Age of the earth...Young or old?

[Binyawmene]

I wonder how how long “before the foundation of the world” is. This must have been the time when the dinosaurs roamed…

Lu

Maybe dinosaurs were created on the fifth day.

 

[Carbon]

Maybe dinosaurs were created on the fifth day.

Maybe.

 

[Josheb]

Maybe dinosaurs were created on the fifth day.

Maybe.

If scripture is correct and if current scientific evidence is correct and if dinosaurs existed, then dinosaurs were created on the fifth and sixth days; the days when God made the creatures of sea and air (day 5) and land (day 6). But @Binyawmene, Post 21 is off-topic because we're not discussing when dinosaurs were created. We are discussing the age of the earth (young or old).

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Persistent "facts" of science are continually being buttressed up and improved upon by way of scientific investigation...

Are you sure about that?

Here I was trying to say that, for example, the periodic table has been filled out and affirmed by many new things we have learned since its inception, and some of the bad inferences drawn from it have been weeded out.

What I don't understand is why you persist. I well know there are staples of science and philosophy that are necessary for sound reasoning, such as beginning with assumptions and empirical knowledge about reality and relying on such things as cause-and-effect. What you called bad examples on my part were used by me for examples for the purpose they served. I did not intend that one consider them wrong, but you took it that way in spite of my best efforts to explain (no doubt, your misunderstanding was my fault).

Yes, I know, "relevance", is the next thing you will ask me.

I do not know what you mean by "true" science. It implies there exists something called false science, and false science is a contradiction in terms.

Really? The term, "science", is often used to mean, "the scientific community", or other things, like, "the accumulated knowledge to this point". "TRUE science", then, intends the same thing as what you are claiming is the only meaning for "science".

 

[Josheb]

Here I was trying to say...

I do not care.


Are you sure "Persistent 'facts' of science are continually being buttressed up and improved upon by way of scientific investigation..."?

 

[Carbon]

I do not care.

Then why ask?

 

[Josheb]

@makesends,

Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy? If you live in the continental United States, then I will send you a copy of the book general delivery to a Post Office in your local on the condition you agree to read it from cover to cover.

That is a sincere offer. I have made the offer many times to posters in various forums. Sadly, few take me up on the offer and only one person in my 15+ years of foruming has kept his word. The problem of epistemology is real, but it is not the problem many imagine. There are other theologians who've addressed the matter (Van Til, Clark, Lewis, Newbiggin, Stackhouse, Pearcey) but Schaeffer's trilogy will cover all your concerns.

 

[CrowCross]

Do you believe the Bible can (or does) contradict the facts of science? In other words, if something can be demonstrated to be factually true, can the Bible be read or otherwise interpreted to contradict that fact?

For example, can the Bible be read to contradict the fact of gravity?

There is an account of a floating ax. Can a miracle defy known scientific fact? I say yes.

I'd ask the question in reverse, but I doubt you, @Carbon, or @ShepherdsPie believe science authoritative over scripture, so the authority of scripture is a given accepted by ALL (including myself).

 

[CrowCross]

Persistent "facts" of science are continually being buttressed up and improved upon by way of scientific investigation, but they remain subject to new data. Truth, however, is only ever truth. And we have a long way to go to get to the bottom of any of that. Newton may have been right, but his was only a framework. Same goes with any scientific attempt at explaining anything —it's just a way to look at things.

Yes, science is just a way of looking at things....but science still comes to the wrong conclusion often based upon bias.
As an example the strata of the earth laying onto of each other....see the Grand Canyon....can be "explained" in uniformitarian views...where millions of years deposited each layer of strata...OR...seen in a biblical framework where the world wide flood of Noah deposited them quickly.

Personally I'm going with the flood account.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

Maybe dinosaurs were created on the fifth day

Maybe. I’m sure most everyone agrees that there was a time long ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth billions of years ago. Science calls that age "prehistoric times"while the Bible calls that time "the world that then was" (2 Pet. 3:6). Also, there is one other obvious fact that everyone agrees with—the dinosaurs are all gone—extinct! The Bible tells us why.

 

[Carbon]

They both seemed to indicate they have biblical verses that support an old earth...by that I believe many millions or even several billions of years old.

I ask, where is the biblical evidence as well as the scientific evidence.

Would you show me where you have proof of a young earth, or universe in scripture? I would be very interested in some proof. Because at one time I was a YE but have changed to OE.

From reading the scriptures carefully, in context, I just cannot see proof for a young earth. Personally, it does not matter to me if the earth is young or old. I just cannot see where you would have proof it's young. I believe Scripture supports an old earth. For the record, I am not 100% in either direction, but I agree heavily with an old earth.

