Old Earth/New Earth?
Another article on the evolution/ID debate. Here is an interesting statistic:
"According to a 2004 Gallup poll, about 35 percent of Americans believe Darwin's theory is well supported by evidence, another 35 percent said it is not and 29 percent said they didn't know enough about it. "
Strange that eventhough only 35% of people accept Darwin's theory, it is taught pretty much as fact.
I'd be interested in some of the Christians who read this blog chime in on the new earth/old earth debate. I don't have a problem believing that God created a mature earth - one that was created to seem old and mature but is only 6,000 years old. After all, he created a fully mature Adam and Eve. This view would necessitate a literal 6-day creation period.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I am totally unconvinced in an old earth scenario that adheres to scientific data and that would suggest that God created the world and certain species evolved over time.
Christian brothers...thoughts?
posted by Charlie Wallace at
10:47 PM
7 Comments:
Ha! I'm not sure if anyone has the strength to tackle this one after the evolution discussion!
I think the mature creation view fails to explain the fossil record without making God look deceptive.
I do not think you can squeeze millions of years into Bibliccla history.
I am not competent to judge Flood Geology arguments, but they do seem to do the best job of explaining geological formations.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Good points Matthew. I agree with those observations, but in the defense of the young earth (or mature earth theory) what do we do with the seven days? The Bible claims they were 24-hour periods. That fact is what makes me hesitant to go either way on this one right now.
The fossils are a result of the flood. We don't know for sure how much time was between the Fall and the flood, but theres time for a diverse ecosystem to spring up, expanding on Gods creation.
One of the arguements for a young earth is the salt content in the oceans. If the earth was around for millions, or even billions of years, the water would have a much higher saline content then it currently does.
Sorry, Charles I was not denying a Six-Day creation. I do uphold a Six-day creation.
I meant that Flood Geology is a better model than Mature Creationism, even though I do not feel competent to judge of all of the Scientific questions involved.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Palm Boy,
Very interesting points. Is there a site or a book that you know of that postulates these theories?
Matthew,
Flood geology. Sounds reasonable. I'd like to know more about that.
Answers in Genesis are the main organization promoting Flood Geology.
The recently deceased Henry Morris really revitalised this approach in the 1960s with his books 'The Genesis Flood', 'The Genesis Record' amd 'Scientific Creationism'. However, there were many scientists in the 19th century who also took this approach.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home