Genesis -- Young vs. Old Earth

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:02 am

TK, I suggest your consideration of the book:

Starlight and Time
Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe
by D. Russell Humphryes, Ph.D.
Copyright 1994 by Master Books, Inc.

Post by **_TK** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:58 am

thanks, paidion.

can you summarize for me what mr humphreys says? i am assuming he says things that refute what mr koukl says(as well as others).

i find the OE/YE debate interesting; i am not yet decided on the issue. when i read stuff by hugh ross and people like him, i sway that way. when i read people like ken hamm, russell humphreys, etc i sway back the other way.

also, i am still having a hard time reconciling all the things that apparently happened on creation day 6.

TK

Post by **_anothersteve** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:20 pm

i find the OE/YE debate interesting; i am not yet decided on the issue. when i read stuff by hugh ross and people like him, i sway that way. when i read people like ken hamm, russell humphreys, etc i sway back the other way.

TK, I'm a novice in the field of science but I did see a debate once on the internet called "Are the Genesis Creation Days 24 Hours or Long Periods of Time?". It was from the John Ankerberg show and included Hugh Ross, Ken Hamm and Hebrew/OT scholar Walter Kaiser (there was one other brother siding with Ken Hamm but I can't remeber his name).

Anyway, from my strictly layman's point of view, I found Hugh Ross's position to be much more compelling. I also thought he had the best line in the debate. Brother Ken was badgering Hugh about not interpreting the bible literally enough and relying too much on observation of fallen creation for his evidence. Hugh then humbly responded, "the interpreter of the bible is fallen as well".

Steve

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:02 am

Anyway, from my strictly layman's point of view, I found Hugh Ross's position to be much more compelling. I also thought he had the best line in the debate. Brother Ken was badgering Hugh about not interpreting the bible literally enough and relying too much on observation of fallen creation for his evidence. Hugh then humbly responded, "the interpreter of the bible is fallen as well".

Should i call myself "another another steve"? Anyway i agree that the OE interpretation is probably realistic because the alternative means that God made the universe appear to be 15-17 billion years old but the appearance of age is false. It's possible that God made the universe with exploded stars and dwarf stars and black holes etc already appearing to be fully aged but it just seems unlikely.

Post by **_anothersteve** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:48 am

"the interpreter of the bible is fallen as well".

Actually, when I think about it now, it was probably Walter Kaiser who made this response during the debate. Regardless, it was still a great point....and the memory failure on my part illustrates the validiy of his point.

Post by **_TK** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:51 am

steve7150 wrote:

the alternative means that God made the universe appear to be 15-17 billion years old but the appearance of age is false. It's possible that God made the universe with exploded stars and dwarf stars and black holes etc already appearing to be fully aged but it just seems unlikely.

this is honestly where my biggest problem with YEC lies-- i know there some answers to some of the objections (per paidion's last post i assume that humphreys addresesses some of them.

but if the earth is less than 20000 years old, and we know of civilizations from 6 BC or so, there isnt much room for things.

also, i still have never heard a good explanation, from a YE standpoint, about dinosaurs, neanderthal man, etc. i know it is easy to say that dinosaurs were walking around with Noah, but this seems so unlikely. further, if they WERE walking around with noah, but got wiped out by the flood, then how can Job be desribing a "possible" dinosaur when he describes "behemoth," which some YEc's say could be a dinosaur?

i won't be disappointed either way if i dont learn the truth until i get to heaven. but i think the appearance of age problem has to be dealt with.

TK

Post by **_thrombomodulin** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:29 pm

can you summarize for me what mr humphreys says?

The essence of humphrey's argument is that the age of the universe is not the same everywhere, but the age depends upon spatial position. In other words, the age near our solar system might be very young, but in distant space the universe may be old. This is possible according to Einstien's theory of relativity because of gravitational time dialation. Because of gravitational affects, time will pass at different rates in different positions. A position near the center of the universe has time passing slowly, and toward the edges time will pass more quickly.

