How Old is the Earth?

[nebula]

For anyone who has time and willing to research, here is a link to the Creation/Evolution page ( <<-- LINK) of the American Scientific Affiliation.

Science in Christian Perspective: The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

It has plenty of resources showing a variety of Christian views on how they tackle this issue.

We offer a series of papers and books that emphasize various aspects of biological origins. They are arranged under the categories of Historical , Scientific ,

[Guest LCPGUY]

Thanx Neb,

I'm gonna check that out!

Bro John

[ann2]

Tell it like it is,Strservant! I am with you 100 %.

[Guest yod]

Then Hugh Ross is incorrect, but that isn't surprising considering that he is an astrophysicist, and we're talking about biology.

Again, you should read his book so you can argue with a real scientist because I can't do him justice from memory of a book I read 14 years ago....but I'm gonna give it the ole' college try.

I think the biggest difference we have is that this is the account of men from the perspective of earth. You are looking from a larger cosmic view....as if you were watching it from outer space. Try looking like this...

Here is the order of creation in genesis:

God creates heaven and earth

the hebrew words are "shamayim" and "eretz". The word for heavens is very close to the word for "water" (mayim) so there is always debate when the word "Shamayim" is used whether it is speaking of heaven (outer space) or many waters coming together. In this case it is speaking of space or atmospheres.

"Eretz" is speaking of the matter from which He forms planets. Not necessarily speaking of the planet we call Earth, though. In fact, the word for "ground" (adamah is also translated as earth) is not used until Genesis 1:25.

the "eretz" (matter from which planets are made) was formless and void.

Isn't this pretty much the scientific view? That there was formless matter in the beginning?

God creates light.

Light is not the same thing as the sun. He created light before He created stars. FYI, The Bible says that Yeshua is THE light in Heaven. This may be a physical characteristic...but I belive this is saying that He made the galaxy which our Sun comes from on the first "yom" (age)

And from that our solar system also came

God creates water.

The word translated as "firmament" in the King James is "rakia" (resh-koof-yod-aleph) because it's not talking about the oceans or rivers. It is speaking of an atmosphere. Verses 6-8 are where God created the various atmospheres and divisions of "shamayim" (the heavens - outer space)

...firmament is also the word to describe the curtain which surrounded the Earth and kept Adam and his descendants from aging but we'll get to that in a second....

God creates land.

This "eretz" causes me a problem because I don't think it means ONLY our planet earth? Yet verse 11 begins speaking of vegetation so it must (at least also) be speaking of our planet now.

God creates grass, herbs and trees.

plant life begins.

God creates 2 lights in the sky (the sun and moon)

Here is where "ha shamayim" (the heavens or firmament) surrounding the Earth began to thin out enough for the sun and moon to be seen as distinct lights in the sky during this "yom" (age or epoch)

When God says "Let there be lights in the firmament" it could fairly be interpreted as "let these lights be seen" instead of "let them be created"

and btw...the Moon is a source of light whether it produces it's own or reflects it.

God creates fish, birds and whales

Sea life begins.

God creates livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals,

Animals are created. The evolution of a species can only follow it's creation in the first place. Unless, of course, science can show any proof that one species has EVER evolved into another.

and man

I believe that homonids lived before man. These were two-legged creatures who walked upright and had the form of men...but what makes man in God's image?

It's not his body shape! It's the eternal spirit within Him...it's the creative ability...it's communication.

Science does show that somewhere along the time line, modern man appeared almost out of nowhere. THIS was Adam.

This also explains why they can't find the missing link between modern man and Cro-Magnon.

God then creates women.

ahh yes! He saved the best for last!

I think you will find that this order completely reconciles with the fossil record you have listed below except for one thing.

Plants appeared on the Earth before the Sun was created....or is this really what the Bible says?

Let me explain again, I think this was given as a point of view from the planet earth and the sun was not a clearly visible light because of the firmament (rakia) in the atmosphere (shamayim) blocking the view of the Sun. It doesn't mean it had not been created but rather that it was not clearly seen as distinct lights from the Earthly perspective. In other words, it had not been "given" to rule the day and the night in the biblical account. Yet there was light for the plants to begin growing.

Much like the planet Venus is today. It's a mass of land covered by water and futher covered by clouds which would make sunlight opaque.

I've got no problem whatsoever in saying that the assorted species evolve because of environmental influences ONCE THEY ARE CREATED ...but that is not what the "theory" of evolution teaches. It's still a theory because it can't find even one case where a species evolves into another species. In my mind this brings the whole house of cards crashing down.

