News-Record.com

nancy,
the title to the blog asks how old the "earth" is and the enclosed article is taling about the age of the universe - do you see them both as the same ?

Thanks Buz. That was an error on my part -- I do know there's a difference, but I slipped in typing Earth in the title. You guys are always smarter than me--that I easily concede!

That was the first thing that leaped to my mind when I clicked on the link, Buz. I had to do a double-take to assure myself I was reading things correctly.

But addressing the spirit of the thread... I vote we accept the conclusion that physical evidence leads us to. The Earth formed a few billion years ago in a universe that is several billion years old. There - that should cover the bases. {;-)

That fully 56% voted they thought the universe was only 6,000 years old did not, I am afraid, surprise me.

Trouble is, how can we expect to lead this Earth in science for future generations if that is the predominant view?

Answer: we won't, unless we continue to be lucky enough to import much of our scientific brainpower.

Luckily, though, we only need a tiny fraction of our population to become physicists and other hard scientists. So, we could continue to have a paltry percentage in touch with modern measurements of this sort, while the rest play parasite.

Good to see at least a healthy smattering are coming around, though.

I mentioned this on the other recent post - the results of that poll will be unusually skewed towards creationism, because of the readership of World Net Daily. That being said, there are still a significant number of Americans who feel that way, even in the larger population.

i am currently studying the Ruin-Reconstruction (so called "Gap Theory"). the scriptures are bearing out that the earth is very old and if this is true then many of the scientific discoveries about earths age are aligning with scriptures. i am a neophyte in this scriptural area but my gut has always told me the scientific data about the earth was correct and the 6000 yr. old earth is actually the reconstructed earth found in scriptures. i believe the 7 days of (re) creation were actual days. i've got a lot of study and prayer ahead of me on this one - but whatever my conclusion on this topic turns out to be, is really small potatoes. if i were presented the opportunity to share my faith in God and Jesus Christ, believe me this topic would never be discussed...i'm gonna be talking about the cross !!

"i am currently studying the Ruin-Reconstruction (so called "Gap Theory"). the scriptures are bearing out that the earth is very old and if this is true then many of the scientific discoveries about earths age are aligning with scriptures."

I have to admit, I haven't heard of this one. But it seems to me that the effort to "align" science with scriptures will be as futile as all other similar efforts. I never seriously believed that the creation stories of the Bible had to be accepted as fact. I still can't see how the desire to put scientific findings into the Genesis mold helps anyone.

"if i were presented the opportunity to share my faith in God and Jesus Christ, believe me this topic would never be discussed...i'm gonna be talking about the cross !!"

That's very likely best. I recall years ago, I heard some fellow talking in my old church about how he brought some fellow into the fold by reading the creation story in Genesis. Even then, when I really really wanted for folks to get saved, I thought such an idea was ridiculous.

This is a difficult issue in some ways, but not so in others. The fact is that Scripture, in regard to creation and origins, is not a scientifically analytical narrative; it is a didactic and theological one. I believe the Scriptures to be absolutely true in all that they truly affirm. I do not believe that they are affirming a time period in the 6-day structure, but the theological truth that God is the creative power behind the universe, including planet earth, and that He created it in an orderly and systematic pattern, pictured as a 7-day sabbatical week for obvious theological and catechetical purposes: the work/life week of man, as God’s image-bearer, is a holy reflection of the work/creation acts of God; that the various categories of living things and geographical formations are the result of God’s sovereign, deliberate and Personal creative actions – WHENever and HOWever they were effectuated. What is excluded in the biblical narrative, as theological principle, is that things just appeared ex nihilo, without purpose and without intelligent design – i.e. that man, for example, is merely a chance development of simian predecessors with no real purpose or divine imprint.

The problem is that those who hold to biblical inerrancy and reliability (rightly so) believe that “giving in” to a non-literal view of the six-day model fatally undermines the rest of biblical truth. I do not believe this to be true at all! Just the opposite: clinging to an impossible scenario for fear of sliding into the liberal slough of error and apostasy in general, impedes a reasonable and dynamic apologetic, especially in regard to clear moral/spiritual concerns.

