Age

[theophilus]

A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could probably make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve immediately after they were created and was then asked to estimate their age? If he didn’t know they had been created directly he would assume they had been born as babies and base his estimate on how long it would take for them to reach their present state if they had undergone the normal aging process. The result would be that his estimate would be much higher than their actual age.

Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth usually begin by assuming that the natural processes which are occurring now have been going on since the formation of the world and that there has never been any kind of divine intervention. They have come to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old because that is how long it would take for these processes to bring about the conditions we see existing today.

But what if the Biblical account of creation is true? Then scientists who try to measure the earth’s age are in the same position as the doctor who tried to estimate the age of Adam and Eve. Their age estimates are off because they have a false idea of how the earth came into existence.

If the doctor who examined Adam and Eve were observant enough he would notice that they didn’t have navels. This would show that they hadn’t begun their existence inside their mothers’ wombs and so weren’t born the way other people are. Since they didn’t come into existence the way other people did then the usual methods of estimating age wouldn’t apply to them.

There is also evidence that the earth isn’t as old as most people believe. One example is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled “Soft Tissue in Fossils” in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.

Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.

Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.

Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)

Soft tissue couldn’t have survived for such a long time so this is evidence that previous age estimates of the world must be wrong. Much more evidence of this kind can be found on answersingenesis.org and scienceagainstevolution.info.

The fact that Adam and Eve lacked navels would indicate that they had been created directly by God but what would happen if the doctor who examined them was an atheist? Would the evidence convince him that God existed or would he try to find some explanation for their existence that didn’t force him to abandon his beliefs? A look at how scientists have reacted to the discovery of soft dinosaur tissue shows that the second response is the most likely one. Here is more of the article quoted above.

Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old.

If there is evidence that the earth is much younger than most people believe, why do most people believe it is much older? The answer is found in the article “The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth” in the same issue of Answers.

In the rush to examine all these amazing scientific “evidences,” it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. Such a mountain of scientific evidence, accumulated by researchers, seems to obviously contradict the supposed billions of years, so why don’t more people rush to accept the truth of a young earth based on the Bible?

The problem is, as we consider the topic of origins, all so-called “evidences” must be interpreted. Facts don’t speak for themselves. Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present-day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced.

Forensic scientists must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. How was the original setting different? Were different processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.

That’s why, when discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points and assumptions. Reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point.

All of us have a desire to live our lives as we want without having to account to any higher authority for our actions. If we believe that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago we will be forced to believe that there is a God who intervenes in the affairs of the universe and who therefore cares about how we live. This is the reason most people, including scientists, subconsciously ignore evidence of God’s work and try to find alternate explanations for why we exist.

The belief that earth is billions of years old has become such an integral part of our culture that even some Christians who believe the Bible is true accept the prevailing beliefs and interpret the creation account in Genesis to make it conform to those beliefs.

The issue of Answers containing the articles I quoted from has much more scientific evidence that shows that the earth is younger than most people believe. You can read it online here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4

[Byblos]

The belief that earth is billions of years old has become such an integral part of our culture that even some Christians who believe the Bible is true accept the prevailing beliefs and interpret the creation account in Genesis to make it conform to those beliefs.

Or it could be that earth is really billions of years old, genesis makes no scientific statement one way or the other about the age of the earth, and there really is no conflict between the two. Surely you allow for such a remote possibility (a possibility nonetheless), don't you?

[Ivellious]

But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve immediately after they were created and was then asked to estimate their age? If he didn’t know they had been created directly he would assume they had been born as babies and base his estimate on how long it would take for them to reach their present state if they had undergone the normal aging process.

Do we actually know that Adam and Eve were born/created as full-fledged adults? Does the bible indicate one way or another? I would also point out that the Bible claims that regular people lived absurdly long lives in ancient times, so it would seem this question is moot anyway (today's physician would laugh at the notion that they would have to age a several hundred year old person).

Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth usually begin by assuming that the natural processes which are occurring now have been going on since the formation of the world

False on two levels. The first people to find evidence for an old Earth and begin formulating hypotheses and theories about Earth's history did not come in assuming an old Earth. They studied what they saw because their observations seemed to clearly contradict the arbitrary 6,000 year-old-Earth story.

