The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth

Quote Reply
An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth
Before man reached the moon it was assumed by some scientists who were committed to the paradigm involving a moon probably 3.5 billion years old that there would therefore be a very thick layer of dust on the moon. One writer, R.A. Littleton(?), an astronomer and consultant to the U.S. Space Program wrote this, "The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight and strong ultra-violet light and x-rays can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten thousands of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep. And so his theory was that the moon was several miles deep in dust.
Now we are told that astronaut Neil Armstrong read about this and was very concerned that when he stepped out of the spaceship he might sink forever into a suffocating morass of deep dust. On the other hand, he found very little dust at all. If the calculations indicating the rate of dust accumulation were accurate, there was not a billion years worth of dust, there wasn't even a million years worth of dust, there was in fact only a few thousand years worth of dust if dust is formed in that way by ultra-violet light from the sun.
Quote Reply
Re: [allencombs884] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
Hi Allen:

there was in fact only a few thousand years worth of dust if dust is formed in that way by ultra-violet light from the sun.

I guess the answer might be in the question then Allen. IF dust is formed in that way by ultra violet light from the sun. What evidence is there that it is formed that way, and at that rate? Could not a thin layer be formed first which then shields the moon surface from ultra violet light? There is no wind on the moon to disturb it so it would just lay there as a covering, preventing any more dust production from the effects of ultra violet light on the rock underneath.

What was found to be quite interesting though was that the moon is made pretty much of the same stuff as Earth is. And that running the clock backwards from its present orbital velocity and current rate of increase in orbital distance from earth, it looks a lot like it has been there for whole lot longer than the 10,000 years that Biblical fundamentalists would allow. Further more its behavior now means it must have started off much, much closer to Earth than it is now, orbiting much, much quicker than the present 28 day, or thereabout, sequence.

The rate of spin of the Earth is also erratic but steadily winding down. So days and months when earth and moon were young were much shorter than we experience them today.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Jul 12, 2014, 1:37 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
Remember that my post was based upon the opinion of one astronomer so, your, "Ifs" are quite right. His theory needs to be questioned and examined. This is just one area of personal research I am doing at the moment and I thought the idea of sinking in miles of dust with that first step was amusing to say the least.

Naturally my opinion is still that the Earth is young and that evolution is false science. I remain a Biblical fundamentalists and accept God's Word before that of science etc,

Blessings to you
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [allencombs884] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
Allen: Hi

Naturally my opinion is still that the Earth is young and that evolution is false science.

As Voltaire once said something like: ‘I disagree with your opinion, but will fight to the death to preserve your right to express it’.

The trouble with ‘young earth’ theories, as far as I can make out, is that they don’t fit the facts very well, or the facts need to be ‘interpreted’ to fit the theory, rather than supporting it without qualification. They also tend to use scripture as their ‘point of departure’, assuming any evidence that might contradict a literal interpretation of scripture must be ‘suspect’ and therefore inadmissible as evidence. This makes the treatment of the evidence subject to the assumption that the fundamentalist interpretation of scripture is undeniably 'correct'. That is 'unscientific', by which I mean it is 'biased' toward accepting only evidence that conforms to the researchers preconception.

To be fair though, this is not a fault limited only to fundamentalists. Many atheist scientist use exactly the same prejudiced approach to the data, not realizing it is their own mindset that influences their interpretation of the facts.

The thing about ‘evolution’ is that it is rarely treated as (a ‘theory’ that is well supported by ‘evidence’). It is more often either viewed as (‘A Satanic lie’), or as (‘An atheists proof for the refutation of the truth of Scripture’).

Then the battle lines are drawn up and all sensible dialogue ceases, with each side determined not to loose the argument at any cost and willing to ‘use’ whatever ‘evidence’ they imagine they have, to bolster their defensive or attacking positions.

The problem with this approach is that then all research into the question and quest for ‘truth’ is ‘directed’ by the sole aim of ‘winning the battle’, rather than of ‘discovering the truth’.

Although an ‘evolutionist’ therefore, I do not support the private agendas behind either side of the ‘argument’. I am not interested in the outcome of ‘the battle’ or even ‘the war’. I refuse to 'join' either side. I merely want to find ways in which the truth of scripture can be reconciled with the facts of scientific evidence in ways which respect and uphold both disciplines, scientific and theological.

I don’t see it as an ‘either or’ choice. More as a ‘both and . . . .’ depending on the way you view it, kind of solution.

Whatever is ‘True’ is OK by me. God is ‘in it’, because it is ‘truth’. If it contradicts my interpretation of what I think scripture means, I must re-evaluate my interpretation of scripture, because scripture itself does not contradict ‘truth’. Our cherished interpretations of what it means frequently can though.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Jul 13, 2014, 8:33 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [allencombs884] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
I have to take exception to your statements about Neil Armstrong stepping on the moon. Remember that the pictures showed the American flag as if a breeze were flowing? Well... I guess that is another discussion (or not) for another day.
Blessings ~ Sarah
Quote Reply
Re: [praizeop2] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
Hi Sarah.

Remember that the pictures showed the American flag as if a breeze were flowing?

They had thought about that beforehand Sarah. There is a piece of wire holding it up so that the world can see the flag in all its striped and starred glory. You don't think they are going to miss an opportunity to 'show off the flag' just because it would hang limp in the moons lack of atmosphere, do you? No They stiffened Old Glory with a bit of wire sticking out sideways to hold it up.

