• **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?

You asked, "How can these differences be rectified?" Read it here:


Schroeder shows not only how they can be rectified, but how both can be factually true.
You might enjoy this video...it does require one to think as it requires a slight knowledge of gravity and its effects on time.

It explains how billions of years could have passed in the universe while only 6 literal day on earth passed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You asked, "How can these differences be rectified?" Read it here:


Schroeder shows not only how they can be rectified, but how both can be factually true.
From the beginning of the article: "...basic to this standoff is the question of the age of our universe. Is it an old universe with a history containing fossils of dinosaurs and cavemen, or young with just a few days passing between the creation of the universe and the creation of Adam, the first human being? And if our universe is young, then the so-called ancient fossils were placed in the ground by God to test our faith in the truth of the Bible."

I dislike it when two opposing views are presented as the only possible views, and worse, when the inferences one might draw of one (or both) are assumed as basic implications of the view. Makes me feel like assuming the rest of the article is as poor in logic as the beginning. But I will push on, because what the title sounds like is what I might have written, if I knew enough to make the point.

Later: I read it, and it sounds like what I have supposed, that the two different points of view explain the two different narratives, and that, possibly by mathematical dialog. But I can't follow the math he uses. Still, it was an interesting article. No doubt, though, someone opposed to his notions has reasonable objections to what he is saying.
 
Last edited:
From the beginning of the article: "...basic to this standoff is the question of the age of our universe. Is it an old universe with a history containing fossils of dinosaurs and cavemen, or young with just a few days passing between the creation of the universe and the creation of Adam, the first human being? And if our universe is young, then the so-called ancient fossils were placed in the ground by God to test our faith in the truth of the Bible."

I dislike it when two opposing views are presented as the only possible views, and worse, when the inferences one might draw of one (or both) are assumed as basic implications of the view. Makes me feel like assuming the rest of the article is as poor in logic as the beginning. But I will push on, because what the title sounds like is what I might have written, if I knew enough to make the point.

Later: I read it, and it sounds like what I have supposed, that the two different points of view explain the two different narratives, and that, possibly by mathematical dialog. But I can't follow the math he uses. Still, it was an interesting article. No doubt, though, someone opposed to his notions has reasonable objections to what he is saying.
Christians seem to forget or don't understand there was a global flood as presented in the Noah account...and this flood killed and buried plants and animals which some of the fossilized.
 
Why is it that YECs think the flood can solve all the problems with their view?
Because the false science, called the evolution theory, does not believe the Biblical global flood had happened for why they base the "accuracy" of there dating results on that faulty assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years. So by believing they have accurate dating results, is why they are getting inconsistent carbon dating results which they purposefully gloss over and explained away.

Like carbon dating a living mollusks as 2,300 years old dead. Evolutionists contends that science does not carbon date living things, but they did and all the naysayers have to do is search the internet for that.

Same as carbon dating dinosaur bones which ranges different results of 1,000 years to 100.000 years; evolutionists contends that science knows better than to carbon date dinosaur bones BUT science did it anyway.

The world that serves sin is striving to cover up the Biblica evidence of the global flood.
Astrophysicists estimate the age of the universe using distant stars and measurements based on the rate of expansion of the universe. Any flood global or otherwise would not affect these estimate.
I did not use my reference to the Biblical global flood to debunk that at all but the Bible proves by genealogies in the Old & New Testament that the earth is only 6,000 years old, which God started to create that earth on that 2nd day by creating that firmament ( gravity ) that divide the water from the water in creating a water planet with the upper atmosphere aka the sky or the first heaven.

But note how God did not say it was good on the 2nd day? He said it was good on every other 6 days of creation but not on the 2nd day and that is because He was not done creating the earth until the 3rd day for when he said it was good then.

That means the earth was not there in Day One as that light that was created was to establish "the beginning" by its evening and morning that first day.

That also means the heavens, aka the universe, was not there in Day One for why it was created on Day 4 for the purpose of giving signs, seasons, days and years to the earth that 4th day.

So God created the celestial bodies by His words in that 4th day and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that 4th day and so science cannot use the speed of light t tell us how old the universe is when God commanded her lights to shine on that earth that 4th day.
Also the age of the earth is calculated using a number of different techniques from the oldest known terrestrial and lunar samples. How exactly would a flood, global or otherwise, affect these measurements?
You have to consider what can throw off the rate of decay. It is an assumption that there was no global calamity for why they deny the Biblical global flood and yet Jesus affirmed it as a warning to Christians to be ready to leave all behind or else in Luke 17:26-33.

