# Question about Age of the Earth



## ACBRown

As I listen to men over at ID the future, or William Lane Craig, or Plantinga, or whomever, it is evident that many of the leading Christian voices out there in the realm of science and philosophy hold to an old Earth position. I'm not unaware how presuppositions and all the rest factor into the equation, but it still makes me wonder about this issue. 

I grew up under a creationist teacher who believed the earth was only thousands of years old. And you know, the whole created with age response still makes a ton of sense to me. I've never heard anything that really trumps that idea. But then again, I would like to know what's out there. If I wanted to get an answer to this question, what would you recommend? 

Is the evidence that compelling? I tend to think it must be, given that many of the ID guys get ridiculed for other views, thus showing that they don't simply capitulate to the latest fad (This doesn't mean I don't frown on their methodology as a Vantillian).

So what would you say? Help me out.

Austin


----------



## au5t1n

The earth is very, very old. About 6000 years or so.


----------



## Marrow Man

The "mature creation" view is sometimes objected to because it is alleged that it makes God appear deceptive (i.e., things appear to be very old when in fact they are not). However, even Vern Poythress argues (in a book being discussed on another thread) that this is not deceptive in that under such a paradigm God created, for instance, Adam with the appearance of age. When Eve was brought to Adam, she presumably was also "mature," and there was no deception involved. Therefore, why would it not be unreasonable to assume that such a mature creation is within the realm of reason while excluding a "deception" object. In other words,, if one begins from a presupposition that God is capable of such instantaneous creation, then there is no deception taking place. It would seem the ones who are "deceived" are the ones who wish to discredit the creation in the first place. And we know that God does make foolish the so-called wisdom of the wise.


----------



## DMcFadden

Most of my life, I held to a very old universe (now down to 13.4 billion years from estimates of nearly 20 billion being made just a few years ago) and an old earth.

I am currently convinced of a YEC schema. Answers in Genesis was VERY helpful to me.


----------



## ACBRown

Thanks, guys. I'm totally on the same page, when it comes to the appearance of age point. But I want to educate myself with respect to the evidence that apparently many are seeing that leads them to believe the universe is very old... older than 6000 years  

What is that evidence? And what should I read or listen to?

Thanks,

Austin


----------



## VictorBravo

Austin, there is all sorts of "evidence." That's the easy part. 

If a person starts out with the presupposition that what God has said cannot be right and is irrelevant, and then he spends his time examining stones and radioactive isotopes, layers of sediment, background radiation, and all sorts of other things, it is easy to find evidence of an old universe.

Scientists often forget what they are doing. Most start out on their mission saying, "I'm going to just look at empirical facts. I am specifically going to disregard any notion of God while I try to explain the universe."

That's reasonable as far as it goes as an academic and hypothetical exercise (although fundamentally it is morally wrong). But for a scientist to then say, "see, my observations have demonstrated that God's account is wrong," is invalid because he cannot prove the negative of what he has refused to consider and what is outside his scope of investigation.


----------



## au5t1n

I'm going to get really confused not being the only Austin anymore.


----------



## ACBRown

VictorBravo,

Thanks for the response. You know, I gotta agree with ya. I recently listened to a podcast interviewing a woman who examined the religious beliefs of major scientists in America. Half were atheists. How many Chritians were there of the other half? She didn't say. But I'm guessing most still employ a "neutral" methodology, ie., secular. So yes, secular worldviews abound in the scientific community.

Nevertheless, it isn't entirely plain to me that an old earth necessarily negates a sound Christian perspective. But again, I'm wondering if there is evidence out there that is really persuasive, given the recognition that the Earth may have been created with age. Are people seeing something that works, even with that in mind? Or is everything interpreted in light of that fact, namely, apparent age? 

In other words, is the position falsifiable?

Austin


----------



## VictorBravo

I don't think the old-earth view is completely falsifiable (in principle) by empirical observation. The current understanding could be falsified, but another view would come to replace it. The reason being that there is always the opportunity for another observation to be discovered that would require you to change your conclusion.

If your worldview is based upon empirical observation only, then it is always subject to change. For example, suppose someone found a subatomic particle that somehow demonstrated that the speed of light is not constant. That would certainly shake up modern science's view of time. Then the agreed-upon age of the universe would have to be revised. But it would not definitively state what the age of the universe is because of the possibility that someone might discover another particle that demonstrates something contrary.


----------



## Peairtach

I'm a YEC in the sense that I believe God formed and filled the Heaven and Earth some thousands of years ago in Six Days of 24 hours.

I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, so that we do not know how long the Heaven and Earth were in existence before God started to work on them.

We are not told on what Day, or how long before God created day and night on the First Day, God created the Heaven and Earth themselves.


----------



## AThornquist

Richard Tallach said:


> I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, so that we do not know how long the Heaven and Earth were in existence before God started to work on them.


 
What causes you to believe in this gap? Exegesis or eisegesis?


----------



## lynnie

Google Barry Setterfield and the decrease in the speed of light theory.

If the speed of light(c) has vastly diminished the past 6000 years, and e=mc2, then e was much higher in the past and all kinds of dating techniques are related to that. (higher e still works for cellular metabolism and so forth).

Been a while since I read it all, but back then it was fascinating. 22 measuremnts the past 400 or so years show a parabolic curve of decreasing light speed.

Old earth creationism assumes a constant unvaried world since the fall. It does not assume a vastly cursed world since the fall, such that rates of decay are changed. The fall was huge and all of creation was cursed.

Here is Setterfield's timeline with the light speed correction:

A Brief Earth History: Summary of the Monograph Creation and Catastrophe

He and others also go into the subterranean water theory. Water at high temps and pressure under the earth was able to dissolve massive amounts of minerals. When the fountains of the deep erupted under Noah, the strata were laid down quickly as the minerals precipitated. No need for a million years.


----------



## littlepeople

While I really appreciate the mature creation explanation, I have been more helped by "time as a function of velocity" theory. Our measurement of time is already flawed because we are in a galaxy that is traveling exponentially faster across the universe as it expands (time dilation). So there is a sense in which the space of six days is literally 24 hour periods, yet an hour then could be a million years by our watches now because we are moving faster. Now I am not pretending to be able to wrap my head around that, but here is an illustration of the principle. I have an industry standard tape measure that indicates my kitchen table is 4 feet across. My daughter has a toy miniature measuring tape. She insists that the table is 40 feet across because her measuring tape is 1/10 scale. We are trying to restrict God's "timelessness" into our understanding of time. Did that make any sense to anyone?? I'm awful at articulating it, but it really is extremely helpful to me.


----------



## ACBRown

It's funny because I wonder if that isn't the way to go, Richard, granting that there is really good evidence for old universe. For it seems plain to me that we can't reasonbly tinker with the days of creation. The days sure sound like days. But when verse one says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth," and then it says, "The earth was without form..." one wonders if maybe a lot of time passed between those verses (or maybe time operated differently?). Is there exegetical grounds for this? Well, I don't think so. But neither does it seem that we are constrained to say that there couldn't be. Doesn't the Bible have narrative gaps? All the time. Just read through the Gospels. Maybe the focus in Genesis is on the formation of the Earth and its being filled?

Maybe this is all hogwash. I dunno. But I'm still interested in knowing why, exactly, old earthers hold to their position. 

Austin


----------



## littlepeople

Apparently Lynnie posted while I was typing  Right on. Great minds think alike.


----------



## ACBRown

Thanks lynnie. I'll check that out.


----------



## Repre5entYHWH




----------



## Bern

At risk of being shot to pieces here... Austin, don't let intellectualism rob you of the plain reading of scripture. Its only because of evolutionary theory that people started trying to match up the age of the earth with "evidence" in modern science. There are some great men of God who held to old earth theory, but that doesn't mean it is correct. Eventually, modern science may catch up with the bible. The problem is that scientific theory is always changing, while the bible does not.


----------



## ACBRown

No gunshots here  Thanks Bern.


----------



## sastark

If you have not read this book, get yourself a copy and read it. It's great:

Amazon.com: Did God Create in 6 Days? (9780975484609): Joseph A. Pipa, David W. Hall: Books


----------



## cih1355

ACBRown said:


> Thanks, guys. I'm totally on the same page, when it comes to the appearance of age point. But I want to educate myself with respect to the evidence that apparently many are seeing that leads them to believe the universe is very old... older than 6000 years
> 
> What is that evidence? And what should I read or listen to?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Austin



The people who believe that the universe is old say that the rocks dated by the radiometric dating methods are millions and millions of years old. When one uses radiometric dating, one has to make assumptions concerning the initial conditions of the rock sample, the amount of parent or daughter elements in the sample, and whether or not the decay rate has changed. If one makes false assumptions about these things, then the rock sample will be given the wrong date.


----------



## Peairtach

AThornquist said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, so that we do not know how long the Heaven and Earth were in existence before God started to work on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What causes you to believe in this gap? Exegesis or eisegesis?
Click to expand...


Exegesis. Can you tell me on which Day of the Six Days the Heaven and Earth _themselves_ were made? Having said that, the Bible doesn't indicate how long before the Six Days they were made. But it does teach that they were made _before_ God made the First Day on the First Day.

---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------




ACBRown said:


> It's funny because I wonder if that isn't the way to go, Richard, granting that there is really good evidence for old universe. For it seems plain to me that we can't reasonbly tinker with the days of creation. The days sure sound like days. But when verse one says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth," and then it says, "The earth was without form..." one wonders if maybe a lot of time passed between those verses (or maybe time operated differently?). Is there exegetical grounds for this? Well, I don't think so. But neither does it seem that we are constrained to say that there couldn't be. Doesn't the Bible have narrative gaps? All the time. Just read through the Gospels. Maybe the focus in Genesis is on the formation of the Earth and its being filled?
> 
> Maybe this is all hogwash. I dunno. But I'm still interested in knowing why, exactly, old earthers hold to their position.
> 
> Austin



Well it gives time, if time was needed for the supernatural creation of God's Heaven and the angels to be created and for the rebellion and fall of the angels. 

