forums.creationscience.net

OK, exactly how old is the earth? Simple question. Looking for a simple answer, thanks

I believe Earth was created in the year 4001 BC, making it approximately 6,004 years of age.

Ultimately, whatever one believes about anything comes down to faith, in that we are not omniscient beings. I have placed my faith in God's Word as inspired. Working off the year of 970 BC for the beginning of Solomon's reign as King of the United Kingdom of Israel and 1 Kings 6:1, this is the year I come up with. 1 Kings 6:1 does not tell us the year his reign began, but 970 BC is very close, if not the specific year he began. 1 Kings 6:1 tells us that he began work on the Temple during the fourth year of his reign, i.e. 966 BC. This verse also tells us that this work began 480 years after the Exodus (from Egyptian captivity). If we add the 480 to 966 (going back in time), we get 1446 BC for the year of the Exodus. Exodus 7:7 tells us that Moses was 80 years of age when he stood before Pharaoh. This is not rounded off as the same verse tells us that his brother (Aaron) was 83 years of age. Now we add the 80 years to 1446 BC and we have the year of Moses' birth, i.e. 1526 BC. This extrapolation can be carried out back to the Creation Week. With the interpretation that the creation days were literal days, the year of creation was very close to 4001 BC. Again, I realize that this chronology is worked off a year (970 BC) for the beginning of Solomon's reign that is not inspired, although there is much information to support the accuracy of this year as the year he began his reign.

I have a rock in my back yard. It is a fence post, actually. When they dug it out for me they told me it was 65,000,000 years old. That was seven years ago so the post is 65,000,007 years old. I think there are rocks that are older than this post.
SQ

Since the generally accepted science based age given for the earth is 4.5 billion years, seems like there is a major diffrence here. 6000 and 4,500,000,000. Early civilizations would appear to be older than 6000 years.

I just find it hard to believe that God created everything then left misleading information for us to uncover. Makes no sense. Should we not have faith in the intelligence He gave us? in the inquisitiveness He gave us?

Other than the Bible 6000 years just makes no sense. Is there any other evidence for an earth 6000 years old other than calculating back using the Bible??

Jukia,

First, thank you so much for your questions; many have the same questions.

Faith in intelligence - Most certainly. We were created in the image of God, a portion of which is having reasoning ability. We possess the ability to reason something out and act contrary to our feelings or emotions. I personally came to my faith in the Bible as inspired through reason. A young man knocked on my door many years ago and asked me if I?d be interested in having a Bible study in my home once a week. Since it was to be in my home (and not in a church), I said yes. I knew virtually nothing about the Bible --- to me it was just another book. Shortly into our study I had many questions, in particular about the Flood, e.g. How could the entire earth be covered in water? Where did it come from? Where did it go? How could the Rockies and Mount Everest have been under water? Was there any evidence from outside of the Bible?

He brought me several books, which I still have in my library, e.g. The Flood, The Genesis Flood, The World That Perished. When I was convinced that there was scientific support for the global flood described in the book of Genesis, I began to view the Bible differently (not just another book), and eventually gave my life to the LORD of creation. Sooooooo Jukia, in a sense I had the same basic question.

I think of something I memorized many years ago for problem solving: gather the facts, weigh and decide, take action, and follow up.
The first part (gather the facts) is absolutely foundational to the decision part (take action). Proberbs 18:13 says, ?What a shame, what folly, to give advice before listening to the facts!? (Living)

I believe that if one has the opportunity to compare the scientific support for the Creation Account and the scientific support for the Evolution Account, there is no question as to which one makes the most sense. The problem is that most have not been given (or perhaps taken) the opportunity to become informed of the scientific support of the Creation Account. If all one hears relative to the Age of Earth and the Universe is 4.5 billion years (Earth) and 18-20 billion years (Universe), what is one to believe? What generally comes accross in virtually all aspects of the media, including secular education, is that ALL scientists believe in evolution, the Big Bang, and the 18-20 billion years that is a part of it.

