Age of the Earth

LloydK

Active Member
Nov 28, 2015
53
10
74
St. Charles, MO
✟16,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Although I'm a very liberal Christian, I've found that the Creationists are apparently largely correct about the age of the Earth and about evolution. I don't care much about the topic of evolution. But, if the Earth is fairly young, then evolution shouldn't have much effect anyway. By the age of the Earth I really mean the age of the Earth's surface. The probability is that the Great Flood did deposit nearly all of the sedimentary rock strata a few thousand years ago and the fossils were formed in the strata at that time for the most part. A few hundred years after the Flood, a large asteroid hit the former supercontinent and broke it up and caused rapid continental drift. This moved the northern continents northward, which suddenly froze the animals there and started the Ice Age. The best site about this is http://newgeology.us .
 

Martinius

Catholic disciple of Jesus
Jul 2, 2010
3,573
2,915
The woods and lakes of the Great North
✟60,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Although I'm a very liberal Christian, I've found that the Creationists are apparently largely correct about the age of the Earth and about evolution. I don't care much about the topic of evolution. But, if the Earth is fairly young, then evolution shouldn't have much effect anyway. By the age of the Earth I really mean the age of the Earth's surface. The probability is that the Great Flood did deposit nearly all of the sedimentary rock strata a few thousand years ago and the fossils were formed in the strata at that time for the most part. A few hundred years after the Flood, a large asteroid hit the former supercontinent and broke it up and caused rapid continental drift. This moved the northern continents northward, which suddenly froze the animals there and started the Ice Age. The best site about this is http://newgeology.us .
How can the surface of the earth be a different age than the rest of the earth?

There is no scientifically valid evidence for what you are saying, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the earth is quite old. Over 200 years ago scientists were discovering evidence for an old earth, starting with geology. Since then the evidence and the scientific discoveries indicating an old earth and a long process of evolution have multiplied. Much of it is right before your eyes, if you take the blinders off.

Give credit to God for the cause of it all, but credit the process to nature and the understanding of it to the sciences...to geology, physics, chemistry, paleontology, archaeology, biology, climatology, microbiology, genetics, etc., which all point in the same direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ada Lovelace
Upvote 0

xpower

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 24, 2014
445
149
✟105,003.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Although I'm a very liberal Christian, I've found that the Creationists are apparently largely correct about the age of the Earth and about evolution. I don't care much about the topic of evolution. But, if the Earth is fairly young, then evolution shouldn't have much effect anyway. By the age of the Earth I really mean the age of the Earth's surface. The probability is that the Great Flood did deposit nearly all of the sedimentary rock strata a few thousand years ago and the fossils were formed in the strata at that time for the most part. A few hundred years after the Flood, a large asteroid hit the former supercontinent and broke it up and caused rapid continental drift. This moved the northern continents northward, which suddenly froze the animals there and started the Ice Age. The best site about this is http://newgeology.us .

All evidence points to the Earth being old. But nowadays the darwinian theory of evolution is being called into question by many different groups of scientists. http://www.evolutionnews.org/evolution/
 
Upvote 0

Martinius

Catholic disciple of Jesus
Jul 2, 2010
3,573
2,915
The woods and lakes of the Great North
✟60,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All evidence points to the Earth being old. But nowadays the darwinian theory of evolution is being called into question by many different groups of scientists. http://www.evolutionnews.org/evolution/
You use a source that is obviously biased. The science surrounding the theory of evolution and its processes has become more and more complete over the past 150+ years. Many new discoveries and studies, and developments in technology and understanding, have given us a clearer picture of how life developed and of the history of the earth. If anyone has doubts, they are likely letting their desire to believe certain things mask reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ada Lovelace
Upvote 0

Martinius

Catholic disciple of Jesus
Jul 2, 2010
3,573
2,915
The woods and lakes of the Great North
✟60,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sane people know that the earth is Extremely old! I just dont get why some would argue otherwise?
Because they have a need to see the creation stories in the Bible as scientific narrative. An old earth disrupts that view and puts into question the theology based on a literal understanding. The foundation on which they have built their belief system crumbles.
 
Upvote 0

LloydK

Active Member
Nov 28, 2015
53
10
74
St. Charles, MO
✟16,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
By having closed minds, people hamper their ability to learn.

