Age of the earth...Young or old?

[CrowCross]

So, your links are all correct then?

Pretty much. The evidence was presented.....show me where it is wrong. You need to move off the surface Carbon.

 

[Alive]

Okay.

Thats obvious.

But wasn't the tree of life that which sustained them for eternal life if they didn't sin?

I see you making a point that just cannot be, so what’s the point.
The tree of Life was a type of Christ who was to come and did come to realize it for us.
Actually, Genesis is more eschatological than anything.
Indeed, all of scripture is about Christ with lots of little bits mixed in that teach us about His creatures, human nature, flesh as opposed to Spirit, and a Wisdom that is God’s as compared to the foolish ‘wisdom of men’.
The real lesson of Creation is its proof of The Creator.
And we get to observe it and worship Him for it.
Pretty cool.

 

[Carbon]

@CrowCross
Ya know, so far, you agreed the Garden of Eden was a local area, not global. I believe you agree, but won't admit the Tree of Life could have kept Adam and Eve alive for eternity if they didn't sin and get kicked out of the garden. Access was blocked by an angel.

The Garden of Eden was paradise. Ever wonder why Eve wasn't at least a bit nervous about the serpent in the Garden? Well, why would she be? In paradise, everything would get along. After all all the animals came to Adam to be named. She had no fear and she never saw the world outside the Garden either.

So during this time in paradise, which was probably timeless, how much time passed outside the Garden? It was still there, the rest of the world. Was it millions or billions of years?

When they trespassed and kicked from the Garden, now they were subject to thorns and all sorts of cursed things. Adam had to work harder out there, Eve will now experience more pain in childbirth.


Things have become different now. How much time has passed? In the Garden? Probably none as far as aging and such. But outside the Garden?

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8.

 

[Carbon]

Pretty much. The evidence was presented.....show me where it is wrong. You need to move off the surface Carbon.

You have humor, ill give you that bro.

 

[Carbon]

@CrowCross
Ya know, so far, you agreed the Garden of Eden was a local area, not global. I believe you agree, but won't admit the Tree of Life could have kept Adam and Eve alive for eternity if they didn't sin and get kicked out of the garden. Access was blocked by an angel.

The Garden of Eden was paradise. Ever wonder why Eve wasn't at least a bit nervous about the serpent in the Garden? Well, why would she be? In paradise, everything would get along. After all all the animals came to Adam to be named. She had no fear and she never saw the world outside the Garden either.

So during this time in paradise, which was probably timeless, how much time passed outside the Garden? It was still there, the rest of the world. Was it millions or billions of years?

When they trespassed and kicked from the Garden, now they were subject to thorns and all sorts of cursed things. Adam had to work harder out there, Eve will now experience more pain in childbirth.


Things have become different now. How much time has passed? In the Garden? Probably none as far as aging and such. But outside the Garden?

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8.

Where would science and evolution agree with this?

 

[CrowCross]

So during this time in paradise, which was probably timeless, how much time passed outside the Garden? It was still there, the rest of the world. Was it millions or billions of years?

Which was probably timeless??? What in the world is that based upon?

 

[Carbon]

Which was probably timeless??? What in the world is that based upon?

Lol. You won't consider anything that differers from your belief.

 

[Carbon]

Which was probably timeless??? What in the world is that based upon?

Yep, makes sense to me.

 

[CrowCross]

Lol. You won't consider anything that differers from your belief.

Yep, makes sense to me.

I suppose.

 

[Carbon]

I suppose.

Well, thanks for considering.

 

[David1701]

Looking at the gravitational pull of the earth on the moon and centrifugal force is interesting. One would think the rate of movement / distance would increase over time as well as tidal forces diminish in relative fashion.

Yes, the distance between the earth and moon is increasing each year (I think it's about 1.5 inches a year, if I recall correctly) and tidal forces will diminish accordingly. The earth's rotation is also slowing each year.

