Why Do We Insist on a Young Earth?

[ddgently]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

Oh,  I know.  "Literal" interpretation is the only proper hermanautic...

...except where that method disagrees with our already determined through.

Clearly you & I have a different view of literal...the text needs to be read, understood & applied as it is originally written... And it is pretty clear when that needs to bee done, Peter was not a rock nor are you to eat Jesus' body... But Adam was a man and Jesus did rise from the dead... See it's not that hard except for those who want to make it so.

Right. So you should probably familiarize yourself with other ANE creation myths and ask the most important question one can consider, "What was the reason for writing this particular passage?" Looking at the cultural and historical context of the writing, it is evident that Gen 1-11 was not written to answer questions about the scientific basis for creation.

The reason I cite the particular example of John 6 is because of how often I hear YECers say you have to accept the plain meaning of the text...and how quickly they retreat from it when it becomes convenient for their own views. I am more than willing to be wrong on this and a host of other matters, but at least I'm striving for consistency in my hermeneutic, striving to change my own ideas when they are challenged by that hermeneutic instead of forcing changes in the meaning of Scripture, letting it mold me instead of the other way around.

I appreciate that...those who require literal in the sense that one must read everything according to the hard meaning of the word, when it is clear it is poetic or a metaphor...end up in the ridiculous.  I just don't believe the creation account reads or even infers that it is meant as a metaphor.

Then I assume you believe the sky is a solid dome with an ocean above it, since that is the clear meaning of the text?

 

[T-Bone]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

Oh,  I know.  "Literal" interpretation is the only proper hermanautic...

...except where that method disagrees with our already determined through.

Clearly you & I have a different view of literal...the text needs to be read, understood & applied as it is originally written... And it is pretty clear when that needs to bee done, Peter was not a rock nor are you to eat Jesus' body... But Adam was a man and Jesus did rise from the dead... See it's not that hard except for those who want to make it so.

Right. So you should probably familiarize yourself with other ANE creation myths and ask the most important question one can consider, "What was the reason for writing this particular passage?" Looking at the cultural and historical context of the writing, it is evident that Gen 1-11 was not written to answer questions about the scientific basis for creation.

The reason I cite the particular example of John 6 is because of how often I hear YECers say you have to accept the plain meaning of the text...and how quickly they retreat from it when it becomes convenient for their own views. I am more than willing to be wrong on this and a host of other matters, but at least I'm striving for consistency in my hermeneutic, striving to change my own ideas when they are challenged by that hermeneutic instead of forcing changes in the meaning of Scripture, letting it mold me instead of the other way around.

I appreciate that...those who require literal in the sense that one must read everything according to the hard meaning of the word, when it is clear it is poetic or a metaphor...end up in the ridiculous.  I just don't believe the creation account reads or even infers that it is meant as a metaphor.

Then I assume you believe the sky is a solid dome with an ocean above it, since that is the clear meaning of the text?

I believe there was some sort of firmament...not sure how to describe it, but pre-flood clearly different than post flood.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Then I assume you believe the sky is a solid dome with an ocean above it, since that is the clear meaning of the text?

and how do you know.. in the days prior to the flood.. that it wasn;t?............

Exactly.

 

[rsc2a]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

Oh,  I know.  "Literal" interpretation is the only proper hermanautic...

...except where that method disagrees with our already determined through.

Clearly you & I have a different view of literal...the text needs to be read, understood & applied as it is originally written... And it is pretty clear when that needs to bee done, Peter was not a rock nor are you to eat Jesus' body... But Adam was a man and Jesus did rise from the dead... See it's not that hard except for those who want to make it so.

Right. So you should probably familiarize yourself with other ANE creation myths and ask the most important question one can consider, "What was the reason for writing this particular passage?" Looking at the cultural and historical context of the writing, it is evident that Gen 1-11 was not written to answer questions about the scientific basis for creation.

