How old is the earth and the sun?

joshua 1 9 said:

Or Kurt Wise PhD in geology from Harvard University? Do you question the degree of Geneticist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project?

Click to expand...

Kurt Wise has admitted that there is not any geological evidence that can support an "young earth creationism." He also admits that he did not care.

Francis Collins is no longer Director of the Human Genome Project. That is because there is no longer a Human Genome Project. He is the head of the National Institutes of Health. That is a much bigger job title.

Dr. Collins is not a YEC. He does not deny the fact of evolution, nor the fact that the Solar System is billions of years old. Dr. Collins is an evangelical Christian. Since you have so much respect for him, perhaps you should read his books. One to start with is;

Collins, Francis S.
2006 The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief New York Free Press- Simon and Schuster

He presses the existence of God, and suppresses the young Earth stupidity.

Queller said:

I would like to read that science. Do you have a link or two to your experiments and results?

Click to expand...

Hi,

I have, not been published. Corporate research, the only kind I have done is not normally published, as all it does is tell everyone else, how you are doing things.

Patents in those days, protected almost no one. Trade secrets, were more valuable. As an example, I had a really fun thing I wanted to do one day, after proving a project. I would have needed a few more months, maybe years, but I woukd have my name on a paper, for once in my life, and be published like some of my peers were allowed to do from time to time.

They said no.

Post 301, has the description of method, if you are interested. I have been slowly trying to bring up, Being In The Spirit, as in those five controlled experiments, The Holy Spirit was in All of them, only I didn't know that at the time.

In order to test God, certain conditions have to be true, and they have to be met, by the tester.

1.) It cannot be done by anyone who does not have Fear Of The Lord.
2.) There has to be no other way to find out the information.
3.) You have to have a need.


In scientific terms, Accidentally, yes Accidentally, I met all of those conditions, unbeknown to me.

There is a fourth condition.

4.) If God answers you, never are you allowed to question the results.

I did not know, #4, was there. Maybe that is why, I still only remember one of the controlled experiments, when I ran 5 Controlled experiments. Let me explain.

I am a researcher. Hopefully that is still true. Originally, when I had to do the next step, after the required break, I designed five controlled experiments, but would have done 200 if needed.

I had my answer after the first one was done. Only scientific rigor and discipline forced me to do the next four, and one other item. Maybe, just maybe, one of the other experiments would give a different result.

With that said. My first controlled experiments was: "Honor thy father and thy mother" I knew that was simple. I was 52 years old. I advised and took care of both of my parents, since High School, personally, business wise, armed guard wise, and of course, as their child.

So, I had 35 years of data, as I always tried to honor my mother and my father, because I thought it was a good idea and it seems everybody that I didn't want to think poorly of me, thought that was correct also.

The change was, I was going to do it, just because it was in The Bible, to see if God said that or not.

Does that make any sense? Do you see how it might work? If you do, then you understand the idea of a controlled experiment, enough.

In eighteen months, I had enough information, never ever realizing that I was testing God, and that just plain is normally never allowed. He, God allowed it, but even then I did not know what was going on. I would not know, till perhaps today.

It took at least another year and a half to finish the other four, controlled experiments that were similar.

Data crunching is next. Throwing out any erroneous data points is next. Explaining all points which are too far out in either direction is needed. Handling the variance in the data points is needed. Next, summarizing the data is done. Then, any result, including no result is stated.

As I said before, only then are emotions allowed back in.

Does that make any sense to you? Do you have your answer yet? Remember testing God, if He allows it, is very serious business. I did not know then, that I was testing God. I did not, and I had precisely no other way to handle the Jehovah's Witness Statements, of them being right and everyone else is in a conspiracy against God, and The Bible, if I remember that far back.

