How old is the earth and the sun?

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
804
✟58,600.00
Faith
Catholic
The proof of what I state is in my posting history.

In regards to your question, I answered the question last night, go back and look.

Hi,

So, you will not try and see my postion. Thus, you have said yes, you do not look at anyone else's position, from their vantage point.

You also have not answered the question directly, but shifted it.

You have said that you have and advanced degree in human anatomy. How, is it you speak like a lawyer so well also?

Answer the question. Answer the question. What does In The Spirit mean, to those with it, and how is it used. In The Spirit is Central, to all of Christianity, and you won't look at it.

Testing to see if you are wrong, is central to science and you will not look at that.

Controlled experiments, you will not look at that idea other. On those, do you need a double blind study to talk about Uranium for you to believe in that?

If you are in the medical field you do not, yet you refuse to see that my way or anyone else's way.

Your actions online are such that you never almost, see things from the other person's viewpoint.

What does In The Spirit mean, and how is it used by those with it?

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

So, you will not try and see my postion. Thus, you have said yes, you do not look at anyone else's position, from their vantage point.

You also have not answered the question directly, but shifted it.

You have said that you have and advanced degree in human anatomy. How, is it you speak like a lawyer so well also?

Answer the question. Answer the question. What does In The Spirit mean, to those with it, and how is it used. In The Spirit is Central, to all of Christianity, and you won't look at it.

Testing to see if you are wrong, is central to science and you will not look at that.

Controlled experiments, you will not look at that idea other. On those, do you need a double blind study to talk about Uranium for you to believe in that?

If you are in the medical field you do not, yet you refuse to see that my way or anyone else's way.

Your actions online are such that you never almost, see things from the other person's viewpoint.

What does In The Spirit mean, and how is it used by those with it?

LOVE,

I answered your question last night, did you not see this response from a few minutes ago.

First, you state I never answer questions on this site and then I answer your question and you claim I didn't.

In regards to another person's position, if a person claims to have objective evidence to support their position, you will find on this portion of the site, people will ask to see this evidence. Do you find that unusual?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I just googled it and used whatever came up first. It maybe difficult for science to say if the earth or the sun is older because the math they use is not that accurate. The Sun they measure how much hydrogen has been converted and the earth they measure the age of the rocks.
You also forgot the error bars. In any measurement, the value always lies within a range. Those are the "error bars". What they gave you at the websites are the mean and they left out the range. Try this site:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qage.html

Notice that they say "4.57 +/- 0.01 x 10^9 years ago". That 0.01 corresponds to 10 million years.

Your initial post said "Earth 4.543 billion years
Sun 4.5 billion years"

Notice that the estimate on the other site went out to 2 decimal places, and thus the sun would be 30 million years older than the earth. But throw in the error bars and it would be 4.56 billion years lower estimate for sun and 4.55 billion higher estimate for the earth. Over that length of time, that is essentially simultaneous. No matter how long 10 million years seems to us in comparison with our lives

Also remember that the solar system formed at the same time! It's not like there was a sun and then, poof, there were planets. Instead, there was a disc of matter that collapsed by gravity. So the sun and all the planets formed from the same matter and, thus, will be the same age by radiometric data.

In any event, the reason earth is formed first in Genesis 1 has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the Babylonian Creation myth the Enuma Elish. Genesis 1 is destroying the Babylonian gods in the order in which they appear. The first 2 gods are Apsu and Tiamet -- freshwater and saltwater. The first creation event is to separate the waters -- which the people of the time would have known meant into saltwater an freshwater. Apsu and Tiamet have sex and the offspring is earth (dry land). So dry land (earth) is created first. The sun goddess is a 3rd generation god. She is also the younger sister of the chief Babylonian god Marduk. Markuk is the god of plants. So plants are created before the sun.

