The young earth model or yem, is something I was never able to get my head around, and now I tend to go more for the "older earth" theary, thus taking the Hebrew word "yom" as a time period rather then day, but at the end of the day I try not to get to bogged down by it, (cliche alert) as I try to live in the present rather then the past.

However I once heard someone say,
If God made Adam and Eve out to be xx years when they where one, why could that not be applied to the earth ?

The problem with taking the word 'Day' in Genesis 1 to mean a period of time leaves a lot of major questions that don't make sense. One big point I bring up is the difference between days 3 and 4, and even 5. Plants require the Sun's energy to survive and the birds and insects to reproduce. If we are talking 24-hour periods between the days, not a problem. If a period of time, especially in terms of millions of years, MAJOR problems. How do the plants survive for millions of years, let alone a single year without the sun's light? Or without the pollination of insects, not created until Day 5? The truth is, EVERY time the word "Yom" is mentioned with a number before it, it always means a literal 24-hour period.

Now, I've also heard the arguments of God creating the world to be mature. This is good for both Old-earth and Young earth models, so it is transparent to the issue. Adam and Eve were adults when God made them. So were the animals. The chicken came before the egg. And I would agree that God made the plants the same way too. He didn't plant acorns in Day 5; he created full grown oak trees. So as for the earth itself, I too would agree that it had an 'age' of maturity to go with it. This may explain why certain things appear to have a millions of year age. But if Adam and Eve were made to appear to be what we could consider to be 30-40 years old, that doesn't mean they were around 30-40 years before God created them in Day 6. But there are many factors that often not considered, one of which is that things date at a continual basis back then as they do today. We can only theorize what the world was like before the Flood 4400 years ago and what made human live to be 900+ years old, and grow to be 12 feet tall (yes, we have human fossils that would be that big). Different world temperatures, humidity levels, air pressure, and even oxygen levels will greatly alter how things decay and appear. We also don't know how much time transpired between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. We don't know when the time started for Adam to live his 930 years. But that is the only window of flexibility when it comes to the actual age of the earth.

^^ Where did you find out Adam and Eve were 30-40?

~Riella

I think that that is just a guestimate, Ithilwen. There is no Biblical evidence for that to my knowledge.

I think that that is just a guestimate, Ithilwen. There is no Biblical evidence for that to my knowledge.

Yeah, I've never seen any evidence for their ages. Technically couldn't they have even been children or teens?

~Riella

I was just throwing out a number. They could have been 20 or they could have been 500 (which to a 900 year old would still be in their prime). There is absolutely no indication in any source whatsoever what Adam and Eve subjective age would have been at creation.

Their being children is almost impossible. Children do not speak and reason like Adam and Eve do. Although they have a childlike quality about them, that's do to their innocence and naivety, rather then from age. Teenagers would be an option, but I also doubt it. The thirty-forty range would seem most plausible to me.

All of this talk about creation reminds me of a question I had while re-reading Genesis.
It's a pretty universally accepted fact, as far as I've seen, that the Serpent in the garden was either Satan, or a serpent possessed by Satan. But I didn't see any mention of it being Satan when I read the account again. Am I missing it? How does everyone know for sure it is Satan/possessed by Satan? How do they know it isn't posessed by some demon under Satan, etc. instead? Is it just an assumption they make, or does it reveal it to be him somewhere in the scriptures?

~Riella

FencerforJesus

Hmmmmmmm, I see your point about the plants and photosynthesis, but I very vaguely remember reading two different words (Hebrew) when reading the two different accounts of creation in Genesis, (however I am not entirely sure, so don't quote me on this, it is getting late, I will explain more tomorrow what I am on about when I will be able to make more sense).

In terms of the age of the earth, and the account of creation, I think it all depends on your view of the bible. For example we all know that God created science so why are their some conflicts with and the bible (I know we don’t like to admit it but there are some conflicts).

I believe it is because the bible was never meant to be read as documentation on the universe, but rather documentation on the race of Adam, the race chosen by God. The bible is not to concerned with events prior to this, (apart from things to do with the spiritual realm), as all things in the earthly realm are futile so what is the point in documenting them in the word of God, which is everlasting.

The conflicts with science only occur when the bible is viewed as documentation of the universe, which isn’t its purpose.

