Age of the earth...Young or old?

[David1701]

You mentioned dinosaurs, I believe they show proof of an old earth.

Yes, and still waiting.

Why do you think that dinosaurs show proof of an "old" earth?

God created all sea and land creatures on days five and six of the creation week. That makes them a maximum of one day older than man (and even that only applies to the marine dinosaurs).

 

[CrowCross]

Then your belief in a young earth will be much harder to prove.

No. The young earth has already been proven. Are you saying an old earth has been proven????

 

[CrowCross]

Miracles are not scientifically impossible. They are acts that supersede natural law. There is no scientific explanation for them, but that does not mean they are impossible. Miracles are observed to have happened; therefore, they are not impossible.

face palm.......what-ever.

 

[CrowCross]

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your question. When God created the heavens and the earth, they were perfect (Isaiah 45:18). In verse 2, they became formless and void (I believe, because of Satan’s rebellion). …but then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light, the beginning of a new age.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. - John 1:1-4

Gen 1 tells us that's exactly what Jesus did.....

18For thus says the LORD,

who created the heavens—He is God;

He formed the earth and fashioned it;

He established it;

He did not create it to be empty,

but formed it to be inhabited: .......As Gen 1 tells us Jesus did it in six days.

“I am the LORD,

and there is no other.

 

[Josheb]

Wouldn't let it bother you.

That kind of statement is one of the reasons for my departure. There's a lo of nonsense going on here in this thread, like the off-topic assumption I am "bothered" (and others are not). Ham's not here. Which is why I so early on specifically wrote about the tendency to outside sources instead of scripture and scripture first. A collective palm to the face should have occurred at the premise dinosaurs were killed in the flood but, more importantly, reason should have presented that premise (and a few others here) from being posted in the first place. It is inane but I'm not bothered by grown men with God-given faculties of reason not using them well and not themselves being bothered by it.

I'm simply unwatching the thread and moving one.

 

[CrowCross]

A collective palm to the face should have occurred at the premise dinosaurs were killed in the flood

The dinosaurs....all but two of their kinds were killed in the flood. It's precisely what the bible teaches.

You spoke of the tendency to use outside sources instead of scripture and scripture first.....and that is exactly what you have done by using the source of mans fallible science and misreading of the geological record and placed it above the very Word of God.

 

[JIM]

face palm.......what-ever.

ignorance.........what-ever

 

[Josheb]

Why could the dinosaurs not have been alive in the antediluvian world? If they were killed in the flood why would they not be buried and fossilized in the rock strata laid down by the flood waters?

As the originator of the thread I say dinosaurs are on topic....as many use them to justify the earth is old by their presence found in the rock strata.

They fail to realize the dinosaurs were killed in the flood.

The dinosaurs....all but two of their kinds were killed in the flood. It's precisely what the bible teaches.

Which means they were NOT all killed in the flood.

Posts 35, 39, and 146 contradict one another. This is not a well-reasoned discussion. It is nonsensically rife with contradictions, logical fallacy, and a disdain for scripture.

In recent post @Carbon and @ShepherdsPie seem to want to talk about the age of the earth and hinted at me starting a new post... so, here it is.

They both seemed to indicate they have biblical verses that support an old earth...by that I believe many millions or even billions of years old. I ask where is the biblical support. Typically this theory ends up with a pre-agamic race of angels, their fall and the destruction of earth is then re-done in Gen 1.

I ask, where is the biblical evidence as well as the scientific evidence.

The opening post was the first post to bring science into the discussion. I was not the one who first broached science. You were.

You spoke of the tendency to use outside sources instead of scripture and scripture first.....and that is exactly what you have done by using the source of mans fallible science and misreading of the geological record and placed it above the very Word of God.

I did not use any outside sources of man's fallible science to measure the earth's age. You are, once again, wrong.



I recommend you start another new op. Start this discussion over and do your part not to contribute to the inanity that commonly occurs when attempting to discuss the earth's age.

 

[Carbon]

Why do you think that dinosaurs show proof of an "old" earth?

I think if we just lock into a young earth we ignore proof that the earth is older than 6,000 years. If the test comes in that they are between 15,000,000 and 65,000,000 years old, it's probably pretty close. Why not? If secular science thinks so also, then good for them, they have something right.

God created all sea and land creatures on days five and six of the creation week. That makes them a maximum of one day older than man (and even that only applies to the marine dinosaurs).

I always appreciate your understanding and love for our Lord. But I have to disagree with you here brother. I won't demand you are wrong, it's very possible I can be wrong. But I just believe to much evidence if for an old earth.

 

[Carbon]

No. The young earth has already been proven. Are you saying an old earth has been proven????

A young earth hasn't been proven. A young earth has been accepted by many Christians, but not proven. Sorry

 

[David1701]

I think if we just lock into a young earth we ignore proof that the earth is older than 6,000 years. If the test comes in that they are between 15,000,000 and 65,000,000 years old, it's probably pretty close. Why not? If secular science thinks so also, then good for them, they have something right.

I always appreciate your understanding and love for our Lord. But I have to disagree with you here brother. I won't demand you are wrong, it's very possible I can be wrong. But I just believe to much evidence if for an old earth.

