Jesus > Religion

VivaStPauli wrote:Why are we discussing the historical Jesus? Or rather: his existence?
It's utterly irrelevant.

If Jesus did in fact not exist, someone made up his teachings and wrote them down, making that person who invented Jesus basically the equivalent to Jesus as a philosopher, once you take out all that magic voodoo nonsense.

And Jesus' teachings are philosophically quite interesting, albeit pretty obsolete now that we've had Kant, who put the ground rules of morality down in a much more clear, less ambivalent way.

Jonathan28 wrote:No problem mate, I can see where your coming from in your argument, at least you know what your talking about. I always get into arguments with other so called "Christians" on topics like this. Just a couple of months ago I ran into a group trying to preach the story of creation and saying the world was only 6000 years old because the bible says so. Ok, I am the biggest skeptic of evolution in the world, but if people are going to preach the story of creation, they might as well get it right. No where, and I mean no where in the bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old, where Christians get this nonesense from I do not know.

Aensensen wrote:

Jonathan28 wrote:No problem mate, I can see where your coming from in your argument, at least you know what your talking about. I always get into arguments with other so called "Christians" on topics like this. Just a couple of months ago I ran into a group trying to preach the story of creation and saying the world was only 6000 years old because the bible says so. Ok, I am the biggest skeptic of evolution in the world, but if people are going to preach the story of creation, they might as well get it right. No where, and I mean no where in the bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old, where Christians get this nonesense from I do not know.

I'm not a christian. If you follow the bible verse to verse from the beggining of creation - yes the world IS cca 6000 years old according to bible. I'm not just saying it, I've calculated it. Anyone can do it. Take a pen and paper, go through the bible and write down ages of men and their ages when they had sons, do some simple math and you easily come to anno mundi 1656 as the year of the deluge, continue with the family tree from Jonah, through his son Shem, then Abraham and so on - you will eventually come to the year of Jesus' birth. Add 2000 years and voila.

Can You Be a Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?

Yes, you can! There is no verse in the Bible which causes you to accept a young earth as the only answer. The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt believe in a young earth." The fact is, no verse in the Bible makes any claims as to the age of the earth. All the so-called verses that young earth proponents point to can be interpreted by the reader to mean old or young. Also, the key doctrines of the Bible are not affected by either interpretation.


If you need further proof, read on. Otherwise, feel free to go back and start reading the articles on this website. We have over 1,300 articles explaining the bad science used by young earth creationist ministries.

---------------------------------------------------------

(The material below is compiled from various articles on this site)

Many young earth believers will claim that old earth belief is incompatible with Christianity. The reasons for this belief vary, but there are several overlying principles underneath this argument.

Death, Disease Before Sin

The Bible teaches that death is the penalty for sin. The young earth proponent carries it one step further than the Bible teaches by adding their own belief that there was no physical death before sin. However, when Adam and Eve sinned, spiritual death was introduced, not physical death. It is clear from the fossil record that animal death has existed for a long time. True, Adam's sin did subject humanity to death, but it did not introduce physical death to the world. This mistaken belief is due to a misinterpretation of the Bible.

Why do they misinterpret this key fact? Let's look at the key verses.



Genesis 1:29-31



"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, where-in there is life, I have given every green herb for meat; and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”


Romans 5:12

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."


Yes, Adam introduced death..two types. He definitely introduced spiritual death, and indirectly introduced physical death to the human race. Consider these key points:

1. God said creation was "very good" (Gen 1:31). Young earth proponents claim it can't be "very good" if it contained disease and death. They fail to realize that God created a thriving, renewing ecosystem. Death and regeneration are crucial to the working of God's creation. It was specifically designed this way. If it were not self-renewing, it would not last very long, and then God's creation would indeed not be "very good."

2. The Bible says that God gave the green plants to all animals to eat. Young earth proponents claim that since the animals ate grass, there was no death due to carnivorous activity. However, the Bible does not say that animals "cannot" eat meat...it only says they were given grass to eat. God created many animals to eat meat...without meat, they would die. Click here for a more expansive treatment of this subject.

3. The Garden of Eden was a special place. We know that God planted a garden in the east, and put Adam in it, therefore we know it was different than the rest of the world. Many believe that in the Garden of Eden, everything was perfect. It is possible that in the Garden, the animals could only eat grass...but what about outside the Garden? Perhaps all the meat eaters were outside the Garden.

4. Spiders are wondrous creatures. They spin their silk webs in order to ensnare their victims before consuming them. How would they have survived in a pre-death world? Would their webs have been used to catch falling leaves? No, they could just simply go into a tree, or to the ground, to feast on the leaves. Spiders were created with only one diet in mind...a dead insect.

Also, why were some spiders created with venom? What is the purpose of this venom? They didn't need to poison the leaves, or whatever else they were supposed to eat in the Garden. And, it could not have been for self-defense, since there were no predators in the Garden? In fact, the same thing goes for venomous snakes. Venom only has one purpose...to kill. Even venoms that incapacitate are for the same thing in the end, for once the creature is incapacitated, it is consumed.
The only logical conclusion is that God created venom to kill. Venom serves no purpose in a calm, friendly Garden with no death. If God did create venom, according to the young earth model, then His creation was not perfect, as the venom served no purpose.

5. It is obvious from the Bible that spiritual death is theologically much more important than physical death. Can physical death separate you from the love of Christ? Paul says no. Physical death has no sting. However, spiritual death separates you from God.

