Earth's age and Adam's age

[joshua 1 9]

Remember real scientific evidences must be repeatable, testable and verifiable

Just like the Bible has to be translated and interpreted. IF you get your Science right & If you get the Bible right then they will agree and confirm each other. Science and our Bible work together like our left and right hand. Actually a lot of science comes from Kabbalah, like the Big bang and the big crunch. Although Kabbalah calls the crunch a contraction. They explain how infinity becomes finite.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Remember real scientific evidences must be repeatable, testable and verifiable, so the age of earth is at best an rough estimate (we estimate the age from current scientific evidences), the estimation process can be far away from truth. What Degrass said is only a theory (not tested one), so no one knows how much we can trust on that (it could be how the beginning was, but most likely it is not since we are nothing compare to God).

And, it is not until several 'days' later that God created Sun and moon, so before that, the length of day is not determined (i.e. the first night is when there is no light, and between no light and light created by God, it could be trillions of years or just a flash). Even on the day God created the sun, it could either mean the 24 hour day starts count distinctly or God starting to accelerate the earth around sun, which will make the day much longer.

God created light in Genesis 1:3. Only you have to have a reference point. In verse 2 we read that: "the earth was formless and void". So we know that the reference point was the face or surface of the earth. According to Gerald Schroeder the leading expert on OEC, each day in Genesis is half the length of the day before.

We know that the Sun and the Earth are close to the same age - about 4.5 billion years. So your theory that God created the sun and moon several days later is just plan wrong. This is why we have science to help use understand and interpret our Bible.

What is interesting is Jeremiah talks about this also: "Jeremiah 4:23 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." So this can help to give us some insight into Genesis 1:2.

The Earth and the Moon are actually duel planets that have gotten caught in a dance together. The moon is moving away from the Earth and this causes the rotation rate of the Earth to slow down. So the math is not difficult to determine when the earth and the moon occupied the same place at the same time. They believe the moon hit the earth and sort of bounced off. They know the angle or at least have a computer model for what most likely happened.

I have spent a lot of time to verify that there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. No one has ever shown me where there is a conflict. We do have paradoxes to deal with but that is a different subject.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You look too young to be so smart!

It's an old photo. I am 67.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How old are the Dinosaurs,

I did a study on the dinosaurs. It is interesting how many of them died in a flood. That is why Noah's flood is considered to be a paradigm or archetype. This goes back to when the super continent of Pangaea was broken up and destroyed due to plate technotics. They also call this the ring of fire in the Pacific.

 

[miamited]

I fully agree that many ppl believing it doesn't make it true.

Where did Jesus assured us that?

Uhhh, John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[MasterYourLife]

Well with Adam and the creation of the universe we have a paradox. We do know Adam was an adult when God formed him. But that is day one of his life!

The universe would be the same! regardless of any "appearance" it would be day one o the existence of the universe! Age of "rocks" is supposedly determined by radioactive decay, and the age of the universe is supposedly measured by the distance light supposedly travelled!

Well we're assuming that...for whatever reason.

There's no issue with rocks, plants, trees, water, etc., being created with an age older than 1.

Even if the age is "1". God could still have created it in a way where testing shows and older age.

 

[miamited]

HI viacrucis,

Thanks for your reply. You wrote

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant (known as c), c = 299,792,458 meters per second, or about 671,000,000 miles per hour.

Yes, that's how fast light travels when there is nothing but the natural properties of the creation to work upon such things. However, if we allow that everything can only work at all times, including whatever time the creation event took, according to what the natural properties of such things allow, then please explain to me how the water stood on both the right hand and the left hand of the Israelites. Tell me, how did the shadow cast by the sun go back 10 steps.

You see, in all of your explanation, while it is absolutely true so long as there is no interference to act upon such things, i.e., the hand of God, then all of your testimony is true. However, when God sets His hand to do something, well, uh, there is nothing that is impossible for God to do with the physical properties of the earth.

If it is God's desire that His purpose for creating the stars in the heavens were to be for seasons and signs for mankind and that He wanted Adam to observe those seasons and signs as much as He wants you and I to observe those seasons and signs, then God can stretch or set aside or in any way He would like, cause the light from all of those billions of stars that He created to be immediately, yes immediately, to be visible upon the face of the earth.

That's the God I know and so, I'm not willing to say that God's testimony as to the time of the creation event isn't true because we know that the light from the stars can only travel at a certain speed. The God I know can play with the natural properties of this physical realm as easily as a cat plays with a ball of yarn.

