Hi ministryguy,

I believe in Creation and I'm old earth.

Though I really like Middle Earth.

Grace and peace to you.

John

more specific questions would be helpful Ministryguy.  I can't possibly understand 'young earth'.  I don't  know how it really makes a difference to hold to such an idea.  It doesn't change God and the evidence we have is so marvellous, it is full of wonder for me. 

Old Earth being evolution over millions of years? Young Earth being creationism over a couple thousand? 

I like to think of Creationism as the first theory of Evolution. God - the Underlying Spark that rules the Universe as a whole - could have created the earth exactly like creationism said He did, only in a long span of time and less instantly. First there was light and darkness, then sea and land, then fish, then land creatures, then humans. Evolution does not argue with this order of things. But when the bibles were written, nobody could calculate how this happened, and we were a very new and stupid species filled with ignorant ideas, trying to understand the word we live in. Just because God created microorganisms that, through time, became everything we see and know today instead of everything exactly as it appears in its final product, doesn't make him less the creator of all things. God is the spark that started everything. That's the point of creationism. How long it took shouldn't be the issue it is, and believers should show some flexibility in the whole time-crunch.

Earth took ~450 MY to accrete from dust and rubble, largely ending (but continuing today, of course) some 4.55 BYA.  Life arose ~3.7 - 3.9 BYA by unknown means, likely evolving to some RNA-based life form within several tens of millions of years.  The earliest DNA-based life were likely prokaryotes some 3.5 to 3.6 BYA.  My notes (abbreviated below) accumulated from many sources include the following points:

• earliest photosynthesis some 3.1 BYA (Billion Years Ago)
• oldest fossils of Eukaryotes about 1.2 BYA (protists); date also applicable to introduction of oxygen and sex.
• multicellularity arose about 800-950 MYA (M = Million) 
• all extant major body plans, plus others, developed over a period of ~10-30MY in duration, around 600-520 MYA,
• early chordates (e.g. Pikaia), as per Burgess/Chengjiang, appeared around the 505 - 560 MYA range
• Jawless fish appeared ~550 MYA; jawed fish ~420 MYA; true fishes evolved around 345 MYA; Reptiles ~300 MYA.
• 460 MYA: Fungi and green plants from sea to land.
• 400 MYA: First insects on land.
• 360 MYA: First non-insects on land (Acanthostega-like).
• 228 - 65 MYA:  Dinosaurs rise and reign on land.
• 210 - Now: Mammals rise and thrive after the K/T event 65 MYA.
• 55 - 60 MYA: Pre-primate with opposable thumb.
• 34 - 35 MYA: First ape-like mammals appeared.

Hope this helps and I'll likely post a summary of Dawkins' excellent book "The Ancestors Tale" as well, which is more cohesive and uniform than my miscellaneous notes.  

Edit:  Fix K/T Event transposition typo error - 56 to 65 MYA. 

I believe in Creation and I am Old Earth.

(I developed the text below for use at another site and from: "the past 440+ Million Years" on down is based on Richard Dawkins' work). 

The extraordinarily strong evidence for evolution includes that we're *all* carbon-based life and even more significantly, we all use DNA as a controlling agent.  To have something as beautifully complex, intricate, well-tuned and versatile as DNA ubiquitously in *all* life but *not* be related would make no logical sense - I can't possibly see DNA arising twice, especially on the same planet at roughly the same time.  Here's how evolution ties species together leading to modern man over the past 440+ Million Years...

( MRCA = Most Recent Common Ancestor. )

Note 2 Monkey MRCAs ( < < ) and 1 With Chimps ( <<<<< ).