Since most of the people involved in the enterprise are still alive today I can't believe no one at all has blown the whistle, (if it was all a big fake). Surely anyone privy to such info would have had to be bumped off in case they spilled the beans on the whole affair.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.
Quote Reply
Re: [allencombs884] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
Hi! This thread looks to have run it's course but it is worth reviving. Two points:
(1) God has written two books, the Bible and His created universe. See Romans 1:19-20. Here, God is actually basing His judgement on the fact that the unbeliever has rejected what mankind clearly witnesses in His creation.
(2) Old earth or young earth belief has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of evolution. I think this may be a reason that many "Young Earthers" cling to their position thinking that it is the only position which they can have and that by adopting that position evolution theory can be refuted. Not so: I believe in an old earth and utterly reject the theory of evolution based on the scientific evidence for both. Very briefly; The Big Bang is simply the creation event ex nihilo of Genesis 1:1. Science has finally, through the discoveries beginning with Einstein and Hubble in the 1920s discovered that what the Bible said was true all along. Not that many, if not most scientists will admit it; whether or not they admit it does not change the facts. Regarding evolution, particularly the Darwinian model, science has proved that at least the Darwinian view is utterly, demonstrably false - again there are many scientists that will not accept the scientific data and refuse the possibility of intelligent design. The most exciting work is in microbiology, DNA and the genome. I think the absolute fact, never to be answered other than by intelligent design, is the discovery of information in the cell. "Computer" code so complex in RNA and elsewhere in the cell that no human effort can hope to match it. Even Bill Gates has said that that microbiological code is far more complex than humans have yet designed - by far.
Please, go to YouTube and check out videos by Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer and the Discover Institute, Phillip Johnson, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel and David Berlinski (non-believer but he decimates Darwin and other evolutionary models). I think you will be as intrigued as I have been and have plenty of ammunition, verified by science, to support an argument for the death of evolution. I hope to hear from you. Paul
Quote Reply
Re: [Paulinus] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
CORRECTION: Of course I was wrong (too much of a hurry). The Darwinian evolution model and neo-darwinian models demand an old earth belief. Sorry, Paul
Quote Reply
Re: [Paulinus] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
Thanks for the information brother. I will check it out and get back to you.

God bless,
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [Probiblos1962] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
I watched an interesting science program on TV last night, 'The sky at night'. It was about a huge explosion of light, (about 1,000,000 times brighter than the sun), in space that happened in 2001 and Hubble can actually see the light from it traveling through space and progressively illuminating dust clouds as it reaches them. Not only does this demonstrate how big the universe is, (if even light takes so long to get places in it, that we can sit back and watch it go year by year), but that light traveling to us from the very distant galaxies found by Hubble, started out on its journey toward us as much as 14 billion years ago. This is long long before earth ever existed.

However old earth is, the universe is undoubtedly much older and whatever brought the universe into being very much 'older' than that.

I don't have a problem with 'old'. The God I believe in is everlasting, himself being the beginning and the end of everything that is. I can't see any necessity for a 'young earth'. In fact all the evidence seems to point in the other direction. It is, by human standards, very 'old' and has changed considerably in its 'lifetime' to be what it is today. Undoubtedly it will continue to dynamically 'change', just as it has previously done.

Fortunately Jesus Christ remains the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Now that's 'reliability' for you!

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Interesting Indication of a Young Earth In reply to
Hello Chris,

First, i really like your final statement here, Fortunately Jesus Christ remains the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Now that's 'reliability' for you! He is as reliable with my salvation as He is with anything else. I'm very thankful for that because, if it depended on me, all would be lost.

I have a question for you. Do you believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis teach the following:


1. God created everything in six 24-hour days.
2. Adam and Eve were real people.
3. God cursed a perfect world as a judgment for sin.
4. Noah constructed an Ark by which two of every kind of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal were saved along with Noah's family from a global flood.
5. The confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel produced the language groups that are found around the world today.

I think it is pretty clear that those chapters present themselves as a historical record and not mythology as many believe today. The truth is that they were held as historical until the last 200 years or so.


Let's concentrate on the first part though. Where the days of creation long periods of time or six literal days? The answer is found in the giving of the law at Mt Sinai. It was God speaking in Exodus 20:9-11 and Who stated, "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."


Are those days considered long ages or literal days? Obviously, No one can work 6,000 years and rest the last 7,000 can they. They have to speak of literal days and they also refer to the days of Creation as well. Consistent interpretation demands that they do.

So, What solution is there for the movie you saw? There is only one. God, as an example to man, created a fully functioning universe in six literal days. Consider Adam as an example.



Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6) He accepted Genesis as historical and, either He was right or a deluded (perhaps lying) man and not God in human form.



Adam, on the day of his creation, was exactly 1 day old. Yet, he was able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. He communicated with God and, of course, with Eve as well. He appeared as a full grown man. He had the appearance of age.

On the third day, Genesis 1 states, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." Note the words, 'it was so.' There was no hesitation. The trees were created immediately with fruit and again, the appearance of age.

The same is true of the stars with one exception. God created light first (Genesis 1:3) and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day.

Hubble is seeing things as they are now and the assumption is that they have always acted that way. Truthfully, Not unless God is lying to us in Genesis. Although the Bible is not a historical or scientific textbook per se. When it speaks about historical or scientific events, it is 100% accurate.

God bless, Chris,
Allen