How old is the earth?

[prism]

That is incorrect. According to the theory...

How can we say it is correct or incorrect when working with a theory? (and I did say, 'according to evolutionary theory')

 

[EarlyActs]

I won't even go near 200,000 years, at least as far as mankind on this earth goes. There would be too much genealogy gaps to in to fit the biblical record. Even 20,000 would be stretching things.

There is also another possible reason to shorten the 6000 in current years.

The earth may have moved faster before the cataclysm than after, an annual trip around the sun may have been faster back then, but still called a year. Velikovsky, a pal of Einstein, mentions this. He predicted Jupiter would be found radioactively hot by Viking, and it was.

This would need to be factored into the longevity we find in ancient tables and genealogies.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is also another possible reason to shorten the 6000 in current years.

The earth may have moved faster before the cataclysm than after, an annual trip around the sun may have been faster back then, but still called a year. Velikovsky, a pal of Einstein, mentions this. He predicted Jupiter would be found radioactively hot by Viking, and it was.

This would need to be factored into the longevity we find in ancient tables and genealogies.

Re the faster annual orbit of the earth around the sun:
There is a recent Cal institute of science cosmology documentary that makes similar claims about the universe (various faster celestial motions in the past).

 

[Rella]

No, he was saying the difference between humans and chimpanzees is not 1 percent (99% similar) but more like 14 percent (86% similar).

And he doesn't seem to understand that both are true.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[CrowCross]

No, he was saying the difference between humans and chimpanzees is not 1 percent (99% similar) but more like 14 percent (86% similar).

And he doesn't seem to understand that both are true.

No. Both are not true. The 1% numbers were derived from certain sections of the DNA sequences while other portions such as "junk" DNA were not included.

 

[prism]

There is also another possible reason to shorten the 6000 in current years.

The earth may have moved faster before the cataclysm than after, an annual trip around the sun may have been faster back then, but still called a year. Velikovsky, a pal of Einstein, mentions this. He predicted Jupiter would be found radioactively hot by Viking, and it was.

This would need to be factored into the longevity we find in ancient tables and genealogies.

Too many 'maybes', I wouldn't want to fall into the same type of errors as evolutionary theory does. God's Word is surer.

 

[EarlyActs]

Too many 'maybes', I wouldn't want to fall into the same type of errors as evolutionary theory does. God's Word is surer.

It’s not good to be so trite about what the word says. There was longevity and then the cataclysm and then a rapid Reduction of lifespan. And other cultures that have many elements of the cataclysm also mention a near brush with a celestial object and the face of the moon is a geological witness.

So yes Gods word is more sure because it does not conflict with other known reality but invites it into a unified message.

Even a near collision is known to reduce celestial object speed. Its gravity would also warp the earths crust and there is lots of that.

 

[prism]

t’s not good to be so trite about what the word says. There was longevity and then the cataclysm and then a rapid Reduction of lifespan. And other cultures that have many elements of the cataclysm also mention a near brush with a celestial object and the face of the moon is a geological witness.

It's also not good to mix God's Word with 'maybes', ( that's worse than mixing it with tradition of men.

So yes Gods word is more sure because it does not conflict with other known reality but invites it into a unified message.

It's more sure because of its source.

Even a near collision is known to reduce celestial object speed. Its gravity would also warp the earths crust and there is lots of that.

I like crusts, especially pie crust.

 

[CrowCross]

Too many 'maybes', I wouldn't want to fall into the same type of errors as evolutionary theory does. God's Word is surer.

At the time of the flood some suggest a vapor canopy that blocked harmful radiation collapsed causing shorter life spans.

 

[EarlyActs]

Too many 'maybes', I wouldn't want to fall into the same type of errors as evolutionary theory does. God's Word is surer.

Velikovsky, a Jewish astronomer, also assembled a thorough list of ancient astronomical events, and found a battle in 2 Kings, that coincided with an event mentioned in Chinese records, that would have resulted in fire raining from the sky.

We should welcome such ‘echoes’ in history.

 

[EarlyActs]

It's also not good to mix God's Word with 'maybes', ( that's worse than mixing it with tradition of men.

It's more sure because of its source.

I like crusts, especially pie crust.

I’m not mixing as though combining opposites. I’m showing proof.

You didn’t understand what was said about Acts above. Astronomical proof is not Judaism’s mistaken traditions; why is that hard to understand?

 

[EarlyActs]

It's also not good to mix God's Word with 'maybes', ( that's worse than mixing it with tradition of men.

It's more sure because of its source.

I like crusts, especially pie crust.

I like the earth's crust because it demonstrates the truth of the Genesis cataclysm in physical reality that is with us to today since it happened.

 

[EarlyActs]

Back when discussing historic reality with you about Acts, I said that the things that occurred there are not true by virtue of them being in the Bible; a famine, Claudius, a zealot revolt--they all happened in actual history and are mentioned as key staging or 'props' in the New Testament. The same is true of other OT events.

I asked you if you thought that only events mentioned in the Bible actually happened. Maybe JFK's assassination didn't happen. Or the battle of Blenheim.

Still waiting for a reply.

 

[prism]

At the time of the flood some suggest a vapor canopy that blocked harmful radiation collapsed causing shorter life spans.

Possibly.

 

[prism]

Velikovsky, a Jewish astronomer, also assembled a thorough list of ancient astronomical events, and found a battle in 2 Kings, that coincided with an event mentioned in Chinese records, that would have resulted in fire raining from the sky.

We should welcome such ‘echoes’ in history.

Maybe

 

[prism]

I’m not mixing as though combining opposites. I’m showing proof.

You didn’t understand what was said about Acts above. Astronomical proof is not Judaism’s mistaken traditions; why is that hard to understand?

Life span was reduced because God decreed it, not because of some type of cataclysm.

 

[prism]

I like the earth's crust because it demonstrates the truth of the Genesis cataclysm in physical reality that is with us to today since it happened.

So God's Word is not sufficient to proclaim truth?

 

[EarlyActs]

Maybe

why ever not? what is it about demonstrable proof that bothers you? Have you assessed the opening scene of Mark 2 about proof?

 

[EarlyActs]

Life span was reduced because God decreed it, not because of some type of cataclysm.

Did he say so, or were there also conditions that made this happen? I simply cannot fathom why God would not use things at his disposal to make this happen.

 

[EarlyActs]

So God's Word is not sufficient to proclaim truth?

Of course it is, and it is open to verification. "These things are true and rational"--Acts 26. He meant they are entirely open to verification, proof, demonstration. What have you been reading that you missed this about the Bible?