So, maybe with no other way to find out, I was allowed to test God, unknowingly, thus learning that: "The Bible is Real, therefore God is Real, because The Bible talks about God. The definition of Real, in The Bible is Real, is, It is true where It says It is True, and It is false where It says It is false." But, it took 8 1/2 years of trying to prove, objectively and scientifically with a proof that would stand up to other scientists like myself, in order to know how to read that book, comparatively and accurately, in a Saint Jerome way, in order to set up those controlled experiments, properly.

The Bible to me is read simply, in what I cannot get wrong. I even to this day, only follow what is so simple that I cannot get it wrong. I don't think that is normal. It is though my life in God, and my way with Him, and my way with religion, and as said, my way with The Bible.

Where are false words, in the Bible?.?????

Two of Job's friends spoke incorrectly about God, said God in Job.

Jesus said, the devil is a liar.

Do, you see how in those two cases, the words of Job's two friends about God are not to be taken as anything else but false. Those words are in The Bible though, aren't they? The same is true of the devils words, not only in Job, but when talking to Jesus, tempting Him, Jesus, in the desert. All words of the devil in the Bible are to be taken as false. Thus those words, It, The Bible, says are false.

LOVE,

By the way, the opening question was "How Old is the Earth, and the Sun."

The formation of at least the dust clumps that eventually lead to the the solar system are at least 4.56 billion years old. The giant smash that produced the Earth-Moon orbital pair was a few hundred million years later. There was liquid water on Earth by 4.3 billion years ago. The "Great Bombardment" of giant asteroids and comets smashing the Earth, cratering the Moon, and giving the Earth most of its air and oceans lasted until about 4.1 billion years ago. The oldest known indication of life on Earth was ~3.8 billion years ago.

These are known facts.

Dr GS Hurd said:

By the way, the opening question was "How Old is the Earth, and the Sun."

The formation of at least the dust clumps that eventually lead to the the solar system are at least 4.56 billion years old. The giant smash that produced the Earth-Moon orbital pair was a few hundred million years later. There was liquid water on Earth by 4.3 billion years ago. The "Great Bombardment" of giant asteroids and comets smashing the Earth, cratering the Moon, and giving the Earth most of its air and oceans lasted until about 4.1 billion years ago. The oldest known indication of life on Earth was ~3.8 billion years ago.

These are known facts.

Click to expand...

There is evidence for these conclusions, but these are not "known facts," let's not overstate the case. Some of the claims are still quite disputed even among secular scientists. For instance, how do we know that the geochemical signatures we have found demonstrate biological activity of first life rather than abiotic processes that masquerade as biosignatures? Additionally, if life can be proven to have started so early, would that not better fit an OEC model rather than an evolutionary one?

The Bible contains some truth and useful information; especially the teachings of Jesus. People who claim it is not historical have to ignore descriptions of events in second Kings that have parallels in other ancient Near Eastern writings of the Assyrians and Babylonians. As for the earth being made in six days. It could not be possible for someone with proper education to describe it that way. Galileo discovered the earth traveled around the sun, not the sun traveled around the earth. Many people of his day thought he was crazy. Everyone "knew" the sun went around the earth. The earth spinning on its axis was not in the Bible. People can not figure out how 7 or 8 million species of animals could fit on Noah's ark. The Bible is a book. It is not God. People should not worship a book.

benelchi said:

NASA's website (science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2015/11jun_skyshow/) uses the very same language to describe the movement of the sun. Do you think they reject the idea that the earth orbits the sun?

"When the sun goes down, step outside and look west. You don't have to wait until the sky fades to black. Venus and Jupiter are so bright, you can see then shining through the twilight. In fact, some people say the planets are especially beautiful when they are surrounded by the cobalt hue of the early evening sky--so don't wait."​

Click to expand...

Could it be NASA is just being Honest, and know for a fact the Sun does indeed rotate above the Earth?

It's crazy, I know, but...........

Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
Psa 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
Psa 19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

The language in Scripture indicates God is just telling us it's the Sun around it's circuit. There is a end, and it starts over again.

We get into these big theological debates about when to take scripture literal. By His Stripes we are healed. If you believe God heals, then it's physical, if you don't believe it's God's will to always heal, then it's spiritual.