It all makes sense from a religious point of view. Genesis 1 worked so well at destroying the Babylonian gods that no one knows the Enuma Elish anymore. So some people foolishly try to make Genesis 1 fit with science -- which they do know. But that is not the message Genesis 1 was meant to convey.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
The fact that we have an evening and a morning before supposedly the sun even existed disqualifies the belief the sun and moon and stars were created on the 4th day.

No, it doesn't. You are ignoring what the authors are trying to do. They are setting up 24 hour days. For that you need a morning and evening.

Now, why are they setting up 24 hour days? Because they are tying creation to the 4th commandment to keep the sabbath. Look at Exodus 20:11. That was put in after Genesis 1 was written. The "days" of Genesis 1 are all 24 hours so that they correspond to the days of the week so there is a sabbath.

IF you mangle Genesis 1 to "days" that are ages, then Exodus 20:11 makes no sense. So which verse do you want to throw under the bus? Because you are going to throw some part of the Bible under the bus.

Also note that the authors change the word for "day" in Genesis 2:1-3. They now use "beyom" instead of "yom". Why? Because "yom" can be indefinite in time. If they had used "yom" for the 7th day, it would mean that God was still resting. Instead they used "beyom" which is very specific -- within a 24 hour day. The authors deliberately limited the 7th day to 24 hours.

And they used "morning and evening" to limit the first 3 days of creation (before the sun) to 24 hours.

At this point they became fully visible in the heavens - the mist that had obscured them finally clearing up due to the Heat that had begun penetrating those clouds. Causing evaporation and dry land appeared. Land was already there, it was simply covered by water during the destruction which caused the darkness to encompass the earth and caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.
So basically you are making this up as you go along. You want an interpretation of the Bible to agree with science and you don't care what harm you do to the Bible, science, or God. Just so your interpretation fits.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
804
✟58,600.00
Faith
Catholic
If the Bible is true, shouldn't you be able to look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion without ever reading the Bible?



If YEC is true, then God is not hiding something. God created fake evidence just to fool us, quite the opposite of hiding something.

Hi,

What does that mean, your first paragraph? Please say more.

As far as for everyone coming up to the same conclusions, as that does not happen in life, and for the very same reasons, it won't work and doesn't work that way with the Bible either.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Also remember that the solar system formed at the same time! It's not like there was a sun and then, poof, there were planets. Instead, there was a disc of matter that collapsed by gravity. So the sun and all the planets formed from the same matter and, thus, will be the same age by radiometric data.

This isn't quite accurate if you are referring to the techniques used by geologists. Radiometric dating measures the time since a rock solidified. This is why freshly solidified lava dates young, not 4.5 billion years old. For purposes of dating the solar system, we can use meteors to date the beginning of planet formation because they mark the point where the solar system cooled down and started forming solid rocks. They have not remelted since then which is why they are used to date the solar system.

If you are referring to the isotopic makeup of the solar system and things like missing short lived nuclides, then your statement would be accurate.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Hi,

What does that mean, your first paragraph? Please say more.

Let's use a different example. If a rock has a mass of 8 kg, do you have to tell the person weighing the rock that it has a mass of 8 kg in order for them to get an accurate measurement?

As far as for everyone coming up to the same conclusions, as that does not happen in life, and for the very same reasons, it won't work and doesn't work that way with the Bible either.

LOVE,

It does happen in life. It happens in science all of the time because scientists follow the evidence.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
804
✟58,600.00
Faith
Catholic
I answered your question last night, did you not see this response from a few minutes ago.

First, you state I never answer questions on this site and then I answer your question and you claim I didn't.

In regards to another person's position, if a person claims to have objective evidence to support their position, you will find on this portion of the site, people will ask to see this evidence. Do you find that unusual?

Hi,

Nice deflection. Nice shift.

What does In The Spirit mean and how is it used by those with it?

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

What does that mean, your first paragraph? Please say more.

As far as for everyone coming up to the same conclusions, as that does not happen in life, and for the very same reasons, it won't work and doesn't work that way with the Bible either.

LOVE,

Would you agree, when it comes to professional scientists, they typically come to a consensus in regards to what the evidence they observe states?