The age of the Earth cannot yet be determined accurately, but the continents consist mainly of sedimentary rock strata over a mile deep on average, which formed probably within 5,000 years ago via the Great Flood. This scientific paper explains how the strata could likely have been deposited from huge tidal waves:
https://www.socalsem.edu/2015/08/09/noahs-flood-the-key-to-correct-interpretation-of-earth-history/

The people with blinders on are those who won't read alternative views or info. By analyzing how each model of rock strata formation might work, it can then be seen which model is most plausible. The paper I linked here explains some of the problems with radiometric dating and the NewGeology site has a section about C14 dating of dinosaur bones, which finds them to be 20 to 30 thousand years old.

Scientists have also found in recent decades that it's possible for rock strata, coal, petroleum, opals and other items to form rapidly. Most fossils would require rapid burial under very heavy overburden in order to prevent complete decomposition and to make fossilization possible.

Conventional science, like most institutions in our society, is paternalistic and male culture operates on domination/submission patterns, which involves a lot of bluffing, which is what authoritarians spend a lot of time doing. Let's evolve past such cultural conditioning.

PS, probably no one knows how old the Earth is, but the best evidence is that the surface was reformed under 5,000 years ago by the Great Flood. I have no need to believe any Bible version. I have no fear of disbelieving that or any other authority. I go with the best evidence I can find.
 
Upvote 0

Goatee

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.
Aug 16, 2015
7,585
3,621
59
Under a Rock. Wales, UK
✟77,615.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
Surface changes constantly though. How deep does this change take effect? Still doesn't change the fact that things can be dated up to a certain time period. There is no evidence as far as can see that dinosaurs existed less that 5,000 years ago!
 
Upvote 0

LloydK

Active Member
Nov 28, 2015
53
10
74
St. Charles, MO
✟16,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I said the dinosaur bones C14 dated between 20 and 30 thousand years. This link has the data: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

And I said the sedimentary rock strata are what appear to have been deposited rapidly during the Great Flood to a depth of over a mile on average, mainly on the continents, which were initially mostly collected together as a supercontinent.

Most people, including those in mainstream science, are not open-minded and believe what they've been told by supposed authorities, instead of doing their own thinking, such as by reading alternative ideas and comparing them. Supposed authorities tend to provide superficial reasoning, which is seldom challenged and is often not at all thorough.
 
Upvote 0

Martinius

Catholic disciple of Jesus
Jul 2, 2010
3,573
2,915
The woods and lakes of the Great North
✟60,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If this wasn't so sad it would be funny. First, Carbon 14 dating can only be used on something that lived 50,000 years or less. Scientists have other ways of dating fossils, rocks and other material that are from millions and billions of years back. So it is ludicrous to think that C14 dating could be of any use in studying dinosaur bones.

It is an impossibility for a supercontinent to split apart and form separate continents "quickly" or as result of processes of thousands or tens of thousands of years. The engine for continental drift is deep in the earth, not on the surface nor caused by surface conditions.

If a huge asteroid hit the earth after the supposed flood, it would have likely destroyed most life forms, including man, just as an asteroid 60 million years earlier did. And man had to be around for this later asteroid if it occurred after the flood. And where is the geological evidence for it? No where, since it didn't happen.

The "best evidence" of the earth's surface having reformed 5000 years ago is no evidence at all. There is nothing to indicate there was a global flood as is claimed by the OP. Floods occur from heavy localized rain or when some barrier holding back a body of water breaks down, releasing a sudden flow that runs downhill, with gravity. A global flood is an impossibility, and there is no physical record of one.

Those who attempt to foist those claims do not subject their data (if any actually exists) and conclusions to peer review. These claims also ignore the work of thousands of scientists from many different countries over the past two centuries. Unless you believe they have all been part of a massive conspiracy stretching around the globe for 250 years or so, the claims have no merit. One would also have to disbelieve the evidence that anyone can see with their own eyes, and can interpret with their own minds. In fact, that is what happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Astute people saw and found things that led them to posit that the earth was much older than had been thought. Over time these suspicions were confirmed.

I really wonder why this thread is even in this forum? There are other forums specifically for this topic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xpower

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 24, 2014
445
149
✟105,003.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You use a source that is obviously biased. The science surrounding the theory of evolution and its processes has become more and more complete over the past 150+ years. Many new discoveries and studies, and developments in technology and understanding, have given us a clearer picture of how life developed and of the history of the earth. If anyone has doubts, they are likely letting their desire to believe certain things mask reality.
So? there is no such thing as an unbiased news source and we don't KNOW how life started or developed, all we are doing is guessing. We don't even know what gravity and energy is. In the last five years the Darwinian theory of evolution has been called into question by an increasingly number of "atheist" scientists because of new discoveries and studies. 5 to 20 Years from now there may be a new dominant theory for how life began. Also remember that "theistic evolution" is NOT "Darwinian evolution".