6. Young earth proponents claim that sin and suffering entered the world after the Fall of Man. They claim that disease is a result of sin. However, what is disease? It is sickness caused by viruses, bacteria, etc. Did these microorganisms exist before the fall of man? If you listen to young earth proponents, they could not have existed before the fall. However, they had to. To imply that they came about as a result of the fall of man, is to imply that God created them after Adam sinned. But, since God is in His seventh day of rest, and the creation is already 100% complete, he could not have created them after the fall. They had to be created sometime during the six days of creation.
Here is conclusive proof that bacteria existed before the fall. How do we know this? Because Adam and Eve were normal human beings, and as human beings, they required the aid of bacteria for the breakdown of foods in the human digestive tract. Right now, as you read this, millions of bacteria cells are in your colon, breaking down your foods into waste products. (Perhaps the young-earth proponents will argue that the bacteria and viruses we have today mutated from this original bacteria source. Their response would be interesting).

7. The rock record, through its fossils, indicates that death existed for millions of years. By young earth models, all fossil-bearing rock layers must be laid down after the fall of man. The mechanism they point to is the Flood of Noah. For a discussion on why the Flood can't produce all these rock layers, click here. Bottom line...if the Flood can't do it, then there must have been physical death before sin.

Despite the claims of young earth creationists, and their interpretation of the Bible, there is no reason why there must be no death before the Fall of Man.

What is Time?

The other major stumbling block for young earth objections is time. Here we will examine two concepts; first is God and time, and second, a weak God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the earth is young. The Bible does not say "the earth is 6,000 years old." Nor does it say "the earth is 4.5 billion years old." The fact is, the Bible makes no claims as to the age of the earth. We must interpret the age of the earth from science and the Bible. (If the Bible does not tell us, it must not be important. For more on this concept, see God Doesn't Care about Creation.)
Young earther's will make a defense of the "days" of creation being literal 24-hour days. The truth is, there is no claim in the Bible that states the length of these days. The "day" as we know it didn't even begin until the fourth day of creation, when the sun and the moon were created (according to young-earth interpretations). The saying I like to use is, “If you are God, and you are in outer space, a million miles away from any stars or planets, then how do you mark the passage of time? As God, you do not sleep, you do not need rest, therefore time has no meaning.” When we get to heaven, we will spend eternity there. Are we going to have clocks in heaven? Wow, there goes another million years! It won’t matter to us, just like it doesn’t matter to God.
Should finite man limit infinite God to a twenty-four hour day? It is finite man that has imposed his interpretation of the word "day" onto an infinite God. Well, our rules of time don't apply to an infinite, everlasting being. Just look at the creation. God rested on the seventh day. In fact, he is still resting, and we are still in the seventh day! If this day has lasted for over 6,000 years, then who are we to impose time limits on the other days of creation? The use of the word day is just so that man can have some type of framework to understand creation, and does not imply 24-hour days.
The Bible says in II Peter 3:8, “…that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” God does not see time the same way we do! To him, one second could be a million years. Therefore, no matter what the interpretation is of the original Hebrew for the word “day,” it does not apply to an infinite God. The early church fathers, including Justin Martyr, believed the days of creation were a thousand years long. Literal days were not even considered until the fourth century, and it did not become a major theologic issue until the 19th century.
One more point to ponder. Old-earth creationists say the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Was God here 4.5 billion years ago? Obviously, the answer has to be yes. Think about it.
Our second major concept concerning time is a weak God.
One of the claims by young-earth creationists is that the old-earth theory waters down, or weakens, Gods powers, by in effect saying that if God could not create the earth in six days, then he must not be as powerful as the Omnipotent God of the young earth believer.
Here again, simple logic will prevail. It doesn't matter how long the period of creation is, God's power is beyond comprehension, beyond anyone else's capabilities, and He remains omnipotent no matter how long creation lasted. I could say “An all powerful God could have created the world in six seconds. Why did it take him six days…he must be weak.” This obviously is not true.
To prove this, here is the simple argument. I challenge any young-earth creationist to do this...starting right now, I challenge you to create a brand new world, complete with new plant and animal species, complete with a thriving ecosystem, complete with coal beds, fossils, oceans, etc. And, I'll even be generous and give you 20 billion years to do it. Can you do it? Of course not. But the all-powerful, omnipotent God that we worship can, and did do it.
Could He have done it in six days? Sure, if He wanted to. If He wanted to, He could have done it in 6 seconds. Is the God of the six-day creation weaker because He didn't do it in 6 seconds? Of course not.

Conclusion

What then are we to conclude? Spiritual death, with the eternal possibilities of heaven and hell, began with Adam and Eve. They were the first humans to have this option. But physical death for the animal kingdom has been here long before Adam ever walked the earth. Adam introduced mankind to physical death through his sin.
Concerning age, the creation itself testifies to its age. Job 12:8 says "Speak to the earth, and it will teach you." Fortunately, none of the objections of young earth proponents carries any weight. You can be 100% confident that you can be a Christian, and believe in an old earth.

The Reason For My Concern

Entangled in the greater debate over the origin of life is a separate debate over the age of the earth. Nearly all creationist groups believe our planet is somewhere around 6,000 years old. Most scientists see the earth's age as ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of years old.

The Bible is extremely brief in its explanation of the origin of the universe. Because we are provided with such a limited amount of information, it's unwise to try to make the Word of God say something it never really addressed.

I wouldn't tackle this topic if I weren't concerned about the credibility of the Christian faith. Untold numbers of people have already turned to evolution or a non-literal approach to Scripture based on the realization that the 6,000-year theory offers no logical explanation for an overabundance of fossil records. I want to reach out to people who are unable to accept Christianity because of the young earth view.

