|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
"Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 9:18:28 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5592
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
Where do you stand on the age of the Earth?
The 6000 year old doctrine or something else?
Why?
I ask this because of a really heated discussion I heard at the coffee shop this morning.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 9:44:47 AM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 700
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
I'm pretty much a purist...I believe a day was a day, just as we know it, from the beginning. Therefore, I ascribe to the "6000 year old earth" school of thought.
Not a popular belief these days. And you're right...this can cause some very heated and lively discussions!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 10:39:20 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3959
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
Where do you stand on the age of the Earth?
The 6000 year old doctrine or something else?
Why?
I ask this because of a really heated discussion I heard at the coffee shop this morning.
Thanks
RC
Yes there are heated discussions of this topic in Science and Origins. My main (but not only) beef with the YEC's is that they connect a belief in a "Young Earth" with "true" Christianity. That attitude can be a problem with any doctrinal stance.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 10:54:03 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
My husband and I discuss this a lot. He's a geological engineer, so you can imagine the implications. ;)
It's an interesting question, based on two facts.
Fact 1: The earth (and universe in general) looks old.
Fact 2: The creation account says 7 days.
One must therefore conclude that either we are in error in the measurements and assumptions that would indicate that the earth is old (Fact 1), or conclude that we are in error assuming that the days listed in the creation account are 7 literal 24 hour periods rather than metaphorical (Fact 2).
So, really, I think as a baseline it is important to determine what facts about our existence, and the existence of the universe, are crucial to doctrine. The following is what we have agreed on through our various discussions of the matter.
#1: God is the Cause.
Regardless of actual age, God is the reason it's here, because His status as Creator is a very important aspect of God.
#2: God COULD have done it in 7 literal days.
I have a metaphor that I use for this one.
Imagine that you go over to an all-powerful being's house. The all-powerful being has a plate of cookies, and offers you one. You do not know if the all-powerful being got out the eggs, flour, sugar, butter, etc, set the oven to 350, mixed the ingredients, spooned the cookies onto the sheet, and baked them for 12 minutes, OR if the all-powerful being said "Let there be cookies!" and lo, there were cookies. The net effect, a plate of cookies, is the same either way, and there's really no way to tell the difference.
The important thing is to accept the fact that if God wanted to make an entire universe in 7 literal days (or in .7 literal seconds), He certainly is capable.
#3: God is not a liar.
This is a very compelling thing to my husband. His comment is that there would be no reason for God to pretend that the earth is older than it really is, by leaving chemical records, fossil records, geological records, etc. And, there is very compelling evidence to support the idea of an old earth. The thing is, though, that scientists have drawn conclusions regarding processes that we cannot possibly reproduce and verify.
Take radiometric dating, for instance. For human artifacts, carbon 14 dating is generally used. Carbon dating has a maximum useful range of 60,000 years, due to half-life restrictions (eventually, all the unstable carbon 14 has released the extra neutrons and is now normal carbon.) The thing is, though, that in all radiometric dating, certain assumptions must be made... such as how much of the radioactive element was available in the sample in the first place. While you can measure parent element vs daughter element, you have to also take into account that there was a lot of daughter element there already (since C12 is the "normal" version of carbon anyway), so you can't assume that all the daughter element was formed during the aging of the artifact. Levels are affected by variations in cosmic ray intensity, which is affected by the strength of the earth's magnetosphere. Changes in climate can affect the transfer of carbon in carbon reservoirs, so the carbon may have been more or less affected by the cosmic rays depending on where they were. Even human activity has affected C14 ratings, atom bomb tests almost doubled the C14 levels over the 10 year period they were tested, but the use of fossil fuels releases more C14-deficient carbon, reducing levels. So, we basically started messing up our tests before they even got started. Oops. So, it's very difficult to say whether or not we are correct in our assumptions regarding how much C14 the samples originally had, even if we have the measurements of how much there is now completely perfect.