The Earth and empty Space, since it was far more central to God's plans than His Heaven (He intended to become eternally God and Man not God and Angel, after all) would have been made in the very beginning when God's Heaven and the angels were created. But it may not have been worked on by God until after the rebellion and downfall of Satan and His minions.

There's this book:-

Three Views on Creation and Evolution Counterpoints: Exploring Theology Counterpoints: Bible and Theology: Amazon.co.uk: Paul Nelson, Robert C. Newman, Howard J. Van Till, John Mark Reynolds, J.P. Moreland: Books

To some extent I don't like these books because they tend to present certain views that are not within, or shouldn't be classed within, the evangelical fold, as evangelical. E.g. This book compares, YEC, OEC and theistic evolution as evangelically acceptable.

I don't consider theistic evolution to be evangelically acceptable as it more than plays fast and loose with Scripture. Theistic evolution just plainly ignores Scripture, or uses Scripture as a wax nose when it wants to. 

Nevertheless this book will show you why some are enticed into the OEC fold and why theistic evolution is incompatible with Scripture.


----------



## ACBRown

Thanks Seth! I'll check that out.

Richard: It's funny you bring up the angel thing. I'm actually working on a manuscript entitled, "The Fall of Satan and the Meaning of Life: Reflections on Satan’s terrible idea and its implications on the unfolding human drama." It's basically a fresh theory of the angelic fall and the irony of sin. While we simply don't have any evidence concerning the timing of Lucifer's rebellion, it does seem rather strange to think that he convinced a whole host of angels to follow him in a rebellion in such a short period of time. But of course, this is assuming time works the same way in their realm. Here I think of Narnia  

Austin


----------



## Peairtach

I believe that all creatures are subject to time, even Christ's human nature in Heaven, as all creatures are subject to space. Only God is free of these constraints.

The passage in Revelation in which the great angel (undoubtedly Christ) says "there should be time no longer"(KJV) is more properly, "there should be delay no longer".

It's difficult to know if Heavenly time is synchronised with Earthly time. From my reading of Scripture, I think the natural inference of the reader would be that Satan's rebellion happened before the creation. Or if we posit that Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they Fell a longer period than we sometimes think, during that period. 

I think we maybe tend to think that Adam and Eve were in the Garden a short period before they Fell, because they don't seeem to have made sweet love before they Fell, or if they did, they hadn't conceived, otherwise their child would have been sinless.

It makes sense that Heavenly time is in some sense co-ordinate with earthly time, as that would tie in with the fact of God's peculiar condescension to and interest in Man, such that He is now a Man.

E.g. Are we saying that our prayers made today to Christ, reached Him centuries ago, or that they will not reach Him until centuries in the future.

It is only the souls of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12:23) that are in Heaven, because there bodies can presently be found in the earth.

I think the fact of the incarnation and ascension points to co-ordinate time in Earth and Heaven.

Otherwise the souls of deceased believers could now, from our perspective, be in Heaven at a time long before Jesus' exalted and glorified humanity arrived there, or they could already be reunited to their glorified bodies and in the New Heavens and the New Earth, while the resurrection hasn't happened yet and the New Heavens and New Earth haven't been inaugurated.

This is all unConfessional and unbiblical. The Confession insists on the intermediate period of the perfected and glorified soul enjoying God in Heaven.

I don't think there's too much of Narnia going on, although there might be some.


----------



## ACBRown

Ah, no Narnia. Bummer. No seriously, thanks for the thoughts.


----------



## goodnews

Austin, 

I've read some good posts on this thread already and don't want to be redundant. But, to me, the biggest reason a Christian would be a YEC has to do with the fact the the Bible clearly states that death, and the curse, didn't appear on earth until the fall of man in the Garden. This certainly rules out any notion of jiving the Bible with the old-earth evolutionary theory (although natural selection within each kind is an obvious phenomenon) since lots of things have to live and die before man existed, or even a YEC theory that also incorporates the Gap Theory. Also, I respectfully disagree with the need to say God made everything look really old. None of us has lived for thousands of years allowing us to definitively say how old something looks when it's thousands, and certainly not millions, of years old. I've seen things age considerably over a couple of decades (myself notwithstanding) and would imagine something a few thousand years old would look very old. I just trust what the Bible says. And In my humble opinion, I don't think Bible Believers would naturally glean an old-earth belief from tha natural reading of Scripture w/o the influence of evolutionary theory.


----------



## Peairtach

> or even a YEC theory that also incorporates the Gap Theory.



My own "gap theory" doesn't posit death and destruction in the gap. Just that the Heaven and Earth were created some time before the First Day, whether five minutes or whatever. We're not told. But we are told that they weren't created during days 1-6, but before.


----------



## goodnews

Richard Tallach said:


> or even a YEC theory that also incorporates the Gap Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My own "gap theory" doesn't posit death and destruction in the gap. Just that the Heaven and Earth were created some time before the First Day, whether five minutes or whatever. We're not told. But we are told that they weren't created during days 1-6, but before.
Click to expand...


I can get with that Richard. What I'm against is the "ruin-reconstruction" idea of traditional gap theory. However, I can see from Scripture that God created the unformed earth first and then followed it up (however long later) with the light of day 1.


----------



## au5t1n

Where are we told the heavens and earth were not created on the first day?


----------



## ACBRown

That's an important question, Austin. As I see it, the way to falsify Richard's view would be to show that everything was made in six days. In other words, the unformed earth and universe were part of day 1. Do the Scriptures provide sufficient evidence to establish that point?


----------



## au5t1n

Well, calling it "the first day" has to count for something.


----------



## littlepeople

Genesis 2:1-4 would seem to indicate that there was no work prior to day 1. No work=no matter. Also the meaning of the Sabbath (to me) is tied up in the 6 days of work / 1 day of rest from the beginning. If there was a formless Earth prior to day 1, why is that not counted as "work" in the Sabbath formula? Those reasons would be my hesitation to take a view that isn't a strict 6/24 formula. Like I said before though, I'm fine with a 24 hour period that our present day watches would measure to be much greater spans of time. In fact, I would say that tomorrow's 24 hour period will be slightly less than 24 hours if I were to use today's watch....the point is: the fallen mind understands time in a fallen way. 

It's a little odd to me that the objections to a 6/24 creation story weren't really questioned when Einstein posited time dilation. The questions came when Radio-Carbon dating started gaining ground. I don't think any laymen (like myself) understand radio-carbon dating any better than we understand time dilation. For some reason r-c dating is treated like hard scientific truth, even within the theologically conservative Christian community. - just my observation

BTW here is another mind bender: We currently see the light from stars that are millions of light years away. How did that light reach us so soon? I've never really known anyone to be bothered by that idea, but r-c dating is compelling enough to make us re-examine our interpretation of Genesis.


----------



## goodnews

austinww said:


> Where are we told the heavens and earth were not created on the first day?



I think that's a good question. And I am not trying to defend Richard's view. However, a close look at the text (at least in the English) has every other day of the week of creation beginning with God speaking creatively ("And God said...") and ending with the formula "and it was good...then there was evening and morning..." If we accept the week's formula in a consistent manner then we should understand the first day to begin with God speaking creatively, creating light. Previous to that, in verse 2, Moses tells us that the earth was already formless and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep. So, I think you could make a good argument that the earth had a certain form before the creation week.


----------



## au5t1n

goodnews said:


> However, a close look at the text (at least in the English) has every other day of the week of creation beginning with God speaking creatively ("And God said...") and ending with the formula "and it was good...then there was evening and morning..." If we accept the week's formula in a consistent manner then we should understand the first day to begin with God speaking creatively, creating light. Previous to that, in verse 2, Moses tells us that the earth was already formless and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep. So, I think you could make a good argument that the earth had a certain form before the creation week.


 
Well, I've never read a book that had a new Introduction before each chapter, rather than a single Introduction followed by successive chapters. For the same reason, it shouldn't surprise us that introductory material precedes the first instance of "And God said...". Successive days don't require a rehash of this introductory material, so they begin with "And God said...", or in the case of the book, the chapters just begin and don't require a new Preface. 

People commit a similar fallacy with the seventh day when they assume that it wasn't a literal day because it doesn't end with "and there was evening, and there was morning" -- but we shouldn't expect it to end like the other days because there was nothing special about the next day that required highlighting the bridge between them.


----------



## N. Eshelman

I think that we can all agree that the earth is at least 6000 years old.


----------



## chbrooking

This sort of reasoning is precisely why I'm bothered by the discussion. In a frantic and stubborn attempt to defend a particular view of the age of the earth exegetically -- for which there is no theological 'payoff' --, the profound theological truths that are revealed in the text are completely bypassed or even intentionally ignored. Whether you are YE or OE, you ought to appreciate the creation, ordering and adorning that is going on in Gen 1, the incomprehensible power of God and his word, and the eschatological thrust given to the narrative by there not being an end to day 7. 