The right procedure, in my estimation, is to affirm the truths of Personal divine agency in all of life and creation, while being open to scientific inquiry, which shifts and changes radically at times. Eventually we may all come to a viable understanding of adaptative change and time-frames, but in the mean time we, as Christians, should affirm what the Bible clearly and intentionally proposes: non-evolutionary sovereign creation and the special creation of homo sapiens sapiens - and explore the geologic and fossil record – HONESTLY from BOTH perspectives. Evolution has suffered much change and criticism in recent times in the secular scientific community itself. As a theory of ORIGINS, it is a virtually useless and impossible explanation; as a study of micro-evolutionary adaptive change it is of great value.

The historical and moral teachings of Scripture (Law, sin, morality, human nature, God’s existence, redemption, etc) are current, testable and verifiable proposals, even though creative/adaptive change and timeframes in the distant past of the planet may not be.
http://www.asa3.org/gray/framework/frameworkOPC-SC.html

The readership of WorldNetDaily probably is disproportionately creationist, but the Gallup organization's more dispassionate, and more scientific, polling has consistently recorded pluralities believing in creationism over both God-assisted and unassisted evolution w/r/t life on Earth.

My neighbors? Do the results of a WorldNet Daily poll reflect the views of my neighbors? The whole notion of a poll question like this is just silly anyway. Here is a list of other poll questions that offer choices betwenn science and Biblical claims:

A bat is:

a) A bird?
b) A mammal?
c) A vampire in disguise.

The earth:

a) is the center of the universe
b) supported by pillars
c) rotates around the sun

True of false? Some four-legged animals fly.

a) True
b) False

Serpents:

a) Speak English
b) Speak Hebrew
c) Are multi-lingual
d) Don't speak

The sun:

a) Consistently appears to rise in the east and set in the west.
b) Consistently appears to rise in the west and set in the east.
c) Rises in the east and sets in the west but can stop along the way and sometimes appear to move backwards.

Unicorns:

a) All you have to do is believe.
b) They're coming.
c) Fictional creatures

Because of advances in science:

a) Life expectancies are at an all-time high.
b) People live shorter lives now. Nowhere near the 400 + years of some people in the Bible

eric,
from what you remember, how many time was the earth deluged with water ? i suspect you'll say one, that being the flood of noahs day.
but something easily overlooked happens in gen.1:2
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

the earth had no form and was void ( a vast waste ) yet Gods Spirit moved upon the face of the "waters".....hmmmmm....the earth is established but was in chaos and was deluged with water...hmmmm ?
jump to 2pet.3:5-7.....
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
i doubt you will get the nuances here but this is the beginning premise of the ruin reconsruction of the earth. just a little tid bit on something you hadn't heard about. hey are you warm yet ?????

"from what you remember, how many time was the earth deluged with water ? i suspect you'll say one, that being the flood of noahs day.
but something easily overlooked happens in gen.1:2
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

I get the picture. Unfortunately, the evidence from geology is that there has never been a time in which the whole surface of the panet was covered with water.

"doubt you will get the nuances here but this is the beginning premise of the ruin reconsruction of the earth. just a little tid bit on something you hadn't heard about. hey are you warm yet ?????"

Well, I appreciate the little taste. As I expected, there's still no hope of converting the Bible into a record of cosmogony, cosmology or any of those other fun things that scientists do.

I find it sad that normally intelligent people would willingly ignore hard evidence in favor of beLIEving fairy tales.

Or claim they know the absolute truth, then conveniently shift the connotation and even denotation of how they use the very word and concpet of "true".

Why call us homo sapiens sapiens if we did not evolve from homo sapiens?

Why is it so threatening to consider we as a species are directly related to other animals?

Or claim they know absolute "Truth", then shift the connotation and denotation of the word "true" to fit their point of view.

Why call us homo sapiens sapiens if we aren't evolved from homo sapiens? Ecce Homo, and he is realted very closely to his fellow Great Apes.

The latter is also a terrific satire by Will Self; I recommend.

" Unfortunately, the evidence from geology is that there has never been a time in which the whole surface of the panet was covered with water.".......
i must agree with you but i believe there are good and valid reaosns for this. too tired now to go into, maybe later...i'm gonna take a nap...zzzzzzzzzzz

“I find it sad that normally intelligent people would willingly ignore hard evidence . . .”
Mr./Mrs./Ms. RebelSnake (hmmmmmm)

What HARD evidence? Any pedestrian who has studied/followed evolutionary thinking, including geology and astronomy, knows that theories regarding age, order and origin have shifted innumerable times over the past hundred years or so – big bang vs. steady state, man from ape vs. man from a common pre-ape source, etc. The big media news releases are mere fluff compared to the real scholarly studies, which are far less sure and specific, not to mention the scams, errors and counterfeits.

