day (Charles Darwin's birthday). Celebrate it by spreading God's truth to combat Satan's lies. He brings death and destruction, but Jesus brings an abundant, eternal life.

 

[valiant]

Gen 1:1~~New American Standard Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



Jer 4~~23I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light. 24I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
And all the hills moved to and fro. 25I looked, and behold, there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled. 26I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were pulled down
Before the LORD, before His fierce anger.

Satans fall?

There were cites that had been pulled down ? suggests a time of God's destruction on part of the earth

 

[Dan_473]

Alpha defines how elements interact, so the whole periodic table would be messed up. Protons and electrons would interact differently and even light would have been affected. Physics relies on constants remaining constant, so it would affect that too.
A change in alpha apparently would mean the earth wouldn't have existed.

so, does that fit in with the "science is unreliable for dating the earth" position or the "science correctly observes the earth to be old, because God created it to appear old" position?

or is it in a third group, that scientific methods can correctly show that the earth is young?

 

[Dan_473]

Yes, observable science is valid, origins science isn't. It's a humanistic philosophy steeped in evolutionism.

so, would that mean that there are no valid scientific means to date the earth? since the distant past can't be observed?

 

[valiant]

Based on the beliefs of people who have room for God in their lives? Why are we listening to them about such things when God tells us differently in His Word? He knows. He created every single one of us. Scientists are just as fallible as you and I.

The Bible says nothing about being 6000 years old, so God doesn't tell us in His word. Scientists may be fallible, but so are you. All the Bible does is give us genealogies which do not say they are complete, and if they are complete give us silly numbers. Thus they make Shem alive after the death of Abraham in the time of Isaac. If it were so he would have been mentioned. It is incongruous.

Furthermore the early dates are largely ending in nought or five (early round numbers). That does not give confidence in their accuracy. God is more accurate than that. They clearly had a significance other than age.

You simply ignore the Biblical FACTS,

 

[Bowman]

I've been looking at some young-earth creationist websites, and noticed that a lot of time is spent showing that the conventional dates for rocks and stuff is wrong, that the earth is much younger.

but the dates talked about don't always support a 6,000 year old earth.

from Library: Radio-Carbon Dating Proves a Young Earth
"For example, a rock aged by two different scientists using the most advanced radiometric technique was reported to be 10,000 years old by one scientist. The other scientist aged the same rock at several billion years."

is the 10,000 reliable?

what dates are arrived at with proper carbon-dating etc?

The simpleton notion of a 6K year old earth, held by YEC's, becomes more and more archaic with each passing day.

The latest 'nail in the coffin' for YEC's has been the recent discovery of gravitational waves from black holes - the last verifiable prediction from Einstein's GR & SR equations - thus, firmly cementing these as the most provable principles in ALL of physics - bar none.

What this means is that Einstein has been correct all along...and the Universe is really billions of years old.

 

[tanakh]

Since I believe in the Big Bang theory I also believe that the Earth is billions of years old. Some 20 years ago I believed in a young Earth, but later on I changed my mind. My faith in Christ, however, remains the same. The Bible is a collection of spiritual books - not a scientific encyclopedia.

I agree with you 100% There is too much navel gazing about this and related issues. The Bible is a Spiritual book that reveals our sinful condition and Gods salvation through Christ. Whatever new knowledge humanity acquires will not alter or affect the central message of the Bible. When we eventually face God we wont be quizzed on our views regarding Science but how we spent our lives.

 

[trofimus]

I agree with you 100% There is too much navel gazing about this and related issues. The Bible is a Spiritual book that reveals our sinful condition and Gods salvation through Christ. Whatever new knowledge humanity acquires will not alter or affect the central message of the Bible. When we eventually face God we wont be quizzed on our views regarding Science but how we spent our lives.

Bible is a book of truth. If Bible talks about past, its truth. Bible cannot be cut to "only spiritual truth".I belive in an old universe/earth too. But Bible does not contradict that. The only problem is, that the original meaning of Genesis and other verses of LXX was "lost" in translations and in English words have different depths and meanings than in original language. Original authors (through Holy Spirit and through their cultural background and philosophy), meant their text to bear much more levels of meaning and depths than it has now, translated to technical modern English/German/whatever.

 

[Dan_473]

The simpleton notion of a 6K year old earth, held by YEC's, becomes more and more archaic with each passing day.

The latest 'nail in the coffin' for YEC's has been the recent discovery of gravitational waves from black holes - the last verifiable prediction from Einstein's GR & SR equations - thus, firmly cementing these as the most provable principles in ALL of physics - bar none.

What this means is that Einstein has been correct all along...and the Universe is really billions of years old.

interesting data, I hadn't heard that before.

from what I've learned on this thread, there are three main philosophies on the subject of scripture, science, and dating the earth.

1, early data is unreliable, because things were different back then.

2, science correctly observes the earth to be old, because God created it already old.

3, science correctly observes the earth to be old, because God made it a long time ago.


all three can easily deal with any data that come along. it looks to me like the first two lean towards solipsism (I think that's like The Matrix), the third has implications about the way the bible is interpreted.

 

[Bowman]

interesting data, I hadn't heard that before.

from what I've learned on this thread, there are three main philosophies on the subject of scripture, science, and dating the earth.