I want to know this: What does it matter -- theologically -- if you are YE or OE? 
What I mean is this: If (however it might happen), my own view is proven to be erroneous, it wouldn't affect my view of God at all. In fact, I don't even see how the interpretation of Gen 1 addresses YE / OE. That question hangs on the interpretation of genealogies. The "gap" isn't provable or disprovable. It provides some people with a 'box' into which they can put the great age they have been convinced of on other grounds. But Gen 1 doesn't address the age of the earth one way or the other. It does, on the other hand, give us information about God and the 'telos' of creation. I'd hate to miss that in a quest to find what the text doesn't seem to be interested in offering.



austinww said:


> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a close look at the text (at least in the English) has every other day of the week of creation beginning with God speaking creatively ("And God said...") and ending with the formula "and it was good...then there was evening and morning..." If we accept the week's formula in a consistent manner then we should understand the first day to begin with God speaking creatively, creating light. Previous to that, in verse 2, Moses tells us that the earth was already formless and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep. So, I think you could make a good argument that the earth had a certain form before the creation week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never read a book that had a new Introduction before each chapter, rather than a single Introduction followed by successive chapters. For the same reason, it shouldn't surprise us that introductory material precedes the first instance of "And God said...". Successive days don't require a rehash of this introductory material, so they begin with "And God said...", or in the case of the book, the chapters just begin and don't require a new Preface.
> 
> People commit a similar fallacy with the seventh day when they assume that it wasn't a literal day because it doesn't end with "and there was evening, and there was morning" -- but we shouldn't expect it to end like the other days because there was nothing special about the next day that required highlighting the bridge between them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Peairtach

austinww said:


> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a close look at the text (at least in the English) has every other day of the week of creation beginning with God speaking creatively ("And God said...") and ending with the formula "and it was good...then there was evening and morning..." If we accept the week's formula in a consistent manner then we should understand the first day to begin with God speaking creatively, creating light. Previous to that, in verse 2, Moses tells us that the earth was already formless and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep. So, I think you could make a good argument that the earth had a certain form before the creation week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never read a book that had a new Introduction before each chapter, rather than a single Introduction followed by successive chapters. For the same reason, it shouldn't surprise us that introductory material precedes the first instance of "And God said...". Successive days don't require a rehash of this introductory material, so they begin with "And God said...", or in the case of the book, the chapters just begin and don't require a new Preface.
> 
> People commit a similar fallacy with the seventh day when they assume that it wasn't a literal day because it doesn't end with "and there was evening, and there was morning" -- but we shouldn't expect it to end like the other days because there was nothing special about the next day that required highlighting the bridge between them.
Click to expand...


Now you're following a literary approach to get out of your difficulties, like the framework people. 

God not only created light on the First Day, but He ingeniously created the First Day on the First Day, so that He would have days on which to work.

The work done on the Six Days is the shaping and filling of an already created Earth and Universe, like a woman shaping and filling an already baked cake.

---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------




chbrooking said:


> This sort of reasoning is precisely why I'm bothered by the discussion. In a frantic and stubborn attempt to defend a particular view of the age of the earth exegetically -- for which there is no theological 'payoff' --, the profound theological truths that are revealed in the text are completely bypassed or even intentionally ignored. Whether you are YE or OE, you ought to appreciate the creation, ordering and adorning that is going on in Gen 1, the incomprehensible power of God and his word, and the eschatological thrust given to the narrative by there not being an end to day 7.
> 
> I want to know this: What does it matter -- theologically -- if you are YE or OE?
> What I mean is this: If (however it might happen), my own view is proven to be erroneous, it wouldn't affect my view of God at all. In fact, I don't even see how the interpretation of Gen 1 addresses YE / OE. That question hangs on the interpretation of genealogies. The "gap" isn't provable or disprovable. It provides some people with a 'box' into which they can put the great age they have been convinced of on other grounds. But Gen 1 doesn't address the age of the earth one way or the other. It does, on the other hand, give us information about God and the 'telos' of creation. I'd hate to miss that in a quest to find what the text doesn't seem to be interested in offering.
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a close look at the text (at least in the English) has every other day of the week of creation beginning with God speaking creatively ("And God said...") and ending with the formula "and it was good...then there was evening and morning..." If we accept the week's formula in a consistent manner then we should understand the first day to begin with God speaking creatively, creating light. Previous to that, in verse 2, Moses tells us that the earth was already formless and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep. So, I think you could make a good argument that the earth had a certain form before the creation week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never read a book that had a new Introduction before each chapter, rather than a single Introduction followed by successive chapters. For the same reason, it shouldn't surprise us that introductory material precedes the first instance of "And God said...". Successive days don't require a rehash of this introductory material, so they begin with "And God said...", or in the case of the book, the chapters just begin and don't require a new Preface.
> 
> People commit a similar fallacy with the seventh day when they assume that it wasn't a literal day because it doesn't end with "and there was evening, and there was morning" -- but we shouldn't expect it to end like the other days because there was nothing special about the next day that required highlighting the bridge between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It's always great to remember that our Father, created all this!, and we (or I rather) need to do that more often as a spiritual exercise.

There are some issues of Truth bound up with YEC/OEC. Maybe the science is at too early a stage for us to intellectually fully and satisfactorily reconcile the data of Genesis with what we believe is known from other sources. 

I wouldn't know. E.g. I haven't studied the complexities of radiometric dating.

We walk by faith, not sight. I'm happy to stick by my position from Scripture. 

I very much doubt that it's wrong, but you never know, it just may be.


----------



## au5t1n

Excuse me, but it's hardly fair to accuse me of missing the theological concepts merely because I interpret the verses a certain way as far as the timing goes. I did not cast a literary reading on the text; I used a helpful analogy. But nevermind the analogy, the point is it shouldn't surprise us that each day except the first begins with "And God said..." because it makes sense that the description of the first day would include things before the creation of light that did not need to be re-created for the other days, when the material was already there. That's perfectly logical. For the same reason, it makes sense that the last day doesn't end the same way. What would surprise me would be if the third day didn't begin with "And God said..." or if the fourth day didn't end with "And there was evening, and there was morning..." But it makes perfect since for the very first day to begin differently and for the very last day to end differently in the wording of the passage. That shouldn't come as a surprise, and therefore doesn't settle the debate in favor of a gap.

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------

Mr. Tallach,

Since your gap theory does not posit death and destruction in the gap, radiometric dating is of no help to your position, because the rocks that are dated to millions of years are found within strata that contain fossils. I'm not saying your position stands or falls on radiometric dating; I'm just saying it would be difficult to use it as a support.


----------



## Peairtach

Well on what day do you believe the Heavens and the Earth themselves to have been created? If they were created on the First Day why does it not say so? It doesn't say, "And God said, And there was the Earth"

The First Day begins with, And God said, Let there be light. There couldn't be an evening and a morning, the First Day, without light and darkness being divided from each other. God created the First Day on the First Day, so He could create in Six Days.

*Austin*


> it shouldn't surprise us that each day except the first begins with "And God said..." because it makes sense that the description of the first day would include things before the creation of light that did not need to be re-created for the other days, when the material was already there. That's perfectly logical.



Your reasoning isn't logical at all. God could easily have said that He made the Heaven and the Earth themselves on Day One as you contend, along with light if He did. But He didn't say that.

Other days have more than one item packed into them.

Have you just come to the conclusion that God created the Heaven and Earth themselves on the First Day, and are now reading that into the text?

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------




> Mr. Tallach,
> 
> Since your gap theory does not posit death and destruction in the gap, radiometric dating is of no help to your position, because the rocks that are dated to millions of years are found within strata that contain fossils. I'm not saying your position stands or falls on radiometric dating; I'm just saying it would be difficult to use it as a support.



Feel free to call me Richard, Austin.


"My theory" has got nothing to do with radiometric dating but with God's Word. Further, I do not know how long the Heavens and Earth were around for before the First Day, five minutes or longer. 

All I'm saying is that if we take Genesis One as sober history, they were created before Day One, on which light was created.


----------



## littlepeople

Concerning the presence of the formless Earth prior to day one, doesn't Genesis 2:4 answer that question? Or am I missing some nuance to the text?

Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.


It seems that it is referring to the heaven and earth being made in a "day". Am I misunderstanding the argument being made in this thread? That there was a "formless" work of creation in existence prior to the creation of "time/days" I'm sure I'm missing something here, it just seems that the question is answered in the next chapter.


----------



## au5t1n

To answer your question about my interpretation, I think the first occurrence of "And there was evening, and there was morning" marks the end of "the first day," which I believe means the first day of creation. If it's the first day of creation, then whatever was created before the statement was made must have been created on "the first day." I guess the problem is that I don't see the creation of light as needing to mark the beginning of the day. But I can agree to disagree. I just think it's a stretch to say the passage says the heavens and earth MUST have been created before day 1 began. That isn't unambiguous in the text, in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------




littlepeople said:


> Concerning the presence of the formless Earth prior to day one, doesn't Genesis 2:4 answer that question? Or am I missing some nuance to the text?
> 
> Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
> 
> 
> It seems that it is referring to the heaven and earth being made in a "day". Am I misunderstanding the argument being made in this thread? That there was a "formless" work of creation in existence prior to the creation of "time/days" I'm sure I'm missing something here, it just seems that the question is answered in the next chapter.


 
I think that's a good point, but it could be countered that "in the day that" here means "at the time that," as is not uncommon in ancient languages. I'm not suggesting a non-literal reading of the seven days, because those are clearly marked as having evening and morning, and therefore must be literal. But the above quote could very well be idiomatic for "at the time that."


----------



## littlepeople

Thanks Austin, that's helpful. What would you say keeps us from applying that same interpretation to the days of creation? To be clear, I don't think we should do that. I'm just curious as to why Genesis 2 can be referring to an "age" in which the the Earth had no shrub or man to til (prior to day 1 of creation) , but Genesis 1's use of "day" needs to be understood as 24 hour periods. I realize that the divided light and darkness is in view here, but there aren't heavenly bodies after all. So we're not speaking of a day/night that is produced by earth's 24 hour rotation around the sun. I guess I'm wondering why it's necessary to hold to a pre-creation formless earth in order to explain scientific testing about the age of the Earth. Isn't it a lot simpler (maybe more consistent) to just refer to these days as ages? Hope no one thinks I'm trying to ruffle feathers, I've realized that in the past, I woefully misunderstand others' position. I'm just trying to really grasp the intricacies of other interprative perspectives.


