Youth question

Stc95

Stc95

Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
ok so my youth group and I yesterday came up with a question about the whole Dinosaur and Man and the whole Earth being 103218450923175 years old... I told them i would ask you guys and see what ur opinions are.

basicaly we got to the point where God could have created the earth in millions of years, thats where the Earths age comes in. (and yes about the whole seven days i yelled at them about but they said that one of "God's Days" could be 1000 years to us..) and then we go to the part where in the Bible it does make references to giant walking animals (dinosaurs) and then the flood (killed dinosaurs). so i guess the real question was like Abraham a cave man or not.. or something...

Anyway, thanks for helping guys (and Dea & Kel ;))
 
I tend to lean towards the 7 days of creation being simply that seven days. However, it dose not matter so i have never bothered to develop my opinion on the topic much.
 
I'd like to think that yes, he did do it in 6 days with taking a 7th day off to rest as an example to show us how we are to spend our time but those days could potentially be longer than what we know as a day because before we learned how to tell time there was no time and that God himself could be using (or at least to us) a different time system because he is both involved with his creation and out of creation at the same time.
 
i am inclined to think that since it involved this world the time is the same as our time, but again i have no way of knowing
 
Well, you can toss this at them... CARBON DATING! What i have seen, Is that the oldest they have seen is 30 000 - 35 000 years... but there is one problem.. they only can accurately perform carbon dating if the radioactivity stayed constant... so guess who messes with the theories a bit, God. How? ok well the way to mess up carbon dating is with a large presence of water on top of the specimen being dated.... can anyone say the flood? So aparently, this messes up their theories... by making them too young.... compared to what 13billion years? So my question would be... so did they tweak their formula to make objects older? (remotely on this topic... i will post the coolest fact of God EVER)



Oh and also, I believe that God created the earth in 6 days. Cause he rested on the 7th.
 
Last edited:
thats interesting Sdenotter, i wonder what my people will say about that. Personally i think he did create in seven days myself, but thats just what they said above.

Does anyone else have an opinions or things to through out on the topic of creation/age of the Earth/dinosaurs?
 
Well, I cant post the thing i wanted to, because i don't know where it is.

Basically, a group of Biblical Archaeologists found what they believe to be the actual Mount Zion...

Get this, they found a mountain, that has a black top. the thing is, it is granite, but its literally burned 5 inches through the rock. So with a rock 10 inches thick, the top 5 is black and the bottom 5 is normal granite color.

lol the way they got to see this, is they got night vision, waited until dark, and snuck across the Turkish border, (there was a civil war or something) and when the day came, they smashed a piece of the mountain face off, and realized... wow its burned 5 inched down and thats all. Which would explain why Mount Zion was smoking in Leviticus when God came down... (i personally got blown away by that)
 
i dont think it was Civil War. I had always known that the Turkish people dont want other people to go to the mountain because if anyone found out that that is the place that it claims to be, then their religion would be forfeit
 
could not God have created earth already old?

besides, you don't know how much time passes between "in the beginning" and "the earth was formless and void."

just throwing out my 3 cents. ;)
 
Thanks baron, i forgot about that. I'll let you guys know what they say this sunday and wednesday.
 
Actually believe it or not the moon proves the Young Earth Theory. When the Astronauts landed on the moon they expected several feet of moon dust. When they landed on the moon it was several inches. Scientists calculated how much dust would form on the moon over several billion years and it came to feet not inches. Ever wonder why the landing gear on was so high? That is actually why. They expected to sink in several feet of dust.
 
lol that would be funny. "Sir we have landed.." *sinking..* "Sir we have landed again.."
 
lol it would have the Astronauts were very suprised to learn that they did not sink lol.
 
There are many, many problems with radiometric dating, including carbon dating, because of the assumptions inherent in the theory. And none of my professors addressed them in my quantum mechanics and modern physics class, even when we were learning how to do it and perform the calculations. Remember that scientists are just people like the rest of us, and they can be as willfully blind as anyone else.

On the point of days or ages: There are a LOT of things in the scientific world that point to a considerably shorter span of time. But consider this: in the Genesis account, plant life is created on the third day (1:11-12) and the sun on the fourth (1:14-18). If it's ages and not days, that opens up a whole new can of worms...what did the plant life do before the sun was made?

Baron Squirrel said:
could not God have created earth already old?
Click to expand...
That's called "apparent age." Realistically, if the Earth were created in six days, some things would have to be in a complete or mature state to be of any use. Through currently existing methods, such an item would have taken time to reach that point. So, if you didn't know any differently, you would naturally assume it was older.

One easy example would be fruit-bearing plants. Taking Genesis literally, birds and sea creatures were created on the fifth day and the other animals and man on the sixth. If the plants were created on the third day, those plants would be two days old when birds and sea creatures were made and three days old for the rest. So, there needed to be food in place by then, or else the new lifeforms would go hungry.

But how many plants go from seed in the ground to ready-to-eat fruit in only two or three days? If there were fruit in place for the birds and yummy kelp for the sea life by day five, then those plants would appear older than their actual age of two days. Is it dishonest on God's part, as some have claimed? Nope, just practical, and quite well-thought-out.
 
Last edited:
Wow Dea.. that was very insightful.. always like ur mesmer self arnt you? im sure my people will like all this stuff tommarrow.. or well, i guess today. :) (MIDNIGHT FTW!)
 
There are many scientific as well as archaeological evidences of a young earth, but they are simply not 'proof' in scientific terms, not anywhere close to it. For that reason, I feel the need to make one suggestion for those of you who want to argue the 'young earth' theory with your friends and foes - don't make the same mistake that evolutionists and global warming wackos like Al Gore make, by saying essentially 'there is no debate, my side has already been proven'. That is simply not true in terms of the scientific method. There is a VAST amount of scientific and archaeological evidence beyond carbon dating that points to the earth being much older than 5,000 years. To simply dismiss carbon dating as inaccurate, or to present anecdotal evidence of irregularities in the fossil record, doesn't even begin to crumble 'old earth' from a scientific standpoint, nor prove 'young earth'. It is evidence, but not conclusive evidence.

What about from a scriptural standpoint? Does one have to throw the Bible out the window to believe in old earth? That is commonly believed, unfortunately, but it isn't true at all. According to our best current understanding of ancient Hebrew there is SOLID PROOF that the word 'days' can have a broader meaning in certain contexts and NO SOLID PROOF that the context in Genesis prohibits such a broader meaning.

Paul
 
On the subject of scientific inquiry, here's a good summary of the scientific method:
Wikipedia said:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of natural or artificial phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these hypotheses for accuracy. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may assist in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.
Click to expand...

Scientifically, neither evolution nor creation can be proven. Both are beyond the scope of the scientific method: there were no trained observers recording empirical, measurable data, and we can't exactly repeat the experiment...

Scientists can, of course, study anything currently existing, such as fossils, and make all sorts of measurements.
 
Drdino.com has a great sermon on all this stuff! My church had a video they watched last sunday just about this stuff.


and thank you everyone! my youth group really liked all of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top