So what can cause the Biblical global flood if the earth was really young as projected at 6,000 years? look at the asteroid impacts on the moon. Did not science noted that the moon has been slowly moving away from the earth? When did it happen> According to the Bible, 4,000 years ago when using discernment.

The moon controls the rising and the lowering of the tides, right? Since the Bible testified that earth was like a greenhouse world with plants growing even near the poles, like the Tundra regions, and it was being watered by a mist, then what would cause it to rain for the first time? The moon being impacted by asteroids in starting its movement away from the earth, to cause the mist to rise and condense into clouds to rain for the first time on earth.

And then you have to discern what broke up the fountains of the deep? Asteroid impacts on the earth. "Science" got it wrong by designating these asteroid impact happening at different time periods rather than all at ounce at the time of the Biblica global flood. So of course, sediments from the deluge and its receding will throw off the perceptions as if they happened at different time periods rather than consider how a biblical global flood can give that illusion when that false science refuse to acknowledge it.

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that all scientists are under compulsion to not produce any resullts contrary to evolution. But why would astrophysicists and geologists care about the theory of evolution? It has no bearing on their resepctive fields in any way.
I have to give you a link to that movie "Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed" to take you to the video section of the forum since that is the only place allowed for videos, but this will show how the world does suppress the truth in science.

 
Because the false science, called the evolution theory, does not believe the Biblical global flood had happened for why they base the "accuracy" of there dating results on that faulty assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years. So by believing they have accurate dating results, is why they are getting inconsistent carbon dating results which they purposefully gloss over and explained away.

Like carbon dating a living mollusks as 2,300 years old dead. Evolutionists contends that science does not carbon date living things, but they did and all the naysayers have to do is search the internet for that.

Same as carbon dating dinosaur bones which ranges different results of 1,000 years to 100.000 years; evolutionists contends that science knows better than to carbon date dinosaur bones BUT science did it anyway.
You are conflating scientists with science. You wouldn't, I hope, conflate theologians with theology.
 
makesends said:
From the beginning of the article: "...basic to this standoff is the question of the age of our universe. Is it an old universe with a history containing fossils of dinosaurs and cavemen, or young with just a few days passing between the creation of the universe and the creation of Adam, the first human being? And if our universe is young, then the so-called ancient fossils were placed in the ground by God to test our faith in the truth of the Bible."

I dislike it when two opposing views are presented as the only possible views, and worse, when the inferences one might draw of one (or both) are assumed as basic implications of the view. Makes me feel like assuming the rest of the article is as poor in logic as the beginning. But I will push on, because what the title sounds like is what I might have written, if I knew enough to make the point.

Later: I read it, and it sounds like what I have supposed, that the two different points of view explain the two different narratives, and that, possibly by mathematical dialog. But I can't follow the math he uses. Still, it was an interesting article. No doubt, though, someone opposed to his notions has reasonable objections to what he is saying.

Christians seem to forget or don't understand there was a global flood as presented in the Noah account...and this flood killed and buried plants and animals which some of the fossilized.
Yes. I understand that. But what I was referring to as 'inferences' was this: "...if our universe is young, then the so-called ancient fossils were placed in the ground by God to test our faith in the truth of the Bible." What makes the author suppose that is the reason implied, as to why God placed the so-called ancient fossils were in the ground? I'm not saying that God didn't have that in mind, but if I was to suppose too, I'd say there are many other reasons, and that is only one of them, and only a minor one at that.
 
But what I was referring to as 'inferences' was this: "...if our universe is young, then the so-called ancient fossils were placed in the ground by God to test our faith in the truth of the Bible."
Wouldn't that be so different than how God normally does things? Our faith is supposed to be in Christ. If after hearing the gospel, and believing, fossils would have no effect on our faith. Many believers never consider the age of the earth.
What makes the author suppose that is the reason implied, as to why God placed the so-called ancient fossils were in the ground?
That whole argument seems silly to me. If you ask me. :)

Why Almighty God would have to play around with fossils to check on faith, .....:unsure:
I'm not saying that God didn't have that in mind, but if I was to suppose too, I'd say there are many other reasons, and that is only one of them, and only a minor one at that.
 
You are conflating scientists with science. You wouldn't, I hope, conflate theologians with theology.
And how did I do that?