----------



## goodnews

austinww said:


> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a close look at the text (at least in the English) has every other day of the week of creation beginning with God speaking creatively ("And God said...") and ending with the formula "and it was good...then there was evening and morning..." If we accept the week's formula in a consistent manner then we should understand the first day to begin with God speaking creatively, creating light. Previous to that, in verse 2, Moses tells us that the earth was already formless and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep. So, I think you could make a good argument that the earth had a certain form before the creation week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never read a book that had a new Introduction before each chapter, rather than a single Introduction followed by successive chapters. For the same reason, it shouldn't surprise us that introductory material precedes the first instance of "And God said...". Successive days don't require a rehash of this introductory material, so they begin with "And God said...", or in the case of the book, the chapters just begin and don't require a new Preface.
> 
> People commit a similar fallacy with the seventh day when they assume that it wasn't a literal day because it doesn't end with "and there was evening, and there was morning" -- but we shouldn't expect it to end like the other days because there was nothing special about the next day that required highlighting the bridge between them.
Click to expand...


Austin, my brother, I'm not sure why you're afraid of Richard's version of gap theory. As a fellow creationist it's important to me that death not exist in the world before the creation week b/c I believe Scripture clearly teaches that death didn't exist until the fall. Yet, Richard's gap theory seems to rule all of that out. He is simply trying to deal with the clear reading of the text, as I was. You're reading of the text (which is similar to how I've always read it as well) is also feasible. But, I'm not really sure I understand what your saying in the first paragraph above. We wouldn't necessarily expect the seventh day to be organized exactly like the first sixth since it was/is supposed to be a day that is set apart or different. The Sabbath, according to the Westminster divines, has always been a day that is holy, or different, than all the other days of the week. We should expect nothing different during the creation week from a God who is so consistent and orderly. However, we might be surprised if that same God of order changes His consistent ordering during one of the other 6 creative days. We see consistency, top to bottom, in the genealogical formulas of Genesis 5, Matthew 1, Luke3. I see the same formulaic consistency in Psalm 136, the sermon on the mount, in God's ordering of the covenants, and other places. he is a God who seems to like to produce order and consistency. In my humble opinion, you very well may be right. But, respectfully, to dismiss Richard's point of view outright isn't being objective when you consider the Scripture as a whole.


----------



## AThornquist

If there wasn't a gap between the creation of "the heavens and the earth" and then the first day of creation, when did dirt come about? I've been told that dirt primarily comes from decomposing plants and animals, but then what soil did plants grow in at first?


----------



## Prufrock

chbrooking said:


> This sort of reasoning is precisely why I'm bothered by the discussion. In a frantic and stubborn attempt to defend a particular view of the age of the earth exegetically -- for which there is no theological 'payoff' --, the profound theological truths that are revealed in the text are completely bypassed or even intentionally ignored. Whether you are YE or OE, you ought to appreciate the creation, ordering and adorning that is going on in Gen 1, the incomprehensible power of God and his word, and the eschatological thrust given to the narrative by there not being an end to day 7.
> 
> I want to know this: What does it matter -- theologically -- if you are YE or OE?
> What I mean is this: If (however it might happen), my own view is proven to be erroneous, it wouldn't affect my view of God at all. In fact, I don't even see how the interpretation of Gen 1 addresses YE / OE. That question hangs on the interpretation of genealogies. The "gap" isn't provable or disprovable. It provides some people with a 'box' into which they can put the great age they have been convinced of on other grounds. But Gen 1 doesn't address the age of the earth one way or the other. It does, on the other hand, give us information about God and the 'telos' of creation. I'd hate to miss that in a quest to find what the text doesn't seem to be interested in offering.


 
Pastor Brooking, per usual, I always take extra time and care to read when I see your name in a thread; I always very much appreciate your teaching.

While I don't doubt that, on account of elenctic concerns, the polemical aspect of Genesis 1 is often what is seen most, I nevertheless would be surprised to learn that the other literary and theological aspects of Genesis 1 are ignored or not given as much attention in the actual preaching and teaching of most "Young Earth-ers." As to the "what does it matter" aspect, I think that even conversations here on this forum have shown the substantial and legitimate concerns expressed by both "sides". For the "old earth-ers," it seems the concern is pretty unanimously expressed that the "young earth-ers" open up doubts to God's veracity as expressed through a seemingly deceitful natural revelation; whereas the "young earth-ers" will have the substantial concerns that, while the teacher may have a very refined understanding of when scripture is using exclusively literary expression and when it should be taken more "literally," nevertheless this opens up the very real issue of the effect of such teachings upon the hearers and may start to plant seeds of doubt as to the general "literalness" and accuracy of scripture; also, the "young earth-er" will be concerned that holding such a view represents a subtle shift to the basing of our worldview upon reason instead of a clear "Thus saith the LORD." Clearly, both sides will disagree about the reality of these concerns, but they certainly are true concerns which I think give a "this is why it matters theologically" to the issue.


----------



## goodnews

chbrooking said:


> This sort of reasoning is precisely why I'm bothered by the discussion. In a frantic and stubborn attempt to defend a particular view of the age of the earth exegetically -- for which there is no theological 'payoff' --, the profound theological truths that are revealed in the text are completely bypassed or even intentionally ignored. Whether you are YE or OE, you ought to appreciate the creation, ordering and adorning that is going on in Gen 1, the incomprehensible power of God and his word, and the eschatological thrust given to the narrative by there not being an end to day 7.
> 
> I want to know this: What does it matter -- theologically -- if you are YE or OE?
> What I mean is this: If (however it might happen), my own view is proven to be erroneous, it wouldn't affect my view of God at all. In fact, I don't even see how the interpretation of Gen 1 addresses YE / OE. That question hangs on the interpretation of genealogies. The "gap" isn't provable or disprovable. It provides some people with a 'box' into which they can put the great age they have been convinced of on other grounds. But Gen 1 doesn't address the age of the earth one way or the other. It does, on the other hand, give us information about God and the 'telos' of creation. I'd hate to miss that in a quest to find what the text doesn't seem to be interested in offering.,
> 
> Clark, you've made some interesting points. Hopefull my retort will be interesting as well.
> 
> I'm not sure anyone's posting frantically here. It's just an interesting discussion for many and opinions are frank. You're right when you say that the purpose of the early chapters of Genesis isn't primarily meant to be scientific (if I can infer from what you've said) but rather theological. I think we can all stand back and admire God's power and creative faculty, regardless of where we fall in this debate. But I would very much disagree that it doesn't matter if someone is YE or OE. It doesn't matter in the sense that we all believe that God is the Creator, regardless of how old the earth is. It does matter, In my humble opinion, if the OE proponent also believes that the earth is old b/c they follow the evolutionary model of creation (that God used the processes of evolution to bring about what we exist in today) when the Scriptures clearly teach, again In my humble opinion, that death and decay and the curse, didn't exist before the fall, and for what I'm sure are obvious reasons. If there is a gap between verse 2 and verse 3 it would have to have profound theological implications b/c the God of the universe doesn't do anything w/o meaning, and it would also mean that He made the earth dark, formless and empty, for some reason, before the "creation week." Maybe, since we are new creations in Christ, He wanted to display our condition (dark, empty) when we fell into sin and left the perfect confines of His original creation. I don't know. But, it is worth discussing. BTW, I very much agree with your statement concerning the importance, eschatologically, that the narrative doesn't seem to end the seventh day.
> 
> PS. Clark, my apologies for messing up your quote in my post.


----------



## au5t1n

goodnews said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a close look at the text (at least in the English) has every other day of the week of creation beginning with God speaking creatively ("And God said...") and ending with the formula "and it was good...then there was evening and morning..." If we accept the week's formula in a consistent manner then we should understand the first day to begin with God speaking creatively, creating light. Previous to that, in verse 2, Moses tells us that the earth was already formless and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep. So, I think you could make a good argument that the earth had a certain form before the creation week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never read a book that had a new Introduction before each chapter, rather than a single Introduction followed by successive chapters. For the same reason, it shouldn't surprise us that introductory material precedes the first instance of "And God said...". Successive days don't require a rehash of this introductory material, so they begin with "And God said...", or in the case of the book, the chapters just begin and don't require a new Preface.
> 
> People commit a similar fallacy with the seventh day when they assume that it wasn't a literal day because it doesn't end with "and there was evening, and there was morning" -- but we shouldn't expect it to end like the other days because there was nothing special about the next day that required highlighting the bridge between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Austin, my brother, I'm not sure why you're afraid of Richard's version of gap theory. As a fellow creationist it's important to me that death not exist in the world before the creation week b/c I believe Scripture clearly teaches that death didn't exist until the fall. Yet, Richard's gap theory seems to rule all of that out. He is simply trying to deal with the clear reading of the text, as I was. You're reading of the text (which is similar to how I've always read it as well) is also feasible. But, I'm not really sure I understand what your saying in the first paragraph above. We wouldn't necessarily expect the seventh day to be organized exactly like the first sixth since it was/is supposed to be a day that is set apart or different. The Sabbath, according to the Westminster divines, has always been a day that is holy, or different, than all the other days of the week. We should expect nothing different during the creation week from a God who is so consistent and orderly. However, we might be surprised if that same God of order changes His consistent ordering during one of the other 6 creative days. We see consistency, top to bottom, in the genealogical formulas of Genesis 5, Matthew 1, Luke3. I see the same formulaic consistency in Psalm 136, the sermon on the mount, in God's ordering of the covenants, and other places. he is a God who seems to like to produce order and consistency. In my humble opinion, you very well may be right. But, respectfully, to dismiss Richard's point of view outright isn't being objective when you consider the Scripture as a whole.
Click to expand...

