How old is the earth and the sun?

As I was saying · Nov 30, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
Good question AlexDTX. I think they spend most of their time misrepresenting science and themselves. I have a list some place of the number of major figures online and elsewhere sporting false degrees, doctorate form mill-degree programs, etc. In addition, as I just said, I found their basic tactic was to completely misrepresent science. I could give a number of examples. One I recall just offhand was the misleading tactic of saying scrap all carbon-14 data because it can be contaminated, give false readings. Truth is, many scientists will tell you that is true about carbon-14 and therefore they have to take certain precautions that this does not happen. Among those safeguards is the fact not one but up to three samples are taken and compared. These are also checked against other methods of dating, and if, and only if, all thse indicators point the same way, do they reach a definite conclusion. Creation "scientists" claim that evolutionary science makes definite conclusions, not reporting there are conflicting carbon-14 readings on such-and-such a site, as well as discrepancies between the carbon-14 and other methods of data. Absolutely true; there is more than one case where the measurements do not all line up. However, most scientists label those areas as "contaminated" and stress they can reach no definite conclusion. See, creation science doesn't tell the whole story. Another example is Barry Setterfield, a major figure in creation science. On occasion he has introduced himself as "Dr." and his admirers often use that title when refereeing to him. Totally phony. He has but a BA in geology. Setterfield's central claim is that all modern science is wrong, simply because it is based on the notion that the speed of light is absolute and invariant. According to Setterfield, c (speed of light) was infinite at the beginning of creation and has been slowing down ever since. Figuring in this factor, we are truly dealing with a young earth. Where's the evidence? Setterfield claims it is in the fact that down through the ages, the various measurements and estimates of C have continually been reported as slower and slower. What? A solid rebuttal was easily presented by scientific historians showing that the opposite is the case. Furthermore, these earlier, slower measurements were based on antique instruments and so really don't [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] today. Incidentally, an interesting sideline to this story is the fact Setterfield got pinched but good for somehow getting ahold of Stanford University stationary, so that he could send out his material, with a Stanford seal on it, creating the impression it is backed by a leading university. At the local U, which shall remain nameless, a professor of chemistry claims he is a creation scientist. He gave a big lecture, which attracted many, including me. The promo stated he was going to refuse evolution once and for all. I attended. Was it boring. All he did was talk about his conversion experience, nothing about evolution, and how Dawkins would have a different agenda if he used the Bible as his guide book. But, see, his supporters have a booth in the union, and they are content to tell you tat a major professor of science here gave an official lecture debunking evolution. See what I Mean? They selectively present only part of the real story, to back their conclusions.

Any chance you could use paragraphs to make your posts easier to read?

bhsmte · Nov 30, 2015

Timdaniel said:
No, just with what the Bible says.

I think that even if God came down and said, "Here is my book, this is the truth," people would still have a hard time believing Him. They would scrutinize Him, and probably determine it was just a figment of someone's imagination.

Why would the physical evidence found in this God's creation not match up with your beliefs?

Timdaniel · Nov 30, 2015

bhsmte said:
Why would the physical evidence found in this God's creation not match up with your beliefs?

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.

katerinah1947 · Nov 30, 2015

Armoured said:
And so all those extinct animals we have fossils of lived when?

Hi,

And to help you out more. When I did that work, never ever expecting to find what I found, I used the begets and the begats in the Bible not knowing a few things. One is beget and begat Biblically is not always a father son relationship.

I also did not know people and generations, if I recall are also skipped. Later, when I presented the age of Adam, and the timing of Noah's ark for peer review, I found that instead of a proof of what I was looking for, it was higly plausible now that I and no one else has a clue on when, Noah's ark happened, and Adam was born.

Your remarks about the dinosaurs is sound.

That chart presented with Noah's Ark happening in 2760 BCE or so, is done using the begets and the begats in the Bible. That is the very same chart I made from The Bible, but making those mistakes mentioned.

Remember, Biblically in the New Testament, Jesus is called the son of David. David indeed in a way begat Jesus, only it was not a father son relationship, like in America Today.

LOVE,

bhsmte · Nov 30, 2015

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.

In other words, all of these Phd scientists, are either all stupid and have no idea what they are doing, or, they all agreed to participate in a conspiracy to interpret the evidence a certain way.

Which one of the above do you subscribe to?

Timdaniel · Nov 30, 2015

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.

bhsmte · Nov 30, 2015

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.

Next time you go to the doctor, as them if they believe in evolution. Then, brace yourself.

katerinah1947 · Nov 30, 2015

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?

Hi,

This timeline is also the one, I made. It is false. I presented my work, the age of Noah's Ark using begets and begats. It is not easy but doable. I also was able to date the year Adam was born. Try it using begets and begats. It is fun.

After presenting those findings for peer review, as I was outside of my field, like Louis Alvarez was outside of his field, when he did the asteroid and dinosaur extinction thing, in a few months time, I found out I was wrong.

To use that timeline, is just a mistake that has been known since I finished that work, at least. I finished trying to prove the Bible is wrong, not right but wrong, in about the year 2000.