For older materials, such as dinosaur bones, it gets more difficult. They don't have measureable amounts of C14. So, other isotopes have to be used, such as U238, U235, and Kb40. The problem with that, though, on top of all the problems that plague C14, is that these elements do not occur in the dinosaur bones. Nor do they occur in the sedimentary rock that contains the dinosaur bones. So, you have to go to nearby igneous rock (usually volcanic ash) and assume that the igneous rock can indicate the age of the sedimentary rock, on top of assuming you know the initial levels of the radioactive isotope you're measuring, etc.
Far more compelling is the geological record. It would appear from current processes that the processes we see evidence of (erosion, uplift, sublimation, volcanic activity, metamorphic rock formation, glacial activity, etc) take a while. So, we have to ask... were the processes sped up for some reason? Are we missing data on processes that can LOOK like other processes but happen much, much faster? Was it created to "look like" those processes occurred when they in fact did not? If so, why would God do something like that, when some would state that to do so is deceptive, and God is not deceptive? I think this is perhaps the most compelling argument for taking the "7 days" to be somewhat metaphorical.
#4: It is essential that humans were created in a specific manner.
Regardless of how quickly or liesurely God acted in creating the earth itself, it is absolutely essential that human beings were created, not macro-evolved.
To explain that term... micro-evolution is minor changes in species necessary for the survival of the species. The changing colors of a moth, the adaptation of the beak of a bird for a specific food type, the difference between a toy poodle and a great dane, these are micro-evolution... the moth is still a moth, the bird is still a bird, the dogs are still dogs. Macro-evolution are major changes required for shifting between species, for which I have yet to see any compelling proof whatsoever... in fact, things like the Cambrian Explosion, where massive quantities of diverse complex organisms appear basically out of nowhere, seem to indicate quite the opposite.
So, humans, specifically, had to be directly created for two reasons. One, the Bible says they were created in the very image of God. This is important, because it would be impossible to inherit the image of God (which is a spiritual thing) from things that were not created in the image of God. Two, there had to be a Fall. Without the Fall, there is no sin nature. Without sin nature, the entire story of mankind's corruption and redemption is mere mythology.
So, while I don't particularly have an issue with someone believing in an old earth, I think it's important to frame that belief within the stated caveats, and to admit that God could have done a direct young earth creation if He so chose.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 10:57:14 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6631
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
It is not entirely clear that Genesis 1:1-2 happened in the same day as verse 3. It is within the relam of possibility that eons transpired between verse 2 and 3, that verse three was the beginning of earth's history. In that event, the earth could be 13 billion, six thousand years old.
In any case, it's one of those things we can't know with 100% certainty in this life and it's, therefore, a foolish dividing line for fellowship among believers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 11:13:33 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3959
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
In any case, it's one of those things we can't know with 100% certainty in this life and it's, therefore, a foolish dividing line for fellowship among believers.
Yup.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 11:42:37 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
Where do you stand on the age of the Earth?
Why?
The earth and the solar system is about 4.5 billion years old. Several separate lines of scientific evidence point to an 'old' earth, with radiometric dating providing the most accurate determination of a particular age.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 12:02:10 PM
|
|
|
triode
Posts: 46
Joined: 8/4/2008
Status: offline
|
Some people say that friends shouldn't discuss religion or politics. Maybe Christians shouldn't discuss the age of the world/universe. Too many Young Earth Creation folks say Old Earth Creation folks couldn't possilbly be saved, they don't believe the Bible. Too many OEC folks say that YEC folks are, well, just dumb. Or that's how it appears to me anyway. I do not believe that anyone's belief about the age of the Earth has anything to do with their salvation, nor does their interpretation of Genesis. I do believe that God has not made the universe appear to look older than it is, that would be a lie, something God will not do, and has not done.
OK, let me get my riot gear on...done.
I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe 14.5 billion years old, just like the geologists say. Too much evidence for me to believe otherwise. I don't care what other people believe about the age of the earth, not much anyway, because it doesn't matter. There are too many other, more important things to worry about.