You might want to check out the "Preterism and Creation" thread for more information. Steve7150 and I debated this topic and the events on day 6 on this thread. http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... rt=15#4211

further, if [dinosaurs] WERE walking around with noah, but got wiped out by the flood,

I think that most all young earth creationists do not believe dinosaurs were wiped out by the flood. Rather, like other animals dinosaurs would have been preserved on the ark (two of every kind). Later Dinosaurs, like other creatures, would have become extinct after the flood due to natural causes, hunting, etc,..

This URL has some interesting information that indicates that dinosaurs lived much less than millions of years ago. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... tissue.asp

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:46 pm

Hi TK,

I highly recommend that you check out the Answers In Genesis website. They will have an answer for any question about the age of the earth (from a YEC perspective) you might have.

At the top of the liinked page you'll find a link titled "Get Answers".

Here's an article on Neaderthal man.

My biggest objection with Theistic Evolution isn't the age of the earth, but the interpretive loops that have to be jumped through to make it fit scripture.

The bible shows God creating a mature creation in six days (Ex.20:11).
It shows Him making each creature "after it's kind", with humans being set apart as being "made in His image" (Gen. 1:26), and distinct from the animals. I fail to see how any evolutionary model (theistic or otherwise) explains how we are made in His image if we all share a common ancestor.

We are made "a little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:5) not a "little higher than primates".

You cannot get long ages and evolutionary development from the scriptures. It isn't there. This idea comes from people taking a naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) theory and shoehorning those concepts into God's self revelation.

All this being said, I did visit the brother named djeaton from the above posts and he told me some very good arguments for an old age of the earth from a scientific perspective (although I think he is somewhat undecided). But his arguments and folks like Hugh Ross, as good as they are scientifically, do not comport with the word of God without, in my opinion, unrealistic and unlikely interpretations.

Science, or rather, the interpretions of scientists, change all the time. The word of God is eternal and unchanging. I havn't wrestled very much with the more technical problems such as starlight and time etc., but frankly, until there is a decent explanation for how all that fits into God's version of creation, I don't feel compelled to worry too much about it. I don't think God will fault me for that.

That's not to say that I am closing my ears to those theories, it's that they don't hold any weight with me, when they are contrary to what He has revealed about Himself and how He has done things.

God bless,

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:45 pm

My biggest objection with Theistic Evolution isn't the age of the earth, but the interpretive loops that have to be jumped through to make it fit scripture.

The bible shows God creating a mature creation in six days (Ex.20:11).
It shows Him making each creature "after it's kind", with humans being set apart as being "made in His image" (Gen. 1:26), and distinct from the animals. I fail to see how any evolutionary model (theistic or otherwise) explains how we are made in His image if we all share a common ancestor.

We are made "a little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:5) not a "little higher than primates".

You cannot get long ages and evolutionary development from the scriptures. It isn't there. This idea comes from people taking a naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) theory and shoehorning those concepts into God's self revelation

Derek, Old Earthers for the most part don't buy macro evolution including me but scripture does allow for interpreting creation days (yom) as not 24 hour days. Even Moses in Psalm 90 says a day to God is not 24 hours. And the Ex 20.11 can be a symbolism or type of the creation picture given to man to emulate.

The Old Earth position is not necessarily connected to evolution unless someone wants it to be but it need not be connected. There is something called micro-evolution which is species evolving within it's own kind and that could have taken millions of years. At present we have 5 million species today yet only about 30,000 were on the ark therefore if the earth was just a few thousand years old we should see hyper- microevolution happening before our eyes.

Post by **_TK** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:56 pm

i know that hugh ross does not believe in macro evolution. he believes that adam and eve were created by a special act of God. however, he does say that subhuman hominids (like Lucy) did pre-exist Adam and Eve.

Hi Derek-- i am well acquainted with the answersingenesis site (ken hamm). in fact i have ordered a DVD series from there. believe me, i am not a rabid OEC. i am simply not convinced yet, either way.

in regard to dinosaurs-- wouldnt something that major at least be mentioned once in the bible, other than a cryptic possibility? i mean, if noah had to fend off the ark from marauding brachiosauruses, it might warrant a mention.

TK