Proverbs 18:17 reads, ?Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight.? (Living)

Evidence extrinsic from Bible - Yes. I believe that virtually all of the scientific disciplines support a global flood (key) and a young Earth and Universe. Before I address this, I believe that it is important to take a bit of a philisophical detour. I propose that ?evidence? or ?proof? is directly relative to the credibility (or faith) one puts in the source of the information, e.g. what one considers to be evidence another might not. Some choose to believe what they read in National Inquirer, some not. Some choose to believe what they read in National Geographic, some not. Some choose to believe what they read in the Bible, some not, etceteras. I believe this is a very important point. I?m going to go into just a little detail that I believe is necessary, as many have the same questions as yourself. I think that it is important that we take a brief look at some of the basic concepts involved in determining the age of Earth and the Universe. I hope I?m not giving you more than you want, but without an understanding of the concepts there would be no real foundation for the ?evidence? of a young Earth and Universe. Sooooooooo, here we go:

Virtually all dating methods (radio-metric and other) are based on the concept of Uniformitarianism.

"...the doctrine that all geologic changes may be explained by existing physical and chemical processes, as erosion, deposition, volcanic action, etc., that have operated in essentially the same way throughout geologic time." (Webster's New World Dictionary)

Another way to put this would be, ?The present is the key to the past.?

Here is a simplistic explanation of how this concept works:

Let's say that you took a vacation and toured a limestone cave. You note "Stalactites" coming down from the ceiling of the cave and "Stalagmites" rising up from the floor of the cave. (These are a result of water carrying and depositing calcite, or calcium carbonate.) You wonder just how long it took for these to grow to the size they are. You measure a stalagmite (builds up from the floor of the cave as water carrying calcite drips from the ceiling of the cave), and note its volume. Ten years later you return to the same cave and locate the same stalagmite. You again measure it and find that it has grown in volume 1/64th of an inch cubed. Now you know that it grew 1/64th cubic inch in a ten-year period. Now you measure the stalagmite and determine how many cubic inches it has and multiply the cubic inches my sixty-four (you should get 640 years for each cubic inch, i.e. 10 x 64 = 640). Once you've determined how many cubic inches the stalagmite contains, you simply multiple this times 640. You now know how old the stalagmite is, right? Initially, this might sound pretty good, but lets take a closer look.

The following are things we must assume to be constant (uniform) in order for our conclusion on the growth-rate of our stalagmite to have validity:
1. Rate of water drip.
2. Concentration of salts in solution.
3. Types of salts in solution (solubility).
4. Rate of evaporation of water.
6. Degree of evaporation (partial or complete).
7. Rate of evaporation of carbon dioxide.
In National Geographic Magazine, 1953, there is an article with a picture of a bat that is encased within a stalagmite. The bat has not decomposed! This is what I consider to be empirical evidence that all stalagmites do not grow at a ?uniform? rate. Let?s reason through the following:

Let's say that I was lost in the woods, and I wandered upon a cabin. I knocked, but no one answered, so I went in (not very considerate of me I?ll admit . I didn't see anyone, but on the table was a candle burning. I wondered how long it had been since someone was there. I then measured the candle and found that it was seven inches tall. I then put marks on the candle at one-inch increments. I noted that in two hours the candle burned two inches. I then knew how long it had been since someone had been there -- five hours! Well, how did I come up with the five hours?

I assumed that the candle was twelve inches long when it was lighted. My assumption that the candle was twelve inches long when it was lighted was based upon my assumption that the average candle today is twelve inches long. How do you like my reasoning Jukia?

As you know, my conclusion that the candle had been burning for five hours can be no more valid than the weakest assumption of all the assumptions to be considered. Some of the assumptions to have been considered were as follows:

The candle was twelve inches long when lighted.
The candle was not put out for a time and relighted.
The candle was not tapered.
The climatic conditions within the cabin did not change.
The density of the wax was consistent.
The density of the wick was consistent.