And hey, I put on my riot gear because I expect flying rocks, but that doesn't mean anybody has to throw 'em.
RC, ANY discussion at 0500 is pointless. We're supposed to be in bed at that time of the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 12:16:59 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3176
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
It's an interesting question, based on two facts.
Fact 1: The earth (and universe in general) looks old.
Fact 2: The creation account says 7 days. Actually, Fact 1 is merely an opinion usually influenced by decades of public education instilling naturalistic uniformitarian beliefs into unsuspecting children and adolescents. The earth (and universe in general) looks about 6000 years old. That's plenty old compared to you and me!
Fact 2 should read "6 days" and coupled with Matt 19:4/Mark 10:6 and the extensive Scriptural genealogies readily results in an age around 6000 years. Amazing how nature supports God's Word!
quote:
The earth and the solar system is about 4.5 billion years old. Several separate lines of scientific evidence point to an 'old' earth, with radiometric dating providing the most accurate determination of a particular age. The earth and the solar system is about 6000 years old. Several separate lines of scientific evidence point to a 'young' earth. Radiometric dating providing the least accurate determination of a particular age due to its numerous unfounded assumptions.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 12:21:40 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5592
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
I guess it is not the "Day" interpretation that might give me pause, but this passage;
(Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Gen 1:2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
There could well be a gap between those two verses of a day, a year, an eon, or whatever.
It seems possible to not buy the 6000 year thingy, but still have absolute confidence that God created everything and in the order listed.
There also seems to be some discreprencies in the counting of generations as it does appear that some (maybe many) were skipped and not recorded. Begat does not always mean father - son, but sometimes is father - later generation important person.
Honestly I do not think it matters a hoot in a holler what folks believe about this, for it is certainly not a salvic thingy. And salvic thingys are all that matter.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 12:23:39 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4904
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: offline
|
I believe the earth was created in 6 literal days, somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years ago.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 12:31:15 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3176
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
There could well be a gap between those two verses of a day, a year, an eon, or whatever. How would time be measured if God's first creative act was to create light in verses 3 and 4? Whatever is "a day, a year, an eon" if time does not yet exist?
quote:
It seems possible to not buy the 6000 year thingy, but still have absolute confidence that God created everything and in the order listed. It's quite possible not to "buy" lots of Biblical "thingies"! How does one pick and choose which "thingy to buy" and which to rely on man's fallible science to believe?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 12:36:12 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6631
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
There could well be a gap between those two verses of a day, a year, an eon, or whatever. How would time be measured if God's first creative act was to create light in verses 3 and 4? Whatever is "a day, a year, an eon" if time does not yet exist?
Do you know how silly that sounds?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 12:45:22 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3176
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
How silly what sounds? Please define day or year or eon without using parameters of time.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 12:57:55 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Amazing how nature supports God's Word!
Where does nature do something like this?
quote:
Several separate lines of scientific evidence point to a 'young' earth.
There is a whole thread for presenting scientific evidence pointing to a 6000 year-old earth. Nothing like that has been presented there. Could you elaborate, either here or there, on the several separate lines of scientific evidence to which you refer?
quote:
Radiometric dating providing the least accurate determination of a particular age due to its numerous unfounded assumptions.
And yet it works, and works consistently. The dates produced by radiometric dating do not look like the random scattershot that would be produced if the assumptions were invalid.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 1:20:16 PM
|
|
|
LCannon
Posts: 1247
Joined: 2/22/2007
From: Lebanon, OR
Status: online
|
Since no self aware being witnessed God's creation I'm content to let God be God. The '6000 year' figure is based, loosely, on tradition, legend and the known recorded and speculated history. It boils down to 'who do you believe', speculation or revelation. I choose to obey the external revelation of Jehovah the Eternal God, the Son is the God of Redemption and the Holy Spirit God of Conviction, humility and discipline. 'Logically', I suspect the earth(this 'terrestrial ball')is much older then 6000 years. How much older? Not a clue. That's the mystery of faith; we don't have to know only obey and, in fact, it cheapens our concept of an Almighty God when we limit Him down to our understanding.