The attitude of the following individual perfectly represents the earth age confusion that exists in the minds of many people:


"In literal terms, we might think of this God as an unreliable narrator. It's clear to me, if not to the creationists, that if He'd fool around with thousands of feet of rock just to trick us, He might also have stuck a few fibs in the Bible."
Believers always have been dreadfully inept in the task of verifying statements made by fellow Christians. When an error is allowed to masquerade as truth, the validity of even the Bible itself is brought into question. For several years, I've used the following quote in my email signature block: "In God we trust; everyone else requires verification." This simple statement is so true.

I stand firmly with my creationist brothers against the idea that our common ancestors once swung from trees by their tails, but I am also very much troubled when they dogmatically tie the validity of the Bible to their young earth model. The only thing evolutionists need to do is prove the earth has existed for at least 100,000 years and they've won the battle.




Weighing The Evidence

In 1650 AD, the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, calculated that 4004 BC was the date of the creation year. Ussher's 4004 BC date has become the most widely quoted for people who hold to a young earth. The reliability of Usher's timeline came into doubt when it was revealed that he failed to include a year zero.
The old earth view is not just the domain of evolutionists. Many leading Christians believe in an earth that is millions of years old. The legendary Bible commentator C.I. Scofield is probably the most well known champion of old earth creationism.

A large portion of the arguments being used to support a young earth view is based on evidence that ranges from blind faith to the outright bizarre. In preparation for this article, I read through several books by creationists, and it asronished me that there are so many of them who believe dinosaurs still roam the earth.

I want to pull my hair out when I hear creationists proudly talk about how they journeyed to the jungles of Brazil, Kenya and Indonesia looking for dinosaurs. Of course, they all came back empty handed. Many of them frequently cite the Loch Ness monster as solid proof that dinosaurs exist. I'm certain that the legend of Nessy has more to do with the Scotland tourism industry than it does with factual-minded science.

It's pure silliness to think that dinosaurs are in some forest hiding from humanity. You would think that after all these centuries, someone would have bagged one of these mammoth creatures. It is about as logical for a creationist to proclaim rumors of prehistoric creatures as proof of a young earth as it would be for anthropologists to declare Big Foot as their evolutionary "missing link."

To be able to say that the earth is only a few thousand years old, we would have to greatly abbreviate the historical evidence found in the fossil records. The earth contains countless layers of sedimentary fossils that reveal a vast wealth of geological and organic activity. The evidence for an earth older than 6,000 years is quite lengthy. Here is a list of some key indicators that point to an old earth.




Mega Meteor Impacts - Researchers have found dozens of meteor-impact craters that are so large they would have profoundly affected the earth's climate. One crater in Northern Canada is around 60 miles wide. A giant meteor that struck the Mexican Yucatan Peninsula is blamed for causing one of the largest mass extinctions of dinosaurs. It's inconceivable that the biblical writers could have missed reporting an event that would have blanketed the globe with a choking blizzard of ash.

Super Volcanoes - Several of the earth's volcanoes periodically have erupted with a force so massive in scale, they would dwarf any eruption that modern man has ever witnessed. The Toba Caldera on the island of Sumatra once exploded with a force that released a volume of ash 3,000 times greater than the amount produced by the 1980 Mount St. Helen's eruption. Core samples taken 2,000 miles away from Toba have measured ash layers as deep as 36 inches. Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming is the home of one of these super volcanoes. If it were to erupt, much of North America would be devastated by the blast.

Mount Everest - Ages ago, the Eurasian and Indian continents collided spectacularly to form the Himalayan mountain range. Geological movement continues to take place today as India is gradually pushed beneath China and Nepal at a rate of about 3 inches per year. Going by the current rate of upwelling, it has taken Mount Everest at least 100,000 years to rise to its 29,035-foot elevation. Before the great collision, the bedrock that makes up the Himalayan range was once at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. The top 1,500 feet of Mount Everest is comprised of limestone. This type of rock is slowly formed by the deposition and consolidation of the skeletons of marine invertebrates. Because these creatures are minuscule, it would take a very long time to accumulate these limestone layers.

Coral Reefs -Coral is made up of the skeletons and calcium deposits of tiny animals that live in warm, shallow seas. It takes an estimated 100 years to produce a few centimeters of coral growth. One coral atoll has been measured at 3,900 feet in depth.

Light and Cosmic Events - The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in the Milky Way. Our little galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. A common explanation for our ability to see stars that are millions of light years away is that God created the light from these distant stars already in transit. The problem with the light-in-motion claim is that as light travels through the universe, forces it encounters alter its properties, giving us a travel log of its journey. Many of the cosmic events we see in the universe take millions of years to occur. It doesn't seem logical for God to have constructed such a multifaceted, elaborate hoax.

Bristlecone Pine Trees - The annual growth rings of trees are among the most reliable measures of time. Some Bristlecone pine trees in the White-Inyo mountain range of California date back beyond 6000 BC.

Algae Growth Cycle - During the springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake, where they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The results are alternating dark and light annual layers -- much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers.

Moon Dust - Measurements by sensors attached to satellites show that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter each year. (A nanogram is one thousandth of a millionth of a gram.) This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is approximately the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon.

Cosmic Rays - The Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a method of measuring the length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays stream into the atmosphere from all directions in outer space and break neutrons free when they collide with air molecules. When these neutrons hit rocks on the ground, they sometimes react with a tiny number of mineral atoms that create radioactive isotopes. At sea level, a few hundred modified atoms are created each year in a gram of quartz near the surface of the ground. New measuring techniques can detect very small numbers of these atoms and thus estimate the number of years that the rocks have been exposed. Scientists have found ages of about 8,500 years for "recent" glacial moraines in Newfoundland and 830,000 years for extinct volcanoes in Nevada.