There is real science which has been defined as what can be observed and proven in spite of the naysayers acknowledging that but deflect from it, hoping nobody would notice.

Then what has not been observed and never proven and yet considered as a fact should be considered false science.

Those who participate in that false science such as the evolutionists, are scientists that deals in falsehood, whether they know it nor not.
 
Wouldn't that be so different than how God normally does things? Our faith is supposed to be in Christ. If after hearing the gospel, and believing, fossils would have no effect on our faith. Many believers never consider the age of the earth.
True that.
That whole argument seems silly to me. If you ask me. :)

Why Almighty God would have to play around with fossils to check on faith, .....:unsure:
Silly, perhaps, but when stated as THE reason God placed the fossils in the ground, then I don't know. I will concede, however, that he seemed to make the comparison between the two POV's as rhetorical, just to set up his thesis. It just comes across to me as a bit careless, or pretentious.
 
Because the false science, called the evolution theory, does not believe the Biblical global flood had happened for why they base the "accuracy" of there dating results on that faulty assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years. So by believing they have accurate dating results, is why they are getting inconsistent carbon dating results which they purposefully gloss over and explained away.

Like carbon dating a living mollusks as 2,300 years old dead. Evolutionists contends that science does not carbon date living things, but they did and all the naysayers have to do is search the internet for that.

Same as carbon dating dinosaur bones which ranges different results of 1,000 years to 100.000 years; evolutionists contends that science knows better than to carbon date dinosaur bones BUT science did it anyway.

The world that serves sin is striving to cover up the Biblica evidence of the global flood.

I did not use my reference to the Biblical global flood to debunk that at all but the Bible proves by genealogies in the Old & New Testament that the earth is only 6,000 years old, which God started to create that earth on that 2nd day by creating that firmament ( gravity ) that divide the water from the water in creating a water planet with the upper atmosphere aka the sky or the first heaven.

But note how God did not say it was good on the 2nd day? He said it was good on every other 6 days of creation but not on the 2nd day and that is because He was not done creating the earth until the 3rd day for when he said it was good then.

That means the earth was not there in Day One as that light that was created was to establish "the beginning" by its evening and morning that first day.

That also means the heavens, aka the universe, was not there in Day One for why it was created on Day 4 for the purpose of giving signs, seasons, days and years to the earth that 4th day.

So God created the celestial bodies by His words in that 4th day and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that 4th day and so science cannot use the speed of light t tell us how old the universe is when God commanded her lights to shine on that earth that 4th day.

You have to consider what can throw off the rate of decay. It is an assumption that there was no global calamity for why they deny the Biblical global flood and yet Jesus affirmed it as a warning to Christians to be ready to leave all behind or else in Luke 17:26-33.

So what can cause the Biblical global flood if the earth was really young as projected at 6,000 years? look at the asteroid impacts on the moon. Did not science noted that the moon has been slowly moving away from the earth? When did it happen> According to the Bible, 4,000 years ago when using discernment.

The moon controls the rising and the lowering of the tides, right? Since the Bible testified that earth was like a greenhouse world with plants growing even near the poles, like the Tundra regions, and it was being watered by a mist, then what would cause it to rain for the first time? The moon being impacted by asteroids in starting its movement away from the earth, to cause the mist to rise and condense into clouds to rain for the first time on earth.

And then you have to discern what broke up the fountains of the deep? Asteroid impacts on the earth. "Science" got it wrong by designating these asteroid impact happening at different time periods rather than all at ounce at the time of the Biblica global flood. So of course, sediments from the deluge and its receding will throw off the perceptions as if they happened at different time periods rather than consider how a biblical global flood can give that illusion when that false science refuse to acknowledge it.


I have to give you a link to that movie "Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed" to take you to the video section of the forum since that is the only place allowed for videos, but this will show how the world does suppress the truth in science.


You know none of this actually addressed any of my questions.
 
Why is it that YECs think the flood can solve all the problems with their view?

Astrophysicists estimate the age of the universe using distant stars and measurements based on the rate of expansion of the universe. Any flood global or otherwise would not affect these estimate.

Also the age of the earth is calculated using a number of different techniques from the oldest known terrestrial and lunar samples. How exactly would a flood, global or otherwise, affect these measurements?

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that all scientists are under compulsion to not produce any resullts contrary to evolution. But why would astrophysicists and geologists care about the theory of evolution? It has no bearing on their resepctive fields in any way.

Hi I would offer we must be careful how we hear who we say we do .