Secondly, scientists today don't really try to "discover" the age of the Earth. The 4.6 billion year old Earth is an even more established fact of science than evolution. The only people trying to argue for an old-Earth aren't doing research, either. They take other evidence and try to spin it their way.

They have come to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old because that is how long it would take for these processes to bring about the conditions we see existing today.

It's pretty tough to be doing "science" unless you do it that way.

If the doctor who examined Adam and Eve were observant enough he would notice that they didn’t have navels.

Also an assumption.The Bible says no such thing as far as I know. If this were the case, the doctor would certainly be baffled, and might have to rethink his methodology for aging the people. But this would be a dead giveaway. Even if your point is legitimate, the Earth has no such "missing navels" that automatically point to divine intervention, or disprove our dating techniques and estimates.

but what would happen if the doctor who examined them was an atheist?

Is this even remotely relevant to this discussion? There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, and everything in between out there who take no issue with the estimated age of the Earth. And the fields of geology and cosmology and the like are similarly diverse. Why the heck should it matter if the researcher believes in your God or not?

Would the evidence convince him that God existed or would he try to find some explanation for their existence that didn’t force him to abandon his beliefs?

This question doesn't even make sense. Even if the age of the Earth was somehow proven to be young, that has nothing to do with a theological proof of God, just as evidence for an old Earth is not evidence against the existence of God. You just seem to want young-Earth to be synonymous with believing in God and an old earth to be tied up in atheism. Which is not true at all.

If there is evidence that the earth is much younger than most people believe, why do most people believe it is much older?

Because there really isn't. Sure, you can take a single example of a geological anomaly and say that it "proves" a young Earth, but then you are not being scientific. Just because you find an isolated incident that scientists haven't resolved yet, that doesn't mean you are right.

Also, you are completely ignoring the mountains of evidence in favor of an old Earth. One isolated incident does not outweigh centuries of scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, and the evidence accumulated over that span.

All of us have a desire to live our lives as we want without having to account to any higher authority for our actions. If we believe that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago we will be forced to believe that there is a God who intervenes in the affairs of the universe and who therefore cares about how we live. This is the reason most people, including scientists, subconsciously ignore evidence of God’s work and try to find alternate explanations for why we exist.

All of this is laughable. Scientists are all God-hating atheists? We all just want to not believe in a young-Earth? A young-Earth proves the Christian God exists, while an old-Earth means He doesn't? You are making so many false conclusions that highlight why so many scientists and even non-scientist Christians don't pay attention to young-Earth creationists.

The belief that earth is billions of years old has become such an integral part of our culture that even some Christians who believe the Bible is true accept the prevailing beliefs and interpret the creation account in Genesis to make it conform to those beliefs.

At least in the US, the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old is actually extremely popular. That belief has died out in most other industrialized countries. It's probably more accurate to say that in the US, it is more of a cultural norm to believe in a young-Earth than an old-Earth, depending on where you live.

[Ivellious]

Also, I briefly looked at the "10 Best Evidences that Confirm a Young Earth" article. I must admit I was disappointed. I've heard much better (but still not convincing) arguments for a young Earth than those listed. The examples are mostly isolated incidents and they all basically say "look! A minor scientific mystery! The scientists haven't come up with an answer that I like yet, therefore it must have been a young Earth that caused this!" Sure, they use some fancier language to make it sound scientific to someone who doesn't know much about the science behind it, but this was underwhelming to be blunt. Got any other resources/evidences, or just these examples?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Good post Ivellious, nicely balanced view.

One thing to point out is that Old Earth Creationism possibly pre dates Young Earth Creationism and O.E.C pre dates any scientific explanations for an old Earth by a few hundred years possibly thousands as the Jews seem to think the Earth may be old with their interpretation.

Old Earthers do not use science to understand the Bible, any reasonable person could read the Bible and come to the conclusion it is old by interpretation alone, if anything science just backs up the interpretation.

Dan

[RickD]

Theophilis, here's just one response to those who think that finding intact dinosaur tissue proves a young earth. This article is at reasons.org. Reasons To Believe is a Christian apologetics website.