If any one of these assumptions is incorrect, the validity of my conclusion goes out the window. The same holds true for ALL dating methods. Most scientists, although certainly not all, do not acknowledge the Flood of Genesis. Without taking this flood into account, virtually all dating methods (radiometric and otherwise) work off a false premise, thus invalidating the conclusion. I won?t take time and space here, but the context of Earth before the Flood and the context of Earth after the Flood are vastly different and have everything to do with several of the presuppositions of dating methods. If you like, you may read of the context before the flood by clicking on ?Commentary? on my home page. What many do not know is that various dating methods do NOT yield consistent results, e.g.

1. The shells of living mollusk (snails, etc.) have been dated by the C-14 method up to 2,300 years.!
2. New wood from actively growing trees has been dated at 10,000 years.
3. Freshly killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years, and
mummified seals dead no longer than 30 years have been dated up to 4,600 years. (The Creation-Evolution Controversy, R.L. Wysong, Inquiry Press, 1976)

I have a few interesting pictures in my notebook, Creation Science, Age of Earth (pp. 63-73) located under ?Documents? on the Home Page of this site (It is bookmarked) to include a felt hat that completely calcified in fifty-five years.

Young Earth:

1. Earth Spin. The Earth is spinning on its axis (23 1/2 degrees in reference to the Sun) at approximately 1,000 mph slightly south of the equator. Earth is slowly (pun?) slowing down. Because of the Earth's own magnetic field, the Earth's relationship with both the Sun and the Moon and their magnetic fields, solar drag, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Earth is slowing down. Let's say we were to move back in time and were to speed Earth up in its rotation, in proportion to the rate at which it's slowing down. Moving back only 20,000,0000 years (a very short period of time for an Evolutionist), the centrifugal force would be such that the continents would rip off of the Earth's mantle (it would come apart). Yet, if we were to move back in time some 8,000-10,000 years, we would have a good starting speed.

2. Moon Radioactive Dust. R. A. Lyttleton, a highly respected astronomer and consultant to the U.S. Space Program, wrote:

"...the lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultraviolet light and x-rays which can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."

If the moon were something over 5 billion years old, these "few ten-thousandths of an inch" would have accumulated to something near 60 miles deep.

3. Cosmic Dust. Each year approximately fourteen million tons of cosmic dust filter into our atmosphere. This dust is much higher in nickel content than that within the lithosphere of the Earth. There is only enough of this dust present on the Earth to account for an accumulation time of some 8,000-10,000 years.

4. Poynting / Robertson Effect. The solar drag forces upon micrometeoroids in the solar system causes the particles to spiral into the sun. This is called the Poynting/Robertson Effect. The sun is thus vacuuming space at the rate of about 100,000 tons per day. In billions of years there should no longer be any significant amounts of micrometeoroids since there is no known source of significant replenishment. But there is an abundance of micrometeoroids, and thus speaks of a youthful solar system, perhaps some 6,000 years old.

5. Shrinking Sun. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about 5 feet per hour. Records of solar eclipses imply that this relatively rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years. As far as researchers can tell, this rate has been constant since the original formation of the sun. Using the most conservative data, it would seem that the sun would have had twice its present radius only 100,000 years ago. Twenty million years ago the surface of the sun would have been touching the surface of the earth. Some experts have concluded that the sun would have been so large, even only one million years ago or less, that no life could have existed on the planet earth.

6. Meteorites. Meteorites are seldom found in the various strata of Earth; they are primarily found on the surface. (Makes sense, Noah's Flood)

7. Sea Ooze. When plants and animals die in the sea, they build up an
ooze on the floor of the oceans. It varies, but builds at a rate of one inch every ten years in some places, and one inch every 5,000 years in other places. There is not enough Sea Ooze on the ocean floor to account for millions of years, only enough to account for a few thousand.
(The Creation-Evolution Controversy, R.L. Wysong, Inquiry Press, 1976)

In Wysong?s book these examples, and others, are well referenced to various scientific publications.