 
Well, I don't remember saying I was afraid of his position. I was just saying I don't think the text is as unambiguously clear that the heavens and earth must necessarily have been created before day 1 as he says.


----------



## goodnews

austinww said:


> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a close look at the text (at least in the English) has every other day of the week of creation beginning with God speaking creatively ("And God said...") and ending with the formula "and it was good...then there was evening and morning..." If we accept the week's formula in a consistent manner then we should understand the first day to begin with God speaking creatively, creating light. Previous to that, in verse 2, Moses tells us that the earth was already formless and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep. So, I think you could make a good argument that the earth had a certain form before the creation week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never read a book that had a new Introduction before each chapter, rather than a single Introduction followed by successive chapters. For the same reason, it shouldn't surprise us that introductory material precedes the first instance of "And God said...". Successive days don't require a rehash of this introductory material, so they begin with "And God said...", or in the case of the book, the chapters just begin and don't require a new Preface.
> 
> People commit a similar fallacy with the seventh day when they assume that it wasn't a literal day because it doesn't end with "and there was evening, and there was morning" -- but we shouldn't expect it to end like the other days because there was nothing special about the next day that required highlighting the bridge between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Austin, my brother, I'm not sure why you're afraid of Richard's version of gap theory. As a fellow creationist it's important to me that death not exist in the world before the creation week b/c I believe Scripture clearly teaches that death didn't exist until the fall. Yet, Richard's gap theory seems to rule all of that out. He is simply trying to deal with the clear reading of the text, as I was. You're reading of the text (which is similar to how I've always read it as well) is also feasible. But, I'm not really sure I understand what your saying in the first paragraph above. We wouldn't necessarily expect the seventh day to be organized exactly like the first sixth since it was/is supposed to be a day that is set apart or different. The Sabbath, according to the Westminster divines, has always been a day that is holy, or different, than all the other days of the week. We should expect nothing different during the creation week from a God who is so consistent and orderly. However, we might be surprised if that same God of order changes His consistent ordering during one of the other 6 creative days. We see consistency, top to bottom, in the genealogical formulas of Genesis 5, Matthew 1, Luke3. I see the same formulaic consistency in Psalm 136, the sermon on the mount, in God's ordering of the covenants, and other places. he is a God who seems to like to produce order and consistency. In my humble opinion, you very well may be right. But, respectfully, to dismiss Richard's point of view outright isn't being objective when you consider the Scripture as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't remember saying I was afraid of his position. I was just saying I don't think the text is as unambiguously clear that the heavens and earth must necessarily have been created before day 1 as he says.
Click to expand...


And I have only said the same thing from my original post, as my original post was to challenge the gap theory. I have always assumed that verses 1&2 were a part of day 1, but could easily see how someone else could see things differently from the text.


----------



## au5t1n

I'm not sure, though, why it's such a big deal just to express my exegetical conviction that verses 1&2 do not necessarily have to have happened before "the first day." I didn't accuse anyone of anything. This is a discussion board; why can't we have a discussion?


----------



## goodnews

austinww said:


> I'm not sure, though, why it's such a big deal just to express my exegetical conviction that verses 1&2 do not necessarily have to have happened before "the first day." I didn't accuse anyone of anything. This is a discussion board; why can't we have a discussion?



No one has said anything that should have moved you to make this post. But, my apologies if you were offended by me.


----------



## au5t1n

No, you didn't offend me, Pastor Jacobs -- I apologize for being confusing. It just seems that my words were being interpreted as an attack on Richard's position when all I intended to do was explain why I don't think the existence of creation events before the first instance of "And God said" necessarily means it did not fall on the first day. I don't think I accused anyone of undermining Genesis or teaching theistic evolution or anything like that.


----------



## goodnews

No apologies needed Austin. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## ACBRown

Well, it looks the discussion has advanced considerably since working  I did stumble across this little discussion/debate between Hugh Ross and Ken Ham on the age of the Earth. The discussion was a little frustrating, but interesting at a few points. I would recommend listening to it only if you're driving somewhere, working in a factor, etc. Don't take time out of your day to chomp on it. 

I'll probably review it and rate it at my blog in a day or so, www.soundofdoctrine.com. But if you want it now, you can find it here: Apologetics 315: Old Earth Young Earth Debate MP3 Audio

Thanks for the discussion men.

My father-in-law ordered me a book entitled Unformed and Unfilled... or something like that. Professor Wilds, I believe. Heard of it?

Austin


----------



## Peairtach

If my memory serves me well, when the subject of the days of creation is discussed, people tend to say that light was created on Day One, and don't mention the assumption of some (many?) that the unformed and unfilled earth and heaven was formed on that day.

Is the word "Heaven" in Genesis 1:1 in the singular, dual or plural in the Hebrew? Once the creation was complete on Day Six, there were three Heavens.

---------- Post added at 12:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------




austinww said:


> To answer your question about my interpretation, I think the first occurrence of "And there was evening, and there was morning" marks the end of "the first day," which I believe means the first day of creation. If it's the first day of creation, then whatever was created before the statement was made must have been created on "the first day." I guess the problem is that I don't see the creation of light as needing to mark the beginning of the day. But I can agree to disagree. I just think it's a stretch to say the passage says the heavens and earth MUST have been created before day 1 began. That isn't unambiguous in the text, in my opinion.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> littlepeople said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the presence of the formless Earth prior to day one, doesn't Genesis 2:4 answer that question? Or am I missing some nuance to the text?
> 
> Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
> 
> 
> It seems that it is referring to the heaven and earth being made in a "day". Am I misunderstanding the argument being made in this thread? That there was a "formless" work of creation in existence prior to the creation of "time/days" I'm sure I'm missing something here, it just seems that the question is answered in the next chapter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a good point, but it could be countered that "in the day that" here means "at the time that," as is not uncommon in ancient languages. I'm not suggesting a non-literal reading of the seven days, because those are clearly marked as having evening and morning, and therefore must be literal. But the above quote could very well be idiomatic for "at the time that."
Click to expand...


I don't follow a non-literal interpretation of the Seven Days, either.

I agree with your point that 



> "in the day that" here means "at the time that,"



Another verse that could be objected to my view is Exodus 20:11. But I believe that it is possibly a case of synecdoche, where it is summarising God's work of forming and filling the already created Heaven and Earth on the Six Days. 

The reason I think that, is that if we take verses such as Exodus 20:11 or Genesis 2:4, we have _references_ to God's work of Creation, or _summaries_ of God's work of Creation which point us to Genesis 1 if we want more detail.

When we go to Genesis 1 for more detail, we find that light was created on Day One, and not the unformed and unfilled Heaven(s) and the Earth themselves.


----------



## goodnews

ACBRown said:


> Well, it looks the discussion has advanced considerably since working  I did stumble across this little discussion/debate between Hugh Ross and Ken Ham on the age of the Earth. The discussion was a little frustrating, but interesting at a few points. I would recommend listening to it only if you're driving somewhere, working in a factor, etc. Don't take time out of your day to chomp on it.
> 
> I'll probably review it and rate it at my blog in a day or so, www.soundofdoctrine.com. But if you want it now, you can find it here: Apologetics 315: Old Earth Young Earth Debate MP3 Audio
> 
> Thanks for the discussion men.
> 
> My father-in-law ordered me a book entitled Unformed and Unfilled... or something like that. Professor Wilds, I believe. Heard of it?
> 
> Austin


 
Thanks for the link Austin. I've always found both men interesting.


----------



## au5t1n

Richard Tallach said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> littlepeople said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the presence of the formless Earth prior to day one, doesn't Genesis 2:4 answer that question? Or am I missing some nuance to the text?
> 
> Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
> 
> 
> It seems that it is referring to the heaven and earth being made in a "day". Am I misunderstanding the argument being made in this thread? That there was a "formless" work of creation in existence prior to the creation of "time/days" I'm sure I'm missing something here, it just seems that the question is answered in the next chapter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a good point, but it could be countered that "in the day that" here means "at the time that," as is not uncommon in ancient languages. I'm not suggesting a non-literal reading of the seven days, because those are clearly marked as having evening and morning, and therefore must be literal. But the above quote could very well be idiomatic for "at the time that."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't follow a non-literal interpretation of the Seven Days, either.
Click to expand...

 
Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about your position here. I was trying to avoid a possible misunderstanding of my interpretation of "in the day that" to mean "at the time that." I wanted it to be known that I wouldn't extend the same logic to the seven days because they -- unlike Gen. 2:4 -- make mention of evening and morning. I think we're on the same page here.


----------



## ACBRown

Yeah, I was wondering about Exodus 20:11. That seems to be the logical place to go to trump the position, for it might be taken to mean that everything that is created was created in the span of six days. But like you said, I can't say that it seems to me to be air tight.

Austin


----------



## chbrooking

goodnews said:


> If there is a gap between verse 2 and verse 3 it would have to have profound theological implications b/c the God of the universe doesn't do anything w/o meaning, and it would also mean that He made the earth dark, formless and empty, for some reason, before the "creation week." Maybe, since we are new creations in Christ, He wanted to display our condition (dark, empty) when we fell into sin and left the perfect confines of His original creation. I don't know. But, it is worth discussing.