The combination of the above factors means that the moon's recession from the earth was faster in the past, such that it would have been touching the earth (!) about 1.2 billion years ago, if there had really been that much time, which I'm completely convinced there has not.

See below for a scientific discussion of the moon's recession and the age of the earth.

Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

creationwiki.org

 

[David1701]

@David1701 & @Carbon I should point out that the false science of the evolution theory that has tainted all fields of science now, have based the accuracy of their carbon dating results and other such results under the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years.

Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past

"Dr. Tim Heaton, lead author and senior lecturer from the University of Sheffield's School of Mathematics and Statistics, said: "Radiocarbon is best known as the tool by which we date and synchronize many of the various archaeological and climate records from the last 55,000 years. However, past levels of radiocarbon are also critical to understand the sun, the geodynamo, past climate, and changes in the carbon cycle. Recent years have seen a revolution in our ability to construct detailed records of past radiocarbon levels, leading to new insights in the chronology of past climate events, changes in the sun's activity, carbon cycle and fluxes in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels."

Developments in radiocarbon dating have allowed the IntCal Working Group to estimate radiocarbon levels with unprecedented accuracy back to the limits of the technique ~55,000 years ago." ~~ end of quote

Think about that for a moment. Are they calling Jesus a liar since He confirmed the Biblical global flood and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah as a warning to believers to be ready or else be left behind in Luke 17:26-33 KJV

That is ALSO insinuating that if there had been a global calamity such as the Biblical global flood that had happened about 4,000 years ago, then that is why they are getting faulty dating results.

Example, "science" carbon dated the living mollusks as 2,300 years old dead.

Science also carbon dated dinosaur fossil bones and the ranges are from 1000 years old to 100,000 years old.

Those who oppose, will say but science do not use carbon dating test on living things nor on dinosaurs bones, but they did.

CARBON 14 DATING INACCURATE ON SHELLS

At 2 minutes into the video is the results given about that dinosaur in the video.

:::::::::::::::::

I cannot find the article I had read on the internet that talked about those carbon dating results on dinosaurs that were 1000 years old to 100,00 years old and how the science professors address it as errant results to those students that were young earth creationists, but I believe I made my point that even though those that oppose say they do not test dinosaur fossil bones, as you can see in that video, they do.

Then you would think science would have a hard time explaining how a carving of a stegosaurus winded up on an archway in an ancient ruin in Cambodia if mankind had never seen a dinosaur for supposedly hundreds of millions of years.

Dinosaur of Ta Prohm

Not to mention that behemoth in Jo 40:15-17 is a description of a dinosaur. Verse 17 is key.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

footnotes in KJV will have you believe it is a hippo, an elephant, or an alligator, but none of them has a tail like a cedar which is a tree.,

Plus, only in the last decade did "science" discovered that sex organs of a male dinosaurs were internal and yet the latter part of verse 17 already testifies to that.

So it boils down to this; do we believe Jesus and His words or do we continue to rely on that false science with all of their faulty assumptions and false dating results to tell us the truth about the world and the universe we live in?

Molecules-to-man evolution is complete nonsense; in fact, it was the realisation that it's untrue that led me to the conclusion that there must be a God (before I was saved). Many Christians get caught up in it, because they believe the propaganda that is constantly pumped into the T.V., newspapers, films, etc.. They don't realise that it undermines the gospel, as well as contradicting the creation account in Genesis.

You're also right about the foundation for what people believe: if it's not the Bible, then it's a faulty foundation. We need to take science in the light of the Bible, not vice versa.

 

[Carbon]

Molecules-to-man evolution is complete nonsense; in fact, it was the realisation that it's untrue that led me to the conclusion that there must be a God (before I was saved). Many Christians get caught up in it, because they believe the propaganda that is constantly pumped into the T.V., newspapers, films, etc.. They don't realise that it undermines the gospel, as well as contradicting the creation account in Genesis.

You're also right about the foundation for what people believe: if it's not the Bible, then it's a faulty foundation. We need to take science in the light of the Bible, not vice versa.