I have carried a calcite deposition with me to seminars for years. It is in a slice of water pipe and was formed in less than fifty years.

There is an article from Creation Magazine, March-May 1995 with a lemonade bottle that was left in a limestone cave which has a calcite coating of about three millimeters which was formed in approximately thirty years.

There is an enormous amount of information to support the idea that Earth is relatively young (less than 10,000 years of age). Here are a few books I recommend:

It's A Young World After All, Paul D. Ackerman, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1991.

Reason in the Balance, Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1995.

Darwin On Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1993.

Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1997.

Jukia, for space purposes here, may I suggest that you to visit:

http://www.icr.org/cgi-bin/search/searc ... e+of+earth

This location has some 2,500 articles relative to the age of Earth and the Universe that are well referenced.

I realized this will probably prompt many additional questions, but that?s o.k., as our inquisitiveness came from Him.

At what rate is it slowing down? Please provide a citation. I do not doubt that it's rate of spin may be slowing down but at what rate? And again, a citation, if possible to someone other than a creationist. Thanks

Jukia,

The citations for Earth slowing down are from ?The Creation-Evolution Controversy? by R.L. Wysong, Inquiry Press, 1984, p. 164, and are:

A. FISHER: ?The Riddle of the Leap Second,? Popular Science, 202 (1973)

?Towards a Longer Day,? Time Magazine, February 25, 1966, p. 102.

Although I didn?t mention this, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the proposal that Earth is slowing on its? axsis rotation, as well as its? elyptical orbit around the Sun.

In reference to the ?rate? it is slowing, I do not know, as I do not have in my possession the citations from Wysong?s book.

Wysong is a "creationist" and the only citations you can give me are to Time and Popular Science? No peer reviewed journals?

The following quotes are from noted evolutionists that relate to the age of Earth and the Universe:

Shrinking Sun

Gribbin, John, ?The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun,? New Scientist, vol. 97 (March 3, 1983, pp. 592-595)

?I suspect?that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary and some time for frantic readjustment, I suspect that we could live with bishop Usher's figure for the age of the Earth and Sun (approx. 6,000 years). I don?t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.?
(Dr. John A. Eddy, Physicist/Geophysicist, High Altitude Observatory, Boulder, Colorado)

?Astronomers were startled, and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking, at such a rate that, if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred thousand years.... Together they [with A. Boornazian] found evidence of a decline in solar angular diameter of two seconds of arc ---- equivalent to 0.1 percent ---- per century.?

?Even if the sun is shrinking at a rate of merely 0.01 percent per century it would totally disappear in a million years; and it would be twice its present size a million years ago.?

?The breakthrough came from one of Eddy?s colleagues, Ronald Gilliland,...His first conclusion, from a battery of statistical tests, was that the over-all decline in solar diameter of about 0.1 seconds of arc per century since the early 1700s is real. And when standard statistical tests aimed at revealing small, regular changes in the pattern of variability were turned on the data from the meridian circle they showed an unambiguously clear trace of a periodic variation with a repeating rhythm of 76 years.?

?As for the longer-term decline in solar diameter, the discovery that started the whole ball rolling, Gilliland was cautious in his claims. ?Given the many problems with the data sets,? he said, ?one is not inexorably led to the conclusion that a negative secular solar radius trend has existed since A.D. 1700, but the preponderance of current evidence indicates that such is likely to be the case.??


Cosmic Dust

Cosmic dust is filtering down to earth from space and eventually into the oceans at a rate of about fourteen million tons per year. Nickel content of cosmic material is much higher than in earthly material ?. only enough to account for a few thousand years. (Science Digest, 45 (1959): 34-35 and Scientific American, 202 (1960): 132)

R.A. Lytteton, a highly respected astronomer and consultant to the U.S. space program. Wrote in the mid-1950?s: ??the lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultraviolet light and x-rays, which can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.? (?Cosmic spherules and meteoritic dust,? In Scientific American, 202 (1960):132.)