Radioactive Decay -The "nuclide" argument is one of the best proofs of an old earth. Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that every nuclide with a half-life of over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth. All nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels.

Ice Ages - In North America, more than 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. It takes a foot of snowfall to produce an inch of glacial ice. Since some of the ice is thousands of feet thick, it takes centuries of snow to produce each ice age event. These glaciers would have had to move across the land like freight trains to fit into the 6,000-year model.

Hawaiian Island Chain - If we could remove all of the water in the Pacific Ocean, we would find that the Hawaiian Islands are peaks on a 10,000-foot-high ridge that extends 3,000 miles to the northwest. The Hawaiian chain gets progressively older and becomes more eroded farther beyond the volcanically active region of the "Big Island" of Hawaii. All three factors - the movement of the ocean crust, the building of volcanic islands, and the erosion - are time-consuming geological processes.

Seating capacity - A lot of creationists try to defend the narrow timeline of the young earth view by arguing that Noah brought all the animals that ever existed onto the ark with him. They fail to realize that many of these prehistoric creatures were huge; some beasts weighed as much as 100 tons. However, getting all those bulky dinosaurs onto the ark would have been the least of Noah's problems. Scientists estimate that a total of 10 million species have existed on the earth. Because Noah never could have crammed that many animals into the ark, when the rains came, it would appear that most of them were left standing at the dock. It is interesting to note that scientists have calculated that Noah could have fit all of the 16,000 species of land animals currently living on the earth into the ark.

Coal - The Great Flood is frequently cited as the instantaneous creator of many fossil records. Geologists tell us that coal took millions of years to build up, and creationists point to the Flood as the source. The claim is made that when the Flood transpired, it buried all the earth's vegetation, creating the coal we mine today. The problem with this theory is that the available amount of plant material could not account for coal layers that are hundreds of feet thick. It would have taken several feet of organic material like ferns, grasses, and a few bugs just to produce a few inches of coal.

Salt Deposits - In the state of Utah, there is a huge, underground deposit of salt created by the continual evaporation of a shallow sea that once covered the land. The dome is nearly 5,000 feet deep and it was pushed to the surface by volcanic forces. Noah's flood cannot account for such a vast quantity of salt being deposited in a compact location and in such short stretch of time. A steady stream of water over millions of years is the only plausible solution.

Grand Canyon I - Young earth proponents like to disprove popular belief that the Grand Canyon is the result of millions of years of erosion by saying the Great Flood carved out the steep canyon walls in a few days. There are several problems with this simple explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon. The Canyon is not the product of flooding. It was formed by the uplifting of a plateau by mountain-building events. The narrow inner gorge of the Grand Canyon and its many tributaries are the antithesis of the erosion that would be found as part of a broad floodplain.

Grand Canyon II - The Grand Canyon example is a two-parter in order to also account for all those thousands of layers of sedimentary rock that give the Grand Canyon its beauty. Creationists often say the Great Flood laid down the layers and in its aftermath, the receding waters dug out the gorge. One of the more prominent formations in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. This layer is found only a few hundred feet below the rim. Geologists have described this sandstone as originating from an ancient desert. Remnants of sand dunes can be seen in many outcrops of the formation in a phenomenon called cross bedding. Many footprints in this sandstone have been recognized as those of lizards scurrying across the desert. It's ridiculous to think there could be a sandy desert formation wedged between a series of layers that were all formed by the same flood event.




Long-Term Projections Based On Faulty Short-Term Data

Many young earth proofs are based on long-term projections made from flawed short-term observations. It is bad science to simply conclude all trends move in a continuous straight line. A Porsche GT2 can go from zero to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, but it can't go from zero to 20,000 mph in 2 minutes. Even though the long-term projection for acceleration matches the initial short-term data, at higher speeds, other factors take over that hinder the car's ability to achieve higher speeds.

It would be foolhardy to assume the ocean tides coming in indicate another global flood is about to take place. We have the rainbow as God's promise that there will be no second Great Flood. In the next three examples, I take creationists to task for misapplying short-term trends to fit their young earth view.




The Earth's Magnetic Field - Over the past 150 years, there has been a measured decrease in the earth's magnetic field. The decrease is hailed as positive proof that the planet was created around 6,000 years ago. The argument is made that if we went back in time a million years, the earth's magnetic field would be too strong for life to exist. It's baffling that some folks can assume the decline in the magnetic field has been a continuous event. It is common knowledge that our planet's magnetic field has frequently shifted between the North Pole and the South Pole. When volcanic lava erupts onto the surface and cools, the iron molecules embedded in the rock retain a record of the earth's magnetic field. A detailed examination of core drillings retrieved from the ocean floor has found the magnetic polarity of the poles has changed several times.

The Gulf of Mexico - Several creationist books argue that the earth must be relatively young because the Gulf of Mexico would have filled up with sediment from the Mississippi River had the process been going on for millions of years. True, a large amount of the sediment--some 500 million tons annually--is carried to the Gulf each year. However, it is incorrect to assume that the Gulf Coast region has always been as we see it today. Many moons ago, a shallow sea once reached all the way up to the central Midwest. At one time, the mouth of the Mississippi River would have been located in southern Iowa.

The Movement of Celestial Bodies - Young earth creationists frequently cite the movements and gyrations of heavenly bodies to support their views. They point to data showing that the sun is shrinking as solid evidence that the earth can only be a few thousand years old. They claim that if time were to be reversed by millions of years, the sun would become too large and hot for life to exist on earth. They also cite reports that show that the moon is pulling away from the earth at a rate of 2 inches per year, adding that this, too, could not be a process millions of years old. People who use these types of proofs clearly lack the most basic understanding of the movements of the sun and moon. All celestial bodies wobble and oscillate as they travel through space. Gaseous bodies like our sun have the added feature of being able to pulsate. Years down the road, we might find the sun expanding and the moon slowly orbiting closer to the earth.