 
I guess I figure that God reveals what he wants to reveal and doesn't reveal what he doesn't want to reveal. He does everything for a reason, but he doesn't tell us everything he does. And he doesn't always tell us why he does what he does. I'm okay with that. By the way, I'm not advocating a "gap" view. But I'm not advocating against it either. I just don't know. I'm okay with that, too. 

Since we are just having a friendly discussion (which is refreshing when it comes to this issue), I've always wondered about the first word of Genesis 1. It's usually translated "In the beginning." But it's actually a _beth_ attached to an indefinite, construct form that just hangs there. I've read a significant amount of Hebrew -- though I'm sure less than many here -- and this is really odd Hebrew, and a strange way to begin. Anyone (here) have any insight on that?


----------



## Peairtach

Since you're a Hebrew scholar, Clark, maybe you can tell me, as a matter of interest, whether "Heaven" in Genesis 1:1 is singular, dual or plural?


----------



## goodnews

chbrooking said:


> goodnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a gap between verse 2 and verse 3 it would have to have profound theological implications b/c the God of the universe doesn't do anything w/o meaning, and it would also mean that He made the earth dark, formless and empty, for some reason, before the "creation week." Maybe, since we are new creations in Christ, He wanted to display our condition (dark, empty) when we fell into sin and left the perfect confines of His original creation. I don't know. But, it is worth discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I figure that God reveals what he wants to reveal and doesn't reveal what he doesn't want to reveal. He does everything for a reason, but he doesn't tell us everything he does. And he doesn't always tell us why he does what he does. I'm okay with that. By the way, I'm not advocating a "gap" view. But I'm not advocating against it either. I just don't know. I'm okay with that, too.
> 
> Since we are just having a friendly discussion (which is refreshing when it comes to this issue), I've always wondered about the first word of Genesis 1. It's usually translated "In the beginning." But it's actually a _beth_ attached to an indefinite, construct form that just hangs there. I've read a significant amount of Hebrew -- though I'm sure less than many here -- and this is really odd Hebrew, and a strange way to begin. Anyone (here) have any insight on that?
Click to expand...

 
Ultimately, there's just so many things that we'll just have to place in the mystery category. I'm ok with that too. As a matter of fact, the more I learn the more I watch that category grow, and at an exponentially greater rate than it used to. What fun would it be to put God in your backpocket anyway?

Even though I'm one of the few who enjoyed learning the Hebrew more than the Greek (probably b/c i learned the Hebrew from Dr. Bill Kuykendall before he passed) I'm not going to be mych help with your question. I'd be interested to hear from someone else who could add something helpful though.


----------



## chbrooking

Scholar might be pushing it, but it's Plural. I can see why you'd think it was dual. 


Richard Tallach said:


> Since you're a Hebrew scholar, Clark, maybe you can tell me, as a matter of interest, whether "Heaven" in Genesis 1:1 is singular, dual or plural?




---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

On bereshith:
Well, I can tell you what I do know about it. It's a prepositional phrase in construct to a VERB. That's highly unusual. It does occur. Interestingly, it only occurs in poetry. (That's not to say Genesis 1 is poetry. It's definitely prose. That's not to say it's not highly stylized, though.) I understand this construction happens rather frequently in Akkadian, but I take that on the authority of a very reliable source. I never learned Akkadian. I've thought about trying to teach myself, but I'm not sure the payoff would be high enough for me.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Marrow Man said:


> It would seem the ones who are "deceived" are the ones who wish to discredit the creation in the first place. And we know that God does make foolish the so-called wisdom of the wise.


 
The only problem with statement is that those that hold to ID do not in any way shape or form discredit creation. They argue for it vociferously in the face of loss of job, ridicule, persecution, and fear of being unemployable. They risk everything for what they believe, because they hold that the Bible is true and without error, and that creation is true and without error as it appears. They do not discredit creation, but praise the creator. To say otherwise is to not understand what they are saying, or to attempt to discredit the argument with what I believe is untrue. I've met Stephen Meyer, and I can attest to his faith in the scripture being true and without error. That he believes that a young earth interpretation of scripture is faulty is not equivalent to discrediting creation. His arguments for the beginning of life being without any plausible cause apart from God are both articulate and logical -- that he believes God created the earth long ago does not discredit creation, unless you are saying that God could not have created the earth long ago (and that you could not be mistaken in your interpretation of scripture). I would rather give charity to any that say that God created, even if I disagree with the methodology by which God created.


----------



## Peairtach

chbrooking said:


> Scholar might be pushing it, but it's Plural. I can see why you'd think it was dual.
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you're a Hebrew scholar, Clark, maybe you can tell me, as a matter of interest, whether "Heaven" in Genesis 1:1 is singular, dual or plural?
Click to expand...


So does that basically mean that Genesis 1:1 is saying "In the beginning, God created 

(a) the sky

(b) outer space

(c) God's Heaven

and

(d) the Earth".

I.e. Is Genesis 1:1 basically saying "In the beginning God created everything" ?


----------



## chbrooking

I don't think Genesis 1 is thinking in those terms. That is, I don't think it is using the plural to make such a distinction. The Hebrew word is plural, but it's always plural. So, I don't think it would be exegetically safe to push the plural like that. I think I see where you are going, though, and I wouldn't totally disagree. I think Gen 1:1 is looking at heaven _comprehensively_, just not distributively. Does that make sense of your question, or am I missing something?


----------



## Peairtach

Yes. I understand. There can be error in pressing words beyond their intended use.


----------



## Ackbeet

*Semigroup Theory*

For what it's worth, there's a very interesting result in the mathematics of semigroup theory that I believe is highly relevant to this earth-age question. The result goes like this: suppose you have a system that starts in time at state A, evolves in time through state B and ends up at state C. Now, suppose you have the _identical_ system start at B and evolve to C. So you can see that one of them started out at an earlier time than the other, although they both ended up in the same place. Further, suppose there is an observer _in the system_. For system, you could substitute "earth" if you like. Semigroup theory says that unless the observer has memory reaching back to state A, he will have no method whatsoever of deducing whether the system started at A or at B. 

I claim this result shows that the theory of mature creation cannot be disproved by any science whatever. Even supposing there is evidence that the earth is billions of years old (which, as above posts have shown, is a disputed point), this result shows that you can simply side-step the issue. It certainly makes sense that God created Adam looking more like a 20-year-old than a few seconds old, in order to make him capable of tending the garden. If that's so with Adam, why not have light from stars already streaming to the earth? Why not have plants and animals that look years old instead of seconds old? 

Poythress's argument against the deception counter-argument has already been mentioned. 

My conclusion: true science and the Christian faith can have no contradiction. If there is an apparent contradiction, well, too bad for the science! Maybe they'd better re-examine their science. This is why I rather grin at the guys who make fun of Christians for "believing that the sun revolves around the earth." The joke's actually on those guys, because general relativity says there is no preferred frame of reference. You might just as well say the sun revolves around the earth as that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither of those statements can be proved, says general relativity.


----------



## chbrooking

Ackbeet said:


> This is why I rather grin at the guys who make fun of Christians for "believing that the sun revolves around the earth." The joke's actually on those guys, because general relativity says there is no preferred frame of reference. You might just as well say the sun revolves around the earth as that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither of those statements can be proved, says general relativity.


 
Share that with a guy who needs to work with physics and gravity and he'll not be impressed. Launch a satellite and expect the earth to revolve around it. Sure, you can say it does, if you take the right perspective and talk about general relativity. But that perspective is really meaningless. The fact of the matter is, it is the gravitational pull of the earth that keeps the satellite revolving around the earth. Similarly, the earth is in orbit around the sun. To say that the sun is in orbit around the earth is ridiculous -- at least to me.


----------



## Ackbeet

Well, I am by no means an expert in General Relativity (GR). However, with a Ph.D. in Mathematical Physics from Virginia Tech, I do know the basics of GR. One of those basics is that there is no preferred frame of reference, inertial or otherwise. Thinking that the earth revolves around the sun sure makes the mathematics easier, but that is neither here nor there; the same is true of a satellite around the earth, or the moon for that matter. If you think about a guy kicking a stone (like Dr. Johnson), and you consider two possible frames of reference: one is that of the stone, where the guy's foot appears to move in to strike the stone, and the other is that of the entire universe rotating in such a way that the stone moves in to strike the foot, *there is no way to say one is preferred over the other*. The laws of physics are the same in ALL frames of reference, period. It doesn't matter whether they are inertial or not. So, if you like, you can attach a frame of reference to any object whatever (a frame of reference should be thought of as three rulers in the x, y, and z directions, along with a clock) and do your physics from that frame just as correctly as a frame attached to a different object. 

So, I can attach a frame to the earth, and say that the sun revolves around the earth. Or, I can attach a frame to the sun, and say the earth revolves around the sun. You can come to the same conclusions, from the different points of view, in either case. 

That's what the physics says.

For the record, I sure find it easier to think of the earth revolving around the sun, and the moon around the earth, and so on, in the Copernican/Galilean fashion. But GR prohibits me from making fun of the guy who says the sun revolves around the earth. GR says that question is irrelevant. If he wants to do physics in the earth frame, great!


----------



## littlepeople

I like that explanation.


----------



## chbrooking

That reminds me of Zeno's argument that motion is impossible, since an object has to move half-way. To get there it has to move half-way. To get there it has to move half-way -- ad infinitum. Since it takes at least some amount of time to move any distance, to move an infinite number of distances requires an infinite number of time intervals. No movement, therefore is possible at all. 

But this is ridiculous.

