How Old is the Earth?

[Aaron112]

free to accept or deny the science.

Which science - there's at least two - the world/carnal /opposed to God / "false science" which is always in error from the start of anything,
or "creation science" (might go by other names sometimes) which can be wrong but at least is right sometimes.
So then, "free"? to accept or deny "false world's science" or "creation science" ?

 

[FaithT]

For the RCC along with many mainline Protestant denominations the age of the earth is not a moral or faith issue. In other words their adherent are free to accept or deny the science.

Yes, but the official teaching of the LCMS is no evolution and a 6000 year old earth, and Idont like that.

 

[Aaron112]

Yes, but the official teaching of the LCMS is no evolution and a 6000 year old earth, and Idont like that.

Do you choose* to "like"/ "believe" God's Word when God's Word is the Standard by which to live ?
* - positive and.hopeful affirmative expected.

 

[FaithT]

Do you choose* to "like"/ "believe" God's Word when God's Word is the Standard by which to live ?
* - positive and.hopeful affirmative expected.

I’m not sure I know what you’re asking

 

[sjastro]

Which science - there's at least two - the world/carnal /opposed to God / "false science" which is always in error from the start of anything,
or "creation science" (might go by other names sometimes) which can be wrong but at least is right sometimes.
So then, "free"? to accept or deny "false world's science" or "creation science" ?

Thankyou very much, by your definition I have engaged in the world/carnal /opposed to God / "false science" variety of science.
Explain as a follower of the creation science type why are there so many different creation dates.

 

[Aaron112]

Thankyou very much, by your definition I have engaged in the world/carnal /opposed to God / "false science" variety of science.
Explain as a follower of the creation science type why are there so many different creation dates.

As a follower of Jesus, believing Him and learning from the Father/ the Creator,
There is only one Creation Date for anything or anyone.
The Creator Created (or Creates) everything and everyone as He Says.

 

[sjastro]

As a follower of Jesus, believing Him and learning from the Father/ the Creator,
There is only one Creation Date for anything or anyone.
The Creator Created (or Creates) everything and everyone as He Says.

You haven't answered my question, I gave you a list of creation dates interpreted by individuals who have a literal interpretation of the Bible as you do and if the creation date is in the Bible why are there are so many different dates quoted?

 

[Aaron112]

....I gave you a list of creation dates interpreted by individuals who have a literal interpretation of the Bible as you do .....

No you did not .

 

[sjastro]

No you did not .

And what do you think I wrote in post#647 a recipe for tic-tacs?

 

[Aaron112]

And what do you think I wrote in post#647 a recipe for tic-tacs?

< shrugs > I don't like tic-tacs.

 

[Aaron112]

Thankyou very much, by your definition I have engaged in the world/carnal /opposed to God / "false science" variety of science.
Explain as a follower of the creation science type why are there so many different creation dates.

View attachment 337419​

This post are you referring to ?

I "literally" do not see anyone who agrees with me in this post of yours.

 

[sjastro]

This post are you referring to ?

I "literally" do not see anyone who agrees with me in this post of yours.

You have a problem with basic comprehension or just trolling?
Let me try again explain why there are so many interpretations of the creation date in the Bible when there should only be one answer.

 

[FaithT]

As a follower of Jesus, believing Him and learning from the Father/ the Creator,
There is only one Creation Date for anything or anyone.
The Creator Created (or Creates) everything and everyone as He Says.

And what do you think I wrote in post#647 a recipe for tic-tacs?

Lol

 

[dlamberth]

This post are you referring to ?

I "literally" do not see anyone who agrees with me in this post of yours.

I'm out here waiting to see what creation dates you do give. You seem to be walking around an answer.

 

[sjastro]

Let’s get back to the science.
Evidently as a follower of the world/carnal /opposed to God / "false science" type of science, I need to explain a common YEC argument regarding half-lives that one needs to hang around for the half life of an element in order verity it is correct.
Obviously for elements such as ²³⁸U which has a half-lie of around 4.5 billion years this is not terribly practical.

