Naw, I'm sure it was more than ten; maybe more like a zillion! :-)
> Maybe a few is asa and acg-l would ask Bill to answer the question
> and send to everyone.
I'm sure everyone is waiting with bated breath to know the answer.
> IS THE EARTH VERY YOUNG?or IS THE EARTH VERY OLD?
> - young meaning up to 20,000 years, and old meaning 4,000,000,000+ years
I've answered this question for you at least twice, and probably more;
the problem is that my answer doesn't fit your either-or grid, so you
keep asking. Why don't you accept the answer I keep giving you? Do you
think that by repeating yourself over and over and over that you will
eventually get me to violate my integrity and give you one of the
answers you are looking for, just to get you off my back? If so, I'm
afraid you don't know me very well.
As I've told you before, I do not know how old the earth is. Supernova
SN1987A strongly implies, using trigonometry and the speed of light,
that the universe is at least 160,000 years old. So far, so good - it's
old. BUT, the wine Jesus created at Cana (John 2:1-11) had the
characteristics of age when it was only a few minutes old. THEREFORE,
things which appear old are not necessarily in fact old. Consequently,
I do not take a position on the age of the earth.
I've seen the arguments stating that the new wine example is not
analogous to the "apparent" age of the universe/earth. I find those
arguments hollow. I believe God could have created consistent with a
literal, face-value interpretation of Genesis and still not be guilty of
deceit. Whether He did create in a short or long time is beyond our
ability to figure out, since God has the ability to override the natural
flow of cause-and-effect and violate natural laws such as gravity by
walking on water, or such as death by resurrecting Himself, or such as
creating new wine to taste old. If others want to believe they know
what God did in the past (YEC or OEC), I have only respect for their
sincere beliefs. But as for me, I choose not to take a position on
something which could logically go either way.
I do take a position on the origin of coal, and would like to get back
to work on that issue. Having clearly given my position on C.G.'s
question, I plan no further response.