Age of the earth?

[desmalia]

Paxi, u present an interesting idea. I wish I had the time to give it the thought and reading it deserved. I like it.

I agree. Very interesting.

 

[Ave Maria]

The earth we live on is a young earth. There is tons of evidence for this. Please read the following links:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c011.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/key-age-of-earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

 

[DeaconDean]

DeaconDean, my friend whom I much agree with, what u posted is indeed mostly bad eisegesis punctuated by gobledy

JR

Just to what, are you referring to?

That God does not have the power to simply speak something into existance?

Or that time is relavent to God?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Mod Hat On!

Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Well, I think so, Brain, but if Jimmy cracks corn, and no one cares, why does he keep doing it?


​

Just a brief word here for those who are visitors in the Fundamentalist area. The rules state:

"Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens may choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed etc."

These guidelines apply to all congregational forums that have forum-specific guidelines. If a forum has FSGs, they will be stickied at the top of that forum.

MEMBERSHIP

Only those who agree with a congregational forum’s Statement of Faith may post as members of that forum. Statements of Faith are found in the congregational forum’s forum-specific guidelines (FSGs), found at the top of each specific forum.

All are welcome to post in fellowship.

Those who do not agree with the congregational forum’s Statement of Faith may not debate or post teaching or instruction posts. NOTE: Some forums may allow more debate by non-members than others. If so, it will be stated in their forum-specific guidelines (FSGs).

In general, questions asked in a congregation’s forum should be answered only by members of that forum.

Link

So I'm afraid that unless you agree with:

Statement of Faith:

We adopt the Definition by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976, to wit:


A born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
   • The doctrine of the Trinity
   • The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
   • The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
   • The resurrection of saints to life eternal
   • The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
   • The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

Thus a Fundamentalist can be from quite a few Protestant denominations, even nondenominational. Those that defer to a view that sacred tradition is equal to scripture (not sola scriptura) would not.​

Link

You should not be posting in the general open area.

Thank you for your co-operation.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
​

Mod Hat Off!
​

God Bless

Till all are one.​

 

[Ave Maria]

Mod Hat On!

Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Well, I think so, Brain, but if Jimmy cracks corn, and no one cares, why does he keep doing it?


​

Just a brief word here for those who are visitors in the Fundamentalist area. The rules state:



Link

So I'm afraid that unless you agree with:



Link

You should not be posting in the general open area.

Thank you for your co-operation.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
​

Mod Hat Off!
​

God Bless

Till all are one.​

Thank you DeaconDean!

 

[marktheblake]

maybe you guys should unquote those posts

 

[hazeleyes80]

I believe in young-earth creation and that the Earth is 6000 years old. I'd rather believe God's word in the Bible than man's word and calculations.

 

[BobRyan]

(Having read the Moderator's "who-can-post" post -- and the criteria for "fundamentalist" it appears that I qualify -- so here goes.)

It is clear from Genesis 1-2:3 that all life on earth came about in 6 literal days and that God rested on the 7th day. It is clear that in that literal week - God created light on earth, separated the waters so as to create an atmosphere and then gathered the waters on the surface of the earth to expose dry land. On day 3 He created "two great lights".

And if you add up the life time lists before the flood and also after it - - you can not come up with much more than 6,000 years.

About the only thing that even has a question mark on it -- if you accept God's Word and the bible account for origins -- is whether "the rocks" might be older. But there is no question that life (and so that means any fossil evidence of life we find) is no older than 6,000 years.

But the OP was also about "Science" vs the "Bible". Suffice it to say that science can not "find something that did not exist". I can not find a 60 million year old dinosaur that did not exist 60 million years ago. And that means that 'there is some assuming going on' to come up with guesswork that claims 60 million years of history and dinosaurs.

One big clue that the guesswork is dead wrong is the recent examples of soft-tissue finds in some of these dinosaur fossils.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[rcorlew]

Personally I have yet to see any evidence that would disprove the young earth theory. All rebuttal evidence offered is based on a flawed model that is based on the theory that the previous state can be predicted based on the current state and the future state can also be predicted by the current state. That very theory requires more faith than anything in the Bible.

Old Earth evidence
1) The earth has to be millions of years old, the rate of weathering of the rock in the Grand Canyon require over a million years to create that canyon.

Flaws in that argument
1) The assumption that the entire area within the area of the Grand Canyon was all rock and all the same type of rock that remains in the area. There is no allowance for sedimentary particulates such as clay,sand,and decayed organic matter.

2) The assumption that the current flow rate of water through the canyon can be used to determine the past flow rates and future flow rates. Again there is no allowance for an increase/decrease in flow rates. Each doubling of flow rate increases it's effect by a factor of 10. Easy enough to calculate and understand. Double the amount of water in the river, it will wear away the same amount of rock in 1 year as it would take 10 years at the lower flow rate. Double the flow rate 4 or 5 times and you can achieve rates of deterioration occurring in a thousand years that would appear to have taken millions of years.

I could do all the work to calculate the effects of rapid deglaciation or the effects of the Biblical Flood, all of which produce more than enough water to achieve the results that I had talked of.

I could discuss others, but that would take too much text for a bulletin board/forum.

 

[Sphinx777]

Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years (4.5 × 109 years). This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old. The oldest such minerals analysed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth. It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages. The Acasta Gneiss of Northern Canada may be the oldest known exposed crustal rock.

 

[jlujan69]

Though I subscribe to YEC, there are admittedly two things I can't account for: the sheer size of the universe and the speed of light. One explanation provided by AIG is that since God created everything on Earth fully mature and able to procreate and sustain life, the universe itself was created at its current stage of development. I'd add that perhaps God then accelerated the process of creation. I'd liken this to watching a 30 minute cooking show, where we're shown the complete process of preparing and cooking pot roast. While in real time, it takes 90 minutes, through the "miracle" of tv, everything is done in less than 30 minutes.

 

[Atlantians]

Though I subscribe to YEC, there are admittedly two things I can't account for: the sheer size of the universe and the speed of light.

The Big Bang doesn't account for it either. The universe is too large and the distances are too vast for much of the light to arrive at the destinations we know it is arriving at according to AIG.

One explanation provided by AIG is that since God created everything on Earth fully mature and able to procreate and sustain life, the universe itself was created at its current stage of development.

I'd add that perhaps God then accelerated the process of creation. I'd liken this to watching a 30 minute cooking show, where we're shown the complete process of preparing and cooking pot roast. While in real time, it takes 90 minutes, through the "miracle" of tv, everything is done in less than 30 minutes.

Another option is time dilation.

 

[BobRyan]

Even in the big bank - we have the idea of "inflation" and in the first 3 minutes of time - it is proposed that the entier universe Popped out to a measure of many thousands of lightyears -- much faster than the speed of light. Bottom line is -- they are sounding more and more like "And God said let there be...".

Here is a thread with some good videos exposing many of the flaws in evolutionISM.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7319742

in Christ,

Bob

 

[timbo81]

ya I believe in it.


I also believe though that genesis just explains the very basics.


I don't really waste time trying to prove on a scientific level how light travelled the distance of millions of light years from stars in other galaxies if the earth is only around 6.5k years old. I just accept the fact the light was instaneous in it's travel to earth at creation simply because God commanded it to do so.