I'm no expert in the field, but to a simple country boy, it looks to me like GR has a problem. I can't just change my frame of reference to anything I like. If I launch a satellite, I might try to change the reference so that the earth revolves around it, but the moon and the sun are still relating to the earth as they were in the previous frame of reference. That is, they aren't relating to the satellite (the new frame of reference) in a mathematically explicable way at all. Rather, the moon is rotating around the earth and the earth the sun and the satellite the earth.

GR can claim anything it likes. Call me simple, but it's just too ridiculous for my mind to give it any more credence than I give Zeno's argument.


----------



## littlepeople

Would you say that the moon is currently revolving around the Earth or the Sun? Or perhaps a better question: Two brothers are walking in opposite directions. One is walking from the bathroom to the cockpit aboard a 747 traveling 500mph due west. The other brother is walking on a country road 2 mph due East. Meanwhile the Earth is traveling rotationally 1037mph due east. Which brother is moving faster? 

The point that I would make is that GR is helpful in putting us in our intellectual place. With questions of the age of the Earth, we are trying to argue from the finite to the infinite. Semigroup theory works along similar lines of thought. Even if every bit of scientific testing points toward movement from A to B to C, there is no way to disprove that it was simply a movement from B to C. 

My issue with the YE/OE discussion on the whole is that both stances assume absolutes that aren't absolute at all. Time, location, age, weight, velocity; these are all variable. So even claiming a YE stance of 6000 years is off the mark, because time is itself a created thing--a fallen thing. So back to the original question, I'm inclined to believe that 6 24 hour periods is exactly 6 24 hour periods. There are simply too many variables to reconcile when trying to take a stance other than 6-24.

The main problem if find with the "formless Earth" prior to creation, is that it serves no theological function other than to debunk scientific data about the age of the Earth. However, it never really succeeds in debunking the science. I.E. Those million year old limestone formations are easier to understand since there was a formless Earth prior to the 6000 year clock starting. But what do we do with the fact that limestone is made up of seashells and other decomposed organic matter. What does this say about the truth behind the fall, and death entering? It doesn't answer the question about light from distant stars reaching us. The stars were created after the 6000 year clock started.

What I fear we lose is the principle of the Sabbath in all this. I really don't have a dog in the fight apart from that. I fear that an Old Earth, or a formless Earth prior to day 1 of creation doesn't really solve as many problems as it creates. If God did form the Earth prior to day 1, Why did he rest on day 7? And how is this a rest from ALL His work in creation? 

I do think the exegetical digging is admirable though. We do tend to lump everything into day 1 without necessarily finding the evidence in Genesis 1. I think Genesis 2 and of course Exodus provide the grounds to place all of creation on day 1 and following.


----------



## Ackbeet

Hmm. Mathematically, I've understood Zeno's paradox to say that motion is impossible because, with this infinite dividing by two, there can be no "first step". However, I believe the answer to that can be found in quantum mechanics, along with an assumption that space is discrete. (This is by no means mainstream science, by the way.) If you assume space is discrete, then Zeno's hidden assumption that you can keep on dividing by two is incorrect. There is a smallest space between two points. Furthermore, quantum mechanically, a particle can tunnel from one location to the next, thus enabling motion. I do think Zeno's paradox requires more effort than either "That's ridiculous", or the usual calculus argument that the sum of infinitely many numbers can be finite. However, this is a tangent (pun intended). 

Concerning frames of reference, you wrote:


> I can't just change my frame of reference to anything I like.


Sure you can. Just get into a car and wave goodby to someone standing outside the car as you move off. According to the person outside the car, the earth is stationary, and the car moves off. According to you, the earth is accelerating beneath the car. 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "relating" or "not relating". Newton's law of gravitation says that all mass attracts all mass according to the inverse square law. The sun does pull on the moon, and the moon on the sun. This makes the moon's motion very difficult to calculate, because it's a 3-body problem (earth, sun, moon), a problem that has not yet been solved exactly in the general case. And that, incidentally, is why Newton didn't include a solution of the moon's motion in his _Principia_, though he tried very hard. 

You can call yourself simple, but a pastor in the OPC has to have studied quite a bit to get to that position. I imagine you can probably wipe the floor with me in exegesis, and that's a good thing.


----------



## Peairtach

*Brandon*


> The main problem if find with the "formless Earth" prior to creation, is that it serves no theological function other than to debunk scientific data about the age of the Earth.



But if we're not told on what day the formless Heavens and Earth were created, they must have been created before God created light, according to a 24-hour view. Maybe 5 minutes before, but before nevertheless.

There could be theological functions. The creation of the Earth, Outer Space, and the Heaven of Heavens would give time for the rebellion and fall of the angels. 

I don't see the problem with the Sabbath. If the work of the Six Days of Creation is forming and filling then it is presupposed that something is prepared for that beforehand.

Besides the First Day was created on the First Day, so time as we understand it before then is somewhat mysterious.

Were the Heaven of Heavens not created before the creation week, anyway. And would God not have prepared the Earth to some extent at the same time as He created the Heaven of Heavens, since the Earth is where He intended to become Man and glorify Himself in a peculiar manner.

Earth wasn't an "afterthought" that was created after the Heaven of Heavens was created, after the angels were created, and after they fell?

I agree that the idea of a formless and empty Earth and Universe alongside God's Heaven, before the Creation Week, may be of little use to Creationism, but we're first of all interested in the Truth of what Scripture says, only secondarily whether it's useful to apologetic arguments or not.

Anyway, you want to defend what you really believe the Bible says, according to proper rules of interpretation, and you don't know if a clearer view of what the Bible is saying may help your apologetic in the future.

For the reasons given in post #24 above, I believe that Heavenly and Earthly time are co-ordinate. Would Adam have died after the Fall, gone to Heaven (if he was a believer) only to find out that Lucifer and his angels had not yet fallen? Would the OT saints die and go to Heaven to find the incarnate Christ there?


----------



## Grimmson

ACBRown said:


> As I listen to men over at ID the future, or William Lane Craig, or Plantinga, or whomever, it is evident that many of the leading Christian voices out there in the realm of science and philosophy hold to an old Earth position. I'm not unaware how presuppositions and all the rest factor into the equation, but it still makes me wonder about this issue.
> 
> I grew up under a creationist teacher who believed the earth was only thousands of years old. And you know, the whole created with age response still makes a ton of sense to me. I've never heard anything that really trumps that idea. But then again, I would like to know what's out there. If I wanted to get an answer to this question, what would you recommend?
> 
> Is the evidence that compelling? I tend to think it must be, given that many of the ID guys get ridiculed for other views, thus showing that they don't simply capitulate to the latest fad (This doesn't mean I don't frown on their methodology as a Vantillian).
> 
> So what would you say? Help me out.
> 
> Austin


 
There a methodological issue we need to consider in determining the age of the earth. Are we to look at the genealogical years and associate to him our understanding of a year? When considering this question we must ask ourselves another question, “ did the time of Abraham and that of Noah interact? Go ahead and do the math in counting the years. I get the impression from the text and from studying the issue historically that the answer is no. Augustine, himself, when looking at the Egyptian year did not equate it with his own. If I remember right in City of God he said that four Egyptian years made up one of his years. There are many biblical factors at play with determining the age of the earth and requires some look at historical Jewish and Christian interpretative approaches along with careful analysis of the use of terms within a genre context as it relates to the grammar.


----------



## chbrooking

I guess I would have answered Zeno differently. I'd say that to move half as far takes half as long. To move half that far again takes half that long again. However he divides the distance, the time is correspondingly divided. It may not be mathematical or anything, but it's enough for me to go on with life 

All I'm saying with regard to frames of reference is this: You can say that I'm spinning around a top. Fine. I suppose if you were a top that would make sense to you. But I'm not getting dizzy. The reason I brought up Zeno is because common sense tells you he's wrong -- not to mention observation. Likewise, common sense tells me that the mass of the earth being so much larger, it doesn't make sense to say the earth revolves around the moon. I'm sure the moon would disagree with me. But 'ridiculous' is the only way I can deal with something that so contradicts my common sense. I have no doubt that the motion of two bodies are relative to one another, and that motion can be described from either perspective. But to say that the earth orbits the moon, while the sun is orbiting the earth seems to evoke for me a mental image of Ptolemy's model, with lots of cams and such to account for oddities. Occam's razor did that model in, and your take on GR seems to be trying to bring it back. I'm just skeptical is all. But I'm no physicist, nor even a mathematician. My brother's a ME, maybe I'll pick his brain on this stuff.




Ackbeet said:


> Hmm. Mathematically, I've understood Zeno's paradox to say that motion is impossible because, with this infinite dividing by two, there can be no "first step". However, I believe the answer to that can be found in quantum mechanics, along with an assumption that space is discrete. (This is by no means mainstream science, by the way.) If you assume space is discrete, then Zeno's hidden assumption that you can keep on dividing by two is incorrect. There is a smallest space between two points. Furthermore, quantum mechanically, a particle can tunnel from one location to the next, thus enabling motion. I do think Zeno's paradox requires more effort than either "That's ridiculous", or the usual calculus argument that the sum of infinitely many numbers can be finite. However, this is a tangent (pun intended).
> 
> Concerning frames of reference, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't just change my frame of reference to anything I like.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can. Just get into a car and wave goodby to someone standing outside the car as you move off. According to the person outside the car, the earth is stationary, and the car moves off. According to you, the earth is accelerating beneath the car.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "relating" or "not relating". Newton's law of gravitation says that all mass attracts all mass according to the inverse square law. The sun does pull on the moon, and the moon on the sun. This makes the moon's motion very difficult to calculate, because it's a 3-body problem (earth, sun, moon), a problem that has not yet been solved exactly in the general case. And that, incidentally, is why Newton didn't include a solution of the moon's motion in his _Principia_, though he tried very hard.
> 
> You can call yourself simple, but a pastor in the OPC has to have studied quite a bit to get to that position. I imagine you can probably wipe the floor with me in exegesis, and that's a good thing.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ackbeet

Occam's razor actually is in favor of GR, because GR is the same in ALL frames of reference, inertial or not. You don't have to change the equations like you do for Newtonian mechanics. I've seen the Newtonian equation for motion in a non-inertial reference frame, and it's terribly complex compared to the inertial version. Now, granted, GR is complex. But it doesn't have THAT complexity added to it.