Part 1:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/dinosau ... art-1-of-2

Part 2:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/dinosau ... art-2-of-2

[Ivellious]

Dan, good point. It is true that, generally speaking, there was no such view as "young-Earth creationism" until the early 1600's, when James Ussher came up with that dating using biblical chronologies. Prior to that, there was no real scientific or theological consensus on the topic, but I believe there are plenty of examples of educated people who believed the Earth was much older than 6,000 years. Ussher was just one of the first to put together a well thought out argument for a specific age, and that interpretation of scripture became mainstream until several centuries later.

[markust17]

I find the battle between Old Earth Creation and New Earth Creation quite irritating. I understand the importance to have evidence for the claims of the Bible (which are directly inspired by God) so that the peoples who do not believe in the Christian understanding of the origins of the universe see the reliability of the scriptures, but we ourselves, as Christian brothers and sisters, need to be of one mind (Philippians 1:27) and not in dispute amongst ourselves. Therefore, we know that the Bible is God's infallible word and that Genesis is God's personal testimony of the creation of the world given to Moses.

So if our foundation of truth is found in God's word, and any evidence tries to prove otherwise, we must have a perfectly reasonable conclusion as to why that evidence put forth is either false or misinterpreted. We must let go of all emotional or irrational comments and be genuinely honest with the evidences before us, whether they are false or true. In other words, we must have evidence for our evidences and must place our faith VERY wisely. Those who know Christ have learned that their faith is wisely placed when in Christ's words. Christians in fact display evidence of their faith by their fruits. But any man knows that he must observe the evidences himself and believe what they see in order to accurately confirm in his mind that it is true.

With that said, which is true, Old Earth, New Earth, No Earth, or Earth? Obviously, by what we undoubtedly know by our own sight and other senses, our only valid answer with a totality of evidence is that there is Earth, and that alone is evidence as a miracle of God, bringing forth mass out of nothingness. The age of the earth is important, but the miraculous existance of the earth is overlooked.

As far as the age of the Earth, we do not know, for were we there when God established the universe, when he set the boundaries of the seas? (allusion to Job) Only God knows the age of the Earth; the concept of the Earth's age is beyond our knowledge. But yet I say again that I understand the importance of the scientific evidences for the age of the Earth, and I understand that unbelievers create arguments with the Christian view of Creation and the said "7 day period" of establishing His imagination into reality. But one of the biggest arguments is the drawn views of Old Earth and New Earth. You perhaps wonder what I take into view, but I don't believe it matters what I think is the age of the Earth; I desire to know what God has spoken regarding this topic. So let us take into consideration His Word.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
So we understand that God created the heavens (space & dwelling place of God) and earth. Obviously the heavens were created first for in order for there to be an earth, there must be space for it.
Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Now we see that when the earth was initially formed, it was just water without definiton to its boundaries and without life and completion.
Genesis 1:3 "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
Many believe this light was the sun, or it was stars, but by context we know it is neither. It was merely light in darkness, the significance of existence blotting out emptiness. The best conclusion we can grasp from this is that the Spirit of God Himself was this light just as in revelations He will be the light for His people to see.

Next comes the end of the "day." The question, "What defines a day?" is of course asked. God gives it
Genesis 1:5 "God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."
A day is the rotation of the earth on its axis, the transition of dark to light, evening to morning. It is not a thousand years, and it is not millions like many wish to conclude (like Theophilus spoke).

So I wish to hear (polite) views and evidences concerning an Old Earth Creation or a New Earth Creation and how they cooperate with scripture. I am curious as to how an Old Earth truly fits into God's testimony of Creation. Hopefully you will trust the Word before you ever trust information that seems true.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I find the battle between Old Earth Creation and New Earth Creation quite irritating.

I agree, I try not to debate these things anymore but I will step in when someone from one camp either misrepresent or make claims that brings into dispute someone's Christendom.


Below is an example of a complete misrepresentation of an Old Earth position, Old Earth beliefs pre-date any scientific discovery's, and do not conform scripture to fit the science, science actually in the last few hundred years has backed up the Old Earth position. This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

The belief that earth is billions of years old has become such an integral part of our culture that even some Christians who believe the Bible is true accept the prevailing beliefs and interpret the creation account in Genesis to make it conform to those beliefs.