1, early data is unreliable, because things were different back then.

2, science correctly observes the earth to be old, because God created it already old.

3, science correctly observes the earth to be old, because God made it a long time ago.


all three can easily deal with any data that come along. it looks to me like the first two lean towards solipsism (I think that's like The Matrix), the third has implications about the way the bible is interpreted.

#3 is the only viable option.

Einstein's Relativity proves that the laws of physics have always remained the same, from any vantage point, so that would nix #1.

#2 is nixed for scriptural reasons alone. God does not create with the deception of old age - that would make Himself deceitful. Adam & Eve were raised as children. Jesus' humanity was conceived in the womb, born as a babe, and raised as a child, etc, etc ..

 

[Dan_473]

Einstein's Relativity proves that the laws of physics have always remained the same, from any vantage point, so that would nix #1.

this raises an interesting philosophical question.

if things were different back then (including the laws of physics),
but we don't know how they were different,
how can we prove something about the past by observing how things are today?


how about explaining more about how Einstein's Relativity proves that the laws of physics have always remained the same?

 

[Bowman]

this raises an interesting philosophical question.

if things were different back then (including the laws of physics),
but we don't know how they were different,
how can we prove something about the past by observing how things are today?

Cosmology.

Modern astronomy observes the events of things which occurred in the past. Looking into the heavens is like looking back in time.

how about explaining more about how Einstein's Relativity proves that the laws of physics have always remained the same?

By applying his equations, and the resultant predictions thereof, to the study of cosmology.

Any theory is only as good as its predictive power.

It took 100 years for physicists to confirm all of the predictions emanating from Einstein's equations...many have tried to disprove the predictions, but each and every one has held true due to observable phenomenon.

The speed of light has always remained constant....and could NOT have ever changed due to E = mc^2....this is one thing that utterly destroys a YEC worldview...as they like to fantasize that the speed was different in the past in order to accommodate their incorrect interpretation of scripture.

Your smart phone. Did you know that Einstein's Relativity is what makes it work?

We didn't put a man on the moon by believing in a young Universe, etc, etc, etc...

 

[Dino246]

#3 is the only viable option.

Perhaps it is the most viable option of the three given by Dan_473 . However, that does not make it the only viable option.

Your assertion, "God does not create with the deception of old age", while biblically consistent, implies that God does not create with appearance of age, which is not valid. Appearance of age is only a deception if God declares something to be of an age which it isn't, or if He creates something appearing old with the intention of deceiving the observer as to its age. Appearances are not guaranteed to be valid means of assessing age (check with the Gibeonites on this). There simply isn't any information provided in Scripture as to the apparent age of the earth. Adam would have no reason to think it appeared old, or young, as he had no reference point.

The appearance of age is only misleading if we try to force uniformitarian interpretations of processes onto every situation. By checking our fundamental assumptions carefully we may come to different conclusions. God doesn't deceive, but He also doesn't guarantee that we won't deceive ourselves.

Take the example of distant starlight. If we only consider the (commonly-accepted) speed of light, then we must conclude that the stars are very distant and very old. However, that conclusion assumes the constancy of the speed of light, and excludes many other possibilities. So 'stars are old' is one theory, but not the only one. It is not even the only scientifically-valid theory. It's just one which has received plenty of popular press, and in the absence of other theories being published widely, is generally accepted. That doesn't make it true, or other theories false.

 

[Bowman]

Perhaps it is the most viable option of the three given by Dan_473 . However, that does not make it the only viable option.

Your assertion, "God does not create with the deception of old age", while biblically consistent, implies that God does not create with appearance of age, which is not valid. Appearance of age is only a deception if God declares something to be of an age which it isn't, or if He creates something appearing old with the intention of deceiving the observer as to its age. Appearances are not guaranteed to be valid means of assessing age (check with the Gibeonites on this). There simply isn't any information provided in Scripture as to the apparent age of the earth. Adam would have no reason to think it appeared old, or young, as he had no reference point.

The appearance of age is only misleading if we try to force uniformitarian interpretations of processes onto every situation. By checking our fundamental assumptions carefully we may come to different conclusions. God doesn't deceive, but He also doesn't guarantee that we won't deceive ourselves.

Take the example of distant starlight. If we only consider the (commonly-accepted) speed of light, then we must conclude that the stars are very distant and very old. However, that conclusion assumes the constancy of the speed of light, and excludes many other possibilities. So 'stars are old' is one theory, but not the only one. It is not even the only scientifically-valid theory. It's just one which has received plenty of popular press, and in the absence of other theories being published widely, is generally accepted. That doesn't make it true, or other theories false.

As a defender of YEC, show us where the speed of light has EVER been demonstrated to have changed.

Good luck...

 

[Dino246]

The simpleton notion of a 6K year old earth, held by YEC's,

Your profile says that you are a Christian. Why then do you use terms like 'simpleton' to describe fellow Christians? Perhaps you should refresh your understanding of the fruit of the Spirit, as detailed in Galatians 5. There is no need to insult those with whom you disagree.

 

[Dino246]

As a defender of YEC, show us where the speed of light has EVER been demonstrated to have changed.

I have no need to defend what I have not asserted. You asserted no change in the speed of light. Burden of proof falls to you.