But that’s OK: We know science is an inexact science. There are so many scientists, at so many universities, in so many countries coming up with their own theories and nuances of theories that “hard” evidence is often hard to come by. My point is that interpreting the Genesis narrative as a true and accurate framework, the purpose of which is not scientific detail, but theological truth, allows for an openness to all the data and theories of science, but not a gullible and naïve response to any and every theory and postulate of evolutionary theory that comes down the pike. Some of the data, dating and analysis is fairly well established, but is still being reevaluated constantly - which is to be expected with scientific inquiry.

I see Genesis 1 as a pre-historic figurative synopsis, but chapter 2 on as historical narrative: but again, terse and to the point in order to give a basic theological reference point for redemptive history. The time frame is consequently open to wide speculation, and was not at all the primary concern, certainly not to the writers. The same with the flood narrative: the dealings of God with the primary ancient civilization concerned with the redemptive line. The ancient mindset and style of communicating spiritual truth were quite different from our own, readily employing hyperbole on a cosmic scale, but nevertheless accurate and divinely inspired, and able to inform our spiritual questing, moral standards and knowledge of the Creator and His plan.

There is thus, no real conflict between Scripture and Science: Scripture deals with essential spiritual principles of life; science with theorizing and inquiry as to the nature of the physical universe. As Scripture is allowed to speak with its unique style and purpose, and science with its, all will converge, I am convinced, as one in the not too distant future. Man’s desperation and emptiness will drive him to God and the scientific study of the universe will “declare the glory of God.”

Actually, the hardest evidence is the lostness of humanity, and its need for the Prince of Peace. The evening news validates God’s analysis of man’s predicament in Scripture and his desperate need for Messiah’s righteousness, truth, saving grace and love.

"What HARD evidence? Any pedestrian who has studied/followed evolutionary thinking,"

No one is talking evolution here. The subject is the age of the universe. As for hard evidence you need to open your mind a little bit to let a few facts in.

RS, I have already conceded long ago (I tho’t it was clearly implied) that the earth may, in fact, BE billions of years old – perhaps much less; and that micro-evolution (adaptive change) HAS produced infro-species transitional forms, which appear in the fossil record. The real dilemma for atheistic evolutionists is explaining where matter and the laws of physics came from in eternity past, or how just one lone cell of sufficient complexity to produce even the most rudimentary DNA to re-produce itself (absolutely necessary to the evol. model) could have just "happened," or how inter-species transition could have occurred, given the paucity of transitional forms (forcing some to put all their eggs into the Cambrian basket and PE).

It seems to me that those who cannot answer these questions comprehensively and definitively are the ones who might just need to open their minds. Evolutionary orthodoxy is predicated on theories that have yet to be proven; which is perhaps impossible, since the temporal distance does not permit contemporaneous experimentation (as in proving how the first cell appeared) – LOTS of ideas and theories, but nothing that PROVES anything. They just ASSUME that it can’t involve the intervention of a divine Being, and so it MUST have simply coalesced by some random quirk of nature.

You don’t have to join a church to open your mind to this possibility (ID) in the face of the staggering complexity of just one SELF-reproducing cell or the boundaries of the universe! Maybe the real issue is giving the Judeo-Christian model one iota of credibility, since that might involve repentance and faith unto salvation before the all-holy Judge of the universe. Great intellects just couldn’t lower themselves to that! But “. . . the “foolishness” [mine] of God is wiser than men . . .” (I Cor. 1.25) and “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1.18)

On the other hand, trying to pry the geologic evidence into a figurative six-day truth- statement (Gen. 1) comprehensible to both the ancient and modern mind, proves problematic as well. Opening minds all around, it might just prove enlightening to CONSIDER that there IS a transcendent Being of awesome power and surpassing intelligence, who has brought the universal order into being, and molded it by the means he employs (either immediately or via his created laws), into the virtually incomprehensible cosmic panorama we see today. Open – or closed (prejudiced)?

nikos,
way cool brother ................