Radiometric Dating

?It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundred of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ?clock.??(The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York,
1977, pp. 82 and 84)

I have literally hundreds of cited quotes from many scientific disciplines.

I believe that a fact is a fact regardless of its? source, i.e. just because something comes from one that believes in the creation account, that doesn?t make a fact something other than fact. Conversely, just because something comes from an evolutionist, that doesn?t make a fact something other than a fact. (The same is true for the Bible.) I do realize that ?credibility? relates directly to the ?faith? one puts in the source of the information, but this has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. Just because someone believe there is God, that doesn?t make there to be God if there is not. Conversely, just because someone believes there is no God, that does not make there to not be God if there is God. At one time the masses believed Earth to be flat, although Isaiah 40:22 tells us that Earth is spherical. This was written sometime between 740 and 690 B.C., long before Columbus ---- How might Isaiah have known that Earth was spherical?

Contrary to popular belief, I do not believe Columbus really thought the earth was flat nor do I think most people then even thought it was flat. If it was flat why was he bothering to sail west to reach India?

As far as Eddy goes, I do not think he ever published the full paper you allude to.

I have a real problem with your use of quotes to support a position that you have already reached in the manner that you do. My understanding of Eddy's comment is that it never went any further and that later studies showed he was incorrect.

What is--is. I still find it hard to believe that a rational God would create a universe with evidence that it is billions of years old and not have it be billions of years old. I guess the bottom line is that I do not believe in the literalness of the Bible. I do not believe it was written as a scientific text. I believe it was written to show us that God does exist, that he gave us a very God-like quality--free will--that we abused our free will (I suspect that was almost inevitable) but that He had a method to provide us with a way to get back on his good side. ( a little abreviated theology perhaps but I think it hit the high points).

It is clear that the generally accepted scientific principles are:
1. The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
2. Life evolved from more primitive forms (seems to me that the DNA molecule is spectacularly suited for that--and a rather elegant system, whether by design or not)
3. There was no world wide flood
4. There was no water vapor canopy/cloud etc in existence prior to the Flood (that theory is absolutely amazing---do you have any evidence for that other than a Biblical one)

I do not believe that there is some liberal atheistic conspiracy to produce false evidence to contradict creationists. If someone found real evidence of a young earth, young universe, special creation, no evolution that person would be in every headline in the world. I enjoy this discussion. I will be on vacation from tmorrow afternoon to 8/25/03, perhaps we can continue this when I get back.

Jukia

Thank you for your comments and especially for being open and frank.

Flat Earth: I agree with you that Columbus didn?t believe Earth to be flat, but disagree that the masses were of the same mind. Do you have support for your view that the masses did not believe Earth to be flat? I?m not wanting to put you on the spot, but am interested in where you came up with this information.

The way to God?s ?good side?: John 14:6

Position Reached: Although this might sound a little overly simplistic, I believe the bottom line is, ?People believe what they choose to believe.? e.g. one points to the fossil record as proof that evolution is true, while another points to the same fossil record as proof that the creation account is true. (Personally, I believe that when one compares the support for the evolution viewpoint and the creation viewpoint, the creation viewpoint is by far the most reasonable.)

I consider myself a thinking person, and like any thinking person, I?ve reached my position (world view) via what I consider to be credible sources of information. I realize I?ve said this before, but I believe that evidence (proof) of anything is relative. Proof relates directly to the credibility (faith) one puts in the source of the information, coupled with the truths (beliefs) one holds to be true. A principle of Biblical interpretation that I hold as an axiom is that a passage is to be taken literally, unless the context or parallel passages dictate otherwise.

Prior to the reign of Henry VIII, barbers were also surgeons. Henry VIII passed a law that forbid the barber-surgeon from any surgical operation, except phlebotomy (bloodletting) or tooth extraction. The barber pole is still widely accepted as the sign of the barber?s profession. The stripes represent the bandage with which the barber wrapped his patient after bloodletting. For many years phlebotomy was practiced, i.e. if you?re not feeling well, we?ll simply let the bad blood out. The practice was accepted by the masses as a credible medical treatment, although Leviticus 17:11 taught (and still does) that ?life is in the blood?. I accept this passage with a literal interpretation, as there is not Scripture that I know of that would dictate otherwise. Today I think that most in the medical profession would hold that ?life is in the blood?.

