How old is the Earth?

[ChetSinger]

This is entirely false, galaxies are filtred into 3D weblike-like structures or complex soap bubbles, that bound huge volumes of empty space. So the distribution is not random at all. There are dense huge superclusters and massive voids devoid of any galaxies. These structures are theorized to be the product of dark matter.

I've been talking about the cosmological principle, which is observably supported on a scale large enough that it already takes into account the clusters.

You're clearly new at this, because you thought the Big Bang has a center, and thought that the cosmological principle is somehow defeated by the observation of galactic clusters. I suggest purchasing Russell Humphrey's book "Starlight and Time". He's a wonderful teacher and knows how to explain difficult subjects.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

It's also interesting that in every case, the heavens are completed first in each aspect. The heavens are stretched out before the land is formed, they are named before the earth is named, and they are filled before the earth is filled. I find that interesting.

That's cause God built the kingdom first, for Adam.
When all was ready, He made the god -little g- of the earth, and set Him in the heavenly realm of earth, in Mount Eden, in the third heaven -where the Tree of Life is, in the Paradise/Garden, of God.
Adam was set over earth, to have dominion over it, and to rule it from heaven's realm, with total communication between the heavenly realm and the earthly realm, of the dominion given Adam.
That was all lost in the fall, and will all be regained in the regeneration of the heavens and the earth, when the Firstborn of earth - Israel; the second creation human being who is the Living Spirit/Christ, come in flesh- regenerates the heavens and the earth, and restores the entire creation back, in His name, to be what Adam sold into sin, death and corruption.

Then the coming and going between the heavenly realm and the earth below will be free, like it was in the day Adam was made, and the purpose God made the human being for will be fulfilled: that purpose is to be sons of God filled with the Glory of God, as a "House not made with hands", and to "Plant the heavens" with those glorified sons who will shine like the stars of heaven -if they turn many to righteousness, that is.

Isa 51:16 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou [art] my people.

There is nothing natural about the creation. It is all supernatural.

 

[Calminian]

That's cause God built the kingdom first, for Adam.
When all was ready, He made the god -little g- of the earth, and set Him in the heavenly realm of earth, in Mount Eden, in the third heaven -where the Tree of Life is, in the Paradise/Garden, of God.
Adam was set over earth, to have dominion over it, and to rule it from heaven's realm, with total communication between the heavenly realm and the earthly realm, of the dominion given Adam.
That was all lost in the fall, and will all be regained in the regeneration of the heavens and the earth, when the Firstborn of earth - Israel; the second creation human being who is the Living Spirit/Christ, come in flesh- regenerates the heavens and the earth, and restores the entire creation back, in His name, to be what Adam sold into sin, death and corruption.

Then the coming and going between the heavenly realm and the earth below will be free, like it was in the day Adam was made, and the purpose God made the human being for will be fulfilled: that purpose is to be sons of God filled with the Glory of God, as a "House not made with hands", and to "Plant the heavens" with those glorified sons who will shine like the stars of heaven -if they turn many to righteousness, that is.

There is nothing natural about the creation. It is all supernatural.

Honestly, YSM I didn't follow any of this.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Honestly, YSM I didn't follow any of this.

I know you don't, but it is a synopsis of what the Doctrine of the Word is on the purpose of creation; and the redemption story is the ransom of it back, for what it was made to be, and shall be -and the redemption was as good as "done" before the creation was made, cause God knows the end from the beginning, and He had a plan which has never changed, and will all come to pass in due season.

Most people who want to "figure out" things, outside of what the Word declares, and who start with the faulty foundation of what fallible men have to say, and try to build up a story that sounds good to them, but isn't in agreement with what God said, miss the whole point of the whole plan.

Why look outside what God has said about what He did, and when, and so, miss the whole point in the end, of what is, and what was, and what is to be?

 

[elopez]

I have listened to lectures on TV given by Dr Grady Mc Murtry. He says that if you projected it back according to the old earth timescale, the moon would be skimming over the surface of the earth.