When it comes to interpreting the bible, it appears theologians come to many different conclusions, thus the formation of so many different Christian denominations.
 
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

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
804
✟58,600.00
Faith
Catholic
Let's use a different example. If a rock has a mass of 8 kg, do you have to tell the person weighing the rock that it has a mass of 8 kg in order for them to get an accurate measurement?



It does happen in life. It happens in science all of the time because scientists follow the evidence.

Hi,

I understand you now.

The reason that there are so many different interpretations of that exact same text, is because, Scientists with thier methods are not doing the work.

Did not science, physics I think, entering the medical field finally change things?

Science is not in religion, and it can and should be. What is wrong, with having science there, but done in a scientific, and therefore a non formula way, meaning false scientists are not allowed.

Honesty, enforced honesty is a hallmark in science and some other fields. Honesty, enforced honesty is not in Religion. It is not.

You said above that scientists follow the evidence, you know that is true, but some even there try to lie and get away with it from time to time, but not for too long. Usually they are found out and ejected in thier own life times. Sometimes others wait till they die, and are not so powerful before telling the truth.

It is science, not being allowed into religion, that gives other than correct answers in reading that book, called the Bible.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

I understand you now.

The reason that there are so many different interpretations of that exact same text, is because, Scientists with thier methods are not doing the work.

Did not science, physics I think, entering the medical field finally change things?

Science is not in religion, and it can and should be. What is wrong, with having science there, but done in a scientific, and therefore a non formula way, meaning false scientists are not allowed.

Honesty, enforced honesty is a hallmark in science and some other fields. Honesty, enforced honesty is not in Religion. It is not.

You said above that scientists follow the evidence, you know that is true, but some even there try to lie and get away with it from time to time, but not for too long. Usually they are found out and ejected in thier own life times. Sometimes others wait till they die, and are not so powerful before telling the truth.

It is science, not being allowed into religion, that gives other than correct answers in reading that book, called the Bible.

LOVE,

Why should science be a religion?
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
804
✟58,600.00
Faith
Catholic
Would you agree, when it comes to professional scientists, they typically come to a consensus in regards to what the evidence they observe states?

When it comes to interpreting the bible, it appears theologians come to many different conclusions, thus the formation of so many different Christian denominations.

Hi,

No professional scientists that I have worked with are never ever consensus driven. No. Consensus is more political than real science.

Science is data driven, and not consesus driven, unless that is what you meant when you use the word consensus.

I sat in a meeting one day, no two day. There was no consesus for my point. No it is most of the time. I fight against consensus. I do it, with "One Experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions."

Consensus is for gangs of thugs and what they do, it is not in science.

I am always in a non consensus position. One day this is said to me, but in essense. "You are such a moron. I cannot believe that you do not know this. It is impossible for what you say to be true. And everyone knows it. We are educated, and you have just failed miserably. Of course, if you could prove your position that would be significant."

They got their proof in an hour and a half.

What happened above is typical in my life. Yes, much of what I do is what is agreed upon and put into text books. Yes, if that is consensus I use that, but even there I see error some of the time.

And no one, working in any field long enough, does not know where the errors is, no matter how slight it may be, in what they were taught and is printed in books, but is in fact not true.

Consensus does not belong in science. It does not. Proofs and data do. Consensus does not.

LOVE,
 
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

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

No professional scientists that I have worked with are never ever consensus driven. No. Consensus is more political than real science.

Science is data driven, and not consesus driven, unless that is what you meant when you use the word consensus.

I sat in a meeting one day, no two day. There was no consesus for my point. No it is most of the time. I fight against consensus. I do it, with "One Experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions."

Consensus is for gangs of thugs and what they do, it is not in science.

I am always in a non consensus position. One day this is said to me, but in essense. "You are such a moron. I cannot believe that you do not know this. It is impossible for what you say to be true. And everyone knows it. We are educated, and you have just failed miserably. Of course, if you could prove your position that would be significant."