And there are at least a dozen other examples to show that God can do things with His creation that are, in fact, impossible...except that God can do it.

Turning water into wine in a mere moment. A process that through natural processes takes months. He can cause an entire river to run with blood, while the rest of the world enjoys fresh clean drinking water. Even people downstream from the very river that He caused to flow with blood. He can cause fire to fall from heaven to burn up a sodden fire pit. And many, many other things.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[zoidar]

Uhhh, John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Don't you think Jesus is refering to the words Jesus spoke to them from the Father, and not specifically the Bible?

"8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me."

Even if Jesus means the Bible, how do you know he meant everything to be litterally true? I mean, some things may be true in the sense that the message is true, but may not be true as an exact historical account.

 

[nolidad]

Well we're assuming that...for whatever reason.

There's no issue with rocks, plants, trees, water, etc., being created with an age older than 1.

Even if the age is "1". God could still have created it in a way where testing shows and older age.

Well radiometric dating is hopelessly flawed and ice core and dendochronology also aren't as accurate as advertised.

It has been shown that an antarctic and arctic season can produce as many as 12-15 ice layers!

Same with tree rings. It is possible that God had accelerated growth to insure the world was a tropical paradise- but there is no warrant for it anywhere. Tree ring dating also is flawed- one tree can have had multiple rings in a season due to climate issues. If we do not know the weqather of each season- one has to make unsure assumptions.

 

[Messerve]

This is, almost literally, the Omphalos Argument, also sometimes known as Last Thursdayism.

It's an attempt to argue away the age of the universe (or earth) by asserting that everything was created with the appearance of age.

The term comes from the word omphalos, meaning bellybutton in Greek. I.e. did Adam have a bellybutton even though he was not born, but created as a mature adult?

The problem with the Omphalos Argument is that it's more than merely the appearance of age that we'd be dealing with, it's more than simply Adam having a navel; it would amount to false memory, Adam having memories of a childhood that never happened. Because the evidence of age we see in creation involves not merely things merely seeming that way, but indeed of events happening--which never did happen if the Omphalos Argument is true.

And what that ends up saying about God is not just bad, it borders on the blasphemous by ultimately arguing that God is a deceiver.

We see the light from stars from billions of light years away. The Omphalos Argument says those stars never existed. The Omphalos Argument results in saying that events with clear records never actually happened. Things that we have records and evidence of don't actually exist.

And in the end it paints a terrible portrait of God, and advocates for the downright heretical. We have a creator who falsifies evidence to deceive us, and a universe which seems one way, but is in fact another way--that is itself a kind of docetism of nature.

All of these things would be perfectly fine for Gnostics; but is very much not fine for Christians. As we confess,

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen."

-CryptoLutheran

I highly doubt Adam had fake memories of a childhood that didn't exist. Why would he need to?? That really doesn't disprove the theory of apparent age at all.

That viewpoint also does not imply that the stars didn't exist, but merely that the light was advanced along it's course more than it would have been if the stars had just been created. So basically, God created the stars and their "light history" at the same time.

No one is saying the fossils don't exist. Merely that they were never living animals and God essentially just created artifacts along with living Creation. Like the wine Jesus created had fermented grape juice from grapes that never really lived (possibly).

It also does NOT make God a blasphemer or a deceiver. He never told Adam that he was a baby once... He also never told anyone that the earth was a "baby".

 

[Jonaitis]

Which chronology do you follow? The Masoretic Text, Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch?

Good question! I am beginning to believe the Alexandrian LXX, but I am still working that out.

 

[Jonaitis]

Then according to you, with all fossil records we should find the Dinosaurs in the Flood record layer.

Continental shift, could cause them to not show up in the East.

Nothing to say about the Geological records?

You either believe the divine text, or you don't. There is no room for gap periods in Genesis.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Except that teh foundation of your thesis is fatally problematic!

Think for a moment of these insurmountable problems.

1. Evolutioanry cosmologists say the universe is c. 13.8 by old.
2. Hubble has supposedly has captured light 13.2 billion light years in deep space/time.
3. The universe started as a singularity of stuff that did not exist prior to the big bang.
4. The big bang created space/time/matter. And hurled what was to become all the existing universe into nothingness in all directions.

Now the problems--

1. If the big bang occurred 13.8 billion light years ago, how can we see multiples of galaxies 13.2 billion light years distant in deep space?

2. Everything began to travel out into the void from the point of the singularity.

3. those galaxies hubble captured the light from are only 600,000,000 younger than the supposed age of the universe.