I understand the importance to have evidence for the claims of the Bible (which are directly inspired by God) so that the peoples who do not believe in the Christian understanding of the origins of the universe see the reliability of the scriptures, but we ourselves, as Christian brothers and sisters, need to be of one mind (Philippians 1:27) and not in dispute amongst ourselves.

I agree, disputes are unhealthy, but there is nothing wrong with respectfull debate, you won't find many here that are disrespectful.
We should always conduct ourselves as Christ would.

So I wish to hear (polite) views and evidences concerning an Old Earth Creation or a New Earth Creation and how they cooperate with scripture.

There is plenty of information for an old Earth based on scripture on the main site, prehaps read that first and then debate specific points.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

I am curious as to how an Old Earth truly fits into God's testimony of Creation

This is the thing it does not "fit", it is a word for word interpretation of God's word just as Y.E.C is an interpretation.

Hopefully you will trust the Word before you ever trust information that seems true

Now this is where we have a problem, all old Earth perspectives are derived from God's word and are not based on opinion or information that seems true, these sorts of accusation are not conducive to a healthy debate.


Dan

[RickD]

First off, welcome to the forums Markust17.

Since you jumped right into this, I'll get to my question for you. You wrote:

Markust17 wrote:
Many believe this light was the sun, or it was stars, but by context we know it is neither. It was merely light in darkness, the significance of existence blotting out emptiness. The best conclusion we can grasp from this is that the Spirit of God Himself was this light just as in revelations He will be the light for His people to see.

Next comes the end of the "day." The question, "What defines a day?" is of course asked. God gives it
Genesis 1:5 "God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."
A day is the rotation of the earth on its axis, the transition of dark to light, evening to morning. It is not a thousand years, and it is not millions like many wish to conclude (like Theophilus spoke).

Do you hold to the belief common to yec, that the sun was created on the 4th day? If the sun wasn't created until the 4th day, what was the basis for day and night for the first 3 creation days?
If you claim that the light spoken of in Genesis 1:5 is the light of God like you stated above, then are you claiming God's light only lights up half the earth at one time as the earth rotates? In other words, if God's light as you say, is what gave evening and morning because of the earth's rotation, then wouldn't "God's light" have to be set in place somewhere, kinda like the sun is in relation to the earth?

[markust17]

Rick, thanks for welcoming me! I'm very much glad to partake in discussions here to share information and understand the wonders of God. As far as what you have said, you make a very good point, but I am thoroughly convinced by Genesis 1:16 that the sun was not created on the first day. This light that God produced in the darkness on the first day has always been a curious passage to me, and I was confused by it for quite awhile.

"God made the two great lights—the greater light to have dominion over the day and the lesser light to have dominion over the night—as well as the stars." (Genesis 1:16)

Here the word claims that God formed the greater light (sun) and the lesser light (moon) to give light to earth on the 4th day. At this I am confused as to why He created light on the 1st day and then created other lights on the 4th day. I don't want to assume the Spirit of God was emanating this light from the first day, but I cannot find another explanation that agrees with scripture. I believe that by God's statement of "Let there be light" He did indeed create light, but was intended as a metaphor referring to God's unimaginable power to bring things into being in the midst of nothingness. This moment established the truth of God's holiness, worthiness, and majesty revealing how He truly deserves to be the Lord of all Creation. The significance of this event is spectacular, and God seems to make sure we see that good only comes from Him and no other. This event sort of establishes an understanding of nature in which emptiness and meaninglessness is evil and despised by God and He heroically overcomes this evil with giving meaning and creating life in the midst of darkness. Though I still take the verse completely seriously, that God created light on the first day and that it wasn't the sun, I believe God meant for these words here to encourage our understanding of His sovereign will and design for all of creation, and that in the very act of creation, He has bestowed grace upon all of us as we are made in His image, given a life of our very own. To think of this so deeply leaves me in overwhelming awe of God. But I believe you would be correct if it wasn't for Genesis 1:16. Besides, you bring up a good point that only makes the light of the first day more intriguing in my mind.