Let’s look at an analogy of a car travelling at a constant velocity of 100 km/hr.
In order to verify the speed on the speedometer, do we need to travel 100km to measure the time taken or alternatively travel for 1 hr and measure the distance covered?
Clearly the answer is no since the distance-time (s-t) relationship is a straight line with a constant gradient which is the velocity and we can arbitrarily select a distance or time interval of any magnitude to calculate the velocity v.

In the case radioactive decay there is a straight line relationship between the decay rate dN/dt and the amount of radioactive material present N.
The gradient of the line depends on the decay constant k in the equation

The half life t(1/2) is given by the equation;

Nₒ is the initial amount a t=0.
Since there is a straight line relationship using a half life is not compulsory where 50% of atoms have decayed, we could easily use any other time interval such as where only 1% of atoms have decayed in which case the equation becomes.

The other question thrown up by YECs is the decay rate k being different in the past, this not a scientific question but a question in hope that a 6000 year old earth is supported by a false dichotomy.
The scientific answer is k only changes when the parent atom has decayed into a daughter atom which also undergoes decay for example;

²³⁸U → ²³⁴Th → ²³⁴Pa

50% of uranium-238 decays into thorium-234 in 4.5 billions years but 50% of thorium-234 only takes 24 days to decay to protactinium-234m.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have a problem with basic comprehension or just trolling?
Let me try again explain why there are so many interpretations of the creation date in the Bible when there should only be one answer.

The correct creation date is not a matter of interpretation.

It is a matter of calculation.

One that a simple abacus/calculator/slide rule can handle.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm out here waiting to see what creation dates you do give. You seem to be walking around an answer.

4004 BC

More specifically:

23 October 4004 BC

 

[FaithT]

No you did not .

Yes she did. Why are there so many?

I've mentioned this before I think when we've spoken. But a year ago I jointed a local AALC congregation, which is in altar and pulpit fellowship with the LCMS. The official position of the AALC, like the LCMS, is YEC. One of the pastors (not active, but retired, but who was serving as interrim pastor until we received our current active pastor) and I have had chats about science. He has had no problem talking about science and recognizing science. We geeked out a little talking about dinosaurs one time after Mass in the fellowship hall.

What I'm getting at is that boots-on-the-ground, Lutherans--laity and clergy alike--are much more diverse than what official upper eschelon denominational positions might suggest. While pastors are more strongly bound, due to their committments, laity are not under the same kind of expectation.

Before joining the AALC I was ELCA, which I certainly had more agreements with on some social issues and their more open stance on science. My reasons for becoming AALC rather than remaining ELCA didn't come down to politics or science; but confessionalism.

I'm not going to say that I don't still have reservations about my new church. I absolutely adore my church. But I sometimes worry about external influences affecting things.

But I have to realize that "the perfect church" doesn't exist. It's not about me.

At the end of the day here is what I'm saying: I don't think you should leave the LCMS/become RCC because of different views on science. That should be one of the least important things. If you are, based upon conscience, convinced in the intrinsic truth of what Catholicism confesses (in where it differs from Lutheranism), then you should follow conscience. But if the reason is purely over a peripheral issue, like the LCMS officially rejects evolution/old universe/big bang/etc then I want to reassure you that it shouldn't be a huge concern.
There are lots of people in the LCMS who accept science as science.

The core questions I hope you are asking yourself are what do you believe about God--about the Gospel, and about how you should treat your neighbor. The things that truly matter as a Christian. Our ideas about science, and in a lot of cases politics, should only really become a matter when it affects our confessional and vocational life--who we are as a people that calls Jesus Lord, tasked with the privilege of representing Him through love toward others, and holding firm to the gift and promise of God's grace toward us which saves us, keeps us, and comforts us with His love.

-CryptoLutheran

Did the interim pastor you talked to believe in evolution?

 

[sjastro]

Yes she did. Why are there so many?

I'm a he not a she.

 

[FaithT]

I'm a he not a she.

Sorry