Skeptical is great.


----------



## chbrooking

Yeah, I can see why you'd say that re: Occam. My point was not GR, but this particular inference from it. I.e., Try to build a model explaining the rotation of all the heavenly bodies relative to the earth where earth is the hub, the center about which everything moves -- _that_ was where my Occam comment was directed.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Ackbeet said:


> My conclusion: true science and the Christian faith can have no contradiction. If there is an apparent contradiction, well, too bad for the science! Maybe they'd better re-examine their science.


 
Both the scientist and the theologian should examine their spheres. There can be no contradiction between general revelation and special revelation, so if there is an apparent contradiction, the interpretation of one or the other is wrong, or both. One thing is sure, the geocentric model of the solar system is useless for predicting the required forces needed to send a vehicle to the outer reaches of the solar system, while the heliocentric model has been used to calculate the required forces to send the Cassini probe to Saturn. Philosophically, one can maintain a geocentric solar system, but one has to do so with no hope of reliably sending probes to other planets. While others will state their interpretation of scripture requires a geocentric solar system and they deny the possibility of error in that interpretation, there is little they can do to support how that would be useful in piloting a probe to the moon, let alone Saturn. If they have not done the mathematics and seen what it does to what we otherwise see as laws of physics, there is little to argue. A fixed observer in a closed system tends to be at the mercy of your presupposition. Give the observer a means of escape from the framework, and things change rapidly. Being able to see one has use for prediction (and the outcome follows) tends to support the theory. Having a system which not only is useless for predicting behavior of a space probe, but that contradicts what we see every day provides a good basis for questioning the validity of the system that is otherwise useless.

---------- Post added at 03:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 AM ----------




Ackbeet said:


> For the record, I sure find it easier to think of the earth revolving around the sun, and the moon around the earth, and so on, in the Copernican/Galilean fashion. But GR prohibits me from making fun of the guy who says the sun revolves around the earth. GR says that question is irrelevant. If he wants to do physics in the earth frame, great!


 
So the centripetal forces and masses work just as well to force the Sun into orbit around the earth? I'd like to see the mathematics for the force equations that allow that, and still have the moon not crash into the earth, and that Venus has such a wild orbit, and that allowed Cassini to escape Earth orbit, and travel to Saturn. Not just two bodies, but those five. I realize the force equations for just Venus, Sun and Earth are rather difficult, especially if you have the Earth exerting a consistent gravitational force that doesn't change moment by moment, and is far from being as uniform as it appears at the slow (C relative) speeds of the planets, Moon and Sun.


----------



## chbrooking

I guess that echoes my point. I'm not saying you can't choose another frame of reference. And, theoretically, you could do the math to make it work, but we don't, and I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding anyone who COULD. And you are right, of course, that Occam applies, in that GR simplifies the system, but to choose the earth as the reference point would require math FAR more complex. GR says no frame of reference has priority, but what does that mean? To state the theoretical possibility of working with any reference point doesn't seem (to me) to preclude the pragmatic preference of the one that is calculable by your ordinary, every day, run of the mill rocket scientist. And so, by a mathematical application of Occam's razor, or at least by a utilitarian one, couldn't we say one has preference over another?

I wonder what the theological implications are in the choice of one reference point over another. On the one hand, a geocentric view highlights man as the image-bearer, and makes the story of redemption central to the entire creation (very attractive). On the other hand, a look at the stars has always led men to see how SMALL and INSIGNIFICANT they are -- and to highlight the WONDER and MERCY of God in paying them any attention whatsoever (likewise very attractive). I'm sure this could be looked at from many angles. That would be an interesting discussion: GR says there's NO priority. But what does theology say? It may be difficult to rise to the level of necessary consequence, but it would be interesting to lay out both the practical and theological implications of various views: geocentricity, heliocentricity, galaxiacentricity, etc. What if I regarded myself, personally, as the reference point?


----------



## sastark

Brian Withnell said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem the ones who are "deceived" are the ones who wish to discredit the creation in the first place. And we know that God does make foolish the so-called wisdom of the wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with statement is that those that hold to ID do not in any way shape or form discredit creation. They argue for it vociferously in the face of loss of job, ridicule, persecution, and fear of being unemployable. They risk everything for what they believe, because they hold that the Bible is true and without error, and that creation is true and without error as it appears. They do not discredit creation, but praise the creator. To say otherwise is to not understand what they are saying, or to attempt to discredit the argument with what I believe is untrue. I've met Stephen Meyer, and I can attest to his faith in the scripture being true and without error. That he believes that a young earth interpretation of scripture is faulty is not equivalent to discrediting creation. His arguments for the beginning of life being without any plausible cause apart from God are both articulate and logical -- that he believes God created the earth long ago does not discredit creation, unless you are saying that God could not have created the earth long ago (and that you could not be mistaken in your interpretation of scripture). I would rather give charity to any that say that God created, even if I disagree with the methodology by which God created.
Click to expand...

 
Brian, I think some clarification is needed here. While individuals who hold to ID may in fact be creationists of some sort (OEC or YEC), ID itself is NOT a creationist theory. ID in no way claims to explain origins of the universe. I would refer you to Traipsing Into Evolution put out by the Discovery Institute. The DI has tried to make it clear that they are NOT creationists and that ID makes no claims as to the identity of a "designer". 

This is not said to disparage any individuals who hold to ID, such as Stephen Meyer. I only want to make sure we are clear that ID is not a creationist movement, even if certain proponents of ID are in fact Christians who hold to divine creation.


----------



## Ackbeet

Here's a 1916 paper by Thirring, and you can also google the Lense-Thirring effect. They did some computations, some of them incomplete (but have since been completed) that show that centrifugal forces of a rotating object as measured in the "fixed stars" frame can just as easily be explained by gravitational effects of the "fixed stars" rotating in the object's frame. I should mention that the website I got that Thirring paper from might not be the most reliable source ever. However, the paper is mentioned elsewhere, and certainly the Lense-Thirring effect is well-documented.

Incidentally, in response to various statements above, I should point out that in celestial mechanics it is technically incorrect to speak of object A orbiting object B. Even in Newtonian mechanics this is incorrect. Because of Newton's Third Law (equal and opposite forces), two objects attracted by gravity will rotate about their mutual center of mass. This effect is difficult to measure in the earth-sun system, because the earth-sun center of mass is extremely close to the sun's center of mass, since the earth's mass is so much smaller than the sun's. In addition, of course, you have other planets, notably Jupiter, throwing things off.

In Christ.


----------



## chbrooking

Ackbeet said:


> Incidentally, in response to various statements above, I should point out that in celestial mechanics it is technically incorrect to speak of object A orbiting object B. Even in Newtonian mechanics this is incorrect. Because of Newton's Third Law (equal and opposite forces), two objects attracted by gravity will rotate about their mutual center of mass. This effect is difficult to measure in the earth-sun system, because the earth-sun center of mass is extremely close to the sun's center of mass, since the earth's mass is so much smaller than the sun's. In addition, of course, you have other planets, notably Jupiter, throwing things off.
> 
> In Christ.


 
Yes, that's a good point. I'll have to think on these things -- in all my spare time -- lol


----------



## Peairtach

sastark said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem the ones who are "deceived" are the ones who wish to discredit the creation in the first place. And we know that God does make foolish the so-called wisdom of the wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with statement is that those that hold to ID do not in any way shape or form discredit creation. They argue for it vociferously in the face of loss of job, ridicule, persecution, and fear of being unemployable. They risk everything for what they believe, because they hold that the Bible is true and without error, and that creation is true and without error as it appears. They do not discredit creation, but praise the creator. To say otherwise is to not understand what they are saying, or to attempt to discredit the argument with what I believe is untrue. I've met Stephen Meyer, and I can attest to his faith in the scripture being true and without error. That he believes that a young earth interpretation of scripture is faulty is not equivalent to discrediting creation. His arguments for the beginning of life being without any plausible cause apart from God are both articulate and logical -- that he believes God created the earth long ago does not discredit creation, unless you are saying that God could not have created the earth long ago (and that you could not be mistaken in your interpretation of scripture). I would rather give charity to any that say that God created, even if I disagree with the methodology by which God created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brian, I think some clarification is needed here. While individuals who hold to ID may in fact be creationists of some sort (OEC or YEC), ID itself is NOT a creationist theory. ID in no way claims to explain origins of the universe. I would refer you to Traipsing Into Evolution put out by the Discovery Institute. The DI has tried to make it clear that they are NOT creationists and that ID makes no claims as to the identity of a "designer".
> 
> This is not said to disparage any individuals who hold to ID, such as Stephen Meyer. I only want to make sure we are clear that ID is not a creationist movement, even if certain proponents of ID are in fact Christians who hold to divine creation.
Click to expand...


This is the case.

Whatever the merits of the movement and the merits of its arguments and style of argumentation, getting under non-ID radar by not being creationist, the reviews of Michael Behe's book "The Edge of Evolution" indicate that he goes so far as to accept common descent.

However welcome his challenges to the self-assembly of life by impersonal and irrational forces, he is not a creationist.

More power to his arm, as far as he goes, and for standing for a degree of truth, in the face of severe opposition.


----------