_____________________________
"I pray that You dispose of my health, my sickness,
my life and my death for Your Glory."(Blaise Pascal)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 1:42:21 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
And yet it works, and works consistently. The dates produced by radiometric dating do not look like the random scattershot that would be produced if the assumptions were invalid.
I'm not necessarily a young earther, but the level of reliance on radiometric dating does bother me.
Not having scattershots statistically only indicates that a process is sequential. It does not necessarily indicate that a process can be rendered in linear form (and yes, I'm aware that the actual decay is exponential, but that's not what I'm talking about, really).
Say there's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge jar of jellybeans, and jellybeans are currently dropping into the top of this jar at 1 jelly bean per minute (observable). You can make certain assumptions.
1) you can assume that the jellybeans on the bottom of the jar dropped in first.
2) you can assume that the jellybeans drop at a constant rate.
3) you can assume that the jellybeans drop at that rate in a consistent quantity.
4) you can assume that there was a specific level of jellybeans when the process started.
The problem is that as long as 1 is true, you will not get scattering regardless of whether or not 2 and 3 and 4 are true. You don't know if the jar started out with 2,000 jellybeans alread in it. If someone came in and dumped 1,000 jellybeans in at once at some point in the process, you won't be able to tell as long as the "dumping strata" is in the proper sequence. Similarly, you won't be able to tell if the jellybeans dropped faster in the past than they are right now, or slower. So, if you decide to count all the jellybeans and from there tell everyone how long the jellybeans have been dropping into the jar, you could be very, very wrong.
So, with radiometric data, you can demonstrate 1 pretty much, since there's no scattering. But, in #2 and #3, we are not sure if enhanced levels of cosmic radiation may have affected the rate at which isotopes form. And, in #4, we are not sure if we are correct in guessing the ratios on day 1 of formation. This is what makes it problematic.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 2:05:04 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stampinlady
That being said, I think showing them the Way is better. 
I have to agree with that.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
The thing that interested me was that most had no other reason to belive what they believed other than that is what so and so said..
True. Most people don't delve deeply into either science or theology (especially theology they have been told is 'suspect'), so they only rely on whomever they trust. In fact there is another thread on this topic. See 'Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
In any case, it's one of those things we can't know with 100% certainty in this life and it's, therefore, a foolish dividing line for fellowship among believers.
quote:
ORIGINAL: triode
I do not believe that anyone's belief about the age of the Earth has anything to do with their salvation, nor does their interpretation of Genesis.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
Honestly I do not think it matters a hoot in a holler what folks believe about this, for it is certainly not a salvic thingy. And salvic thingys are all that matter.
Thanks
RC
Amen, Amen and Amen.
The only thing that really ticks off those of us who respect both the bible and science is the tendency of YECs to tell us we are not really Christian believers, that we "reject" or "dismiss" scripture.
We are Christians. We uphold the truth of scripture. We believe in creation. Some of us like to call ourselves "evolutionary creationists".
I will tell a Young Earth Creationist, in no uncertain terms, that his/her science is all wrong. But I would never say s/he is not a Christian believer. I expect to get disagreement with my understanding of science and my theology. That doesn't matter. As long as you accept that I too am a Christian believer.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 2:15:12 PM
|
|
|
triode
Posts: 46
Joined: 8/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only thing that really ticks off those of us who respect both the bible and science is the tendency of YECs to tell us we are not really Christian believers, that we "reject" or "dismiss" scripture.
We are Christians. We uphold the truth of scripture. We believe in creation. Some of us like to call ourselves "evolutionary creationists".
I will tell a Young Earth Creationist, in no uncertain terms, that his/her science is all wrong. But I would never say s/he is not a Christian believer. I expect to get disagreement with my understanding of science and my theology. That doesn't matter. As long as you accept that I too am a Christian believer.
Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 2:17:00 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
My husband and I discuss this a lot. He's a geological engineer, so you can imagine the implications. ;)
#1: God is the Cause.
Regardless of actual age, God is the reason it's here, because His status as Creator is a very important aspect of God.
#2: God COULD have done it in 7 literal days.
#3: God is not a liar.
#4: It is essential that humans were created in a specific manner.
Regardless of how quickly or liesurely God acted in creating the earth itself, it is absolutely essential that human beings were created, not macro-evolved.
Except for point 4, I think you and your husband have come to a good understanding. (Since he is a geological engineer, not a biologist or geneticist, his scientific background is apparently weak in this area.)
I would stand more with your husband on the accuracy of radiometric dating, especially isochron dating which you do not mention.
The micro-macro difference you outline is based on a misunderstanding of the predictions of evolution. It would actually disprove evolution if the descendants of moths were not moths, the descendants of birds were not birds, etc. Evolution requires that where no gene flow is possible between groups there will be no evolutionary consequence which will take descendants out of the groups their ancestors are part of.
The scientific evidence in favour of human evolution is very solid.
I would also disagree with the theology that says God's image cannot be imparted to a species which evolved or that evolution poses a problem to the fact of the fall. But that is still another discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 2:34:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
So, with radiometric data, you can demonstrate 1 pretty much, since there's no scattering. But, in #2 and #3, we are not sure if enhanced levels of cosmic radiation may have affected the rate at which isotopes form. And, in #4, we are not sure if we are correct in guessing the ratios on day 1 of formation. This is what makes it problematic.
Excellent comment!
What I would point out is that for radiocarbon dating, the system can be calibrated against tree rings going back to about 10,000 years ago. Tree rings provide a much more direct measurement of age, and this can be used to directly measure the rate of radiocarbon formation in the atmosphere. When this is done (see Fig. 1) the curve does not deviate that far from the 'naive' straight-line assumption.
So even if we ignore this calibration, our dates for the past 10,000 years are only off by a few percent. With the calibration, the accuracy is even better.
Using varve sediments, another calibration can be made for radiocarbon, and though it's not as clean as dendrochronology, it shows reasonable linearity for the past 40,000 years (see Fig. 2, etc.). Of course, 40,000 years already falsifies a 6000 year old earth, and this conclusion is supported by dendrochronology, varves, and radiocarbon dating separately.
But more importantly, radiocarbon dating appears to be roughly 'linear' in the sense you mean for the past 40,000 years (just about the entire span of time for which it is used). It may be off by 10% or even 20% for all I know, but clearly not the 700% that would be required to squeeze the time frame down to 6000 years.
It's true that it is not as easy to calibrate the other radiometric dating methods (which provide billion-year ages for rocks) against some other method in the same way. But to squeeze billions of years into thousands would require decay rates to increase by a factor of a million, which would just about turn a rock into a nuclear bomb.
And for your point #4, that we may not know the correct mother/daughter ratios in the original rock, some methods, like zircon dating, provide two separate radiometric methods of dating the sample. If assumption #4 was false, then the data would not fall on the concordia curve, except by an unlikely accident.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 2:40:46 PM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 700
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Some of us like to call ourselves "evolutionary creationists".
I have a question I've always wanted to ask of an "Evolutionary Creationist"...maybe you can answer it.
How do you understand the wording in several verses in Genesis 1..."and God saw that it was good"? And in verse 31, referring to all He had made, God "saw that it was very good."
I've always wondered this...if God is omniscient and if He was pleased with all He had made at the point of Genesis 1:31, why would He have created things just to have them change...or evolve?
Would an omniscient God not create HIS own creation completely, with no need for evolvement or change?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/7/2008 2:49:09 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1890
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is millions of years old...at the same time there is no doubt that God created in seven days. The glue that holds these two time frames together is faith.
I really think the differential is an intention clouding of the facts that precludes anything but faith.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