The above chart is wrong.

LOVE,

bhsmte · Nov 30, 2015

katerinah1947 said:
Hi,

This timeline is also the one, I made. It is false. I presented my work, the age of Noah's Ark using begets and begats. It is not easy but doable. I also was able to date the year Adam was born. Try it using begets and begats. It is fun.

After presenting those findings for peer review, as I was outside of my field, like Louis Alvarez was outside of his field, when he did the asteroid and dinosaur extinction thing, in a few months time, I found out I was wrong.

To use that timeline, is just a mistake that has been known since I finished that work, at least. I finished trying to prove the Bible is wrong, not right but wrong, in about the year 2000.

The above chart is wrong.

LOVE,

So, how old do you believe the earth and sun are?

Timdaniel · Nov 30, 2015

bhsmte said:
In other words, all of these Phd scientists, are either all stupid and have no idea what they are doing, or, they all agreed to participate in a conspiracy to interpret the evidence a certain way.

Which one of the above do you subscribe to?

The scientific mind has to deny that God exists, that is the first step, am I right? You cannot just say, "Well God created this..." no, it has to have come from somewhere else. When you deny that God created it, you try to find theories of how something can form, such as a planet. You do this by looking through a telescope and seeing a galaxy that looks like it is spinning. You then made the assumption that all of them are like this because you see more than one, and then you come up with a theory or hypothesis. Now the thing about the origins of creation is that it is really a broad subject, don't you agree? Sure, you can study why something appears green or yellow, but the creation of everything? That is big. So, using the basis that there is no god, they come up with their conclusions. They are not allowed to just say, "it's just there because God made it that way," even though, there is no evidence that anything they say is completely true about the formation of galaxies and whatnot. We simply do not have the time to sit here and watch. So, the whole throwing out of a deity such as God creating them is a little hasty. However, it is scientific. It does not matter if people get a PhD. If there was a school called "School for the Dumb", people could get a PhD too and that would be on the same level. It is just a human title, given by humans. You don't necessarily have to be smarter then the last person. You just have to know what the last person talked about. Anyone with enough time and money can get a PhD. I am not impressed by that. They make a lot of money and get a platform for saying big things, but that is all. I still do not see how God and a person with a PhD are even remotely on the same level though. Hope that answers what I subscribe to.

RickG · Nov 30, 2015

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.

The comment was not mean for me but it does apply to and I would like to respond. But first a little background. Now retired, I spend almost 30 years as a research chemist and have 3 degrees from accredited institutions, one of which is an M.S. in Earth Science. I have also been an adjunct in Petrology and Stratigraphy. I do not claim to be an expert, but I do know something about the subject. Now to answer your questions.

1. I have studied the creation science material quite extensively in the earth science area. What I find is not a different interpretation of the same information (data), rather a misrepresentation of it. It is what we call in the scientific community "Intellectual Dishonesty".

2. I did not study the creation science material to rubbish it. If you follow my posts and especially the threads I have created, my intent is to point out the problems with creation science. Very few creation science articles are written by actual scientists who are experts in the fields they criticize with respect to mainstream science. I even know of one, a geologist, who has credible publications in the mainstream peer review scientific literature with no problem of an old earth. He also has publications in the creation science literature advocating a 6,000 year old earth. He didn't just change his mind. Some of his old earth mainstream science literature is published after his creation science young earth literature.

Form a personal point of view. I do not view genesis as literal. However, I have no problem with anyone viewing it as literal and having a young earth view. What I do caution against, is not to have that view based on misrepresented science, and that is what most of creation science literature is based upon.

RickG · Nov 30, 2015

Timdaniel said:
The scientific mind has to deny that God exists, that is the first step, am I right?

Nothing could be further from the truth.

katerinah1947 · Nov 30, 2015

Timdaniel said:
The scientific mind has to deny that God exists, that is the first step, am I right? You cannot just say, "Well God created this..." no, it has to have come from somewhere else. When you deny that God created it, you try to find theories of how something can form, such as a planet. You do this by looking through a telescope and seeing a galaxy that looks like it is spinning. You then made the assumption that all of them are like this because you see more than one, and then you come up with a theory or hypothesis. Now the thing about the origins of creation is that it is really a broad subject, don't you agree? Sure, you can study why something appears green or yellow, but the creation of everything? That is big. So, using the basis that there is no god, they come up with their conclusions. They are not allowed to just say, "it's just there because God made it that way," even though, there is no evidence that anything they say is completely true about the formation of galaxies and whatnot. We simply do not have the time to sit here and watch. So, the whole throwing out of a deity such as God creating them is a little hasty. However, it is scientific. It does not matter if people get a PhD. If there was a school called "School for the Dumb", people could get a PhD too and that would be on the same level. It is just a human title, given by humans. You don't necessarily have to be smarter then the last person. You just have to know what the last person talked about. Anyone with enough time and money can get a PhD. I am not impressed by that. They make a lot of money and get a platform for saying big things, but that is all. I still do not see how God and a person with a PhD are even remotely on the same level though. Hope that answers what I subscribe to.