It would seem Christians as born again sons of God are loving commanded and empowered to study the living word, in order to seek the approval of Christ . . rightly dividing (interpreting) his living word . Lovingly warning over and over we do not need any dying man to teach us oral traditons .

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Not rightly dividing the corrupted dying rudiments through the philosophies of dying mankind.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

God who created "let there be form" and its testimony seen was "God alone faithfully good" .

God is not made up matter stuff seen .He is not a man as us, neither are His Faithfull Creative ways of human origin

Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of Eternal God will not be found under a microscope our seen with a telescope .He hides his face with his words. (Isaiah 45:15)

Keep in mind although God is no longer adding to his written law. Satan the identity thief. leader . . the king of lying signs to wonder after is still working I heard it through the grape vine of dying mankind . . .overtime 24/7.

Signs and wonders are not Christ's prophecy .In that way it is not possible to deceive the elect (Christians)

Signs follow after prohecy not to be sought after as some sort of gift .

Signs of Christ our teaching master name. . . believers with thier new tongues (prophecy) preaching the gospel it can cast out demons (lying spirit entities) .Empowered by Christ the poison of false prophecy sent with false apostles will not harm those who trust sola scriptura .Sealed with 7 seals till the end of time.

Mark 16:17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen

In the beginning two Geneses one seen the temporal the other spiritual not seen with the human eye . The temporal a shadow of the eternal bride

The new creation (Genesis) new lively rudiments are just over the horizon the last day..

Genesis 2:2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Setting up all that was necesary to strat the gospel propgram Chrsit in a sach fre his wive the bride the church

They were finished preparation made perfect nothing could be added.

The division

Revelation Chapter 2. . . to the letter of the law "death" .Thus shall not or in dying you are deader than a door nail. Setting up the gospel program

Revelation 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Walk (understand the things not seen) by faith the power of Christ understanding. Yoked with him our comforter he makes our burdens lighter.as a lamb unto our feet.

Why as it seems wonder rather than believe prophecy ???
 
True that.

Silly, perhaps, but when stated as THE reason God placed the fossils in the ground, then I don't know. I will concede, however, that he seemed to make the comparison between the two POV's as rhetorical, just to set up his thesis. It just comes across to me as a bit careless, or pretentious.
But why does it have to be He placed those fossils in the ground? Why couldnt they be there from animals that died there
 
But why does it have to be He placed those fossils in the ground? Why couldnt they be there from animals that died there
That, too! And that works in either scenario!

What gets me, is that we seem to assume some status quo according to which God must accommodate OUR thinking. Truth is, if God was to make something now, 14 billion years old, he needn't place anything, but speak the details into existence just as the overall fact is spoken into existence. It is HIS "sayso" that makes a thing so. It isn't a lie, and it isn't fake —it is only WE that don't fit.
 
Last edited:
We will find out one day.
Jesus Christ is both Lord, Savior, and Creator of all things that exist.
And we, who are His, are Light and Salt in the Kingdom of darkness.
 
We will find out one day.
Jesus Christ is both Lord, Savior, and Creator of all things that exist.
And we, who are His, are Light and Salt in the Kingdom of darkness.
Let me put it another way. If I am right, and I'm not saying I am, (but if it makes sense to say that), all this we consider reality and history was spoken into fact complete at the Word of God, then time passage makes no difference, nor does our perception of it. It could be that we enter Heaven, all history done and completed, as WE conceive of it, when in reality the very existence of all fact is not only upheld by God, but it exists "within" his 'sayso', if I may be so crass. HE created, he subjected his creation to frustration, he died to relieve us from that death, and he forever lives with us, in us, and we in him. WE are the ones assigning value judgements onto this view or that.
 
By not distinguishing between science and scientists.
Since you are not quoting me for how I did that, I am still doubting I had done that.
 
That, too! And that works in either scenario!

What gets me, is that we seem to assume some status quo according to which God must accommodate OUR thinking. Truth is, if God was to make something now, 14 billion years old, he needn't place anything, but speak the details into existence just as the overall fact is spoken into existence. It is HIS "sayso" that makes a thing so. It isn't a lie, and it isn't fake —it is only WE that don't fit.
If the natural law and functioning of the universe, which exists at the hand of God, presents the data and information indicating that the universe is 13+ billion years old, and if in fact the universe is only about 10 thousand years old and did not come into being as the data and information indicates, then there is a deception in the facts of that creation. God is not deceptive.
 
Back
Top