Okay, Mr. McMurtry is not even qualified to professionally speak on the matters of astronomy or cosmology. He has has a general science education in forestry not astronomy or cosmology. His doctorate is also not in science but theology. What he says does not really come off as fact or even sceintifically supported.

I know the YECs say that there is no death before the fall, but there very probably was, in my opinion. I don’t have to agree with everything that they say. I am trying to get to the truth, rather than accepting any church dogma. I am not sure about the fall; I don’t know what happened, and it might be a figurative story, to demonstrate that the world is fallen, and might have originated in another culture; Sumerian perhaps, as it seems like a primitive sort of myth; a snake tempting Eve etc. We live in a fallen world, for sure, but I don’t know why. These bats and spiders and other predators could have been created that way from the beginning.

I think there was death pre - fall too. I am not saying you have to agree with everything YEC claims, but I am saying that this particular rejection of the idea of there being death pre -fall is in stark contrast to YEC. At the very least it is in relation to TE.

I don’t know how old the universe is. I posted 101 reasons for a young earth previously, taken from a creationist website. I have listened to lectures by Walter Vieth, from the SDA church, and I come away completely convinced that there was a global flood, according to biblical time. I am no expert, and wouldn’t attempt to refute anyone saying that the dates are reliable for radiometric dating; I have heard other people with the needed PhD’s etc. who seem to be qualified when they say that the dating is unreliable. But the radiometric dating is only one of many evidences for or not a young earth. On the secular websites, they only state this radiometric dating as proof for an old earth, and they say nothing about all the other evidences for a young earth.

Again, just because one has a PhD doesn't mean there are qualified in the field of science, let alone cosmology as has been shown with Mr. Murtry. His words really have no credence given that.

I don’t believe in the big bang theory. The heliocentric model of the universe was never proved in any way, against the geocentric model, it was just assumed by the northern protestant culture, and has remained unchallenged, until recently. I have read the book by Robert Sungenis, (a PhD in physics)… it is a little known book, and a little studied subject. Most people dismiss geocentrism because it is part of our culture, and they have never looked into the matter. I don’t believe that the bible is the infallible word of God. But I think that the first creation account might be inspired. It’s an important enough matter to have God step in and tell us something about creation; one of the very rare incursions of God into our world perhaps.

Yes, the heliocentric model of the universe has been proved. Again we have observed the universe and indeed we are not in the center of it. Observations only point to the idea that there really is no such thing as the center of the universe. I would highly suggest studying this particular evidence and explanations if you think the universe is possibly ancient.

 

[Papias]

Chetsinger wrote:

You're clearly new at this, because you thought the Big Bang has a center, and thought that the cosmological principle is somehow defeated by the observation of galactic clusters. I suggest purchasing Russell Humphrey's book ...

Being that Humphrey has no astronomy background, and is recognized as a quack by real astronomers, reading his book is a bad idea. It's worse than just a waste of time because his demonstrably wrong statements will make learning actual astronomy harder. It's like reading about medicine from leech-advocate.

Papias

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Okay, Mr. McMurtry is not even qualified to professionally speak on the matters of astronomy or cosmology. He has has a general science education in forestry not astronomy or cosmology. His doctorate is also not in science but theology. What he says does not really come off as fact or even sceintifically supported.
[/size]

I think there was death pre - fall too. I am not saying you have to agree with everything YEC claims, but I am saying that this particular rejection of the idea of there being death pre -fall is in stark contrast to YEC. At the very least it is in relation to TE.


Again, just because one has a PhD doesn't mean there are qualified in the field of science, let alone cosmology as has been shown with Mr. Murtry. His words really have no credence given that.