4. those galaxies (which started as plasma and whatever other funky stuff they say happened in the first nanoseconds of the big bang) had to travel at 20X the speed of light to reach a poiont in deep space in order to shine light 13.2 billion light years ago that is just reaching us now!

5. that means that while travelling at Warp 20 (for you Star Trek fans) it had to take those gasses, space dust etc. and form planets and clumps that later ignited to form the millions of billions of stars that makeup those distant galaxies all the while travelling at 3,720,000/second! To give you an idea of the speed:

Light from the sun travels at the speed of light @ 186,300 miles/sec. and takes 8 minutes to reach us. these galaxies light would take less than 30 seconds to reach us if they were the same distance from us as the sun.

6. It had to travel those speeds, 20X the speed of light. Foir the universe was only supposeldy 600,000,000 old when th elight from those galaxies shone from that point in space time that took 13.2 billion years to reach us!


Another conundrum to solve. We know that those galaxies are not even there where we see the light shining . They have supposedly traveled 13.2 billion years away form that point in space/time according to evolutionary cosmology! so if we are seeing light from something that is no longer where we see that light- why can't we readjust the telescopes and see the light from those galaxies from 12 billion years ago?

How about 10 billion years ago? Certainly the light from those supposed time frames hasn't disappeared and we should see those galaxies light somewhere in the universe.

Or we can accept the words of one who was told by the Creator how it all began>

Genesis 1:1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And y following the genealogies we can deduce that God hurled the universe into space approx 6,000 years ago!

Forgive my density, but I think you only added to my point. (Well, except for the part about the singularity flinging matter and energy that didn't exist before, somehow --i.e. the stuff did come from somewhere, logically, and I say, probably God, unless there can be proven a whole different sort of existence that God caused before the bb.)

All that aside, I see many contradictions with the descriptions I hear of the bb and of quantum physics, primary of which is the logical fallacy of attributing anything to the rule of chance.

To me, First Cause, and that necessarily with intent, i.e. God, is the only logical cause of existence. I believe in the Creator.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Or, God created primordial matter in Genesis 1:1 before bringing it from chaos to order, furnishing it of its emptiness, within the span of six literal days. In that case, we can't speak of the universe as being at any age, except the moment time commenced to the present day. That is not fathomable to understand though...

That may well be more fathomable to a physicist or cosmologist than you realize.

 

[Bobber]

• Dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, as did the other land animals.
• Adam did not have to see them, as there are hardly any, if at all, fossil records in the Near East. They can be found in other continents, but a majority of them are found in the Americas. Since people did not migrate very far between Adam to the Tower of Babel, and there is hardly (if any) fossil record of them existing in Mesopotamia/Near East, then it is safe to conclude they never made eye contact with humans during that span of their existence, thus why it is never mentioned in the Scriptures and why they aren't alive today. Mass migration occurred after the flood, and it is likely they died during the flood. Noah would not have seen them enter the Ark for the aforementioned things above.

I don't know. This seems quite interesting ,

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. Job 40:15-24

Has a tail like a cedar? Seems like the description of a dinosaurs tail.

 

[Jonaitis]

I don't know. This seems quite interesting ,

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. Job 40:15-24

Has a tail like a cedar? Seems like the description of a dinosaurs tail.

Behemoth is the Hebrew word for a beast. Likely refers to a Hippo, but I don't know.

 

[miamited]

HI zoidar,

Thanks for your response:

Don't you think Jesus is refering to the words Jesus spoke to them from the Father, and not specifically the Bible?

I believe that the Scriptures instruct us that both are just as equally true.

In the one place he is referring to his words given to him by the Father. In the other he is talking about His Father's word written in the Scriptures. Both are equally true.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Behemoth is the Hebrew word for a beast. Likely refers to a Hippo, but I don't know.

Hi jonaitis,

Ummm, I've seen a lot of hippos. I've never seen one with a tail much bigger than a cow's tail. I certainly can't imagine anyone describing a hippo's tail like a cedar.

God bless,
In Christ ted

 

[Jonaitis]

Hi jonaitis,

Ummm, I've seen a lot of hippos. I've never seen one with a tail much bigger than a cow's tail. I certainly can't imagine anyone describing a hippo's tail like a cedar.

God bless,
In Christ ted

I don't think the description is about size. It says that his tail moves like cedar. It must be poetic language to describe its appearance, like the fact his tail has a swing motion, like a tree in the wind.

 

[JIMINZ]

You either believe the divine text, or you don't. There is no room for gap periods in Genesis.

Never mentioned gaps.

The time is all accounted for, just not the way you want it accounted.