Indeed.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

I see you making a point that just cannot be, so what’s the point.
The tree of Life was a type of Christ who was to come and did come to realize it for us.
Actually, Genesis is more eschatological than anything.
Indeed, all of scripture is about Christ with lots of little bits mixed in that teach us about His creatures, human nature, flesh as opposed to Spirit, and a Wisdom that is God’s as compared to the foolish ‘wisdom of men’.
The real lesson of Creation is its proof of The Creator.
And we get to observe it and worship Him for it.
Pretty cool.

Yeah! pretty cool…and Wonderful!

 

[David1701]

Yes, I prefer to keep to scripture. Where in the scripture does it teach each day was 24 hours? Nowhere. Even though evidence points to an old earth, new earthers use a silly excuse, "the appearance of age." In other words, God created the earth to look older than it actually is. If you think I'm making this up, look at Henry M. Morris's book, "The Genesis Flood." starting at Pg 232.
Silly if you ask me. Where does scripture ever teach God is deceptive in any way, to make something look millions of years than it actually is without touching on it?

I'll answer your question; but, please note that you made no attempt to answer mine... Why is that? Surely, if you have biblical evidence for the dinosaurs being many millions of years old, you can present it here?

Every time the Hebrew word for day (yom) is mentioned, in the OT, if it is accompanied by number (e.g. day one, day two, etc.), by "morning", or "evening", it means a literal day (and we know that days are roughly 24 hours long, although they would have been shorter, by a few mins., in the past).

Re. the appearance of great age: this is only true if one makes assumptions what an "old" or "young" earth should look like. I don't think that the earth looks billions of years old, but unbelieving secularists do.

And so do young earth believers. I have a couple of books of evidence. As I said, they can't just let things be as they are it seems, because they are so afraid of science being right. In between creationism and Darwinianism, there is a neutral ground. In that area, both sides can gather info. Some agree with scripture, others do not.

Science must be taken in the light of what scripture says, not vice versa. There is no "neutral ground" in this debate - one either believes the Bible (and scientists who believe in creation), or one believes secular, unbelieving scientists and their suppositions.

There are other tests. Besides to my understanding radio carbon is very accurate un to a certain amout of time, then there are other procedures. And if these tests date something at say, 50 million years, then it's not that God created something to look 50 million years, but it may actually be 50 million years.

Carbon dating can only go back thousands of years. There are other radiometric dating techniques, which can, supposedly, go back millions or billions of years, but they rely upon unprovable assumptions.

In God's design, suppose He created the galaxy, the sun, the earth, the moon etc... to keep its orbit for say, 10 billion years. Would you believe for one minute the moon would finally touch the earth, destroying all life? I don't believe so.

That's the wrong way round! The moon started out closer to the earth and is receding from it, at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. The rate of recession was faster in the past.

Also, suppose in eternity God laid out the plan as a sheet of paper with a timeline to show the times and happenings of different things. So, exactly where along this line did God place the earth, moon, and sun? You are only able to figure that out from us still being in existence, and running some tests. If our time in history was placed at the very beginning of God's timeline, then who knows, the moon may have hit the earth by now. If the start of it, or at least of life was placed at say, 8 billion years on God's timeline, you would have 8 billion past years. Therefore, how could you say with any accuracy, that your 6000 years of creation is accurate and only made to look old, and is not actually old? God is not only the Creator, but also the sustainer of life. Keeping in mind, God is not subject to time as we are.

The time period of roughly 6,000 years is taken from the genealogies in the Bible. Even if we allow for the occasional skipped generation, the absolute maximum age would be about 10,000 years.

 

[Carbon]

I'll answer your question; but, please note that you made no attempt to answer mine... Why is that? Surely, if you have biblical evidence for the dinosaurs being many millions of years old, you can present it here?