Here is the order of the fossil record (and cosmology in general)

Sun is formed

Earth forms

Moon forms from collision of two protoplanets (moon is a mirror btw, not smaller light)

Seas form

Bacteria and protozoa evolve

Plants and Animals differentiate

Multicellular animals and plants evolve

Jawless Fish and Placoderms evolve

Cartilage and Bony fish evolve

Land is colonised by amphibians

Trees evolve

Reptiles evolve.

Mammals and birds evolve.

Whales evolve.

Man evolves.

[Guest Strservant]

SA, I would like to apoligize as it was not my intent to insult you. There are so many people and groups who are currently trying to discredit the Bible and Christianity that I was simply saying that we must be on guard. I will apologize for my wolf remark but I did not mean it the way you took it. I meant it in the way that we must be on guard and cautious for those whose faith might not be as strong. For us it might mean the difference of someone's soul going to Heaven or hell for an eternity. I do agree with you 1000% on the fact that it does not matter theological if the Earth is as old as you say it is. If you look at my posts my main concern has been for souls not disproving you. I have also tried to remain respectful to you as I feel there is no need to call names. I cannot apologize for my feeling that your purpose for being here is more than you have stated. I have tried to state the danger I saw and I feel I have done that.

Respectfully

Strservant

[Bread_of_Life]

Yod,

Firstly, stating the obvious, I am not a hebrew scholar, and I will therefore have difficulty challenging you on the translation of words.

Secondly, I do not doubt that there are non-literal interpretations of passages that make them fit (roughly) into the scientific viewpoint. However, I am talking specifically about what the bible says, literally. For example:

plant life begins.

This is not what the bible says. It may be interpretted as this by the non-literalist, but it actually says:

KJV Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. {grass: Heb. tender grass}

KJV Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

KJV Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The bible therefore does not say that "plant life began", it says specifically that grasses, herbs (with seeds), fruit and trees were brought about and grew in this epoch, after their kinds. In actual fact, taken literally, this is fantasy - trees didn't come about til long after both animals and other plants, and the land was not colonised by plants (especially multicellular plants) until well after bacteria and plant cells had differentiated. Indeed, life in the seas came about before life in the water. Also, notice that all of this happens before the Sun and Moon are created/made visible. Of course, this is also not true, the Sun and Moon were plainly visible from earth long before plants (multicellular or otherwise) evolved.

Let us take another example:

Sea life begins.

Another hardly accurate quote. The bible actually says:

KJV Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. {moving: or, creeping} {creature: Heb. soul} {fowl...: Heb. let fowl fly} {open...: Heb. face of the firmament of heaven}

KJV Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

KJV Genesis 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

So firstly, this is not only life in the seas beginning, but also life in the skys and on land in the shape of "fowls". Of course, these didn't evolve until much later on (after the Jurassic epoch in fact).

Also, the bible is specific about the sea life that appeared in this epoch. All sea creatures including Whales. Whales actually evolved less than 50 million years ago, and even then, they evolved from land animals, who are yet to be created properly (apart from fowl who are avians, not mammals).

And another example:

Animals are created.

Actually, land animals had to be already there for Whales to evolve from them, but no matter. The bible says:

KJV Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Of course, these evolved long before fowl and flying creatures and Whales (1 and 2 days before respectively.

Science does show that somewhere along the time line, modern man appeared almost out of nowhere. THIS was Adam.

Almost out of nowhere? You must mean after a transitional series involving no less than 18 transitional species, including:

Ardipithecus Ramidus,

Australopithecus Anamensis,

Australopithecus Afarenis,

Australopithecus Africanus,

Australopithecus bosei,

Australopithecus robustus,

Homo Rudolfensis,

Homo Habilis,

Homo ergaster,

Homo erectus,

Homo heidelbergenis and

Homo neanderthalis

ahh yes! He saved the best for last!

But women coevolved with men...

It's still a theory because it can't find even one case where a species evolves into another species.

I'm afraid not, it's still a theory because there is nothing to graduate onto after theory. Every single scientific theory will remain a theory until it is disproven.

As it happens, I can give some excellent examples of species evolving into other species. Check out this excellent web resource for example, for a look at some transitional fossils, such as the human transition, the north american horse, Whales and dinosaurs to birds:

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/transitionals.htm

Also, check out the excellent section on ring species, example of speciation happening now!