[Ivellious]

He did indeed create light, but was intended as a metaphor referring to God's unimaginable power to bring things into being in the midst of nothingness. This moment established the truth of God's holiness, worthiness, and majesty revealing how He truly deserves to be the Lord of all Creation.

Hold on right there...you say that you think that a literal interpretation of the creation story is required, but then you start off by saying that random passages are just metaphors about God's glory? By that logic, couldn't I just say that the six days of creation are just a metaphor to show how God is capable of creating everything out of nothing?

Also, as far as creating "two lights", you do realize that the moon is just a chunk of cooled molten Earth, right? It's a rock, nothing more, nothing less. An important rock, yes, but it isn't really a "light" any more than the Earth itself is a "light".

[Danieltwotwenty]

He did indeed create light, but was intended as a metaphor referring to God's unimaginable power to bring things into being in the midst of nothingness. This moment established the truth of God's holiness, worthiness, and majesty revealing how He truly deserves to be the Lord of all Creation.

Hold on right there...you say that you think that a literal interpretation of the creation story is required, but then you start off by saying that random passages are just metaphors about God's glory? By that logic, couldn't I just say that the six days of creation are just a metaphor to show how God is capable of creating everything out of nothing?

Also, as far as creating "two lights", you do realize that the moon is just a chunk of cooled molten Earth, right? It's a rock, nothing more, nothing less. An important rock, yes, but it isn't really a "light" any more than the Earth itself is a "light".

Whats good for the goose is certainly good for the gander.




Dan

[markust17]

Ivellious, I must have not stated myself clearly enough; I did not say that the first day was merely a metaphor, nor is any of the creation story just a metaphor, there is no evidence of such a interpretation. What I was trying to say was that God indeed created some sort of light on the first day, but God is not so much concerned about us understanding what that light was, but understanding what this light signifies in our lives. So indeed I take it both literally and personally, not just metaphorically, for the Bible was spoken from God to us, not just for understanding, but for changing us. There are thousands of metaphors and symbols used in God's word.

I do understand the moon is a ball of rock that goes around the Earth, and I do understand that God created the moon to reflect the sun's light during the night. Metaphorically, the moon represents Christians reflecting the glory of God on earth, and the sun represents God's glory. They technically are "lights" to the earth because the moon does shine in the night, governing the night. What else would be the light that governed the night?

[RickD]

markust17 wrote:
As far as what you have said, you make a very good point, but I am thoroughly convinced by Genesis 1:16 that the sun was not created on the first day.

markust, I believe it's important to understand the perspective given to the reader of Genesis 1. Read Genesis 1:1-2

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

The perspective of the narrative is the surface of the earth, as seen from verse 2 "Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters".

So, from the text itself, I believe the sun was created before verse 1. One can speculate if the sun was created at the beginning of the first creation "day", or before the first "day".

Genesis 1:3:

3Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

This isn't the creation of the sun. This is just telling that the sun is now visible on the surface of the earth.

Genesis 1:16 is not saying that the sun and the stars were created on the fourth day. Here's the verse:

Genesis 1:16:
16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

I believe a better translation may be "God had made the two great lights...
Meaning that God had made them sometime in the past.

markust wrote:

Here the word claims that God formed the greater light (sun) and the lesser light (moon) to give light to earth on the 4th day. At this I am confused as to why He created light on the 1st day and then created other lights on the 4th day. I don't want to assume the Spirit of God was emanating this light from the first day, but I cannot find another explanation that agrees with scripture.

Again, the sun, moon and stars were created before or at the beginning of the first creation "day". They became visible on the surface of the earth on the fourth creation day. Reading the text in this light, one can see how this makes sense scripturally.

Read these verses with the understanding that the sun and other stars were created on or before day 1:

Genesis 1:14-19
14Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

By stating, "Let there be lights...", I believe the text is saying that the lights were now visible from the earth's surface, for the purpose of being signs for seasons, days and years.

The Hebrew word translated as lights, is "Ma'owr". According to the Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, "Ma'owr' means light or luminary. A luminary is an artificial light, like the moon, which from the surface of the earth, appears as a light.
Ma'owr