The Curse of God on the Earth/Cosmos and the Age of the Earth/Cosmos

[Peairtach]

For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.(Romans 8:22, ESV)

Might not the Curse be a factor in giving this world an appearance of great age?

 

[Jack K]

Certainly. It likely is a huge factor. The Bible also tells us there've been biological changes in humans since the fall so that we age now at a much increased rate, and it's reasonable to think similar changes might be true for other parts of creation as well.

Science that incorporates what the Bible tells us about changes since the creation, rather than assuming the natural forces at work now have always been that way, will not necessarily arrive at the conclusion that the earth is very old.

 

[MarieP]

Might not the Curse be a factor in giving this world an appearance of great age?

This thought has occurred to me as well! I would say quite possibly yes.

 

[earl40]

It could IF the earth is "young".

 

[SolaSaint]

A question I have is what would the Curse do to the Earth and Cosmos that wouldnt have been reported in history ove rthe past 6-10 thousand years. Or would it just appear aged without any tramatic events? My brain hurts, sorry.

 

[Peairtach]

A question I have is what would the Curse do to the Earth and Cosmos that wouldnt have been reported in history ove rthe past 6-10 thousand years. Or would it just appear aged without any tramatic events? My brain hurts, sorry.

Some OECs - Old Earth Creationists - posit that the Curse " worked backwards", but I'm not aware of what basis they have for this, or what they mean by this, except as an ad hoc theory to explain the presence of the Curse in the creation at a time which they believe is long before Adam sinned.

Those things created in the days before Adam was created, were clearly made subject to the Curse as a consequence of Adam's sin. I don't know whether that can honestly be called "the curse working backwards" or rather the curse being imposed on all the creation after Adam sinned, including those things that were made in the Days before Adam was made.



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[psycheives]

The claim is that "the earth appears old" because of the layers of earth showing different periods and per carbon dating etc they claim these layers go back millions of years. This claim has been strongly contested and the carbon dating challenged to be inaccurate. But the claim goes like this: So when scientists dig down into the ground, they find different "layers" of soil from different periods. So the top layer will be dirt from the last 100 years and they'll find guns, bullets, shells. Then they'll find a darker layer of dirt that shows a different time period where there was war with canons and older guns and houses were burn and they find a lot of burned artifacts. Then they'll find another layer from the pre-gun era and the'll only have swords. Then they'll go back to pre-sword era and find only spears and arrows. When they date these objects using one of 3? different methods (carbon dating being one of the three), they come up with different dates. The methods do not always agree. But they use these dates to claim that the gun era was 100 years ago. The canon era was 300 years ago. The sword era was 1000 years ago. The arrow era was 10,000 year ago. However, besides the dating methods conflicting with one another and being challenged as inaccurate, they continuously find artifacts in "the wrong layer/era" and this challenges their dates.

A friend shared this link with me: Discovery of Ancient Spear Tips Confounds Evolutionists, ‘Raises Questions on Evolution’ | Christian News Network

 

[Peairtach]

The claim is that "the earth appears old" because of the layers of earth showing different periods and per carbon dating etc they claim these layers go back millions of years. This claim has been strongly contested and the carbon dating challenged to be inaccurate. But the claim goes like this: So when scientists dig down into the ground, they find different "layers" of soil from different periods. So the top layer will be dirt from the last 100 years and they'll find guns, bullets, shells. Then they'll find a darker layer of dirt that shows a different time period where there was war with canons and older guns and houses were burn and they find a lot of burned artifacts. Then they'll find another layer from the pre-gun era and the'll only have swords. Then they'll go back to pre-sword era and find only spears and arrows. When they date these objects using one of 3? different methods (carbon dating being one of the three), they come up with different dates. The methods do not always agree. But they use these dates to claim that the gun era was 100 years ago. The canon era was 300 years ago. The sword era was 1000 years ago. The arrow era was 10,000 year ago. However, besides the dating methods conflicting with one another and being challenged as inaccurate, they continuously find artifacts in "the wrong layer/era" and this challenges their dates.

A friend shared this link with me: Discovery of Ancient Spear Tips Confounds Evolutionists, ‘Raises Questions on Evolution’ | Christian News Network

Yes.

The evidence (or "evidence" ) that the earth is very old obviously bears weight with some Creationists, otherwise we would not have the division between Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists.

I do not find the biblical case for interpreting the Six Days as long periods of time or as a literary framework, at all compelling. I also find the case for approximately 24-hour days, most theologically satisfactory.

I haven't studied closely the empirical evidence for a Younger Earth vs. An Older, but know that there are problems with the latter view, and evidences for the former.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Astro~Physicist Jason Lisle would say that the earth does not have an appearance of age, because age does not have an appearance. And I heard him say recently that when he looks at the universe it appears young to him, and I'd have to agree. I have been listening to him debate for hours lately. I just finished 5 hours of Kent Hovind vs. Hugh Ross which though Kent went a little ad hominum for a portion I think he refuted most of Hugh's views in the commentary on the debate with James Sundquist, who has done an eight-year study on Ross' teachings, and Dr. Dan Faulkner, Professor of Astronomy at University of South Carolina. Fun stuff!

Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate - Dr. Hugh Ross & Dr. Kent Hovind (1 of 3) - YouTube
Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate - Dr. Hugh Ross & Dr. Kent Hovind (2 of 3) - YouTube
Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate - Dr. Hugh Ross & Dr. Kent Hovind (3 of 3) - YouTube