Hi,

I am a Scientist of sorts. I used science and really nothing else, to prove that God is Real.

LOVE,

bhsmte · Nov 30, 2015

Timdaniel said:
The scientific mind has to deny that God exists, that is the first step, am I right? You cannot just say, "Well God created this..." no, it has to have come from somewhere else. When you deny that God created it, you try to find theories of how something can form, such as a planet. You do this by looking through a telescope and seeing a galaxy that looks like it is spinning. You then made the assumption that all of them are like this because you see more than one, and then you come up with a theory or hypothesis. Now the thing about the origins of creation is that it is really a broad subject, don't you agree? Sure, you can study why something appears green or yellow, but the creation of everything? That is big. So, using the basis that there is no god, they come up with their conclusions. They are not allowed to just say, "it's just there because God made it that way," even though, there is no evidence that anything they say is completely true about the formation of galaxies and whatnot. We simply do not have the time to sit here and watch. So, the whole throwing out of a deity such as God creating them is a little hasty. However, it is scientific. It does not matter if people get a PhD. If there was a school called "School for the Dumb", people could get a PhD too and that would be on the same level. It is just a human title, given by humans. You don't necessarily have to be smarter then the last person. You just have to know what the last person talked about. Anyone with enough time and money can get a PhD. I am not impressed by that. They make a lot of money and get a platform for saying big things, but that is all. I still do not see how God and a person with a PhD are even remotely on the same level though. Hope that answers what I subscribe to.

Few things.

First, many scientists believe in God, so you are misinformed in your assumptions right off the bat.

Secondly, scientists don't say; something is the way it is because of God, because they have no evidence this is the case.

So, I will ask again, are all these Phd's just stupid, or have they all conspired to lie together?

bhsmte · Nov 30, 2015

katerinah1947 said:
Hi,

I am a Scietist of sorts. I used science and really nothing else, to prove that God is Real.

LOVE,

How specifically, did you use science to prove God is real?

benelchi · Nov 30, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Your 1:2 is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew. The word is "hayah" to fall out - to become - not "was" as in it's original condition - but the condition it fell into.

so it should be.

1:2 And the earth "became" desolate and waste; and darkness "became" upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Since tohu wa bohu is used nowhere else together except this verse and 2 other places (Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 34:11) both of which speak of a once flourishing condition laid desolate and waste.

But the first two chapters of genesis and versus pointing to it is the only place in the entire Bible where "hayah" is translated as "was."

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)

Comparing these texts with Ge. 1:2, one can quickly see that the translators were consistent in how they translated this verb.

והארץ היתה תהו ובהו - The earth was without form and void (Gen. 1:2 ESV)

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))

Timdaniel · Nov 30, 2015

bhsmte said:
So, how old do you believe the earth and sun are?

bhsmte said:
Few things.

First, many scientists believe in God, so you are misinformed in your assumptions right off the bat.

Secondly, scientists don't say; something is the way it is because of God, because they have no evidence this is the case.

So, I will ask again, are all these Phd's just stupid, or have they all conspired to lie together?

Perhaps you didn't read all of my post. If you get a PhD, it really only means you have taken a lot of classes. I means you have learned a lot of facts. I means you have studied what modern science is saying. And it is saying that there is no God. So a million people trained to do something wrong, does not mean that it is right. I do not think they are stupid, or conspiring together, I think they are all brainwashed and just doing what they are told. There are some that are not this way of course.

RickG · Nov 30, 2015

Timdaniel said:
No, just with what the Bible says.

I think that even if God came down and said, "Here is my book, this is the truth," people would still have a hard time believing Him. They would scrutinize Him, and probably determine it was just a figment of someone's imagination.

You do know that the (christian) bible does not come into being until a few hundred years after the death of Jesus and that it contents were heavily debated by the Nicean Council, don't you?

bhsmte · Nov 30, 2015

Timdaniel said:
Perhaps you didn't read all of my post. If you get a PhD, it really only means you have taken a lot of classes. I means you have learned a lot of facts. I means you have studied what modern science is saying. And it is saying that there is no God. So a million people trained to do something wrong, does not mean that it is right. I do not think they are stupid, or conspiring together, I think they are all brainwashed and just doing what they are told. There are some that are not this way of course.

Wow!!!

Please demonstrate how obtaining a Phd means, there is no God?

And who is the one telling all of these scientists (who by the way, are very independent) what they should believe and brainwashing them?

You never answered my other question, how can a Phd, then be a Christian and there are many?

TLK Valentine · Nov 30, 2015

Timdaniel said:
No, just with what the Bible says.

I think that even if God came down and said, "Here is my book, this is the truth," people would still have a hard time believing Him. They would scrutinize Him, and probably determine it was just a figment of someone's imagination.

If you had a vision of God, would you believe it without scrutiny?

How old is the earth and the sun?

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

INACTIVE

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

I've already read the books you want burned.

Similar threads