The reason I cite the particular example of John 6 is because of how often I hear YECers say you have to accept the plain meaning of the text...and how quickly they retreat from it when it becomes convenient for their own views. I am more than willing to be wrong on this and a host of other matters, but at least I'm striving for consistency in my hermeneutic, striving to change my own ideas when they are challenged by that hermeneutic instead of forcing changes in the meaning of Scripture, letting it mold me instead of the other way around.

I appreciate that...those who require literal in the sense that one must read everything according to the hard meaning of the word, when it is clear it is poetic or a metaphor...end up in the ridiculous.  I just don't believe the creation account reads or even infers that it is meant as a metaphor.

Then I assume you believe the sky is a solid dome with an ocean above it, since that is the clear meaning of the text?

Maybe he means that mankind was created before plants (Gen 2), or was it after the plants (Gen 1)? Or both!

 

[T-Bone]

Interesting that Gen 1:11 & 2:5 use different word in the Hebrew....I will let you study and tell us why. Hint..focus in on the emphasis of Gen 2. When you do you will find your answer...I don't have the time or inclination to get into a long session over this.

 

[rsc2a]

Interesting that Gen 1:11 & 2:5 use different word in the Hebrew....I will let you study and tell us why. Hint..focus in on the emphasis of Gen 2. When you do you will find your answer...I don't have the time or inclination to get into a long session over this.

Right. The creation accounts are clearly simple narrative except for those parts where they aren't simple narrative.

 

[T-Bone]

Interesting that Gen 1:11 & 2:5 use different word in the Hebrew....I will let you study and tell us why. Hint..focus in on the emphasis of Gen 2. When you do you will find your answer...I don't have the time or inclination to get into a long session over this.

Right. The creation accounts are clearly simple narrative except for those parts where they aren't simple narrative.

You have a knack for twisting what someone says....I got to give you credit, you are adept at it...but it makes it impossible to have a discussion with you...so this will be a good place for me to stop.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older.

Sure. Scientists are not infallible, and if they're any good, they never claim to be. But they do revise their theories and estimates as they get new data. That's how they get closer and closer to being right.

Who you kidding? We're not talking about horseshoes and hand grenades.

Nope. She is right. Like a detective who takes clues, puts them together and begins to form a conclusion. And as more clues come to light, the perceived outcome might change.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older.

Sure. Scientists are not infallible, and if they're any good, they never claim to be. But they do revise their theories and estimates as they get new data. That's how they get closer and closer to being right.

Who you kidding? We're not talking about horseshoes and hand grenades.

Nope. She is right. Like a detective who takes clues, puts them together and begins to form a conclusion. And as more clues come to light, the perceived outcome might change.

Except the process is often corrupt.  In many cases, the detective has already decided who is guilty, and is just looking for evidence he can use to support his conclusion.  The other evidence he simply discards. 

IMO, that's how it is with the age of the earth, evolution, global warming, and many other "scientific" issues. 

Some years ago they discovered a magnolia leaf that was millions of years old, yet was still green.  Did they carbon date it to see if it wasn't really millions of years old?  No.  Because they "knew" it was millions of years old based on where they discovered it.  Why bother looking for evidence that contradicts their conclusions? 

Labs that do isometric dating often discard samples that don't match the expected dates.  Again, they know the sample is supposed to be about X million years old, so a sample that dates otherwise couldn't be a valid sample. 

That's not science.  But when we're told the "results", we're told it's science. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older.

Sure. Scientists are not infallible, and if they're any good, they never claim to be. But they do revise their theories and estimates as they get new data. That's how they get closer and closer to being right.

Who you kidding? We're not talking about horseshoes and hand grenades.

Nope. She is right. Like a detective who takes clues, puts them together and begins to form a conclusion. And as more clues come to light, the perceived outcome might change.

Except the process is often corrupt.  In many cases, the detective has already decided who is guilty, and is just looking for evidence he can use to support his conclusion.  The other evidence he simply discards. 

IMO, that's how it is with the age of the earth, evolution, global warming, and many other "scientific" issues. 