Jesus quoted Abraham in Hell. If you don't like the idea of Eternal punishment, then you say it was a parable and Jesus lied about what Abraham said.

I always have taken the Word Literally, until I run into Ecc 1:5. It's just symbolic language, you get up at sun rise, we know for a fact the Earth is Rotating.

Until I questioned what fact makes me not take God's Word literal?

The fact I prayed and did not get healed? Could it be I need to seek more and learn, or am I an expert at praying and if it did not work, then God's fault?

The fact I don't like the idea of eternal punishment? Could it be Jesus would never misquote someone? Could it be the same Greek Word used for Eternal punishment is the same one that described God as Eternal. I can't pick and choose.

The Fact I always have been told the Earth rotates, from the same folk that wants me to believe I came from an ape?

Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

If God said the Earth cannot be moved, is it still flying through space at 67,000 mph around a sun that is traveling at 45,000 mph through the Milky, and rotating all at the same time. Would that be considered moving?

The higher we go up, the curvature of the Earth should become more noticeable.
NASA Proved that Theory WRONG!!!!


World Record Jump. 24 Miles up.


V2 Rocket 1946 65 Miles up.

One can say they just used a fish eye lense, fair enough, but NASA has yet to show us what it actually looks like up there.
Not one picture of the earth is the same, not one picture of Mars is the same, and NASA unashamedly says they pices together all earth photo's from many, then color's and textures them for us, so they are more accurate. Not my words, theirs.

So, when they tell me the Earth is Older than 6,000 years, I have to consider who They are.

Scripture is good enough for me, but if you can wade through the garbage about Satanic cover ups, and Evil free masons, There is science to prove scripture is true. Even Russia of 2015 has demanded NASA find all the Apollo mission data they conveniently lost. All 9,000 boxes of it.

bhsmte said:

Is anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll?

Click to expand...

No, but if your at a christian site and argue with people because you want your non-christians beliefs to be accepted, then your a troll. I mean why else would you fight people that your non-believer view is right? Surely there are non-believer forums to hang out at and to talk down about christians. Though thinking about it I suppose maybe you are here to convert people away from christianity, just as we try to convert non-christians into christians.

I've said before I'm fine with non-believers who are here because they are curious in christianity (and possibly want to be one). And even to some degree non-believers who come here but can have civil debates without mocking christians.

As I was saying said:

That comment would suggest one of two things or both.

One, you have not studied their material in depth.

Two, you have studied their material in depth with the sole purpose to rubbish it.

Click to expand...

They rubbish themselves. They need no help from me.

Timdaniel said:

I think you are wrong but alright. Someone has to be wrong. But no one wants to be that person.

Click to expand...

You think I'm wrong on what? That Ken Harm doesn't know what he's talking about or the use of "yom" in Genesis 1?

If the 2 creation stories weren't woven into the Hebrews recasting of their history, then the age of the earth and sun wouldn't even be an issue. These otherwise saine people would not be defending the young earth ubsurdity.

Timdaniel said:

Ok, I have found a wonderful timeline of the Bible in case you are interested.

Here it is: http://creation.com/real-history-the-timeline-of-the-bible

You just click the "here" button and you can download it. But that is pretty much what I would have told you.

Assuming that when God created the heavens and the earth, and that Adam and Eve were indeed the first people ever, then according to the Bible, this would mean that the earth is only about 6000 years because it has been about 2000 since the time of Jesus, and 4000 + 2000 is 6000. Of course this is rounding the number. But again, who is really counting?

Click to expand...

How do you explain that human beings making Egyptian civilization began showing up 8000 years ago around the Nile Valley? http://www.timemaps.com/civilization/ancient-egypt

The problem with Usher's timeline, and anyone trying to determine a timeline from the geneologies in the Bible is that the geneologies are not complete, they have obvious gabs. Genesis was written to convey a message - that message being that God redeems. You can see this in a basic outline of Genesis:

1. God creates all things good and holy.
2. Disobedience to God brings evil into the world, and humans fall from being holy.
3. God raises people to declare to the world that God will redeem.
4. People continually fall short of God's expectations.
5. In the story of Joseph it shows God will care for and redeem all who trust in God.

