Young Earth or Old?

[Lon]

I just can't believe that even though the LORD formed the earth to be habitable that the following verse is speaking about the way the LORD originally formed it since it was not habitable at this point in time:

​

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Gen.1:1-2).​

Called the 'gap' theory if that helps. Nick posted a verse for consideration in another thread: Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[Clete]

I mean the science is clear, the earth is hundreds of billions of years old. There isn't any serious debate happening about this within the scientific community.

The scientific community? Why would there be any debate about it within the scientific community? Why would there EVER be any debate about it in the scientific community?

I know you don't get the point of that so let me spell it out....

Science isn't done via debate. Debate is for philosophers and politicians, not scientists. The point being that your statement here betrays a bias and a false premise. You think that if a whole group of atheists stop debating a subject that it means that theory has become facts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that atheistic scientists have every motive in the world to presuppose an super-old earth and every disincentive that could exist to ignore evidence to the contrary. A far more plausible explanation for the lack of debate, as if debate is even necessary to begin with. The age of the Earth is not a matter of opinion.

The Torah? Much less clear whether its meant to be taken literally or not. Based on their lack of scientific understanding and the point of the story not to be an accurate historical or scientific book but a story of God's love, I'd say I believe the science.

This is proof positive that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. You've never even read it. Why bother even stating an opinion on a subject you've never bothered to educate yourself about?

 

[Derf]

Once you've determined a whole entire discipline is uniformly agreed on something within their purview, OK.

But now in order to be responsible you have to entertain the notion of organizational or as Wikipedia calls it regulatory capture, which means, that a whole entire organization is intellectually, spiritually, mentally, corrupted by some interest, party, or political ideology.

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It means truth is compromised within that organization. It means the whole entire organization is not to be trusted.

Are we still on the Roman Catholicism transubstantiation question? Oh, right, this is a different thread.

 

[7djengo7]

I just can't believe that even though the LORD formed the earth to be habitable that the following verse is speaking about the way the LORD originally formed it since it was not habitable at this point in time:

​

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Gen.1:1-2).​

Do you say the earth was not habitable on Day 1, or was it habitable then? What of Day 2? At what point do you say the earth became habitable if it was not habitable on Day 1? Can you believe God formed the earth to be uninhabited? Yet He clearly did: He formed the earth to be uninhabited by man on Days 1 through 5. Had He not, then He'd have put man on the earth on Day 1, and not waited to do so until Day 6. Does that mean that the earth must have been in a state of ruin on days 1 through 5, because it was uninhabited by man during that period?