Age of the Earth 2

[Lekcit]

Artsy,

Just give it up. Those two closed minded ones will never understand that it's not about what we understand. It's about what God can do and what God said He did. He says 6 days, the language supports literal 24 hour periods. End of story. Otherwise we make God out to be a liar and deceptive in nature, which He isn't. I'm not willing to make that accusation toward a holy and omnipotent God but it seems that not everyone holds that same view.

In His Grip.

[Elisha]

Lekcit,

This is what turns discussions into arguments. You type nothing but ad hominems, strawman's, and red herrings. Congratsos!

He says 6 days, the language supports literal 24 hour periods. End of story. Otherwise we make God out to be a liar and deceptive in nature, which He isn't. I'm not willing to make that accusation toward a holy and omnipotent God but it seems that not everyone holds that same view.

Read what I typed above. That remains to be justified.

If a discussion gets you this mad, then you don't need to get into one with disbelievers (which is one of the things apologists are called to). If you reach a point of frustration, simply say you don't care to keep up with the discussion. Don't attempt to poison it into an argument by calling me names and re-stating arguments that have been responded to directly, please.

I'm not frustrated at all, yet people around me won't agree with facts that are crystal-clear to me. If they continue to not agree and I feel I can't get anywhere, then I'll simply post a reply which would be the opposite of yours and leave this discussion behind.

Artsylady,

It's glad to see you're not being like Lekcit. This is a discussion on YEC and you seem to want to discuss it... hopefully, we can both keep that up.

it had nothing to do with Adam's feelings of lonliness.

If it doesn't, then why does God even say it? God clearly states that "it isn't good for Adam to be alone". We can deduce, now, that Adam was in an alone-state. Also, from 2:23, some bibles interpret "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" to read "This is finally....". This points towards Adam waiting a good period of time for this to happen.

Also, in 2:20, it reads "no suitable helper was found". Surely, it wasn't God looking for the helper, but it was Adam. This goes back to my question I typed: "Why didn't God create them both at the same time?". Obviously, God had something for Adam to learn. That had to be that he needed fellowship, friendship, and intimacy from a being closely related to himself. But teaching and learning entails a loss of time. In this case, a good deal of lost time.

Adam didn't name every single species. He gave names to the cattle, the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.

This has nothing to do with my argument. I went so far as to grant creationist numbers. I do disagree, though.

2:19 reads, "whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name". This comes right before the scripture you gave and values some attention, because it is clearly hinting towards Adam naming individual animals ("each living creature"). It also reads "its name" not "their name". The following verse (the one you quoted) is simply a summation.

Adam was not a scientist. He may have looked at all jumping creatures and called them 'jumping creatures'. lol. He could have looked at all things in the air and called them 'birds'. He may have called all of the reptiles 'lizards'. I mean, think about it - WE do that TODAY!

Remember that I granted all of this in my argument, though. I granted the most popular young earth creationist's figures.

Notice the verse you're using starts out with "Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field". This verse clearly Adam gave name to "all" and "every" animal which was a cattle or beast. From reading the verse before this one, we can tell this is just a summation of what Adam is supposed to name - every single animal.

Good day to you,

-Tim

Edited July 28, 2004 by Elisha

[artsylady]

Tim:

One quick question before I want to discuss this much further. No offence, but I'm short on time here. lol. I beleive you are saved, of course, so I'd rather concentrate on discussing this with those who are unsaved. I'm sure you can understand that. I've been through all this before and have heard many of these arguments before. I stand on God's word, and I'm sure you do too, but can't get around what seems blatantly obvious to me.

So just one quick, simple question for the moment - if you don't mind answering.

You know that science has been wrong before, I'm sure. Now, as unlikely a scenario as this might be.... what if mainstream modern science - all those intelligent men, suddenly decided that the earth WAS in fact very young- say 10,000 years young, and that they were wrong in their thinking and in their deductions. What would YOU then do? What if mainstream modern scientists suddenly changed their mind and decided that the evidence better fits a young earth theory?

drumroll...........

Would you continue to say that God's word makes it clear that the earth is old and that God spend thousands or millions of years creating it?

[Elisha]

Hello again, artsylady. I understand the fact that you'd rather discuss issues with unbelievers. A question such as this is better discussed by believers, though. I say this, because the Bible is involved and those whom are familiar with it and know God should be the ones taking part in the discussion.