They got their proof in an hour and a half.

What happened above is typical in my life. Yes, much of what I do is what is agreed upon and put into text books. Yes, if that is consensus I use that, but even there I see error some of the time.

And no one, working in any field long enough, does not know where the errors is, no matter how slight it may be, in what they were taught and is printed in books, but is in fact not true.

Consensus does not belong in science. It does not. Proofs and data do. Consensus does not.

LOVE,

I didn't ask you if scientists were consensus driven, as I am fully aware that scientists are very independent. What I asked you, was whether professional scientists, in their own topic of expertise, tend to reach a consensus, when examining the evidence?
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
804
✟58,600.00
Faith
Catholic
Would you agree, when it comes to professional scientists, they typically come to a consensus in regards to what the evidence they observe states?

When it comes to interpreting the bible, it appears theologians come to many different conclusions, thus the formation of so many different Christian denominations.

Hi,

I would agree that my observations of you, say to me you are a defense lawyer, or one who mimicks that well, in order to shield their hidden agenda.

In general, your actions here, mimick, a woman I worked with for years and a man who I worked with for years.

I researched both of their ways, and in testing them made a guess in each of them, that I atempted to prove wrong. Both guesses I could not prove wrong, and was affirmed by professionals in the field, who actually worked with them both on that subject.

No, I did not consult with the professionals before hand. I knew o
Because I am a nice guy and you have made no effort to find my response from last night, I will help you. See post 286.

Hi,

Interesting, and you could have made this a whole bunch more pleasant by just restating your possible position.

Yes, being In The Spirit is, Knowing that the entity called The Holy Spirit is indeed guiding you.

Are you aware, that to be In The Spirit, that much work needs to be done, by the person with that, to not make mistakes?

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

I would agree that my observations of you, say to me you are a defense lawyer, or one who mimicks that well, in order to shield their hidden agenda.

In general, your actions here, mimick, a woman I worked with for years and a man who I worked with for years.

I researched both of their ways, and in testing them made a guess in each of them, that I atempted to prove wrong. Both guesses I could not prove wrong, and was affirmed by professionals in the field, who actually worked with them both on that subject.

No, I did not consult with the professionals before hand. I knew o


Hi,

Interesting, and you could have made this a whole bunch more pleasant by just restating your possible position.

Yes, being In The Spirit is, Knowing that the entity called The Holy Spirit is indeed guiding you.

Are you aware, that to be In The Spirit, that much work needs to be done, by the person with that, to not make mistakes?

LOVE,

You are free to have whatever observations of me you like.

You could have made it a lot easier by seeing that I responded, after accusing me of never answering questions.

I don't believe in the spirit and I believe it is manufactured in one's own mind, so that would explain my position.

In fact, there is a neuro psychologist from Canada, that induced the feeling of being in the presence of a spirit, by introducing minimal electrical charges to the brain.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
804
✟58,600.00
Faith
Catholic
I didn't ask you if scientists were consensus driven, as I am fully aware that scientists are very independent. What I asked you, was whether professional scientists, in their own topic of expertise, tend to reach a consensus, when examining the evidence?

Hi,

If I understand your question, and I do not, what does topic of expertise mean, and why are you still using an offending word here in this context. Consensus, is an offense, here.

Are you aware that when a person is In The Spirit, the information they are receiveing, some directions and some knowledge, competes with their own words and ideas, plus other spirits can talk to them also?

LOVE,
 
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

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

If I understand your question, and I do not, what does topic of expertise mean, and why are you still using an offending word here in this context. Consensus, is an offense, here.

Are you aware that when a person is In The Spirit, the information they are receiveing, some directions and some knowledge, competes with their own words and ideas, plus other spirits can talk to them also?

LOVE,

Why is the word; "consensus" offensive?

As I have already stated, what people deem to be a spirit, is something I believe is manufactured, in their own mind and absent, any outside objective verifiability.
 
Upvote 0