Both an old-age earth view and a young earth view are perfectly legitimate,

However there is one question ???????????????

Dinosaurs ?????????

^^ What about dinosaurs? Does young earth vs. old earth affect them somehow?
Or are you referring to their disappearance?

~Riella

The subject of dinosaurs has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion . God created dinosaurs, and dinosaurs likely went extinct after the flood due to their very slow breeding rates. (But yes, I believe that dinosaurs were on the ark. . . unless they went extinct prior to the flood, which isn't likely because the flood is what was responsible for 99.99% of fossils)

Let's see if I don't end up with a novel/Dr. Ransom-style length post on this one. And I've got less than two hours to do it. So here it goes.

FencerforJesus

Hmmmmmmm, I see your point about the plants and photosynthesis, but I very vaguely remember reading two different words (Hebrew) when reading the two different accounts of creation in Genesis, (however I am not entirely sure, so don't quote me on this, it is getting late, I will explain more tomorrow what I am on about when I will be able to make more sense).

There are two different Hebrew words for "Day". One refers to a literal 24-hour period, and one refers to an era (like in the day(s) of David). The big issue here is comparing Day in Genesis 1 to "a day is like a thousand years" in 2 Peter 3:8. All proponents of old earth models refer to this verse, and doing so takes is very much out of context. Genesis is a narrative account. It is history. Some, even here on NWeb, claim that Genesis 1 is poetry due to repetitive elements and use that as a basis for old earth claims. But this is not the case. Genesis 1 is NOT poetry, due to the narrative tone, the verb tense and usage is never seen in Hebrew poetry anywhere else, and more.

2 Peter Chapter 3 is about the Lord fulfilling his promises. Peter is reminding his readers that God's timing is not slow and that he will fulfill his promises when the time is right and that God is outside of time. The arguments for old earth are all based on 'God could have done it that way'. Yes, he could have, but we all know our interpretations can be wrong, so an interpretive-based theory is standing on thin ice. More below.

In terms of the age of the earth, and the account of creation, I think it all depends on your view of the bible. For example we all know that God created science so why are their some conflicts with and the bible (I know we don’t like to admit it but there are some conflicts).

This is what I was talking about above: interpretation. You have to understand the Bible is written for everyone, and addresses certain groups. Did you know that there is a tribe in Africa that believed history is based on the detailed account of the genealogies? This tribe believed that Bible was true simply due to the genealogical records that it keeps. And many consider that to be useless information. So you have narrative, which is no different than historical accounts from the non-Biblical ones; you have poetry, you have prophecy, you have letters. Each part must be interpreted based on the genre. In regards to the word 'Day', don't interpret a narrative use of it with a poetic use. Peter uses poetic analogies to describe that God's time is not our time. Genesis uses a historical context.

Now with science and the Bible. What kind of conflicts are you referring to? Science done properly has never been in conflict with the Bible. The problem is interpretation of the data. The geologic column is a fine example. No one argues with the data that there are consistent layers of rocks throughout the world. The interpretation of that data is what can be wrong. Evolution sees the geologic column and thinks it took millions of years for dust, dirt, and pressure to make those layers. Young earth in particular sees the column and thinks world-wide flood as depicted in Genesis 6-8. Or take the Grand Canyon. All the park signs say it took millions of years for the Colorado River to carve it. Yet, Mt. St. Helens gives an example at a 1/20th scale of it happening VERY quickly.

You have to understand that science is about observable and repeatable experimentation. True science and the Bible have never conflicted. Interpretation of the scientific data can be wrong. Many science programs I've seen on Discovery or History Channel, and in the textbooks often leave out interesting facts. Using the geologic column again, we've found fossilized trees in a vertical position spanning what scientists claim to be over 60 million years on the column's age. Did you know that when you take the elements of the earth's crust, mix them up in a large vat of water, and let it settle, the sediments will sort themselves in the water in accordance to what we see in the geologic column.

I believe it is because the bible was never meant to be read as documentation on the universe, but rather documentation on the race of Adam, the race chosen by God. The bible is not to concerned with events prior to this, (apart from things to do with the spiritual realm), as all things in the earthly realm are futile so what is the point in documenting them in the word of God, which is everlasting.