The important thing is to keep it just that - a discussion. I don't want to get into an argument with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. So far, me and you seem far away from an argument. Hopefully, we can keep it this peaceful.

You asked:

You know that science has been wrong before, I'm sure. Now, as unlikely a scenario as this might be.... what if mainstream modern science - all those intelligent men, suddenly decided that the earth WAS in fact very young- say 10,000 years young, and that they were wrong in their thinking and in their deductions. What would YOU then do? What if mainstream modern scientists suddenly changed their mind and decided that the evidence better fits a young earth theory?

drumroll...........

Would you continue to say that God's word makes it clear that the earth is old and that God spend thousands or millions of years creating it?

My answer may not be pleasing to you, but it's the best I can give.

If mainstream modern science proved and believed in a young earth, then I would just remain confused concerning the creation account and I would be honest about that confusion. It's parallel to the story of Job. You guys have an amazing thread up on it, which I enjoyed reading, but it still confuses me. I don't see anything wrong (and am sure you won't either) with reasoning that God exists, yet putting faith in the confusing parts of His existence.

I don't want you to think that I'm interpreting the Bible according to what mainstream scientists believe (that's what your question is pointing towards). I would in certain situations, though. Say, if I lived back when most Christians considered the earth flat and used biblical text to verify it and was given demonstrable evidence that it isn't flat.... well, then I'd have to realize my interpretation was obviously wrong. Science can be useful to us in situations like that.

So, I think there's a question for you also:

Nik has shown demonstrably true evidence for an old earth. He's challenged popular refutations of that evidence by e-mailing (I think) ICR, themselves, whom responded with personal attacks - He started a thread on it at PW, but I forgot the link. This shows the strength of his argument.

OK, so now that you've seen the demonstrable evidence, do you believe your interpretation or other interpretations which have been shown just as possible (if not more possible)?

-Tim

Edited July 29, 2004 by Elisha

[Lekcit]

Elisha,

Just because ICR respond to Nik, who you seem to place a great amount of faith in, in an derogatory manner it doesn't logically follow that his arguments are true. And you talk about my logical fallacies, which I've not used by the way. I do desire to discuss this topic however you seem unwilling to respond in a manner that shows you even begin to understand the points of my argument. In fact there is just as much demonstrable evidence for a young earth as you say there is for an old one. In fact the "evidence" doesn't change because of your beliefs. The evidence, or facts, are there for all regardless of belief system. Fossils are fossils, the Bible is the Bible, etc. It's just a matter of how you interpret them. I choose to interpret from a standpoint of "What does the language say" and "God said it therefore it must be" and, most importantly Sola Scriptura. You, on the other hand, seem to want to add science's preconceived notion of millions of years and add that interpretation to the Bible, when the Bible clearly supports a young earth, a fact that is clear to me and is supported by many, even Old Earth believers say that this is the case.

It comes down to this, and this is what I want you to answer and then I will attempt to answer your points as best as I can:

1. Did God say "6 days"?

2. Does God ever lie?

3. Have you ever know God to be deceptive?

If you answer those questions then maybe you'll understand my perspective.

In His Grip.

[Bread_of_Life]

Lekcit,

For once we agree, the fact that the ICR responded to my emails using personal criticism rather than scientific rigour is besides the point. What we should really be arguing about, and what people on this thread have constantly avoided arguing about, is the evidence I have presented in both my first and second threads on the age of the earth, and this is the second.

That evidence is solid, comes from many different methods and strands, and has never been successfully refuted by any scientist or non-scientist. It shows that the earth is very old indeed, and that life on earth is similarly old. So you're right - the evidence is all important, it will remain regardless of what we believe - and it is this that we ought to be debating.

[One Way]

Radiometric dating does not work. PERIOD. It is all a fantasy. There are numerous issues that, in effect, require you to take "radiometric dating" on faith. Therefore, this is just one tenet of faith in the Evolutionary Religion.

[His son]

Artsy,

Just give it up. Those two closed minded ones will never understand that it's not about what we understand. It's about what God can do and what God said He did. He says 6 days, the language supports literal 24 hour periods. End of story. Otherwise we make God out to be a liar and deceptive in nature, which He isn't. I'm not willing to make that accusation toward a holy and omnipotent God but it seems that not everyone holds that same view.

In His Grip.

Keep on preaching The Truth, and ignore the rest. True scientists have proven in the laboratory that the oldest rock according to evolutionists was created so fast that man can't even figure it. This information is known by all scientists but they purposly choose to ignore it because the scientists who prove it are Christians. So there are man who call themselves Christians who also choose to ignore The Truth. God knows how long it took Him to create, and He tells us all about it.