The planet took some 500,000 years to accrete from star stuff and rubble, completing some 4,550,000,000 years ago, and life took hold within the first billion years. Here’s a basic reverse timeline of life-related events (see Source):

- Y-Chromosome “Adam” (patrilineal MRCA) – 59,000 ya

- Mitochondrial “Eve” (matrilineal MRCA) – 143,000 ya

- H. sapiens sapiens (Modern Human) – 130,000 ya

- H. sapiens (Archaic: H. heidelbergensis) – 800,000 ya

- Early Genus Homo: H. habilis, et al. – 2.5 mya

- Australopithicines (many species) – 4.5 mya

- Hominids & Chimps/bonobos (MRCA) – 5.5 mya <<<<<<<

- Above & Gorillas (MRCA) – 7.0 mya

- Above & OrangUtans (MRCA) – 14 mya

- Above & Gibbons (MRCA) – 18 mya

- Above & Old World Monkeys (MRCA) – 25 mya < <

- Above & New World Monkeys (MRCA) – 40 mya  < <

- Above & Bushbabies, Lemurs (MRCA) – 63 mya

- Above & Colugos, Tree Shrews (MRCA) – 70 mya

- Above & Rodents and Rabbitkind (MRCA) – 75 mya

- Above & bears, weasels, cats, +… (MRCA) – 85 mya

- Above & rest of Placental Mammals (MRCA) – 105 mya

- Above & Mammal-like Reptiles (MRCA) – 130 mya

- Above & Reptiles (Incl. birds) (MRCA) – 310 mya

- Above & Amphibians (MRCA) – 340 mya

- Above & Lungfish (MRCA) – 417 mya

- Above & Ray-finned Fish (MRCA) – 440 mya

(The book below gets increasingly technical as other MRCAs join other life-forms, including, in order: worms, insects, barnacles, Chengjiang & Burgess Shale creatures (including early vertebrates at ~520 mya), jellyfish, coral, sponges, fungi, amoebozoans, plants, archaea, eubacteria, ribosomes, and somewhere around 3.9 bya, the Origin of Life, likely by abiogenesis or possibly panspermia.)

Source:  “The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life” – Richard Dawkins, 2005 W&N; backed at the overall view by *any* decent set of science texts covering the related areas.

*raising a mischevious eyebrow*

I think BrettA's description looks pretty good to me and I am believe that the unknown element was/is God.

So - if a label is necessary - I'm some kind of a Christian Evolutionist.

Christ's peace - r

Well first of all, if you are writing a book, you probably want to be as accurate as possible. Therefore you should be referring to the young earth hypothesis, as it has not yet qualified as a theory, since there is no objective evidence to support it.

Like most others here, I believe in Creation, but in a Creation that fits the known facts. We know for a fact that the earth is many millions of years old, billions even. I believe there is room for God to have set the universe in order, and that God's plan was for the universe to unfold in the way scientific fact shows that it has,

I am an old earth creationist.

What is God???  Just asking...  but yes, I like to think that "God" was the unknown, and I believe that there is inherent goodness built in to the creation - some degree of looking out for one another, cooperation, do unto others as you would have them do to you...  That's God. (at least in part )

indeed.  to call something a theory requires a bit more evidence and research than just pointing to the bible.

I don't take young earth creationism seriously. Sorry!

I don't even know what all these terms mean.

I stand by good old Mother Earth.

Ministry Guy

If you publish a book that repeats Usher's calculations of a young earth, I won't be ordering a copy. In fact if you quote a pile of verses from the Bible to try and prove anything, I won't be reading it.

And yet I consider myself a quasi-Christian.

I'm for an old earth (as per regular science) but I also like some of the Intelligent Design ideas - without the Christian Fundamentalism. The most interesting possibility for me is that all life has a super consciousness that directs their day-to-day life and their evolution (not Darwin). You can call that conscience God if you wish.

What would some of those ideas be, please?

And I'm sure you know all this, but you should likely include all the old earth work going back to Charles Lyell (some even in Canada) and David Hume (well before Darwin), as well as modern techniques to date the sun (which of course tie into the dates of an 'old earth').

I believe in the timelessness of creation and the evolution of realities.

LB

But what minutes! Count them by sensation, and not by calendars, and each moment is a day.     Benjamin Disraeli

I am a Christian and a retired scientist / mathematician / educator. As a scientist I accept the massive evidence that our universe and our planet are incredibly ancient. I also accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation of life in all its incredible variety. None of that conflicts with with my Christian beliefs. About 800 years ago Rabbi Maimonides pointed out that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are "mythology and borrowed folklore". I believe that he was quite correct. But that does not mean that Genesis is just a childish story. When read in its proper context and when read as allegorical, it reveals how an ancient people in a far away land understood their God, themselves, how the world came to be and their place in that world. Of all of Genesis I regard the first four words as of greatest importance ---- "In the beginning God ...."

thats very well said... thanks for posting that.