Timelines Fail To Match

The strongest evidence for an old earth view has to be the inability of Ussher's timeline to account for or accommodate all the major cataclysmic events that we find recorded in the fossil records. When we add up all the meteor impacts, super volcanoes, earthquakes, mammoth tidal waves, and ice ages, we end up with thousands of events that could never fit into a 6,000-year timeline.

If time started in 4004 BC, we would have experienced a major global disaster every couple of years. The fact that mankind has never witnessed any of these large-scale calamities would seem to be enough evidence that their occurrence had to have been spread out over many millions of years.

Many leading creationists claim that most meteor impacts transpired during the Great Flood. The heat generated by such a short-term bombardment would have vaporized the world's oceans. It would have taken divine intervention to prevent Noah and his poor animals from being boiled alive.

Another point to consider is that these major events are not stacked on top of each other in the fossil record. In between the layers of volcanic ash and dust from meteor impacts are sedimentary bands containing the remains of forests, meadows, lakes, seas, deserts, and many other environments. It would only take a couple of unique fossil records to create a problem for the time-pressed young earth view, but in most cases, dozens of layers are deposited between these cataclysmic events.




There Is No Necessity For A Young Earth

Fitting the age of our world into the 6,000-year time frame would require disrupting our understanding of the speed of light, annual growth cycles, the erosion process, historical records of tectonic movement, rates of decay for radioactive atoms, climate patterns, the historical content of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the freezing point of water, and a host of other processes.

It would be foolish to modify everything we know about how the physical world operates just to accommodate one single theory. I find the chasm between reality and the young earth theory too vast for any explanation to span. Even if one is kind enough to assume that the growth of coral was once 10 times faster than it is today, some reefs would still be more than 13,000 years old.

God is not going to vanish if it turns out that the world is a million, a billion, or a trillion years old. There is the general idea in the Bible that God created Adam and Eve a certain number of generations ago, but the Good Book gives no exact reference for the age of the earth itself.

The scriptural references to historical events are extremely brief. It would only take one unknown factor to explain that there may have been scores of millennial ages between the time of Adam and the present.

Far too many Christians have fallen into a group-think mentality that holds the Bible hostage to a young earth way of thinking. Regardless of what view is true, the Word of God is not facing any danger.




Filling In The Gap

I personally subscribe to "the gap theory" as the most likely explanation for the earth being so old. This theory sees an undetermined span of time existing between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This is when the Almighty created everything, including the earth and the dinosaurs. In the second verse, the earth is described being in a state of disorder: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Some Bible scholars speculate that Satan may have been in charge of a world that predated Adam and Eve, and when he rebelled against God, everything on earth was destroyed. This assumption is based on the belief that God would not bring ruination to His own creation.

Because there are so many unanswered questions related to the dawn of time, I hold to the gap theory very loosely. We are given such limited factual information about the creation of the universe, I think a "twiddling of the thumbs" theory would work just as well as any other. Many times, the Bible says that God's existence is eternal. If God has been around for a very long time, it doesn't seem logical for Him to be twiddling His thumbs for millions of years before He came up with the idea of creating the universe.

The Bible is not a book of science. It's obvious from Scripture that God seems totally disinterested in explaining how He performs supernatural feats. The Great Creator occasionally provides us with a few minor insights into His handiwork that predate modern scientific discoveries. For example, in the Book of Job, the Bible tells us, "He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26.7).

Because so many unknowns are associated with early earth history, we're limited in the amount of knowledge we can gain from studying this period of time. When we get to Heaven, an untold number of mysteries will be divulged to us. Until that day arrives, it's best to concentrate on the more important salvation issues.

che wrote:so in conclusion, young earth creationists are full of shit, but i can't say it out loud

VivaStPauli wrote:Not even the Vatican promotes young earth creationism. Hell, they don't even dispute evolution with a lot of enthusiasm anymore.

Senor Penguin wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:Not even the Vatican promotes young earth creationism. Hell, they don't even dispute evolution with a lot of enthusiasm anymore.

Instead they're teaching about the evils of contraception.

Jonathan28 wrote:I will always doubt evolution, just so many things wrong with it for me, but the young earth theory is far worse.

McLewis wrote:I happen to agree with Senor Penguin. Just not seeing enough hard evidence that Jesus ever truly existed.

And I do consider myself well-versed on Ancient Roman history, specifically in the reign of Julio-Claudian Dynasty.

There are contemporary accounts of what Emperor Augustus's daily routine was, what he ate, how many hours he slept and how he kept his house in order, but we can't find one concrete contemporary source for Jesus ranging from his birth to his time as a man. There's about 20 years or so missing in between. Why such a large gap? I find that rather strange honestly.

Arquitecto wrote:Why do people even base what the church says and translate that that from what God himself along with his prophets have said? Why not just follow Islamic radicalists then?

McLewis wrote:I happen to agree with Senor Penguin. Just not seeing enough hard evidence that Jesus ever truly existed.

And I do consider myself well-versed on Ancient Roman history, specifically in the reign of Julio-Claudian Dynasty.

There are contemporary accounts of what Emperor Augustus's daily routine was, what he ate, how many hours he slept and how he kept his house in order, but we can't find one concrete contemporary source for Jesus ranging from his birth to his time as a man. There's about 20 years or so missing in between. Why such a large gap? I find that rather strange honestly.