Some years ago they discovered a magnolia leaf that was millions of years old, yet was still green.  Did they carbon date it to see if it wasn't really millions of years old?  No.  Because they "knew" it was millions of years old based on where they discovered it.  Why bother looking for evidence that contradicts their conclusions? 

Labs that do isometric dating often discard samples that don't match the expected dates.  Again, they know the sample is supposed to be about X million years old, so a sample that dates otherwise couldn't be a valid sample. 

That's not science.  But when we're told the "results", we're told it's science.

I agree to an extent. But unlike the "mystery" we are talking many "detectives" over years and seeing the change of outcome.

BTW, it still hasn't been answered as to why the creative deity would purposely create deception. Still trying to figure that one out.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

BTW, it still hasn't been answered as to why the creative deity would purposely create deception. Still trying to figure that one out.

I can't answer that one, because I don't think God created an old earth.  I think most scientists simply start with the assumption that the earth is old, and go from there. 

Most scientists (not all, but most) believe in evolution, so they MUST assume the earth is at least billions of years old.  Evolution couldn't be true if the earth was merely millions of years old or less.  So all evidence that contradicts an old earth must be ruled out. 

This, by the way, is also why there is, for all intents and purposes, only one detective. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

BTW, it still hasn't been answered as to why the creative deity would purposely create deception. Still trying to figure that one out.

I can't answer that one, because I don't think God created an old earth.  I think most scientists simply start with the assumption that the earth is old, and go from there. 

Most scientists (not all, but most) believe in evolution, so they MUST assume the earth is at least billions of years old.  Evolution couldn't be true if the earth was merely millions of years old or less.  So all evidence that contradicts an old earth must be ruled out. 

This, by the way, is also why there is, for all intents and purposes, only one detective.

And there is also another alternative position which allows for old earth, evolution AND Adamic creation: Gap Theory. Just sayin'...

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

BTW, it still hasn't been answered as to why the creative deity would purposely create deception. Still trying to figure that one out.

I can't answer that one, because I don't think God created an old earth.  I think most scientists simply start with the assumption that the earth is old, and go from there. 

Most scientists (not all, but most) believe in evolution, so they MUST assume the earth is at least billions of years old.  Evolution couldn't be true if the earth was merely millions of years old or less.  So all evidence that contradicts an old earth must be ruled out. 

This, by the way, is also why there is, for all intents and purposes, only one detective.

And there is also another alternative position which allows for old earth, evolution AND Adamic creation: Gap Theory. Just sayin'...

True.  I mentioned that somewhere. 

 

[christundivided]

Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older.

Sure. Scientists are not infallible, and if they're any good, they never claim to be. But they do revise their theories and estimates as they get new data. That's how they get closer and closer to being right.

Who you kidding? We're not talking about horseshoes and hand grenades.

Nope. She is right. Like a detective who takes clues, puts them together and begins to form a conclusion. And as more clues come to light, the perceived outcome might change.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I wasn't questioning scientific method but its application.

Its really comical how you people try to narrowly apply the various literal teachings found in the Scriptures.... and then you admit just how "BROADLY" scientific results are commonly applied. You really change how bias you are with applying the various truths found in this life. There are truths to be learned from science. There are truths to be learned from Scriptures. By all means.... THREAT THEM THE SAME. 

 

[subllibrm]

The earth is not young.  It is over 6,000 years old!

Yep!

 

[ddgently]

Except the process is often corrupt.  In many cases, the detective has already decided who is guilty, and is just looking for evidence he can use to support his conclusion.  The other evidence he simply discards. 

IMO, that's how it is with the age of the earth, evolution, global warming, and many other "scientific" issues. 

Some years ago they discovered a magnolia leaf that was millions of years old, yet was still green.  Did they carbon date it to see if it wasn't really millions of years old?  No.  Because they "knew" it was millions of years old based on where they discovered it.  Why bother looking for evidence that contradicts their conclusions? 

Labs that do isometric dating often discard samples that don't match the expected dates.  Again, they know the sample is supposed to be about X million years old, so a sample that dates otherwise couldn't be a valid sample. 

That's not science.  But when we're told the "results", we're told it's science.