If one does not hold that Scriptural passages that relate to the sciences are correct, they find themselves in a conundrum, i.e. How can one believe what the Bible says about Jesus? How does a finite (in knowledge) being differentiate between what is or is not true? The question is not whether a person lives a life of faith or not, as all humans walk by faith, simply because they are human and are finite in knowledge. The question is ?Where does one place their faith.? I do not believe that it is ?reasonable? that God would create man and leave him in a position of not being able to differentiate truth from falsehood.

Bottom Line: When you say, ?I guess the bottom line is that I do not believe in the literalness of the Bible.? --- this is where the challenge lies. I came to my personal conviction that the Bible (in its? entirety) is the inspired (God-breathed) Word of God because of the sciences, not in spite of them. Not to beg your questions, but the following book I think you?d find very interesting and can be found in most any Bible book store:

The Genesis Flood, John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1973.

Accepted Scientific Principles:

1. Age of Earth - Yes, most scientists and the masses accept the 4.5 billion years for the age of Earth as truth. Personally, I do not believe that the number of people that believe something to be true, makes that something true if it is not, i.e. truth is not relative to the number that hold it to be true.

2. DNA Molecule - I most certainly agree that the DNA molecule is a ?rather elegant system,?. However, it is beyond my imagination to conceive of a single DNA molecule coming into existence by chance. I can far more easily conceive of this laptop computer coming into existence as the result of an explosion in a junkyard.

Relative to ?life evolving from more primitive forms?, a single protozoan is far more complex in its? design than my computer. Not only so, but the protozoan is irreducibly complex, i.e. I could remove a few selected parts from my computer and it would still function. However, to remove any ?part? from a protozoan would ?kill? it.

Dr. Behe?s book, ?Darwin?s Black Box? deals with irreducible complexity. Dr. Behe is professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University and an evolutionist. Although he does not profess to be a creationist, he realizes the conundrum of the position that initial life came about through change relative to the irreducible complexity of a cell. His book his excellent, although a little heavy in places:

Darwin?s Black Box by Michael J. Behe, published by Simon & Schuster, 1996

David Berlinski, author of ?A Tour of the Calculus? makes this statement relative to Dr. Behe?s book - ?Mike Behe...makes an overwhelming case against Darwin on the biochemical level. No one has done this before. It is an argument of great originality, elegance, and intellectual power. For readers who have been persuaded that biologists have long since demonstrated the validity of Darwinian theory, [Behe?s] observations are apt to be a source of astonishment.?

Robert Shapiro, author of ?Origins: A Skeptic?s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth? said this - ?Michael Behe has done a top-notch job of explaining and illuminating one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of the complexity that permeates all of life on this planet.... This book should be on the essential reading list of all those who are interested in the question of where we came from, as it presents the most thorough and clever presentation of the design argument that I have seen.?

James A. Shapiro, National Review said, ?[A] valuable critique of an all-too-often unchallenged orthodoxy.?


3. Global Flood - Personally, I believe that a single ?global? flood makes far more sense than thousands of local floods over billions of years. Consider the following relative to a global verses local flood:

Fossils: About 1/7 of the earth?s surface, from Siberia into Alaska, is a frozen muck containing the remains of millions of mammoths. There are many places around the world containing virtual log jams of fossil dinosaur bones. Dinosaur National Monument in Utah contains over 300 different kinds of dinosaurs. In Sicily there are graveyards with thousands of hippopotamuses, in the Permian beds of Texas there?s an estimated 8 billion fossilized clams with their shells closed, in a three foot thick stratum (layer). Note that when a clam dies the muscle relaxes and the shell opens. These clams were buried alive. I believe that many evolutionists want to clam up over this kind of information : ).