Ah, thanks to a transcendent being like this, I never have to question the origins and timing of cosmic reality ever again! The fog is lifted! Hosana, and now all cosmologists can quit their jobs.
Unless, that is, they would prefer to only go into their investigations with a prior commitment to "prove" the unprovable theory of God-created existence.

Of course, then they wouldn't be scientists. But why bring up that little trifle?

Not at all, Freddy. Nobody is calling for an end to research, study and theorizing. God may have revelaed His creative acts in a brief figurative model in Genesis one, but invites us to plumb the depths of His incredible creation as we wish; just not in rebellion and unbelief.

The fact is that scientists have NO ANSWER for origins (including the first self-reproducing cell), except to say, "Well, it (the universe and its laws) just always was;" which very loudly begs the question. If you journey to the "end" of the universe you bump into ???????

I'm just saying that good science must be open to ALL possibilities. Intelligent, mind-expanding Biblical exegesis is far removed from the shallow emotionalism of TV hacks and Left Behind nonsense. The record of God speaking to man, interacting with man and redeeming man is a record of realism, not myth and fantasy - though incredulous sorts delight in characterizing it thus, simply to diss it.

You must admit that viewing the universal order, through micoscope or telescope, fills one with awe and wonder beyond verbal nuance - unless one never bothers to notice. "The limits of human comprehension, which are easlily reached, press one's mind against the breast of Mystery, where one can only drop to his knees and worship the beating heart of causeless Love."

Question away, my friend - to your heart's content. All thought ultimately leads to God. While we may thrill to the doulbe helix, or marvel at the possibilities of string theory, our souls will never find their rest until they rest in the heart of a loving and redeeming Creator, clothed in majestic, unspeakable glory - the Magnum Mysterium. This is the God of Scripture, not the cartoon version of unbelief and relgionism.

"I'm just saying that good science must be open to ALL possibilities."

That is incorrect, Nikos. Science must be open to all possibilities that can be tested by known and understood methods. If science is ignorant of something, it is nothing but premature to slap a "Goddidit" label on that place and sat "case closed."

Besides, in the world of science, "Goddidit" is the most inelegant answer possible, because it leads only to non-sensical questions. Now, until you can provide a way to scientifically detect ANYTHING that is supernatural, there's no point in discussing this, is there?

Wrong. Until atheists cn PROVE that nothing-did- it they have no reason, by your criterion, to proceed further either. That an omnipotent personal deity began and directed the unfolding unirversal order is just as viable a thesis as that nothing/no one did so: neither can be directly researched and experimented with.

My point is (one more time) that the same unanswerable propostitions could be "explained" by a number (in our case, God or nothing)of probable causes, and each haing enough viability to be tested against the avaialable evidence.

ID (apart from any particular religion)is certainly as reasonable a cause of the initiation of matter and energy and of the emergence of the first self-reproducing cell as any nauturalistic cause. It's just that materialistic scientists have anti-god blinders on, and dispite their assertions of openness and commitment to testing all posssibilities, they a priori exclude ID or the Biblical God, ASSUMING that God could not exist or act, even though they have no plausible idea of exactly how matter and energy came to be -and can still not explain how a VIABLE living cell could actually coalesce, much less have the vast complexity to reproduce ITSELF.

Not to include divine agency is sheer bias - and bad science.

Including divine agency is opposed to Occam's razor, thus that is bad science.

people the idea of a big bang is silly and to think that the universe is a certain age rediculas the earth can be aged but come on there has to have been a gazillion big bangs over a gazillion apon google infinit years always has been always will be it goes forever and ever no end no beginning it is and shall always be time has no time there is no edge of universe and it does't loop back either for thoses who think such a continous bang after bang as long back as the mind could imagine and will continue for as long as forever amen ohhh and thoses who think religion and science both are at work here there shouldn be an argument between the two both are right`kj

people the idea of a big bang is silly and to think that the universe is a certain age rediculas the earth can be aged but come on there has to have been a gazillion big bangs over a gazillion apon google infinit years always has been always will be it goes forever and ever no end no beginning it is and shall always be time has no time there is no edge of universe and it does't loop back either for thoses who think such a continous bang after bang as long back as the mind could imagine and will continue for as long as forever amen ohhh and thoses who think religion and science both are at work here there shouldn be an argument between the two both are right`kj