StrServant

It's okay, I don't mind you being vigilant, that is the price of freedom after all.

[nebula]

Almost out of nowhere? You must mean after a transitional series involving no less than 18 transitional species, including:

Ardipithecus Ramidus,

Australopithecus Anamensis,

Australopithecus Afarenis,

Australopithecus Africanus,

Australopithecus bosei,

Australopithecus robustus,

Homo Rudolfensis,

Homo Habilis,

Homo ergaster,

Homo erectus,

Homo heidelbergenis and

Homo neanderthalis

OK, I know you are not primarily a biologist, but there's a couple things from this list you may be interested to (or should already?) know.

Some fossils from a newly discovered species were recently (in the past 2-5 years) unearthed in other parts of Africa (i.e. Kenya). One of these was a skull dated to about the time of Australopithecus afarenis, making it a contemporary of the species, and it shows more hominid traits that the A. aferensis (recall that the only hominid trait Australopthicus posesses is an upright posture; the angle of the face and brow ridge and such are all pongid). What little write-up I have been able to see concerning this, it may be that the Australopithecines might be removed from the human evelutionary ancestral tree and classified as a side or branch species. This is just an observed guess, however.

Homo neanderthalis has been categorized as a separate species from H. sapien.

[nebula]

Thirdly, as I have stated before it truly does not matter to me if the Earth is 6,000 years old or 6 million years old. The problem is that SA is bringing into question the validity of a passage of God's word. It is more than age he is questioning when he says the creation account does not match the fossil record. I'm sure that Shiloh and Nebula and the others on here are strong in their faith and I praise God for that. My concern is for the new Christian who finds this wonderful site that I found only a few days ago even though I am mature in the faith and reading these posts and it causing doubts in their faith. I also know the Hebrew word used in the Genesis account could have more than just the 24 hour day meaning. Therefore, I do not have to hold to a literal translation.

I've been thinking about what you have been saying here. While I do appreciate your concern, I also realize the complete ramifications of what you are asking.

For you see, our understanding of the Genesis 1 passage is based not just on the actual words that have been passed down to us in a translated form, but also from tradition. Now, I can understand how challenging the tradition can be implied to mean challenging the authority of Scripture, yet how many times did Jesus challenge tradition for the sake of truth? Wasn't He accused of challenging the authority of Scripture?

Now please do not take my words to mean I am making myself something that I am not! I am looking at principle. There is a difference between challenging tradition that has been clipped onto the word of God and challenging the actual words. I do not doubt the words. I do however hold the traditional interpretation of those words in question. This is all.

Is that dangerous? It is possible. It is also possible that truth will be revealed and a lot less hassle will result from this. Remember what the catholic Church went through when faced with the evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around? (Granted, Galileo created his own problem by not being more tactful by putting the words of the Pope in a character he named "Ignoramous!" )

Although I agree that the faith of young believers needs to be guarded, I do not believe that sacrificing what I have found to be true is the best way to do that. Likewise, I do not agree with a stance that alienates the scientific community from Christianity.

OK?

[Guest Strservant]

Nebula,

Thank you for your comments. I wish I knew how to do the quote thing like the rest of you do on here but being new I have tried and not been able to do it. I'm referring to your last post to me dated April 30, 2004 at 2:06 PM. I agree with you that we must differentiate what is truth and what is tradition. I'm also glad you saw the most important thing I was stressing and that was those who are young in the faith. It has been said that the person who does not know what they are talking about resorts to name calling and dirty laundry. Though I disagree with much of what Scientificatheist says, I respect the fact that he presents his position with knowledge of the subject. You also have shown yourself to be insightful and able to carry on a discussion without resorting to name calling. Thanks!

Respectfully,

Strservant

[nebula]

Nebula,

Thank you for your comments. I wish I knew how to do the quote thing like the rest of you do on here but being new I have tried and not been able to do it.

Find the post you want to quote from. At the top right corner of the box is a tab called "QUOTE." Click on that. It will bring you to a page just like the one you come to when you click on the "REPLY" button, only underneath the box you write in is another box with the post you wanted to quote from.

You can delete the parts you don't want to include (it is nicer when people widdle down the quotes). You write your response in the top box.

If you want to break up the quote, you can cut and paste peices of the quote onto the top box you are writing your response in. Then surround the qoute with

(quote)The text you just copy-and-pasted(/quote)

only use [] instead of () .

Does that help?