I remember that, earlier in this thread, you said that you prefer to keep to scriptural evidence; so, what is your scriptural evidence that dinosaurs are many millions of years old?

Secular "science" makes many assumptions, in order to arrive at such ages (e.g. radiometric dating techniques rely on the assumptions that there was no daughter element in the sample to begin with, that there has been no contamination, no leaching and that the rate of decay has remained constant throughout). Not only that, but, different radiometric dating techniques often arrive at wildly different dates.

Then there are the samples of known age that were given to reputable labs for dating, and the results were catastrophically wrong (e.g. rocks created by Mt. St. Helens, in 1980, were dated at 350,000 years old, and minerals within those rocks at up to 2.4 million years old).

Then there are the numerous proofs for a young earth (e.g. the moon is receding from the earth; the moon's presence is required for life on earth (tides, for example); but, if we extrapolate backwards, then an earth billions of years old, would have had the moon touching the earth (the moon even much closer, never mind touching, the earth would destroy the moon and the earth)).

 

[David1701]

A young earth hasn't been proven. A young earth has been accepted by many Christians, but not proven. Sorry

How do you know? Have you examined all the evidence?

 

[Carbon]

How do you know? Have you examined all the evidence?

I have examined evidence from both sides. No one has been able to come forth as of yet and say, "Here, finally, absolute proof!"

 

[Alive]

I remember that, earlier in this thread, you said that you prefer to keep to scriptural evidence; so, what is your scriptural evidence that dinosaurs are many millions of years old?

Secular "science" makes many assumptions, in order to arrive at such ages (e.g. radiometric dating techniques rely on the assumptions that there was no daughter element in the sample to begin with, that there has been no contamination, no leaching and that the rate of decay has remained constant throughout). Not only that, but, different radiometric dating techniques often arrive at wildly different dates.

Then there are the samples of known age that were given to reputable labs for dating, and the results were catastrophically wrong (e.g. rocks created by Mt. St. Helens, in 1980, were dated at 350,000 years old, and minerals within those rocks at up to 2.4 million years old).

Then there are the numerous proofs for a young earth (e.g. the moon is receding from the earth; the moon's presence is required for life on earth (tides, for example); but, if we extrapolate backwards, then an earth billions of years old, would have had the moon touching the earth (the moon even much closer, never mind touching, the earth would destroy the moon and the earth)).

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.

 

[Josheb]

I'll order it. Lol, I have already a bias against it, just by your suggesting it, guessing that he agrees with your trust in the validity of human words and thinking, and the substance of a human POV. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'll learn something.

Bring your critique into the forum when you've finished reading the entire book. I'll discuss it with you.

 

[ChristB4us]

I think if we just lock into a young earth we ignore proof that the earth is older than 6,000 years. If the test comes in that they are between 15,000,000 and 65,000,000 years old, it's probably pretty close. Why not? If secular science thinks so also, then good for them, they have something right.

I always appreciate your understanding and love for our Lord. But I have to disagree with you here brother. I won't demand you are wrong, it's very possible I can be wrong. But I just believe to much evidence if for an old earth.

@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?

 

[Carbon]

I remember that, earlier in this thread, you said that you prefer to keep to scriptural evidence; so, what is your scriptural evidence that dinosaurs are many millions of years old?

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?

Secular "science" makes many assumptions, in order to arrive at such ages

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.

e.g. radiometric dating techniques rely on the assumptions that there was no daughter element in the sample to begin with, that there has been no contamination, no leaching and that the rate of decay has remained constant throughout). Not only that, but, different radiometric dating techniques often arrive at wildly different dates.

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.

Then there are the samples of known age that were given to reputable labs for dating, and the results were catastrophically wrong (e.g. rocks created by Mt. St. Helens, in 1980, were dated at 350,000 years old, and minerals within those rocks at up to 2.4 million years old).

Yes, I have read on this. If we are to go by this one small spot, then we may as well toss out all forms of testing, no matter the contributing conditions.
And again, there are so many who are worried about science that I am not so sure they are 100% honest about these things.

Then there are the numerous proofs for a young earth (e.g. the moon is receding from the earth; the moon's presence is required for life on earth (tides, for example); but, if we extrapolate backwards, then an earth billions of years old, would have had the moon touching the earth (the moon even much closer, never mind touching, the earth would destroy the moon and the earth)).

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.

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.

 

[CrowCross]

Which means they were NOT all killed in the flood.

Yes, the dinosaur kind survived the flood on Noahs ark. Just as the bible proclaims.

 

[CrowCross]

A young earth hasn't been proven. A young earth has been accepted by many Christians, but not proven. Sorry

Whats wrong with a literal interpretation of Genesis? Was Adam not made from the dust then Eve from Adams rib?

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, I prefer to keep to scripture. Where in the scripture does it teach each day was 24 hours? Nowhere.

I beg to differ. I also respect your right to disagree....but, when the days are numbered and then associated with morning and evening which denotes a 24 hour long period of time...coupled with what is written in the 10 commandments...which BTW tells us God created in six days then rested on the seventh.....there is absolutely no reason to assume a day was longer...especially epochs long.