Coal: There is an estimated 7-14 trillion tons of coal on Earth, with some seams 100 feet thick. It takes an estimated 7-10 cubic feet of plant foliage to produce one cubic foot of coal. Many indications are given that these deposits of coal were swept into position, layered and produced by water catastrophe (not only this, but a major event -- like the Flood , not by the slow accumulation of organic material in fresh water swamps, as the evolutionists would have us to believe. Fossil trees are found extending through several layers of coal, some trees are upside down; these coal seam have various kinds of marine (sea) fossils, mixed with large boulders, etceteras, pointing to a global flood.

Petroleum: Oil deposits point to the global flood. Although geologists are divided over the source and mechanism for the production of oil, most all agree that it is the product (pun intended) of organics (things that were alive) and plants subjected to pressure, heat and other stuff (bacterial action, radioactive bombardment, etc.) If one looks up petroleum in an encyclopaedia, I think they?ll find that a global flood fits very nicely with how geologists propose petroleum was formed (local floods) and makes more sense.

Canopy: The book, ?The Genesis Flood? mentioned earlier addresses this, as does ?The Creation-Evolution Controversy? by Wysong and a myriad of other publications. Dr. Baugh (Creation Evidences Museum) in Glenn Rose, Texas is currently doing experimentation with a pre-flood hyperberic biosphere that is very interesting. His site is: www.creationevidence.org I have used his videos for several years and highly recommend them. (His credentials are available through his site.)

Sooooooooo, back to the ?bottom line? , and it is the bottom line - I personally accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God and use it as the canon (measuring rod) to determine the truth or falsehood of anything. It is the ?lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path? (Psalm 119:105). Looking at the Creation with the ?light? of God?s Word makes more sense to me than any view (intended) I compare it with.

Conspiracy - Again, we?re back to ?evidence?. Personally, I believe the evidence strongly supports a young Earth and Universe.

I do believe that there is a conspiracy in the spiritual realm (Ephesians 6:10-12) which manifests itself in false philosophies. (I did find ?Conspiracy Theory? very interesting : )

OK, here is my bottom line. While I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, I do not believe that a "book" cobbled together from numerous sources over 1000 +/- years ago was meant as a definitive statement of how He did it all. I think it shows God's interaction with people all leading up to Christ. I believe that He gave us intellects to figure certain things out on our own. The physics of the universe, from galaxies on down to sub atomic particles is both fascinating and bizarre, well worthy of both our investigation and our appreciation of God's creativity in putting it all together in whatever manner that He did.

Bottom line for me is that the earth is 4.5 +/- billion years old, the universe is15 billion+ years old, evolution is real, there was no world-wide flood, stars and planets are continuing to be created

If you think that makes me closed minded so be it. Because if you start with the Bible and try to make the physical evidence fit into the Biblical story that appears to me to be even more closed minded and ignoring the possibilities that the wonders of the real world are even greater than we can really imagine.

Gotta get back to work, make enough $ to pay the tuitions.

Jukia,

First, I do not think that you?re closed minded and I appreciate your comments. My Bible teaches me to believe the best of the other person, i.e. ?Love .... is ever ready to believe the best of every person,....? (1 Corinthians 13:7, Amp.)

For years I?ve done a little exercise with high school and college students. I?ll have five escorted from the room, after which those remaining and myself will make up a story. Generally, it will be a story about a dog. I?ll work with the audience to develop the story, e.g. name, size, shape, color, location, basic life story, etceteras. I?ll write this basic information down. Next, we?ll have one of the five escorted from the room brought back in, at which point I?ll tell them the story with the help of my notes. Then we?ll have the next individual that was escorted from the room brought in and the one I told the story to will tell the other, etc. After the last person has been told the story I?ll have them tell the story to the audience. Needless to say (but I?ll say it anyway), the story is vastly different and usually pretty funny too. All of the individuals involved in the exercise live at the same time and speak the same language. And yet the story that has developed into stories is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

The Bible (Book) was written by some 40 different earthly writers in three different original languages and was compiled over approximately 1,500 years. Most all of the earthly writers were not alive at the same time. Even those that were alive at the same time, for the most part, didn?t know each other. Yet ---------- Scriptures are without contradictions and inconsistencies, when taken in context. They only reasonable answer in my mind is summed up in what the Bible says about itself, it is the ?inspired? Word of God.