It's just guessing anyway, "why is it all just guessing?" you might ask, the reason is because some scientific discovery may come up out of nowhere and disprove a current scientific theory about something that has been accepted for years. Happens all the time in science "also if it can't be replicated in a lab then is just guessing and theory" and anyone can make a theory.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Martinius

Catholic disciple of Jesus
Jul 2, 2010
3,573
2,915
The woods and lakes of the Great North
✟60,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So? there is no such thing as an unbiased news source and we don't KNOW how life started or developed, all we are doing is guessing. We don't even know what gravity and energy is. In the last five years the Darwinian theory of evolution has been called into question by an increasingly number of "atheist" scientists because of new discoveries and studies. 5 to 20 Years from now there may be a new dominant theory for how life began. Also remember that "theistic evolution" is NOT "Darwinian evolution".
In the past couple of months I have read several recently published books by noted scientists (at least one being a Nobel laureate) on topics related to life on earth. In each of them, references to past as well as very recent discoveries and ideas are presented, with detailed notes and citations. They show an increasingly more detailed and more complete understanding of the processes of life and its evolution. There is no regression, but rather a progression that continues to solidify evolution as a reality.

It's just guessing anyway, "why is it all just guessing?" you might ask, the reason is because some scientific discovery may come up out of nowhere and disprove a current scientific theory about something that has been accepted for years. Happens all the time in science "also if it can't be replicated in a lab then is just guessing and theory" and anyone can make a theory.
Yes it happens all the time in science, because that is how science works. New discoveries are made, technology improves, and theories are revised. Copernicus came up with a new idea about the solar system which was more correct than the Ptolemic system, and he had some things wrong. But his basic idea was correct and understanding improved over time. Darwin came up with a new theory about evolution (the idea of life evolving had been around for several decades before Darwin) but he didn't get it completely right, as no one knew about the mechanism of evolution or about genetics. That all came later, but instead of showing Darwin to be wrong, those new discoveries refined the understanding of evolution. Einstein didn't think the universe was expanding, and fudged his equations to fit his beliefs. His equation was right, as he later found out. But that's how science works, constantly checking, questioning, revising, proposing new ideas. The process is what makes it work so well.
 
Upvote 0

xpower

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 24, 2014
445
149
✟105,003.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In the past couple of months I have read several recently published books by noted scientists (at least one being a Nobel laureate) on topics related to life on earth. In each of them, references to past as well as very recent discoveries and ideas are presented, with detailed notes and citations. They show an increasingly more detailed and more complete understanding of the processes of life and its evolution. There is no regression, but rather a progression that continues to solidify evolution as a reality.

Yes it happens all the time in science, because that is how science works. New discoveries are made, technology improves, and theories are revised. Copernicus came up with a new idea about the solar system which was more correct than the Ptolemic system, and he had some things wrong. But his basic idea was correct and understanding improved over time. Darwin came up with a new theory about evolution (the idea of life evolving had been around for several decades before Darwin) but he didn't get it completely right, as no one knew about the mechanism of evolution or about genetics. That all came later, but instead of showing Darwin to be wrong, those new discoveries refined the understanding of evolution. Einstein didn't think the universe was expanding, and fudged his equations to fit his beliefs. His equation was right, as he later found out. But that's how science works, constantly checking, questioning, revising, proposing new ideas. The process is what makes it work so well.
I never said "evolution did not happen". intelligent design does not say "no type of evolution happened". What some pro intelligent design scientists say is evolution is a "designed process" not a "random unguided process". That's all.
 
Upvote 0

Martinius

Catholic disciple of Jesus
Jul 2, 2010
3,573
2,915
The woods and lakes of the Great North
✟60,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I never said "evolution did not happen". intelligent design does not say "no type of evolution happened". What some pro intelligent design scientists say is evolution is a "designed process" not a "random unguided process". That's all.
Those "scientists" may say that, and they may (actually almost certainly) would be wrong. I mean no disrespect to you, but the term "intelligent design" always appears in my mind as "unintelligent grasping at straws".

