• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Age of the earth...Young or old?

@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?
From what I've been told, they no longer use Carbon 14 dating, but do use other methods now. (I still don't trust them, but....)
 
Well, you saved me the trouble of this. Thanks. One problem with many young earthers is they only look at Genesis 1 for the creation account.
Your problem is you need to distort the creation account for your view to work.
Unlike you, I'm not willing to pretzel the creation account.
 
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Job 34>4.
Was I there? Nope....but the sons of God were. Those angels shouted for joy and sang together.
 
Your problem is you need to distort the creation account for your view to work.
Unlike you, I'm not willing to pretzel the creation account.
Nope wrong.

But hey, thanks for your opinion 😉
 
Nope wrong.

But hey, thanks for your opinion 😉
Is it not your view that the sun was already there and the light arrived on earth because the 'clouds" that blocked the sunlight from reaching earth were pushed away on day 4?
 
Because it explains it as such. Obviously you dont see it that way.
I see it the way it's written - the LORD completed his creation of the heavens and the earth in six literal days, then rested on the seventh.

Why do you see it differently?
 
@Alive @David1701 @CrowCross
Could this all have taken place in one 24-hour period? I think if we look for a time period, we miss the whole point. The point is not how long it took God during creation but Hismajesty's wonderful creation which displays His glory. And even though the sun and moon are already there, they have not been adjusted and put in their places to govern the day and night. Nor was there at this time, a life that needed sunlight or a light source to govern their biological clocks.
Given that God has told us what took place in each literal day, that is what we should believe.

The sun, moon and stars were not created until Day Four; whereas, light was created on Day One.

The Creation of the Heavens, Earth and Light

Gen. 1:1-5
(Webster)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night: and the evening and the morning were the first day.

The Creation of the Sun, Moon and Stars

Gen. 1:14-19
(Webster)
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth.
18 And to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
 
Ill answer that after you answer where the thousands of years come from. In scripture.
Carbon, why are you asking Alive that question? I answered it for you previously: the biblical genealogies show that the earth is about 6,000 years old (up to a maximum of about 10,000, if you allow for skipped generations in the genealogies).
 
You mean, "we?"
No, Carbon: believing the creation account (and counting the years in the genealogies), as written, does not lead to millions of years. It is only the millions of years view that is based on speculation.
 
That would only be if your understand ing is the correct understanding. So, nice try. :)

Which is?

I don't think so.

Evolutionists dont believe in God. So, why should we care what they think about the creation?
The evolutionists are where the millions of years came from. They need them for their suppositions even to have a superficial glimmer of sense, which is why they invented them.
 
The evolutionists are where the millions of years came from. They need them for their suppositions even to have a superficial glimmer of sense, which is why they invented them.
🙂 Thanks for your time
 
No, Carbon: believing the creation account (and counting the years in the genealogies), as written, does not lead to millions of years. It is only the millions of years view that is based on speculation.
I agree. Around the time of Darwin a theory arose that the earth had to be old. Those of that time needed a way to fit old earth into scripture.
 
I see it the way it's written - the LORD completed his creation of the heavens and the earth in six literal days, then rested on the seventh.

Why do you see it differently?
To be honest I thought Carbon was above giving answers that really contained no answer.
 
Your problem is you need to distort the creation account for your view to work.
You want to know what my problem is? I’ll tell you what it is, . .

Unlike you, I'm not willing to pretzel the creation account.
I do not like when people think they know me so good, that know me better than I do, they know what I need to start doing and they know what I’m willing and not willing to do.

Talk another time
 
You want to know what my problem is? I’ll tell you what it is, . .


I do not like when people think they know me so good, that know me better than I do, they know what I need to start doing and they know what I’m willing and not willing to do.

Talk another time
You post in short replies...indicating a belief.

When questioned about it....more short non-answered replies are your answer.

My suggestion would then be for you to not post in this thread.
 
You post in short replies...indicating a belief.

When questioned about it....more short non-answered replies are your answer.

My suggestion would then be for you to not post in this thread.
My suggestion for you is to stop. We can talk another time. If you continue your just being a pest and there is no need for it.
Obviously it’s a touchy subject for you. So move on. Thank you 🙂
 
My suggestion for you is to stop. We can talk another time. If you continue your just being a pest and there is no need for it.
Obviously it’s a touchy subject for you. So move on. Thank you 🙂
You were the one who suggested I start a thread on this topic. So I did.
 
You were the one who suggested I start a thread on this topic. So I did.
It’s your attitude. Not the topic.
Let it end here, thanks. 🙂
 
Back
Top