Hi Ministryguy

I too am a young earth creationist type of believer.  Have you ever visited drdino.com?  I've heard Dr. Kent Hovind speak before near where I live and like he says be it new earth/old earth/big bang they are all theories that you can't bring back to the lab and try to repeat the process to prove it true.  Some theories are taught as science and some as a belief system but maybe that gives the ones taught as science to much sway when molding the minds of the youth of today.  He'll even give people $10,000 dollars if you can prove macro evolution as they teach it.  All that aside though he has some interesting theories and videos.  He still thinks dinosaurs existed/exist today and his seminar manual is interesting if you can get ahold of it.  Have fun with the book your writing!

dr hovind??  that guy who calls himself a doctor because he got his doctoral degree at a 'university' that he created in his basement??

sorry, that guy isn't a doctor of anything.  the scientific community doesn't recognize any degree that you give yourself, i'm afraid.  calling him "doctor" is a farce.

in fact, from what i remember, even most creationists try and distance themselves from that dude.

Now, now, Sighs - be fair...  Many 'Creationists' don't need to "try and distance themselves" - only those who aren't in the same prison...    But yeah - "Dr. Hovind" - what a hoot! 

Sincerely,  Lord and Master Brett (of this Universe, only... FWIW).

So-called "macro evolution" - that is, speciation - has been observed, of course.  The term as creationists use is isn't even valid.

0
false

18 pt
18 pt
0
0

false
false
false

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

"Can you explain scientifically the genetic mechanism which permits all manner of 'variation’ within a 'kind' but somehow slams the door shut at the 'kind barrier', preventing one 'kind' from 'varying' into another kind'?" -- Ian Wood, responding to creationists chanting 'micro but not macro'.

Just as the idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe had to give way to scientific observation that disproved it, so too does "young earth" creationism, or indeed any version of the origins of the universe that involve it appearing full blown out of "not universe"/the back of a tortoise/a gigantic flower/etc, have to give way to the observations that have disproved it.

Not that its surprising that some like mg and phreeky cling to it. After all, it took over a hundred years for plate tectonics to be accepted, and that was just a debate between a bunch of science types. (grinning at brett).

I'm with James and Arm though. "Intelligent Design", in the sense that there is a direction/consciousness that engages the whole in some way. That, as opposed to the Zeus-god mythology of every religion's "creation", is far from off the table. That we know the universe is billions of years old, that we're pretty sure it started from an infinitely dense point, that we have a reasonable handle on the mechanics of how it got from then to now, doesn't negate the fact that we've no more certainty about the "what was here before here existed" than our ancestors did.

What!  What are you saying?  The universe did not spring from the back of a tortoise???  I'm shattered.  Bereft.  Forlorn.  Gobsmacked.  A turtle without a shell.

LB

You can't trample infidels when you're a tortoise. I mean, all you could do is give them a meaningful look.          Terry Pratchett

Well. now we're all in the soup - groan.

From what I recall his "degree" isn't even in biology, it's in phys ed.

Well that settles it - no one should doubt their gym teacher.. "gimme 20 laps boys. Bit of physical exertion'll get those fool notions right outta yur haed." Are you sure he was talking about evolution?

Well over a hundred people have claimed the prize, having satisfied the conditions of the challenge. Not surprisingly, Hovind has refused to pay up. Of course, now that he's serving time in federal prison for tax evasion, he probably doesn't even have the money. I think he's out in about 2016, if he serves the full 10 yeara term.

Wouldn't it all depend on where you're standing in the universe whether the earth is young or old? (and whose time measure you were using?)

I am as well.

Watch out Aquaman there is a tough crowd here.  All I said is Kent Hovinds theories are interesting and I get 'blog slapped' and misquoted.  Tough crowd, tough crowd. 

Too the others... he was a math/science teacher and where he got a 'Dr.' degree (Ph.D in education) does not really matter if I find his theories 'interesting.'  Whether he is in prision or not doesn't make his theories any less 'interesting.'  I just looked at the web site and it's $250,000 for the proof of the evolution theory incase someone needs some funding.