Good thoughts, but the memoirs of the Pontius Pilate, accounts of Herod and many other zealouts, political figures and bureaucrats of the time have accounts of there time spent living within his era along with accounts of him. Not to mention the several events which could have been caused by none other than such a figure.

Jonathan28 wrote:

Woah, woah, woah, hold on there mate, lets not get carried away here. Wooh, you are gonna give every one a scare with this post, some commentary should help here

[INSERT RAMBLING DUBIOUS INTERPRETATIONS]

Jonathan28 wrote:
For those who do not understand, Jesus in this passage is not talking about the everyday man on the street, in fact, non-believers are exempt from this all together. this is directly aimed at the people who claim to have been believers their whole lives and have a holier-than-thou mentality when in reality, they are the biggest hypocrites that have ever walked the earth. During Jesus' time the Pharisees were these exact people.

StevieRayVaughan wrote:Jesus was real. There is lot of evidence for it.

Senor Penguin wrote:

StevieRayVaughan wrote:Jesus was real. There is lot of evidence for it.

If you consider posthumous evidence decades after his death as a lot of evidence then sure ... Jesus existed.

Unless you have *new* evidence?

StevieRayVaughan wrote:Jesus was real. There is lot of evidence for it. But there is so many evidence that can actually end christianity as we know it. For example, the Christians believe that after Christ died, in the third day he resurrected into the heavens. However, recent eviedences have found that Jesus actually didnt die. He went to India. Now for a second, you will think that I am retarted. It was very hard for me to believe this too. But I have seen three documentaries about this and I feel overwhelmed. If this is true, it could end Christianity as we know it because Jesus's resurrection was a crucial part of Christianity.

One of the documentaries is done by BBC so it is highly reliable, the other one is done by the Govt. of India.

1) BBc one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiy5uY3Iw2s&feature=related
2) Indian Govt. one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9w-xJfSOyc

Why did I post these? first of all, I think religion is just bullshit and a power tool to control people. But this proves that Jesus was no God, there is so much written text in Buddhist/Hindu temples about this. Please look at the documentary, it is so interesting.

VivaStPauli wrote:Why are we discussing the historical Jesus? Or rather: his existence?
It's utterly irrelevant.

If Jesus did in fact not exist, someone made up his teachings and wrote them down, making that person who invented Jesus basically the equivalent to Jesus as a philosopher, once you take out all that magic voodoo nonsense.

And Jesus' teachings are philosophically quite interesting, albeit pretty obsolete now that we've had Kant, who put the ground rules of morality down in a much more clear, less ambivalent way.

free_cat wrote:

Jonathan28 wrote:

Woah, woah, woah, hold on there mate, lets not get carried away here. Wooh, you are gonna give every one a scare with this post, some commentary should help here

[INSERT RAMBLING DUBIOUS INTERPRETATIONS]

Nice interpretations. I could, and can interpret those words, they are not that veiled or complicated, thank you. No need for you to quote theologians who will obviously try to make christianism and jesus look god.

Jonathan28 wrote:
For those who do not understand, Jesus in this passage is not talking about the everyday man on the street, in fact, non-believers are exempt from this all together. this is directly aimed at the people who claim to have been believers their whole lives and have a holier-than-thou mentality when in reality, they are the biggest hypocrites that have ever walked the earth. During Jesus' time the Pharisees were these exact people.

So... the Pharisees don't deserve to be redeemed or saved or be treated nicely? They will just burn in hell forever, etc. A bit of a racist this jesus, like witht he Samaritans:

Aensensen wrote:What I think about debates I already said in 3rd page of this thread - they're useless.

My reason for casting aside religion has been on a personal level. I didn't see the possibility of anything holding it together anymore after all the information I've found out against it. I couldn't be a Christian anymore. I started thinking and analyzing religion. I decided it was against my reason and my rational side to continue calling myself a christian. You see what I've done here - I'm stressing that this was my activity, I didn't think about others and their opinions [at least not when reaching my decision to cast aside religion]. What I see a lot here, like anywhere else actually is that most of you have this aversion towards "God" in relation to what others say he is, or how they act. (A*) Point for thinking.

I know that many of you are immersed in this feeling of injustice when it comes to religion. Malleus Maleficarum burns brightly in front of your eyes, and the natural craving for freedom in you developes the feeling of participating in noble fight by refuting religion. Not that seeing irritating "Christians", yapping about things they don't understand, helps in any way.

::The problem with Religion vs Atheism discussions is that both sides are blind to one simple truth, and that is - The Bible is a book of seals. It is not to be literally understood in it's completeness (a man might go mad trying to accept so many contradictory information). Atheists understand this irrationality so they refute religion overall, "Christians" are lost between personal agendas and how they fill these irrational holes. However Atheists are wrong because of their lack of knowledge in combination with (A*)

The real deal, the complete thing that is like water to a rational open mind is "behind the seals" of Bible. And not only bible, other religions too have their texts that need knowledge for understanding, and I'm not talking about your high school education. Without this in mind - you're all wrong. The "faithfull", and the atheists.

I understand atheists in some particular points. I understand they fail to see a reason for existance of religion.

Ofcourse, this is nothinge strange since their rational mind relies on their knowledge and 5 senses [even though mostly on sight].

What lacks is the knowledge of the truths behind those 5 senses. Now even for atheists [at this point] it's hard to confess that it's ignorant to dismiss the possibility of something simply because "I cannot percieve it" - this would be nonchalant and mediocre. We already know there are lots of things in existance which we cannot percieve by our 5 senses yet we've "discovered" them.

