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

Apart from claims that the Bible needs to be read in its plain or literal sense, are there any arguments against the earth being 4.6 billion years old?

I think you'll find many of them at AiG...but of course you already knew that...didn't you?

Why, yes! As we know,
And here they are!Oh dear, false start; invalidating the premises of an argument doesn't necessarily disprove its conclusions. Oh, and the historical basis is wrong as well. never mind! There's always radiometric dating to fall back on.

Happily enough, this is â…â€

Andy

Please remember to refute the arguments and not to attack the person ... any person ....

dcljoy
moderator

One thing I have always noticed about the AIG "arguments for an old earth" is that they are mostly why the old earth evidence could be wrong. They have absolutely NO hard evidence that the earth is actually young.

Andy did refute the arguments which are so manifestly false to anyone who knows a little geology.

Thos e who persist in pushing forward such arguemnts eg on "polystrate" fossills are either stupid and ignorant, deluded or plain dishonest.

It seems that YECs are simply unwilling to have their misinterpretations corrected.

Why not?

Michael

Thanks, Michael... and btw, I gladly slot myself into the category of those who know a little geology.

Sure, Dinah, I was making fun of Dr. Mortenson and his arguments, but I did do it by refuting them, didn't I? I don't think I made any gratuitous personal attacks. If I called him a liar (and I did, and I do), it's because he's been detected in a series of lies.

Andy

by my definition that is still a personal attack .... and unnecessary.

dcljoy
moderator

A personal attack on a scientist, sure, but not a poster. If I am not allowed to state that I believe Kent Hovind (for instance) to be a crook and a shyster, then that is pretty sad state of affairs. I am saying nothing at all about a poster here, which would be very wrong for such a board, but it would be odd to ban all such critiques of prominent people, especially if they are backed up with evidence.

I definitely would want to know if that was the rule, because it is very likely that I WOULD call Hovind a crook (in fact, I think I did recently).

Vance

this is off topic ... please read my PM.

I am not finally, the one you have to answer to ....

"But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted and by your words you will be condemned." (Matt.12:36-37 NIV)

dclljoy
moderator

You're quite right on this last point, of course, Dinah. I don't enjoy calling anyone part of a brood of vipers (as it were), and I don't claim to have the same sort of inside line on this that Jesus had; and yet, if people are publicly taking detailed positions like these which have been shown over and over again to be false, isn't it fair comment to say so? They seem to me to be a bit like people who still claim that there are no Christian documents older than the 4th century, and that Jesus is a figment of some overheated religious imagination of around that era.

Anyway, thanks for taking such a mild approach to the issue. And if anyone would like to come to the defence of Dr. Mortenson's arguments, or bring forward some better ones, that would be great!

Trying to prove a young earth "scientifically' is a waste of time and spiritual energy, and poor stewardship. Those that believe in an old earth do so because they worship humanism and science. Science is outside of spiritual existence. Jesus created the universe, he controls it, keeps it in check, allows us to destroy it etc. God created "time". Since there is a spiritual reality that exists beyond our physical world, rationalism cannot explain reality; therefore science is only useful for those things that are worldly... that help pass the time on earth and make it better or worse through our actions. Science cannot explain God, cannot explain what existed before God, what exists now outside our physical existence, what spiritual warfare that is taking place as I speak, cannot explain what happens when you die, cannot explain what will happen after you die, cannot explain what new reality God will/has created at the "END TIMES". All these are mysteries. Through the Bible we have hints, blurred images in a mirror of a bit of what these mysteries may be. God is God. We are not. We cannot explain God. The created cannot define the Creator. We live by faith, because without faith there is no hope. To try to explain the universe in humanistic terms without God is futile, and I think tragic, so why do we try and play that game?

A majority of "old earth" proponents are not trying to explain the universe in humanistic terms. There are true believers who seek the truth of God even in matters of science. To level this claim across the spectrum is not correct or proper on any level of Christianity. If God created all things to include the laws used in good science (and I know He did ) then good science and honest scientists can use those laws to discover more about God and His creation.



Again another unnecessary attack that is without a foundation. Interestingly enough, there once was the thought that the earth was flat because of incorrect Biblical exegesis. Once the earth was proven round it changed (for the better) our understanding of proper exegesis. Seems to me like you are about to do to OE proponents what was unnecessarily done by the Catholic church to Galileo. BTW, they didn't come out smelling like a rose there!


So is church, the evangelistic act (evangelism), hymn singing, fellowshipping, etc.. but they do seem to have some impact on the spiritual realm and our understanding of it. Shall we follow the heresy of completely disconnecting the physical from the spiritual realm? Are we not allowed to look at the world critically and try to understand God's word better by our observations of this world which is His creation however and whenever He did it?



I agree with you but would like to point out that the Bible does not explain these things either. A few of them it tell us about but does not fully explain them.

John 21:25 25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. Context (NET)

On this I believe we agree because you state,


So I ask,
Where is it that the Bible defines the age of the earth? I believe the geneologies position has already been refuted and done without questioning the voracity of God's revelation. Do you question a believers faith on a matter that Biblically is not essential??

Blessings,
Randy.

Why can't the Young Earth Creationists simply realize that there position is simply a THEOLOGICAL position and not a scientific one? I could respect the position more if the proponents would simply say they believe their position to be simply from their interpretation of scripture and stop trying to torture science to try to cast doubts on its integrity. It seems as if they want to both villify science at the same time as cherry picking things that they think bolster their position. In a way it is most disingenuous.

My $.02! - Mark