 

[CrowCross]

It is "both". Read it here:

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish

Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?

aish.com

I'm not saying this is how it happened...but a theory states that time moves slower at sea level than of the Space Station...not much slower, but there is a difference in gravity that effects time.

Now, what if the earth was in a much larger gravity field or gravity well during the first several days presented in Genesis while the area where the stars were being spread out was in a much, much less gravity field? Time could pass in millions or even billions of years out there while on earth one day could pass.

 

[Josheb]

Then why ask?

I did not ask for his digressive commentary.

I asked one, very specific question. It was ignored and is still sitting in the thread silently unattended. I do not care whatever else he has to say until the question asked is answered. The choice is all his: ignore the question, or answer the question, but now he knows I have no interest in anything other than the answer to the question asked. That can be taken as an aid, as encouragement, as exhortation, as manipulation, as trolling, as anything he desires. If the choice is made to answer the one single, solitary, specific question asked then the discussion moves forward (and maybe other comments and/or queries will ensue), but until then a dead end or cul de sac has been created by not answering the question and a disregard for my half of the conversation has been evidenced that may or may not influence others' decision to discuss other things with him (why would anyone even try to discuss anything with anyone they know will not answer questions when asked?). The answer to that one single, sole, solitary question has the potential to communicate a lot that may prove relevant to this discussion. We'll never know until the question is answered. If he chooses to ignore the question, then the silence speaks for itself, and I won't ask him any more questions.

And when the question is answered I will explain why I asked (however, the answer has already been provided, so go back and re-read the thread).

Then why ask?

What topical business is that of yours? Only he can answer the question about his own post. The question asked is not a question anyone else can answer for him, and I'm not interested in anyone else's speculations about someone else's comments.


.

 

[Carbon]

What topical business is that of yours? Only he can answer the question about his own post. The question asked is not a question anyone else can answer for him, and I'm not interested in anyone else's speculations about someone else's comments.

Well okay then, sorry.

 

[CrowCross]

Maybe. I’m sure most everyone agrees that there was a time long ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth billions of years ago. Science calls that age "prehistoric times"while the Bible calls that time "the world that then was" (2 Pet. 3:6). Also, there is one other obvious fact that everyone agrees with—the dinosaurs are all gone—extinct! The Bible tells us why.

Why could the dinosaurs not have been alive in the antediluvian world? If they were killed in the flood why would they not be buried and fossilized in the rock strata laid down by the flood waters?

 

[Carbon]

Why could the dinosaurs not have been alive in the antediluvian world? If they were killed in the flood why would they not be buried and fossilized in the rock strata laid down by the flood waters?

Maybe they were already extinct before the flood?

 

[Josheb]

There is an account of a floating ax. Can a miracle defy known scientific fact? I say yes.

First, I think we can all agree the creating of creation is itself a miracle, especially if creation was created ex nihilo.

That said, if and when the discussion progresses to the point where a claim of a miracle can be asserted (and then proven with scripture) I will gladly entertain that event. Until then Post 26 is non sequitur and does not answer the questions asked. We're likely to see a lot of avoidance in this thread because those polarized at the ends of this topic typically have a hard time 1) answering questions asked when asked, and 2) reconciling the facts of scripture with their prejudices. I, for one, will refrain from trading posts with those who do either and I expect others to do the same if and when I act that way.

Do you believe the Bible can (or does) contradict the facts of science? In other words, if something can be demonstrated to be factually true, can the Bible be read or otherwise interpreted to contradict that fact?​

This is your op, and the question asked is valid and op relevant. Would you please answer the question asked without further delay? Thank you

 

[CrowCross]

I wonder how how long “before the foundation of the world” is. This must have been the time when the dinosaurs roamed…

Lu

They roamed between Adam and Noah....some were brought onboard the ark and later released into "our world"......I believe one of those species was called the Behemoth. Job writes about that creature.

 

[CrowCross]

If scripture is correct and if current scientific evidence is correct and if dinosaurs existed, then dinosaurs were created on the fifth and sixth days; the days when God made the creatures of sea and air (day 5) and land (day 6). But @Binyawmene, Post 21 is off-topic because we're not discussing when dinosaurs were created. We are discussing the age of the earth (young or old).

As the originator of the thread I say dinosaurs are on topic....as many use them to justify the earth is old by their presence found in the rock strata.

They fail to realize the dinosaurs were killed in the flood.

 

[Carbon]

They roamed between Adam and Noah....

Maybe, but I doubt that.

some were brought onboard the ark and later released into "our world"......

Like what, a alligator maybe?

I believe one of those species was called the Behemoth. Job writes about that creature.

Well, that would have been interesting getting the Behemoth in the Ark, and letting it back out would be risky.