As far as teaching beliefs as science no one seems to disagree there?  Carbon dating a penguin to be 3000 - 6000 years old is science?  It was a living penguin!  Science has also had it's share of beliefs turn around because of further investigation such as Flat earth and earth being the center of the universe.  Looks like we all make mistakes.

Thank you for the warning, phreakyteebz. Since we were asked what our view was, I gave mine.

Now, I should add that I believe advancement has taken place since the creation-time.

Further adaptation has occured because each species cooperated within itself to survive harsh external conditions.

However, I am not here to debate these matters with anyone, simply to share. Peace to all.

 .

 phreakyteebz wrote "Carbon dating a penguin to be 3000 - 6000 years old is science?  It was a living penguin! "

You really don't know science at all do you? Why would any legitimate scientist date a living organism? As a matter of fact carbon dating is never used for anything younger than 1945 because of contamination from nuclear fallout and is very seldom used for anything less than a few hundred years

Actually, many legitimate scientists date living organisms. Sometimes they even marry them.

JRT  I guess it was too test the validity of the testing equipment.  Aquaman - very funny!!  You make me chuckle.

Question.  Apparently the sun is losing both mass and diameter. (shrinking)  Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.  So if it is shrinking then the sun used to be bigger.  If by millions and millions of years bigger how often did the dinosaurs die in a day?  By reducing the timeline(young earth) does it not make sense that the sun wouldn't be all that large before thus not being too hot?

heck, i married a living organism myself.  he's pretty cute, too.

I agree with you and your statement, I am researching for a book that I am going to be working on, and one of the areas of the book deals with the old earth young earth belief some people believe that the earth is billions of years old and some beleive that it is roughly 10,000-20,000 years old, I am not trying to take anything away from the glory of God and his creation, just want to know how many people beleive in which theory

It does matter where degrees are granted when people are usign the title that comes with the degree to give their musings some level of credibility.  And a degree (Bachelors Master's or DOctorate) from a non-accredited institution is little more than a nice piece of paper in terms of credibility, just as a scientific paper that is not peer-reviewed is merely a collection of black marks on a piece of paper.

Okay he took advanced math and science classes through east Peoria High School.  Then earned his first 60 credit hours majoring in math and science at Illinois Central College in Illinois.  He then transfered to Midwestern Baptist College in Michigan where he double majored in education and Bible.  He then took several Bible college courses and finished his Masters and Doctorate in educatioin from Patriot University in Colorado.

Alright there's the education.  His theories are still interesting and worth reading up on if someone wants to write a book about old earth/young earth.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. You're assuming that the sun's life span is measured in terms of millions of years - commensurate with the dinosaurs estimated existence on this planet. It isn't. If you understood the basis for measuring the sun's estimated lifespan, you'd recognize the critical flaw in your reasoning. The sun is certainly shrinking. The sun was certainly larger in the past. However, we're working on a magnitude that makes a brief 200M timeframe in which the dinosaurs lived up to today - largely insignificant and completely irrelevent with respect to the argument you're attempting to make.

If you were actually sincere in looking at the sun's mass/size and the likely impact the increase in size 200M years ago might have had on the Earth - there are scientific avenues you could pursue. Instead of trying to fit your weak understanding of a scientific principle into your preconceived "theory" - try some honest investigation and see where the data leads you.

Goodskeptic; So how old is the sun?  Are you saying that the dino's came once the sun was cool enough?  Are you not working out of the preconceived theory of a old earth just as I am working out of a young earth point of view?  I'm not sure I see the 'critical error' yet but I'll admit I no genius.  What do you see as the point I'm trying to make?  Can you point me towards more resources regarding the sun's mass/size?  Can you actually prove your theory of the time line of dino's and suns existence besides it's the common teaching and more generally accepted?

Sorry mg, but if your book presents an "old earth" as a "belief", and of course, since you don't believe it yourself how could you do anything else, then its simply another "blinders on" religious tract. The research that verifies the age of the earth is solid, regardless of whether or not the details are complete. The stuff that passes as "research" to try to make the earth spontaneously combust into existence is 4000 something or other BC doesn't pass muster for anyone except those who willfully ignore the gaping holes and leaps of faith (no pun intended) needed to fill them.