You've thrown out a lot of "They discovered this, but covered it up" type accusations without providing ways for us to verify it.

Contrary to what you think, when a scientific theory has a lot of support, and evidence that seeminly contradicts it is found, it is an exciting opportunity for science. It means that we get to test the limits of the theory, so to speak. But, one new piece of evidence doesn't get to overturn all the evidence that already exisits. So we either have to find a way to incorporate the new evidence into the old theory, or modify the old theory so that the new and old evidence fit (this is what happened to Newton's laws after Einstein).

But one magnolia leaf in an old layer of rock is an outlier. It doesn't get to overturn the volumes of evidence that the earth is old.

BTW, it still hasn't been answered as to why the creative deity would purposely create deception. Still trying to figure that one out.

I can't answer that one, because I don't think God created an old earth.  I think most scientists simply start with the assumption that the earth is old, and go from there. 

Most scientists (not all, but most) believe in evolution, so they MUST assume the earth is at least billions of years old.  Evolution couldn't be true if the earth was merely millions of years old or less.  So all evidence that contradicts an old earth must be ruled out. 

This, by the way, is also why there is, for all intents and purposes, only one detective.

But the Earth DOES appear to be old. You mentioned a while back something about Uranium and Lead. The recent episode of Cosmos dealing with the age of the earth discussed this very process at length, and how it was used to get the currently accepted age of the earth. To oversimplify, the Uranium/Lead ratio was measured in zircon crystals. These crystals are important because lead does not naturally incur into the crystals, but uranium does. Therefore, any lead found inside them has to be the product of decay. Thus, because we know the rate of decay, the initial ratio, and the present ratio, we can accurately get an age of ~4.5 billion years for the earth.

"Appearance of Age" doesn't solve the problem, it introduces a new one. If God made the world young, but, for instance, created the zircon crystals with lead already in them, it raises a simple question: Why? To test our faith? It would be very deceptive indeed.

Then I assume you believe the sky is a solid dome with an ocean above it, since that is the clear meaning of the text?

and how do you know.. in the days prior to the flood.. that it wasn;t?............

and

Then I assume you believe the sky is a solid dome with an ocean above it, since that is the clear meaning of the text?

I believe there was some sort of firmament...not sure how to describe it, but pre-flood clearly different than post flood.

Let's see what the scriptures have to say...

We have the pre-Flood world and then:

[quote author=Moses Genesis 7:11-12]
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
[/quote]

Then all the flood stuff, and then post-Flood . . .

[quote author=Moses Genesis 8:2]
Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
[/quote]

And the waters recede, and so-on. No mention of the firmament disappearing. In fact, looking at the parallelism, and remembering that verse and chapter divisions were added much later, a plain reading of the text shows that the earth went back exactly the way it was. (spring of the deep burst forth::springs of the deep closed; floodgates of heaven opened::floodgates of heaven closed).

It seems to me that positing a fundamental difference between a pre- and post-Flood world is, to borrow a phrase, "Adding man's fallible ideas to God's infallible Word." You certainly don't find that in scripture. In fact, a solid firmament is referred to repeatedly in the rest of the OT.

 

[subllibrm]

I sure wish Jesus would have cleared this up when he was here.  :-\

















8)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I sure wish Jesus would have cleared this up when he was here.  :-\

8)

I wonder what creationists would think if Darwin is in heaven?  ;D

 

[ddgently]

I sure wish Jesus would have cleared this up when he was here.  :-\

I sure wish he had taught people about—at the very least!—vaccines and germs. Imagine all the suffering that could have been avoided. It’s almost as if he didn’t have supernatural scientific knowledge, but rather “emptied himself” and was limited to that of a 1st century Jewish rabbi.

 

[subllibrm]

I sure wish Jesus would have cleared this up when he was here.  :-\

8)

I wonder what creationists would think if Darwin is in heaven?  ;D

Doesn't matter me a lick. A wise man once said that here will a lot surprises in heaven. Some will be surprised by who is there and others by who isn't.