The conflicts with science only occur when the bible is viewed as documentation of the universe, which isn’t its purpose.

Both an old-age earth view and a young earth view are perfectly legitimate,

You are right. The Bible is not meant to be specifically documentation on the universe and it does focus on the race of Adam and mankind. The Bible is like the ultimate epic story that God is writing. He had it all planned out from the beginning of creation. He knew exactly what was going to happen when, and even set the stars and planets into motion with exact precision that they would align with the prophecies concerning his birth, death, and resurrection. But when you tell a story about a person or group of persons, you need to establish the setting. That is what Genesis 1-2 are about. But I also must disagree in that not about the history of mankind. It is about God. It is about what Jesus did to redeem mankind. We are not the center of attention in the Bible. It is all about him. So while the Bible's purpose isn't to be the documentation of the universe, it does give documentation in Genesis 1 about how it begins and it gives documentation about how it ends in Revelation.

However there is one question ???????????????

Dinosaurs ?????????

Now I get to have even more fun. Dinosaurs are never a problem for young earth. We are taught from kindergarten through our lives that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. I beg to differ. Did you know that the very word 'dinosaur' didn't exist until Sir Richard Humphrey invented it in 1841? Did you also know that before 1841 all the dinosaurs we know of today were referred to as 'dragons'? There are more dragon legends in nearly every culture than we can count. Marco Polo while serving Kublai Khan reported that they had a dragon keeper. Why would there be a dragon keeper if dragons went extinct 65 million years ago? Why would ancient Roman and European legends include dragons? The answer is simple: dragons (what we call dinosaurs today) and humans co-existed.

The Bible and dinosaurs get along quite well. Job describes two of them in full detail. The behemoth was a type of saurupod (brontosaurus, or brachiasaurus). I have seen commentaries that say it may have been a large elephant or hippo. Remember, commentaries are not the Bible. Have you seen the tail of an elephant or a hippo? It is rather flimsy and definitely NOT like a cedar tree. The only creature that completely fits the description is a brontosaurus or a kin just like it.

There is more evidence that dinosaurs and mankind were co-existent. In 2005, we discovered a fossilized T-Rex thigh bone with intact bone marrow and blood vessels. Biologists believe that no biological tissue can survive, regardless of preservation techniques, for longer than 10,000 years. Even if those numbers are not precise, there is a big difference between 10,000 years and 1 million, let alone 65 million. And just this past year, we discovered a fossilized mollusk in a 350 million year old layer with intact, edible muscle inside. This is totally baffling scientists around the world, when the answer is quite simple. Maybe the earth isn't millions of years old.

I'm not even getting into how evolution tries to explain dinosaur behavior yet. How do they determine that a T-Rex only sees movement or how a Velociraptor hunts as seen in Jurrasic Park when all they have to work with is bones? Everyone claims that T-Rex was a meat eater due to sharp teeth. Did you know that the T-Rex's teeth have root too narrow that meat would rip them out?

And as for fire breathers, how many Chinese legends and pictures do we have of dragons? How would they know about them if they went extinct 65 million years ago? How would they know what they looked like? Or what about the Native American glyphics that depict Pterydactyles? They refer to them as 'Thunder birds'. The depiction of Grendel in Beowulf fits what could be a T-Rex. And you still have some modern legends. Loch Ness has over 11,000 recorded sightings. The descriptions fit those of a pleasesaur. Of course we can't prove this at this time, it makes you think. Tribes in the Congolese Jungle in Africa (which is 80% unexplored) talk about a creature that fits the description of a saurapod and scares away the alligators. What animals do you know that scares away alligators that are alive today? Just speculation, but dinosaurs may not actually be extinct.

So what happened to the dinosaurs? The fossil record, the geologic column, many of our natural features, and the fact that this is no civilization found that is older than 4400 years old all attest to a world-wide flood. I've heard many arguments about a localized flood, but it leaves more questions than answers. Why didn't Noah simply move to get out of the flood plane? Why is the geologic column, which the Flood explains, so consistent throughout the world? Why are Noah and his family the only survivors? Why are the largest deserts, largest coral reefs, and oldest living tree all dated to about 4400 years of age? And again, no civilization surviving with records beyond 4400 years. It all points to a world wide flood. That is where most of the dinorsaurs went.