[Elisha]

So there are man who call themselves Christians who also choose to ignore The Truth

I agree.

Lekcit,

My discussion with you is over. I can only repeat myself so much until it gets tiring... I can answer a lot of your points with quotes from myself if I had the time.

[sagz4Christ]

Hello.

I have vowed to myself not to get involved with public discussions like this again after what happened with Fovezer. However, I want to do my friend SA a favor and stay current with the discussions going on here. For his sake as well as mine.

I could not, however go without commenting on some things I find wrong with the conclusions of this post. While I refuse to get into discussions with anyone over whether the earth is young or old, the logic of this particular post is flawed. I wish to point out why.

While the whole article is long, and there is alot of information in it, I am going to limit myself to only discussing the conclusions laid out by the very poster of this article.

These are the conclusions as laid out by the poster:

1.  Adam, being human, would want to spend a good bit of time with each animal to admire God?s creation.

2.  Adam has to take time away to name the animals.

3.  Adam has to remember that which he names.

4.  Adam had to spend a good bit time with the animals in order to decide that he wanted not only the same experiences they had, but more (I.e. Eve).

5.  God put Adam in a deep sleep.  Key word being ?deep?.

6.  Eve was created.  I concede this wouldn?t take a great deal of time, but it would take time nonetheless.  Adam?s response in 2:23 does hint towards the process taking a good length of time (not the creation process).

7.  Eve was introduced to Adam.  I?m sure they spent a good deal of time getting to know one another and am sure Adam showed her around.

8.  God gave the instructions to multiply and care for the earth.  Granted, this wouldn?t take long, but it would take time nonetheless.

First I would like to point out that Adam was indeed human. I would also like to point out that it is presumptuous to assume how much time he would like to spend with each animal "admiring God's creation" as it were. There is zero evidence he did this. And it is illogical to assume anything. Remember, Adam did the naming, and viewing BEFORE the fall. Before sin crept into creation [by man], everything was perfect. I would point out that God hiimself would take walks with Adam through the garden. The text speaks of the intimate times God and Adam shared.

Following this thought, time is almost of no effect either, for in the New Testament, we learn that 1000 years is as a day to the Lord and a day is as 1000 years. God is outside time. It is fair to assume that since God and Adam spent so much time together, then Adam was also. At least while in the garden. (Remember after the fall, is when years are added to the lives of humans). So the time taken by Adam to name even every single type of creature would not really matter.

*As a side note of thought, there was something in this post that stated something like this: "animals lined themselves up for Adam." I admit this is incredibly paraphrased and probably butchered massively. For that I apologize, but I see no reason not to believe this. If the Lord can bring animals in male/female pairs to Noah, line them up and get them on the boat, why can't He do the same for Adam, while he was naming them?

There is no indication as far as I can remember where it said Adam HAD to remember the names he gave the animals. And if there is, why do you have to allow time to do it? The arguement I laid down aside, could not Adam have had a perfect memory? After all, the garden was paradise.

The fourth conclusion is false for the following reason. There is no indication that Adam had to spend any extra time with the animals during the naming process than he did to figure out none of them matched him in stature or ability or thought. It is interesting to note however, that while the serpent was talking to Eve, she wasn't at all alarmed by conversation. Maybe Adam had conversations with all the animals? No way to tell conclusively, but interesting to think about none the less.

The rest of the conclusions all base the arguement around time. This is a fallacy for the very reasons I laid out above. I would like to expand alittle on why we cannot assume either a literal 6 24 hour day OR millions of years.

The first reason is that it is just not in the text. Whatever the time frame was for a day in the first chapters of Genesis cannot be determined. There is evidence both ways. Some is strong, some is weak. I personally don't think it really MATTERS at all how long it took God to creating our world, or us. All I know is that He did. We must not forget that we are also talking about a situation we know nothing about. "A sinless world." This is a world dominated by the fallen nature of man. It is a world destined for destruction on the last day. The garden was not set up like that, or with that in mind. Remember the serpent having a conversation with Eve? The garden was paradise. It was intended to be perfect. Only AFTER the fall of man did everything start decaying. Only AFTER the fall of man did man start aging.

I have run out of time, I will get to the second set of conclusions when I have the time.

Thanks for letting me join.

~in Christ