Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Old earth / young earth , which scenario is more compelling to you, and why ?

Worms. Can. Opened. :D

I used to say Old Earth, because the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Genesis 1 made sense to me.

After studying creationist material, and realizing that Young Earth could actually be harmonized with the scientific method, I now believe Young Earth to be more compelling.

For example, it has been scientifically proven in a laboratory, in a peer reviewed paper, that decay rates can be reduced from billions of years, to mere hours or days... bringing into question just about every one of the "clocks" used to date supposedly ancient objects.

I have also come to realize it's virtually impossible to change someone's idea on this over the Internet, without them looking impartially at the evidence from the other camp... and most would rather debate it and defend their camp than actually study it impartially and with an open mind.

I have the advantage of being first an athiest, and then an Old Earther, before coming to the Young Earth conclusion.

The book I would recommend is "In The Beginning", by Walt Brown ... which explains the mechanics of the Flood, and goes in-depth into the abundant evidence for a worldwide Flood.

A couple of questions to think about.

If God created a loaf of bread for you to eat right now, how old would it look?

If God created a fish before you now for you to eat, how old would it look?

The scientific method would FAIL to deduce the age of the loaf or the fish, because God had created the fish and bread for you to eat.

Yet all of our science would tell us the fish MUST be X years old, and the bread probably several hours old, at least.

We look at the universe, and science tells us it MUST be X billions of years old, and intelligent life at least Y millions of years old.

God created the fish and loaf to be eaten.

God created the Universe to be inhabited.

If God created the Universe TODAY, it could be ready to be inhabited if He chose.

Yet it would not LOOK like it was made today.

This is a Paradox.

And if you understand this Paradox, you'll understand why the Universe could be young and yet look old from our viewpoint.

And no, God's not trying to fool anyone (as some on this forum think, if the Universe were young), but He IS making them look like fools, for assuming that the present is the key to the past in all things.

To restate the paradox as another question:

How old did Adam look, from a scientific point of view?

If you can understand the paradox of this question, you can understand the paradoxical age of the Universe.

Re: "How old did Adam look, from a scientific point of view?"

About eleven/twelve years young.

:coffeeread:

The old earth scenario is more compelling to me because of its evidential support. If the wealth of evidence is doubted on this subject, then it calls into question the value of evidence itself. As such, in order to be consistent it follows that the evidence for the existence of Jesus can be called into question on similar grounds. Although the evidence for Jesus relies on historical evidence, as opposed to scientific, never the less both are forms of evidence. In a court of law scientific evidence is of equal value to witness testimony, which is of course a form of historical evidence. So any argument that relies on the evidence for an old earth not being what it seems, considering the sheer amount of such, is therefor ill conceived.

For me, both sides are compelling. The old earth side makes sense, in that it is conventional and logical.

The young earth side makes sense, in that it goes against convention and logic. God tends to do that.

Either way, I still have to pay bills, so either one is fine with me.

:D:D:D

I wish their were cliff notes for most of this stuff for those of us who have a hard time defining how much is just beyond us and will always be so. Seems like all of it for me then a light bulb moment. carrots I don't like em :D

Its a worthwhile debate as long as we don't get dogmatic about it. For example, there is a third posibility. The Earth, (and Universe) is niether Old or Young. It is only an illusion and we are part of the illusion. It only exists in the mind of God. What we think is reality, is only a thought. There is compeling scientific evidence for this view as well. Shall we dance? :funnyface:

LOL yea lets dance, its my favorite subject!

If reality is a thought that creates an illusion, it renders justice an illusion. Its rather a Buddhist type idea, or even the matrix. To go to far down this road leads to gnosticism.

Id say it's about as gnostic as scientific convention.

But , that's what happens when people say there is only one way to see things. Everything else ends up being gnostic....:D

Gnosticism is what people call other people's "knowledge" when it disagrees with their own. As soon as a person "knows" something and believes it, he becomes dogmatic. Why can't we study something with the paradigm, I don't know and I can't know, because there is no total reality except God. God alone is real, everything else is in his mind.

It seems to me that YECists are already diving into this third view, because they are saying that the "oldness" that is apparent is not real. It's just an illusion of oldness. :help:

I hate dogmatism generally speaking and probably yes some throw the word gnosticism around a bit to much, as it is as you infer only the Greek word for knowledge. There is a danger here that I see with the new age mysticism hanging around and being very popular these days. The danger relates the heart of Christianity and relates not so much to science or theology as such, but the historicity of Jesus. Basically its a case, to try hopefully to get this over simply, of the spiritual experience which includes things like the mystical experience of the supernatural from, like the holy spirit and partaking in the divine nature, and emotion ect as opposed to the spiritual experience without Christianity's historical moorings. The difference is not obvious at first glance between the two. However the difference makes or breaks Christianity and what it means.

Certain films such as the matrix and what the bleep drive this idea to its logical or not so logical conclusion. To put as succinctly as I can, gnosticism inevitably leads to the conclusion that we as humans have the same power as Jesus, who simply showed us the way, and so the gospel message gets turned into a knowledge only paradigm. It elevates humans to a status we do not have as imperfect beings, and renders the ransom meaningless as a result. Jesus becomes simply a purveyor of knowledge and therefor not unique as the son of God. As such the historic testimony of those Apostles who attested that God has intervened into the space time continuum becomes irrelevant because access to the mystical experience would always be there as the way to enlightenment and truth rather than the singular son of God. So in this way Christianity gets reduced to that of a mystical cult cut loose from the essentiality of its historicity.

In `what the bleep` a lady throws away her anti depressants due the realization that consciousness and quantum mechanics are linked. In other words it preaches that we as humans make reality. Its another form of the mystic experience going under the name of science, or so they say, even though science does not teach what the film preaches. As humans as God as it were, it becomes the knowledge or realization that we make reality than will save us rather than Jesus directly. No need for Christianity to be exclusive here, or any historical attestations as to its uniqueness.

These are some of the dangers of gnosticism as a category of beliefs. Quantum mysticism as its become known divorced from actual science is apt to be misunderstood, and can so easily knock of a wobbly Christian out of true Christianity altogether. Fortunately the actual science does not support such claims made by films such as `what the bleep` which was heavily influenced by the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Even the scientific community slated the film as it not only misrepresenting the science itself, but used creative editing on some of the scientists interviewed in its production.

The film `the matrix` again does similar things. Its good for entertainment but nothing more.`Vanilla sky` and now inception all do similar in conveying certain messages that are feel good but contrary to what Jesus taught. Namely this reality is very real and real science testifies to this, and that humans do not have the power to control reality. In this life you will have tribulation and the cross he said.

Sorry if Ive gone off topic but I wanted to clarify my position on gnosticism.

Have you actually seen Inception, Brian?

[/align]

Not yet! If you like ill give you a more detailed analysis when I do.

Well, that would be nice....also, read the Wikipedia article regarding inception, and where Chris Nolan got the inspiration for the movie....and remember, its not supposed to be an accurate reflection or interpretation of reality....its supposed to be a sci-fi take on a heist movie....

Plus, for me, the thing that really made the film worthwhile was what happened with his kids...between you see that you will know what I mean.....it had special significance for me, and my journey with my son....;D