Even though by only putting down their activity in graphic terms like graphs and functions. It's something about our rational mind that grants the sight sense more credibility over the others. Even if you taste, smell something, or hear someone, or feel something with your hands - you still choose to open your eyes to "see for youself".

This is our 1st and most important cognition portal, and this is the problem - mind should be our first and most important cognition device, because there is no true cognition without the activity of the mind - thinking [it's not weird then that cogito means "thinking" in latin], Descartes goes lengths about this in his "Meditations on first philosophy". Seeing something [experiencing it through your 5 senses] is not cognition, it's to note something is there. Now i got sidetracked a bit. Back to subject.

Why was I saying this? Because "Religion" deals with things the eye cannot see - like the human spirit. It's important to know the difference between the soul and the spirit because when you understand the mechanics, the law of the Man - then you're on the road to understanding religion.

Religion is trying to balance between the extensive knowledge of human nature and public relations. It is not uncommon to see someone hiding (obscuring) the knowledge from the masses, but with church the thing is not so simple. During it's great history sure there were times, individuals and groups when/who abused the power and knowledge given to them. But hermeticism is not about hiding knowledge so you could abuse it - it's precaution - therefore not all of church's history is rotten eggs. Why precaution? Hermetic science is closed hermetically by hermetic seals because knowledge is power, and power can lead to abuse. Unfortunately, throughout the history, many selfish and wicked people have come to possession of this knowledge - these are the people who abuse their power today for personal gain and hunger for more power. There is no right way to knowledge but through humility and devotion. Rational mind alone is unable to go past the hermetic seals - therefore religion.

Don't let your feelings, at this point, to stray you from giving this post a chance.

Now I have to adress this issue that we're facing as humanity today. I am all for freedom, but what if something looks and feels like freedom but it really isn't. Meet the modern ADVERTISED atheism. During the past few decades people have been "waking up" [the worst kind of freedom stealing is making people believe you're giving them freedom (like capitalism for instance)] and seeing that religion has been this big black hand of history that massacred the world.

The problem is that this is the only thing they notice about religion.

The feeling of rebelion against such injustice makes people [including the past me] thwart religion, making them feel they fight the noble fight - the one for freedom. But how wrong they are. True, fiery people are needed in this world - the church has done many unjust things in the past, but this is not a motive for atheism. You have to understand this, because this is exactly what's been shoved into people's faces for the past few decades. This is the agenda of an opposing force. (B*)

Remember, fake sense of freedom = tyranny.

I hope that now you guys understand it's wrong to debate religion based solely on your rational thinking. You lack the knowledge for it.

Jonathan28 wrote:

free_cat wrote:

Jonathan28 wrote:

Woah, woah, woah, hold on there mate, lets not get carried away here. Wooh, you are gonna give every one a scare with this post, some commentary should help here

[INSERT RAMBLING DUBIOUS INTERPRETATIONS]

Nice interpretations. I could, and can interpret those words, they are not that veiled or complicated, thank you. No need for you to quote theologians who will obviously try to make christianism and jesus look god.

Jonathan28 wrote:
For those who do not understand, Jesus in this passage is not talking about the everyday man on the street, in fact, non-believers are exempt from this all together. this is directly aimed at the people who claim to have been believers their whole lives and have a holier-than-thou mentality when in reality, they are the biggest hypocrites that have ever walked the earth. During Jesus' time the Pharisees were these exact people.

So... the Pharisees don't deserve to be redeemed or saved or be treated nicely? They will just burn in hell forever, etc. A bit of a racist this jesus, like witht he Samaritans:

Dubious? What? When did I say the Pharisees should burn in hell? They were used as an example as what was wrong with the faith at that time, many Pharisees did change their ways, but of course, you wouldn't know this.

Free_cat you may be a fellow Barca fan but you no nothing of what you are talking about. Your ignorance on the subject is shining rhough, just as in the Quran burning thread. You don't liek religion, we get it, but if your gonna critisize it, know what your talking about first, because everything you have said so far displays a level of ineptitude, that borders on the imbecilic.

che wrote:aensensen's post reminds me of one of my mother's colleagues who went volunteering in nepal a few years ago and since then he can't stop spouting pseudo-intellectual bullshit about how you have to "open your mind and use your other senses" (actual quote) to understand "what the world is really about"

very few things are worse than condescending hippies...

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:What I think about debates I already said in 3rd page of this thread - they're useless.

Debates are never useless regardless the circumstances. I don't know how you can speak so highly of being a scholar but dismiss the value of debate?

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:My reason for casting aside religion has been on a personal level. I didn't see the possibility of anything holding it together anymore after all the information I've found out against it. I couldn't be a Christian anymore. I started thinking and analyzing religion. I decided it was against my reason and my rational side to continue calling myself a christian. You see what I've done here - I'm stressing that this was my activity, I didn't think about others and their opinions [at least not when reaching my decision to cast aside religion]. What I see a lot here, like anywhere else actually is that most of you have this aversion towards "God" in relation to what others say he is, or how they act. (A*) Point for thinking.

Could it have anything to do with, say, the fact that religions profess that humans and the devotion to God is extremely important? And that an evaluation of religion will inevitably - at one point or the other - include how people think and how they act? Not to mention the fact that religion is actually oriented around man - not God - when one analyses the situation.

Senor Penguin wrote:"God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilizations." - Christopher Hitchens

Regardless, an aversion to God does not need to manifest itself based on what others believe or do not believe. Evaluating the circumstances of the realm that we live in should suffice. Many philosophers make their stance independent of religion.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:I know that many of you are immersed in this feeling of injustice when it comes to religion. Malleus Maleficarum burns brightly in front of your eyes, and the natural craving for freedom in you developes the feeling of participating in noble fight by refuting religion. Not that seeing irritating "Christians", yapping about things they don't understand, helps in any way.

