How long ago is it since the creation?

[Eva1974]

This is kind of silly, but I got into a very heated discussion (I know I'm only supposed to be a witness, but when the discussion gets like this, at least I can't keep my mouth shot), and I told him that the earth was only 6000 years old. He got angry and called me all kinds of thing (something I can handle and live with...), but am I wrong on this?

It's just that I don't believe in the evolution theory as he obviously does...

I just need other opinions on this...

Sincerely,

[micah719]

According to Bishop James Ussher in Annals of the World, Creation was in 4004 BC. He did his chronology based on the Masoretic text. He isn't the only chronologer to get that result, and there are scarce any other chronologers to match Ussher or even come close.

The LXX is useless for chronology because apparently Methuselah survived the flood....which should give you an idea as to how reliable it is for anything else, as well. But, that's another story. What, you think God makes mistakes in His word? Or that He didn't preserve it? Not my God...

ICR have good resources on chronology here:

Institute for Creation Research

[Eva1974]

My brother is an ATHEIST, and of course belive in the evolution theory... When I told him I didn't belive the earth was about more than 6000 yrs, he got angry.

[Kist]

My brother is an ATHEIST, and of course belive in the evolution theory... When I told him I didn't belive the earth was about more than 6000 yrs, he got angry.

Wouldn't worry too much about it, sure it's annoying, but people usually get angry when you confront them with the truth, isn't something that is easy to handle, because it makes people uncomfortable.

[twerpv]

Whether dealing with Atheists or Evolutionists, anger is a common theme. Most have not thorougly vetted their believes (of course neither have most Christians) and, I believe, their frustrations/anger stems from uncertainty in their "faith" (btw it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution). When I have had discussions with these folks, it very quickly dives into either frustration or ridicule. Most of them don't know much about what they clame to believe. Unfortunately, most that know me won't bring it up because they don't like facts and logic brought to the 'debate'.

[JAyres]

He believes in evolution?

1. There is currently no known process by which you can create life from non-life.
2. It is scientifically proven that over time DNA looses information, as opposed to gaining information, a requirement for evolution.

Protein, a necessary molecule for living organisms, is constructed from amino acids. There are approximately 2000 amino acids, of which only 20 are used in the creation of proteins. Scientists have successfully recreated an experimental closed system where certain gases in an atmosphere when exposed to electrical jolts (i.e. what they assume must have been the early atmospheric composition, coupled with lightning) can produce amino acids.

Now, amino acids are molecules that have a specific structure, and this can take two forms, what is essentially considered a 'left' form and a 'right' form (same atoms in each, just structurally mirror images of each other). These two forms can bond to each other, and when that happens, the resulting molecule is stable and does not bond to any other molecules. The experiment noted above created both forms, in an equal amount.

Here's where it gets interesting. Protein molecules are constructed only from the left form; the right form is not present in any known protein. When a left form bonds with another left form, they can continue bonding with more molecules to form long chains. If I recall correctly, the right form cannot do this. In a given solution where both forms are present, it's a lot more likely that inert pairings of left-right forms will occur than it is that long chains of left-only forms are produced.

The presence of oxygen (which the previous experiment is devoid of) totally wrecks this pairing. Oxygen inhibits this bonding process; if any oxygen were present in the atmosphere of early earth, this bonding process would be severely dampened, if not outright nullified. Solar radiation from the sun also has a destructive effect on these molecules, so if you assume no oxygen was present in the early earth atmosphere, the solar radiation itself would be so intense as to insure this chemical process would not take place. Additionally, these molecules break down in water, attaching to the water molecule itself, so even if long strands of left-forms were created, they would quickly dissolve in a watery environment.

Now, protein molecules themselves are made of long strings of amino acids that, when finally formed, bend and twist into complex three dimensional structures using ambient thermal energy to perform this folding. This 3D structure itself is a very important aspect of the functionality of a protein molecule, providing very specific areas where other molecules attach. Only when a precise configuration of left-form amino acids is produced can it fold into the specific 3D structure; one molecule out of place, and the 3D structure formed is flawed and cannot perform its function (or it may not fold at all).

So, in order for the first protein molecule to have been formed, a selection of some of the 20 out of 2000 left-form only amino acid molecules must come together in an environment that does not contain oxygen, water, or excessive solar radiation, forming a long strand composed of molecules in an exact order, allowing it to autonomously bend into a specific 3D structure. All this to form one protein molecule, which is but a simple building block of a single cell. I've got a paper that goes into this in much more detail, where even in the most favorable of circumstances, the possibility of forming even the simplest protein molecule in the time frame given by evolutionists between the formation of the earth and the earliest known organism in the fossil record is so tiny that statisticians consider it impossible.

[Montini]

Eva: The earth is extremely old. HOWEVER, in the sense of both secular and sacred history, the "history of salvation" is almost exactly 6000 years old. The Bible is accurate in the chronology of God's dealing with mankind. There is no reliable secular history of man before 4000 BC, confirming the Bible's account of history. However, this does not rule out an earth which is much older. If the members of this forumn believe the earth itself is only 6000 years old, then there is a real problem: Adam, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and all of the Old Testament Patriarchs would have to have lived with/been attacked by/dealt with dinosaurs. This is just not the case. However, I'm sure someone on the forumn will assert that dinosaurs and humans co-existed at the same time,which would be quite a feat: I cannot even get the better of the groundhog in my backyard!

[JAyres]

Well, let's see:

The Behemoth

Are there dinosaurs in the bible?

Just a couple of things off the top of my head.

[IamPJ]

If the members of this forumn believe the earth itself is only 6000 years old, then there is a real problem: Adam, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and all of the Old Testament Patriarchs would have to have lived with/been attacked by/dealt with dinosaurs. This is just not the case. However, I'm sure someone on the forumn will assert that dinosaurs and humans co-existed at the same time,which would be quite a feat:

And what do you base your information on? Just curious as to where you get your beliefs about the age of the earth and dinosaurs. Scientists?

[livin_in_the_Son]

Eva: The earth is extremely old. HOWEVER, in the sense of both secular and sacred history, the "history of salvation" is almost exactly 6000 years old. The Bible is accurate in the chronology of God's dealing with mankind. There is no reliable secular history of man before 4000 BC, confirming the Bible's account of history. However, this does not rule out an earth which is much older. If the members of this forumn believe the earth itself is only 6000 years old, then there is a real problem: Adam, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and all of the Old Testament Patriarchs would have to have lived with/been attacked by/dealt with dinosaurs. This is just not the case. However, I'm sure someone on the forumn will assert that dinosaurs and humans co-existed at the same time,which would be quite a feat: I cannot even get the better of the groundhog in my backyard!

Who can say that it wasn't possible for dinosaurs and humans to coexist? All the information that is available about the behavior, diet, and possible time frame of existance of dinosaurs has never been concrete by any means. Scientists speculate probabilities due to structure of teeth, body frame, and estimate life span based on their own system of carbon-dating, that isn't infallible. Remember, most science is based on theories, not proof, and theories have been disproven in the past, they will be disproven in the future as well. Remember, science accepts the 'theory of evolution', but can't prove it. If humans really evolved from apes, why are there still apes? And why didn't we keep evolving since we're still not perfect?

[dave-o]

The unpopular "ruin/reconstruction" theory of Genesis 1 *might* be correct. In which case nothing alive on the earth today evolved from any prior life forms. We know that satan and the other angels were created before Adam and it's *possible* that it was long before the 6 days of Genesis.