Grady Mc Murtry is on Revelation TV a lot and I am bored listening to him, as it’s the same old stuff all the time. He also says that women should not be leaders in churches, which I don’t agree with, and shows that he has a very fundamentalist way of looking at the bible. Interesting to know that he isn’t really well qualified to speak on cosmology matters. Robert Sungenis has a PhD in theology, not physics, I just checked.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The YEC camp doesn’t seem to have any explanation for how the universe could be young. Just some theories, which sound like pseudo-science. I get fed up with the other side as well, telling us all the time about their evolution theory for the origin of life, and their idiotic big bang, said with such certainty; I don’t think either side know the truth, and people seem to have to have an answer, instead of saying that they don’t know what the truth is; that is not acceptable to anyone.
The dividing of waters in the first Genesis creation account doesn’t make any sense to me, and I think it might have been derived from a Sumerian creation myth, about creation coming from the waters; perhaps it was modified by the Israelites to fit in with their ideas about creation.

 

[ChetSinger]

Chetsinger wrote:



Being that Humphrey has no astronomy background, and is recognized as a quack by real astronomers, reading his book is a bad idea. It's worse than just a waste of time because his demonstrably wrong statements will make learning actual astronomy harder. It's like reading about medicine from leech-advocate.

Papias

I think "quack" and "leech-advocate" are strong words to direct at a fellow believer who is doing nothing more than taking the scriptures at face value while publicly defending our faith. I know it can get hot in internet forums, but lets all remember that each of us will eventually have to give account to God for every word we speak (or type).

 

[Aman777]

Cal:>>The forming of the earth (land) v.9. (this is when our actual planet was formed in my view, though its elements existed formlessly prior)
The naming of the earth (land) v. 10.
The filling of the earth (land) v. 24-27. Sure seems straightforward and concise to me. You see we're not talking about a different heavens or earth in any of these passages. They're all the same one. It's also interesting that in every case, the heavens are completed first in each aspect. The heavens are stretched out before the land is formed, they are named before the earth is named, and they are filled before the earth is filled. I find that interesting.

Dear Cal, You left out just one thing and that is the creator, or the LORD God who formed everything which exists. John 1 tells us it's Jesus. Jesus tells us of the events of the first Day which He had with the father BEFORE the world was.

While I agree that the elements for the formation of the physical were made BEFORE the first Day, there was NO Potter to mold the clay until YHWH/Jesus came forth from the father on the FIRST Day. Jesus is the Light.

 

[SkyWriting]

Over the years I have been convinced of creation, at least that evolution is not true, that is a conclusion that I have reached after examining the evidence for many years. However, creationists cannot explain how starlight could have reached the earth, in the 6000 years that they quote.

Death entered the world through Adam.
So
Before Adam caused a upset, there was no death.
This suggests that "time" as we know it, had not yet started.
So
The world and the Cosmos were not Created in Man-time but in God-time instead.

And we have no way to measure such things.
Like if Jesus causes a blind man to see, we have no way to "measure" the age of his eyes and say "Dude! This adult guys eye is one day old!"

We just can't measure what God does. So the starlight problem is moot.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The first account of creation in Genesis doesn’t make any sense to me, if thought about, how the earth really is, as a sphere hanging in space. But if you visualise it as a platform of levels, in a bit of a higgledy piggle, then it might be possible to sort out what they were thinking when they wrote it.
It says that the earth is formless and void, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters; plural waters, suddenly there is water, but how could there be if the earth is a void?

I don’t know. Unless the water is visualised as some sort of Primordial Ocean with the land below like in a real sea; that makes sense, (there is no land at this stage, just an ocean of water, on the central level). Then the waters are divided, above and below; so we are looking at this as a platform of levels, water above the firmament, water below in the ocean. Then there is light and darkness, before the creation of the sun, moon and stars; that comes later.
Dry land appears out of the ocean; one big continent, Pangaea as they call it. The sun, moon and stars are set in the sky, then the plants and animals are created. This seems to be the way they visualised it. They couldn't stand back and visualize the world as we can, with a sphere hanging in space. When you try and think of it in that way, and then compare it to Genesis, is dosn't work.