Again, it was through (what I consider to be) empirical evidence that I came to the conclusion that the Bible was the inspired (God-breathed) Word of God. Romans 1:20 reads, ?For since the creation of the world God?s invisible qualities --- his eternal power and divine nature --- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.? (NIV) The ?without excuse? in the context has to do with worshipping created things, rather than the Creator.

Since ?sub atomic particles? were mentioned , Colossians 1:16-17 reads, ?For by him (Christ in the context) all things were created (past completed tense in the Koine Greek, i.e. NOT are being created): things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.? (NIV) The Bible teaches that Christ holds ?all things together?.

Over the years it has been interesting for me to read of man?s attempts to explain what holds the nuclei of atoms (excluding hydrogen) together, as protons are ?like? charges and should repel according to laws of physics as we understand them. (A similar passage is found in Hebrews 1:3.)

It is also interesting to me that the closer man looks at any physical object he makes, the more imperfection he finds (unfortunately, even my MAC computer). However, the more closely one looks into the atom, the more perfection one finds. If the premises of my syllogism are sound (which I believe they are), the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that God (perfection) designed the atoms from which man (imperfection) fashions his creations. Scripture teaches that Christ holds the physical universe together. This will not always be the case. 2 Peter 3:8-12 reads,

?But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise (Return), as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.? (NIV) In verse 10 where the Scripture says, ?will be destroyed?, is literally in the Greek, ?will be loosed?. Will God destroy the physical universe by releasing (loosing) His hold on the nuclei of atoms that make up the universe? I do not know the mechanism, but do believe it will be destroyed when the Day of the Lord takes place.

Well, Doc, looks like we have reached a bit of an impasse. You are never going to believe that the Bible is anything but the literal truth and I am never going to believe that it is meant to be taken as literal truth.
The evidence simply is not there to show a young earth, a world wide flood, creationism, etc. I have taken the time to review at least a couple of the "papers" cited in creationism literature and find them to be bizarre from a science standpoint and manipulative of bits and pieces of information to "prove" the flood, the age of the earth, etc.
Sorry, but it seems to me that one of us is wrong on the age of the earth issue and all the things that flow from that. And my vote is that it is not me. But in another 50-100 years I suspect that each of us will learn the real truth.

Jukia,

I am currently a student at Platte Valley Bible College and have some Questions and answeres for you.

First topic, you stated" He(God) had a method(the sacrifice of His perfect son Jesus Christ) to provide us with a way to get back on his good side."
In this statement, I have made some assumptions as to what or whom you were referring to. If these assumptions are wrong, forgive me. This statement and another statement of yours are the basis of my inquery. The second statement in the basis reads" There was no world wide flood"

God says in Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
Gen 9:10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you. Of all that go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

A question for me when i read this is, 1.if there was only local floods or a local flood, then each time there were local floods again, wouldn't God be breaking his promise?, 2.If there were no flood at all, then why does the bible record such a thing.

To further this, you said that God provided a method, and I presume this method was the sacrifice of his perfect son.

In luke 24:44, jesus says"This is what i told you while i was still with you, Everything must be fulfilled that is writted about mein the law of moses, the prophets and the psalms."

The law of moses , the prophets and the psalms refers to the jewish division of the ot and is the equivilent of our modern day old testament.

So, from this, you can deduce that jesus verified the validity of the entire old testament, or else he was lieing, and then he would not be who he said, and not who i say he is, and not who you say he is.

I realize that i may possibly be undereducated for such a discussion as this, but i only wish to provide the outlook that which convices me of these things.