Genesis is not a literal history and was never written that way. We know from studying the Hebrew text that there was at least four different authors. Genesis is a collection of stories originally conferred by oral tradition that later was collected to make the Pentatuch.

Please define more clearly your position on God's word. Do you believe the scriptures were inspired in the sense that God dictated word for word in the scriptures? Or do you believe the authors were inspired by God to write of their experiences and thoughts - thus it is not a word for word dictation from God?

katerinah1947 said:

Hi,

One hour almost. The video was quite worth it, and in an area, Chemistry and Geology, which I am not am expert in.

However, this is the second time that I have seen that video. More of it is remembered this time. I'd love a me type, in Geology etc., to give an input on that.

Click to expand...

Hi katerinah1947, I listed some of my credentials back in post # 271, which includes my professional career as a chemist and my academic background in Earth Science. Videos like that really make me sad, as they are not intended for the scientific community, rather the layperson, who are hearing what they want to hear and would not know how to fact check even if they wanted to. There are numerous misrepresentations and claims in the video claiming a young earth. I am not going point out any specifics I have a problem with in the video, as there are so many, rather ask you to pick one and let's discuss it.

Timdaniel said:

And I am not saying that all science is false. I mean, antibiotics do in fact kill bacteria. They made my sinus infection go away, so I cannot complain there. It is the larger problems that I fight for, like the eradication of Creationist beliefs in the classroom or realms of science.

Click to expand...

Eradication of Creationist beliefs in the classroom or realms of science? I think you misunderstand. Even early Jewish theologians did not think the Genesis creation story was to be taken literally. Early Christian theologians such as Origen and Augustine didn't think it was possible for creation to happen in six days. Reformists questioned it - Luther, Wesley, etc.. Christians during the reformation and enlightenment didn't believe it. Actually the demand for a literal scientific interpretation of Genesis to be taught in schools has only been about the last 100 years. Furthermore Creationism doesn't even have a scientific theory to postulate. It just basis its claim that the Bible is without error so Genesis has to be a factual account. Again a recent development of thinking in fundamentalist Christian thinking.

joshua 1 9 said:

Oh very good you found a rapture Bible verse. We know that the righteous will be spared from the Wrath of God. This is what Isa is talking about. The Church will be raptured out of the world the moment before WW3 breaks out that the Nuclear bombs start to fall. The world will have no regard for that. With all the people that have died from the tragedy of the destruction from the war the world will have no regard that the True Church is gone and no longer here. Of course they will still have the harlot church. During the tribulation period there will be 144,000 Hebrew Children that will give witness and testimony for God.

Click to expand...

Hmm want to take that subject to another thread and debate perhaps. As I would argue the bible does not teach of a rapture. That thinking didn't arise until 1830 when Darby decided it was true based on a prophecy a Scotish girl gave when sick with a fever. He then took scripture piece meal to form the Rapture/Tribulation theology. There is no writings by the early Church Fathers teaching about a rapture. Also, there are different timelines developed to explain how things will happen in the end times. But above all your statement of WW3 and the Nuclear bombs is pure speculation and there is no scriptures in the prophecies saying Christ will return after a third world war.

"Mind-Blowing" Discovery: Oldest Body of Seawater Found in Giant Crater


Hundred-million-year-old water was trapped after ancient impact, study says.

By Christine Dell'Amore, National Geographic
PUBLISHED Thu Nov 21 10:08:00 EST 2013




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ldest-seawater-chesapeake-bay-crater-science/

Timdaniel said:

Because what you call physical evidence is actually just a scientist interpreting what he sees through either a telescope, a microscope, or in a test tube. This is not what I call physical evidence of all things. Sure, it might be true for some things but not all.

Click to expand...