Now, an alternative to an actual "old" earth/universe can be found in Robert Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Justice". In it, his protagonist, a devout "bible-believin'" Christian has the opportunity to ask God why the Bible doesn't line up with science. To which God replies that he made the world old to "mess with their minds" (I'm paraphrasing). So dinosaurs never lived at all. God just put a bunch of fossilized bones in the ground when he gathered the land together out of the waters the way a kid might stick a toy dinosaur in the dirt of a science project.

I kinda like that explanation in a way. Or would, if I believed in a Zeus-like god.

Phreeky says this is a "hard crowd". He's right. This is a good place to come if you don't want people to simply agree with you because they're polite, or because you're the "ministry guy". Not so good if you're looking for the kind of validation that requires the suspension of belief in the laws of nature.

With respect to the scientific methods employed to measure the Sun's age, current mass and rate of hydrogen depletion (helium creation) contributing to the Sun's life cycle phases  - a simple Wiki search will give you all you need. 

If you want to ascertain whether the methods employed have been adequately peer reviewed and rigorously tested  - you can look up the methodolodies you identify in various scientific journals and read about the findings.  

However, if you're looking for some level of actual comprehension - you're going to have to go back to school and study physics - specifically astro-physics I think.

I don't presume to understand the science and math employed to measure the Sun's characteristics. I do accept that the methods employed are peer reviewed - which imparts a level of plausability that suits me.

"Old Earth" theory is not a pre-conceived notion. So no, I'm not playing the hypocrite as you suggest. Old Earth theory was proposed in response to countless scientific observations that directly contradicted the untested "hypothesis" of a young Earth. Accordingly, the new theory, which more adequately explains the observed "facts" in astrophysics and astronomy, was born and reflects our current working theory.

As for "proving" "my" theories with respect to the Dinosaurs estimated existence on Earth and the Sun's age - you've already indicated that you "don't believe" in carbon dating, so I don't see the point in attempting to persuade you there. Though I will say that for a layman to categorically dismiss a highly complex scientific process without actually understanding the science behind it in the first place... is extremely arrogant.

As Galileo said, the bible was meant to explain how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. I would suggest you put the bible down and pick up science text book - and start the slow, laborious process of gaining the necessary knowledge to understand what you're seeking to falsify.

Golden rule wrote 

God just put a bunch of fossilized bones in the ground when he gathered the land together out of the waters the way a kid might stick a toy dinosaur in the dirt of a science project.

I do beleive in dinosaurs and that they did walk this earth, however, science does say that they use carbon dating to find the age of dinosaurs, science has proved that if something was millions or billions of years old, there would be no actually carbon left on the fossil to carbon date it. As for the blinder on gospel tract that you said I was pushing, is fact not fiction, the bible has proven science wrong time after time, I do not have blinders on I respect science very much, just not in the creation sense, for creation it is Genesis all the way

what??  examples please??

okay, here is a breakdown of his 'education'...

midwestern baptist college is a non-accredited college. 

the masters and doctoral degree he has was a correspondence course through patriot university, another non-accredited university.  it was nothing more than a house.

other comments...

- Chemistry professor Karen Bartelt has said that it is "very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one," [emphasis in original] to list oneself in the phonebook as "Dr Hovind", as Hovind has done.

- Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy and an expert on the history of creationism  wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.

- Others have charged that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards and a suspicious tuition scheme.  The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month. Currently Patriot offers a monthly fee, unlike most universities, which only charge per-credit fees.

- Bartelt has stated Hovind's doctoral dissertation is evidence of the poor requirements at Patriot and that Hovind lacks knowledge of basic science.  Bartelt noted that Hovind's dissertaton is incomplete (contains four chapters totaling 101 pages, but Hovind's introduction claims the work is 250 pages with 16 chapters), of low academic quality, with poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style. Bartelt asserts that pages are repeated, references are absent, and it is not an original work with original ideas.  

- Patriot will not send copies of Hovind's doctoral dissertation except with his permission.  As a general rule, doctoral dissertations are published by the associated university and made available to the public, so that other students conducting research in similar areas may use the information in the dissertation as a reference.  Although one copy of the dissertation is on file at the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) the organization is not able to provide it on request because of copyright and distribution restrictions. 

Ahhh...  There's the problem.  Hovind has no theories, just words.