Every time the Hebrew word for day (yom) is mentioned, in the OT, if it is accompanied by number (e.g. day one, day two, etc.), by "morning", or "evening", it means a literal day (and we know that days are roughly 24 hours long, although they would have been shorter, by a few mins., in the past).

Re. the appearance of great age: this is only true if one makes assumptions what an "old" or "young" earth should look like. I don't think that the earth looks billions of years old, but unbelieving secularists do.


Science must be taken in the light of what scripture says, not vice versa. There is no "neutral ground" in this debate - one either believes the Bible (and scientists who believe in creation), or one believes secular, unbelieving scientists and their suppositions.



Carbon dating can only go back thousands of years. There are other radiometric dating techniques, which can, supposedly, go back millions or billions of years, but they rely upon unprovable assumptions.



That's the wrong way round! The moon started out closer to the earth and is receding from it, at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. The rate of recession was faster in the past.



The time period of roughly 6,000 years is taken from the genealogies in the Bible. Even if we allow for the occasional skipped generation, the absolute maximum age would be about 10,000 years.

Thanks for your reply. Though I don't agree with everything you presented, I respect your views. I hope you understand mine as well.

 

[Alive]

Thanks for your reply. Though I don't agree with everything you presented, I respect your views. I hope you understand mine as well.

I am trying to see where you are coming from. Do you think the billions of years earth history came before Adam and the biblical geneology. Do you believe the orthodox view of the geneology is correct as the Bible lays it out?
Depending on the answer, I may have another question.

 

[Carbon]

I'll answer your question; but, please note that you made no attempt to answer mine... Why is that? Surely, if you have biblical evidence for the dinosaurs being many millions of years old, you can present it here?

Every time the Hebrew word for day (yom) is mentioned, in the OT, if it is accompanied by number (e.g. day one, day two, etc.), by "morning", or "evening", it means a literal day (and we know that days are roughly 24 hours long, although they would have been shorter, by a few mins., in the past).

Re. the appearance of great age: this is only true if one makes assumptions what an "old" or "young" earth should look like. I don't think that the earth looks billions of years old, but unbelieving secularists do.


Science must be taken in the light of what scripture says, not vice versa. There is no "neutral ground" in this debate - one either believes the Bible (and scientists who believe in creation), or one believes secular, unbelieving scientists and their suppositions.



Carbon dating can only go back thousands of years. There are other radiometric dating techniques, which can, supposedly, go back millions or billions of years, but they rely upon unprovable assumptions.



That's the wrong way round! The moon started out closer to the earth and is receding from it, at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. The rate of recession was faster in the past.



The time period of roughly 6,000 years is taken from the genealogies in the Bible. Even if we allow for the occasional skipped generation, the absolute maximum age would be about 10,000 years.

I believe ever since Henry Morris and others with him, in 1963 formed the ICR (Believe that's what it's called) Institute of Creation Research. They overwhelmed the world into believing their way, and of course Kenn Ham joined up. These Christians made it by their influence in society and schools, that if someone thinks outside the box, they are damaging Christianity and the bible. This reminds me of dispensationalists, they believe is you dont agree, you're believing outside the faith. Total nonsense.

As I said before, many are afraid to think outside the ICR people and what they caused for fear if they do they are siding with science.

That's sad.

 

[David1701]

Thanks for your reply. Though I don't agree with everything you presented, I respect your views. I hope you understand mine as well.

Honestly, I don't know what your views are, because you have not presented them (except that you believe in an "old" earth), or any evidence for them.

 

[Carbon]

I am trying to see where you are coming from.

I don't see how you cant tell yet?

Do you think the billions of years earth history came before Adam and the biblical geneology?

Well if it is in fact billions of years, then of course it came before Adam. But I say, during Adam's time in paradise (Garden of Eden) we do not know how much time had passed on the rest of planet earth outside the garden. I also believe not many people consider this, which makes it difficult to figure out at first.

Do you believe the orthodox view of the genealogy is correct as the Bible lays it out?

And what exactly do you believe that is?

Depending on the answer, I may have another question.

Okay