Why does it bother you so much that their interpretation of the evidence is given more weight than yours?

daleksteve said:

The dust of the ground would have originally come from star dust, so in effect Sagan is correct.

Click to expand...

Where is the proof?

katerinah1947 said:

Hi,

And if I understand you correctly, you are saying there is a reason to suspect that day is translated improperly, thus agreeing with the past findings, that people get the Bible wrong from time to time, and so far, no one has proven The Bible is wrong, with a valid proof???

LOVE,

Click to expand...

No, you have misunderstood. The only point of my post is that there is an unspecified time period between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. I believe that everything from v.2 and following is literal. Each day is 24 hours.

2 Peter 3:8World English Bible (WEB)
8 But don’t forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This is scripture and not a 24 hour day.

benelchi said:

The translation of Ge. 1:2 was not "an incorrect translation of the Hebrew."

​

To avoid any claims that other verses also have been "mistranslated," I have picked a few verses where interpreting feminine singular perfect form of היה as "to become" makes absolutely no sense. In every case, the common translation is "to be" and not "to become" as can be demonstrated in all reputable English translations.

ורחל היתה יפת־תאר ויפת מראה׃ - but Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance. (Gen. 29:17 ESV)
ויאמרו לא־היתה בזה קדשׁה - "No cult prostitute has been here." (Gen. 38:21 ESV)
והמלאכה היתה דים לכל־המלאכה לעשׂות אתה - for the material they had was sufficient to do all the work (Exod. 36:7 ESV)​

Click to expand...

If you say so.

"Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
And Leah's eyes were weak, but Rachel became beautiful of form and face."

Even weak is a sad translation. "rak: tender, delicate, soft"

As long as we ignore that Rachel was the younger and never grew up we can ignore a proper translation. So Leah had tender or delicate eyes - we would say beautiful eyes (a pretty face), but Rachel grew up to be beautiful of both form and face.

"When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman's hand, he did not find her.
He asked the men of her place, saying, "Where is the temple prostitute who came to be by the road at Enaim?"

You for some reason keep insisting they spoke modern English with modern phrases.

"So Moses issued a command, and a proclamation was circulated throughout the camp, saying, "Let no man or woman any longer perform work for the contributions of the sanctuary." Thus the people were restrained from bringing any more.
For the material they had became sufficient and more than enough for all the work, to perform it."

It is to fall out, come to pass, become, be. - hayah

They did not speak the same as we do now - they used different syntax than we do and different ways of phrasing things in their language.

No, comparing them we can see they were not consistent at all.

While it is possible to make the argument that Ge. 1:2 represents an unusual case and should be translated as "to become" despite the lack of the preposition, the argument is weak and does not represent the normal treatment of this verb. The normal, and expected, translation of this verb is "to be" and not "to become."

Additionally:

1) Jer. 4:23, Isa 34:11 are different use cases, only Jer. 4:23 uses the terms as they are in Ge. 1:2
2) Jer 4:23 does not use the verb היה and so does not aid in how this verb should be interpreted.
3) The verb היה is typically treated as the standard "to be" and not "to become" unless it is followed by the preposition ל, which it is not in Ge. 1:2 (a good example can be found a few verses later in Ge. 2:7 (ויהי האדם לנפשׁ חיה))

​

Click to expand...

No, in Jeremiah 4:23 they incorrectly translate it as they did in Genesis. Do you believe the land of Judah was "formless and void" after it's destruction as it was in the beginning supposedly made of water????? The mountains were quaking while in Genesis supposedly there were no mountains during this condition of formlessness and void. Or is it much more likely that it "became desolate and waste" after it's destruction????? And earthquakes still abounded? And there was no man and all the birds had fled? Does this sound like a primordial state to you or describing the destruction that "became" upon Judah?

I guess if you want to belief it existed in the same state as the earth existed in before God acted (supposedly formless and void) - composed of only water, you are certainly welcome to that belief - but I seriously doubt if one person is going to agree with you.