The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

What, Basil directly rejecting evolutionary type ideals even though it was only the 4th century, saying it was 24 hour days and that Genesis 1 and 2 are not allegory isn't good enough for you?

Maybe not, but you equally can't go outside and say that the hill is obviously less than 6000 years old. I can't look at the Rockies or the Grand Canyon (or in NZ at Mt. Cook even the NZ islands themselves), and think in terms of "thousands" only in terms of millions at minimum.



Those "few" geological scientist??? "few?" Lets be honest here. Its not few it's the overwhelming majority.

Find just one reputable geologist, who was not a Creationist already, who when, compelled by the evidence, stated that the world is not old?

Who "think they understand" radioactive dating??? "Think"

Again...

Find just one reputable geologist, who was not a Creationist already, who when, compelled by the evidence, stated that radiometric dating is completly wrong and should not be used?



Cite your source, stating that Old Earth and Radiometric dating is only held to be accurate by a few scientist.

Here is what the the Gallup Poll says about what scientist believe about Creationism:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html



If you were just putting quotes up and not commenting on them then I and others would feel no real need to comment. However, you yourself are posting quotes and then commenting on them, declaring they support the YEC Interpretation. By the very nature of having an open forum your comments must be commented on by the other side. How can we have thread were only one side is allowed to make comments?

The thread is for the quotes!

Find some!

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

Dale

This comment is outside the scope of YOUR thread but as you wrote I will comment on it.

Actually a geologist can often determine the age of a hill by looking at , or rather particular aspects. I often do this over glacial features in Britain and the Alps.

Also geologists have been certain that the earth is old i.e. much more than 10000years old since about 1770-1780 and that is a long time before radiometric agedating was first used in 1905.

This week I was speaking to an evangelical professor of geology at Cambridge University(who dates Adam at about 10,000years ago who said it is impossible to do any geology without accepting the earths vast age. I know of no geologist who would contradict him.

I hope you dont mind my off-topic comments on where you went off-topic!

Michael

Dale, two things:

You have not answered my question about purpose of this thread. Again, what could it possibly add to the discussion? What is the value of knowing what the ECF's concluded about a scientific issue?

Also, if you want to get a better handle on Augustine, read the thread I posted on his writings on this subject. It is a bit long, but you seem to be interested in what the ECF's thought, and he is the biggest of the bunch. There you will find the answer to your question about him. I would love to hear your thoughts on his approach to the text.

Modern YEC scholar quote from Bob Deffinbaugh:

"In a conscientious effort to prove the Bible to be scientifically accurate, we have approached the first chapters of Genesis from a scientific point of view. The problem is that these chapters were not intended to give us an account of the creation that would answer all of the scientific problems and phenomenon."

"It is important to recognize that verses[genesis 1] 2-31 do little more than expand upon verse 1. They do not fully (certainly not in a scientific fashionâ€â€

Is this the sort of thing you were after, Dale? Not a view I'd subscribe to, but hardly a YEC view of the chronology of the creation, either.

Not strictly germane to the question in your OP, of course, but then again, neither is it exactly toeing the YEC party line.

I'm still waiting for a quote from a churchman pre-1800 stating an old age for the earth.

The purpose of this thread is to collect the opinions of churchmen pre-1800 on the age of the earth.

Not the length or kind of the days of creation.
Not the mechanism of the creation.

How old is the earth please, Gregory, Basil, Aquinas, Bunyan... My thesis is that ALL recorded quotes pre-1800 reflect a young age for the earth. And so far the Fathers agree with me.

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

Dale, you seem to be ignoring my simple question.

Assuming that no single Christian writer considered the earth old prior to 1800, what does this establish other than that very statement?

It does NOT establish that they think the Scripture REQUIRED a young earth in any way. It does NOT establish that, given the evidence we have now, that they would not believe the earth is old.

The only thing it establishes is that the Christian community was at the same state of knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about the age of the earth as everyone else.

Here is another question: why would we expect the Chrisitan community to be any better informed about the age of the earth than the rest of the world? What was the general thought among the scientific community up to 1800?

Now, if people were running around with evidence that the earth was old, but your ECF's or any Christian writers were insisting it must be young due to Scriptural reasons, then you might have something.

Why are you ignoring these basic questions?

Your thesis is quite wrong. I gave you a good number of quotes which you refused to acknowledge

Michael

That is all I am trying to establish. If you think that fact to be of little value, that is your prerogative.

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

Perhaps your quote got lost in the mass of commentary Michael. To help us all, pull the quote from the commentary and repost it.

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...

OK, Dale, let's assume it IS a fact.

What do you think that adds to the discussion? You obviously did not post it just out of sheer curiosity. The answer to the question must seem useful or important to you in some way, otherwise there would have been no point in asking it.

So, what IS that value?

I will make it easy. NOBODY grasped the true age of the earth until the late 1700's and early 1800's when a group of Christian naturalists, IIRC, sought to figure out how old the earth was and the answer they came up with surprised them all (long before Darwin, BTW).

So, if that is the case, what evidentiary value is it that all Christian writers were among that group of everyone?

Just read the post and dont be so stubborn

Michael

Eusebius of Caesarea 263-339, Chronicle

After Augustus, Tiberius became emperor. In his 15th year, the fourth year of the 201st Olympiad [28 A.D.], our Saviour and Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, appeared amongst men.
...
From Adam until the second year of Dareius, is 4680 years. And from the second year of Dareius until the 15th year of Tiberius, is 548 years. So the total, from Adam until the 15th year of Tiberius, is 5228 years.

http://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius0.html

Dale

_________________
Its all greek to me...