But as a point of fact, you at least strongly implied that evolution did not happen when you wrote "we don't know how life started or developed" and by anticipating a total opposite theory of life, which at this point is simply impossible.

Everyone needs to realize that we cannot have a "young earth" (even one that was millions of years old) if we accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution. As it is, the two ideas do work together to get us to where we are today and where life will be in the future. We should also realize that you and I would not be eating the foods we are today if it were not for the laws of evolution and genetics. So ponder that during your next meal.

The simple reality is that the evidence for evolution and the evidence for an old earth is out there, all around us, right in front of our eyes, under our feet, everywhere. We say we see yet we are blind.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MerriestHouse

Active Member
Supporter
Feb 3, 2016
157
29
Kentucky
✟45,452.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
How can the surface of the earth be a different age than the rest of the earth?

There is no scientifically valid evidence for what you are saying, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the earth is quite old. Over 200 years ago scientists were discovering evidence for an old earth, starting with geology. Since then the evidence and the scientific discoveries indicating an old earth and a long process of evolution have multiplied. Much of it is right before your eyes, if you take the blinders off.

Give credit to God for the cause of it all, but credit the process to nature and the understanding of it to the sciences...to geology, physics, chemistry, paleontology, archaeology, biology, climatology, microbiology, genetics, etc., which all point in the same direction.

God created a mature man, mature seed-bearing bushes and trees, so why would he not first create a mature earth?
 
Upvote 0

Martinius

Catholic disciple of Jesus
Jul 2, 2010
3,573
2,915
The woods and lakes of the Great North
✟60,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God created a mature man, mature seed-bearing bushes and trees, so why would he not first create a mature earth?
Was God purposely deceiving us? Did God want to lead us up multiple dead ends? Did God plant evidence of an ancient, evolved earth to trick us? Did God leave billions of pieces of evidence that would lead us to the wrong conclusions about the earth's origins? Would God create physical laws of nature that man has discovered and used to draw conclusions about our planet and life in it, but that are all false?

That might be your jokester, devious God, but my God would not do that. What you see is what you get.

Obviously I can't accept the myth that God created everything "whole". Nor that any sane God would want to fool us in the way that you claim.
 
Upvote 0

xpower

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 24, 2014
445
149
✟105,003.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Those "scientists" may say that, and they may (actually almost certainly) would be wrong. I mean no disrespect to you, but the term "intelligent design" always appears in my mind as "unintelligent grasping at straws".

But as a point of fact, you at least strongly implied that evolution did not happen when you wrote "we don't know how life started or developed" and by anticipating a total opposite theory of life, which at this point is simply impossible.

Everyone needs to realize that we cannot have a "young earth" (even one that was millions of years old) if we accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution. As it is, the two ideas do work together to get us to where we are today and where life will be in the future. We should also realize that you and I would not be eating the foods we are today if it were not for the laws of evolution and genetics. So ponder that during your next meal.

The simple reality is that the evidence for evolution and the evidence for an old earth is out there, all around us, right in front of our eyes, under our feet, everywhere. We say we see yet we are blind.
I never said there was a "young earth" I think the the earth is old. And NO we don't KNOW how life started.

I believe in "theistic evolution" not "darwinian evolution".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MerriestHouse

Active Member
Supporter
Feb 3, 2016
157
29
Kentucky
✟45,452.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Was God purposely deceiving us? Did God want to lead us up multiple dead ends? Did God plant evidence of an ancient, evolved earth to trick us? Did God leave billions of pieces of evidence that would lead us to the wrong conclusions about the earth's origins? Would God create physical laws of nature that man has discovered and used to draw conclusions about our planet and life in it, but that are all false?

That might be your jokester, devious God, but my God would not do that. What you see is what you get.

Obviously I can't accept the myth that God created everything "whole". Nor that any sane God would want to fool us in the way that you claim.

God made the earth for a dwelling place for his creation of humans. A mature earth has all of it's natural resources for men to use. Adam and Eve didn't think it was a joke when they ate the mature fruit from a mature tree.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xpower

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 24, 2014
445
149
✟105,003.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God made the earth for a dwelling place for his creation of humans. A mature earth has all of it's natural resources for men to use. Adam and Eve didn't think it was a joke when they ate the mature fruit from a mature tree.
That may not be what literally happened.
 
Upvote 0