But God told Noah to bring two of every kind onto the ark. Hopefully needless to say, this includes dinosaurs. And Noah would not have brought adults, he would have brought babies. That would make them smaller to fit in the ark, smaller appetites to feed, and give them longer lives for reproduction. Also, we need to clarify kinds. Not every species would be included. It is likely that all the breeds of dogs, wolves, and coyotes may have came from the same pair of animals. This type of change is called micro-evolution which is an observable, scientific fact. That is how the animals survived the flood.

It unclear as to why the dinosaurs didn't survive. We can observe from fossils that a brontosaurus' nostrils are only the size of a horse. So for a beast of that size with our current atmosphere and oxygen levels, it would be impossible for it to breathe. So one can speculate that before the Flood, the atmosphere was thicker and contained more oxygen. Dinosaurs survived up to about 1000 years ago, so what happened in the last 3000 years? A really good explanation is the same reason why we have many other species on the endangered list: hunting. How many dragon stories like Grendel and Fafnir that required a hero to slay it are out there? There are a lot of those out there. There are other possible scenarios out there but we can say that the fossils and all the oil reserves can be explained by a world-wide flood.

However there is one question ???????????????

Dinosaurs ?????????

Now I get to have even more fun. Dinosaurs are never a problem for young earth. We are taught from kindergarten through our lives that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. I beg to differ. Did you know that the very word 'dinosaur' didn't exist until Sir Richard Humphrey invented it in 1841? Did you also know that before 1841 all the dinosaurs we know of today were referred to as 'dragons'? There are more dragon legends in nearly every culture than we can count. Marco Polo while serving Kublai Khan reported that they had a dragon keeper. Why would there be a dragon keeper if dragons went extinct 65 million years ago? Why would ancient Roman and European legends include dragons? The answer is simple: dragons (what we call dinosaurs today) and humans co-existed.

Not only that but there are many people, including myself, who believe that they're not entirely extinct. There are reports of dinosaur/ pterosaur like creatures from all across the globe, especially some remote locations. And although pleisiosaurs aren't dinosaurs, I'm sure we all know about the Loch Ness Monster. And of course there is the coelocanth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelocanth

So not only is it possible that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, but they may still even today...

EDIT: More Examples:

Mokèlé-mbèmbé
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe

Loch Ness Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_ness_monster

Cadborosaurus willsi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadborosaurus_willsi

Ahool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahool

Champ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_(cryptozoology )

And there are many, many, many others...

I have to interject and say that if there was anything of interest in Loch Ness, it would have been found. It's a myth. Whether or not I agree with your beliefs aside, using the Loch Ness monster as proof of them is concerning to say the least.

I have to agree with Shantih. I'm not saying that we can't use cryptozoological evidences to show that there may (or may not) still be some subspecies of dinosaurs (or at least new species never before seen in modern times), but using Loch-Ness as an example is very foolish. As fun as it is to read stories like The Water Horse and as fun as it is to let our minds run wild sometimes, logically it doesn't make sense. Loch Ness is not very big, and while it is quite deep, if there was something in that lake, it would have been seen by now. Creatures that size need to come up for air, eat a TON each day, and would produce biological effects that would be a dead giveaway to their existence.

Using Loch Ness as a biblical example is like using the Mothman to prove that aliens exist

I see nothing wrong with using Loch Ness as an example. You're right, there's probably nothing there now, but there might have been at one time. Some of the older reports from the past may have been true, I don't know. Or something may have stayed there, whether it lived there permanently or not. And considering it's not exactly an official legend (like Mothman or Godzilla), I see nothing wrong with her just making a mention of it.

And whether the Loch Ness Monster specifically is a good example or not, don't let that distract you from the main point of Wolfy's post. She listed many other examples as well, and her point is that a few dinosaurs may still be here today, or at least were here not too long ago.

And I agree with her. My Dad has done a lot research on the subject, and there are many examples and possible proofs that they might not entirely have been wiped out. Which makes good sense. After all, the world is a big place. And there are many places we humans haven't fully explored. Especially some of the more treacherous jungles, and the deep bottoms of oceans. The possibility is there, and proofs rise up every once in a while.

~Riella