Malleus Maleficarum? How does the persecution of "witches" relate to people who don't believe in God?

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:::The problem with Religion vs Atheism discussions is that both sides are blind to one simple truth, and that is - The Bible is a book of seals. It is not to be literally understood in it's completeness (a man might go mad trying to accept so many contradictory information). Atheists understand this irrationality so they refute religion overall, "Christians" are lost between personal agendas and how they fill these irrational holes. However Atheists are wrong because of their lack of knowledge in combination with (A*)

I think you'll find that not even fundamentalists understand (or are even able to understand) religious scripture in its completeness. That's because it's nebulous in nature.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:The real deal, the complete thing that is like water to a rational open mind is "behind the seals" of Bible. And not only bible, other religions too have their texts that need knowledge for understanding, and I'm not talking about your high school education. Without this in mind - you're all wrong. The "faithfull", and the atheists.

So basically it's "my way or the highway"?

That perfectly explains why you consider debates "useless".

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:I understand atheists in some particular points. I understand they fail to see a reason for existance of religion.

I absolutely see a reason for the existence of religion. There are many psychological hypotheses that could fit.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:Ofcourse, this is nothinge strange since their rational mind relies on their knowledge and 5 senses [even though mostly on sight].

What?

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:What lacks is the knowledge of the truths behind those 5 senses. Now even for atheists [at this point] it's hard to confess that it's ignorant to dismiss the possibility of something simply because "I cannot percieve it" - this would be nonchalant and mediocre. We already know there are lots of things in existance which we cannot percieve by our 5 senses yet we've "discovered" them.

And how do you think we discovered them exactly? Was it by using our "sixth" sense? Or was it by using the other 5 in order to construct devices that would "perceive" the "imperceivable"? And did we by using such devices not make use of the five senses again?

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:Even though by only putting down their activity in graphic terms like graphs and functions. It's something about our rational mind that grants the sight sense more credibility over the others. Even if you taste, smell something, or hear someone, or feel something with your hands - you still choose to open your eyes to "see for youself".

Not necessarily. If you have auditory hallucinations it simply doesn't matter what you see or cannot see. If you hear a thunder in the distance, will you have to see whether there's lightning or not?

Either way, this talk about senses is quite boring I have to say.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:This is our 1st and most important cognition portal, and this is the problem - mind should be our first and most important cognition device, because there is no true cognition without the activity of the mind - thinking [it's not weird then that cogito means "thinking" in latin], Descartes goes lengths about this in his "Meditations on first philosophy". Seeing something [experiencing it through your 5 senses] is not cognition, it's to note something is there. Now i got sidetracked a bit. Back to subject.

You just spoke of the fallaciousness of the senses but seem to suggest that the mind is infallible? The mind does not compute without the senses to guide it and vice versa. The mind can be terribly fallible even when it is utilized.

I'll pull up another Hitchens quote:
"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks."

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:Why was I saying this? Because "Religion" deals with things the eye cannot see - like the human spirit. It's important to know the difference between the soul and the spirit because when you understand the mechanics, the law of the Man - then you're on the road to understanding religion.

"The soul" and "the spirit" are merely metaphorical interpretations of sensations, emotions and feelings.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:Religion is trying to balance between the extensive knowledge of human nature and public relations. It is not uncommon to see someone hiding (obscuring) the knowledge from the masses, but with church the thing is not so simple. During it's great history sure there were times, individuals and groups when/who abused the power and knowledge given to them. But hermeticism is not about hiding knowledge so you could abuse it - it's precaution - therefore not all of church's history is rotten eggs. Why precaution? Hermetic science is closed hermetically by hermetic seals because knowledge is power, and power can lead to abuse. Unfortunately, throughout the history, many selfish and wicked people have come to possession of this knowledge - these are the people who abuse their power today for personal gain and hunger for more power. There is no right way to knowledge but through humility and devotion. Rational mind alone is unable to go past the hermetic seals - therefore religion.

Philosophy negates the purpose of religion. Psychology does really well, too.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:The problem is that this is the only thing they notice about religion.

False.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:The feeling of rebelion against such injustice makes people [including the past me] thwart religion, making them feel they fight the noble fight - the one for freedom. But how wrong they are. True, fiery people are needed in this world - the church has done many unjust things in the past, but this is not a motive for atheism. You have to understand this, because this is exactly what's been shoved into people's faces for the past few decades. This is the agenda of an opposing force. (B*)

Are you suggesting atheism has a sinister purpose? That's quite flattering, I must confess. Did you not speak of humility in order to gain knowledge earlier? Or did your devotion for religion get in your way?

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:Remember, fake sense of freedom = tyranny.

Remember, more religion (read: servility) ergo less tyranny and more freedom.

Senor Penguin wrote:

Aensensen wrote:I hope that now you guys understand it's wrong to debate religion based solely on your rational thinking. You lack the knowledge for it.

There goes the humility again ...

Too much sanctimonious drivel to take in. I may or may not read the rest of it after I've taken an aspirin or two.

che wrote:aensensen's post reminds me of one of my mother's colleagues who went volunteering in nepal a few years ago and since then he can't stop spouting pseudo-intellectual bullshit about how you have to "open your mind and use your other senses" (actual quote) to understand "what the world is really about"

very few things are worse than condescending hippies...

free_cat wrote:

Aensensen wrote:
I never talked about how you should use other senses - I pointed to the activity of the mind, and the mistake of dismissing anything you cannot percieve.

I have absolutely nothing to do with hippies, and I wasn't trying to be condescending - I pointed out why.