I know people will think I’m a heretic, but it looks like a creation myth to me, and not an explanation of how the universe and the earth was really created. God, as usual is silent on the matter, ancient men have tried to visualise creation, and have dragged in myths from the earliest civilisations of Mesopotamia, primordial chaos in the great waters. They’ve done away with the dragons and all that.

I don’t know how the universe was created, how should I know if God can’t be bothered telling anyone? As I said in the opening post, there was predation from the beginning. People get horribly burnt in fires and fire was there from the beginning; that’s just the way it is, and there is no reason why the world is fallen.

I don’t believe the second account of creation either, that’s another creation myth derived from another ancient source. (it is admirable that the biblical editors kept both accounts in the bible).
The serpent seems to have been a real snake, standing on legs, which were then removed. The fruit is a symbol for the loss of innocence, and the sin seems to have been sexual sin of some sort.
I don’t think it was meant to be taken literally, but is an allegory for trying to explain why the earth is such a pigsty, despite being beautiful at the same time.
I think there has been something deeper going on, which we are not told about. Where do demons come from, really? Why are they evil? Why is there evil? I have a theory which is hinted at in the Genesis account, of the light being separated from the darkness; a deal was made, creation is dualistic, for some reason there must be evil as well as good. But it’s a mystery.
Ezekiel says that the devil was in the Garden of God, an angel, so maybe the snake is a symbol for the devil after all. The fall happened when Eve took the forbidden fruit. But the world was already the way it was. The fall was the spiritual fall of mankind, the loss of innocence.

 

[SkyWriting]

The first account of creation in Genesis doesn’t make any sense to me, if thought about, how the earth really is, as a sphere hanging in space. But if you visualise it as a platform of levels, in a bit of a higgledy piggle, then it might be possible to sort out what they were thinking when they wrote it. It says that the earth is formless and void, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters; plural waters, suddenly there is water, but how could there be if the earth is a void?

The first step to understanding it is to see if it could be completely correct.
There would have to be water in space then, right?
So....let's do a search for "water in space" and see what happens:

http://www.fastcompany.comscientists-discover-oldest body-water-in-space

 

[Aman777]

His:>>The first account of creation in Genesis doesn’t make any sense to me, if thought about, how the earth really is, as a sphere hanging in space. But if you visualise it as a platform of levels, in a bit of a higgledy piggle, then it might be possible to sort out what they were thinking when they wrote it.
It says that the earth is formless and void, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters; plural waters, suddenly there is water, but how could there be if the earth is a void?

Dear His, God is the author of Scripture and Genesis 1:1-2 can be interpreted to say:

In the beginning God created the heaven (Hebrew-air) the earth (Hebrew-ground). And the earth was without form and void; (Hebrew-empty, like dust) and darkness (Hebrew-death) was upon the face of the deep. (water)

IF man had written the above, he would have simply said that God created the air, dust and water, but God is more precise. He does not say He created water, since water is composed of gases which came from the air or atmosphere.

And the Spirit of God moved (Heb-brooded or hovered) on the face of the waters.

This verse indicates that God is unhappy with the death which is upon the first elements He created. God KNEW it would exist in ANYthing He brought into the physical world, apart from Himself, but it moved Him, since He knew it would destroy anything He made with these contaminated elements.

That is WHY God said, Let there be Light. The Light would destroy the darkness or death and make it possible to have a perfect, physical, heaven, which would also be Eternal. Jesus is the Light of the first Day. He will take the first elements and form everything which exists.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Tornero]

13,770,000,000 years old probably older

Although I think the big bang theory isn't a valid explanation. God created the universe.

 

[ChetSinger]

The first step to understanding it is to see if it could be completely correct.
There would have to be water in space then, right?
So....let's do a search for "water in space" and see what happens:

http://www.fastcompany.comscientists-discover-oldest body-water-in-space

Wow, that's amazing! A quasar that is manufacturing vast quantities of water? I had never heard of that. It's so surprising I thought I'd quote a piece of it:

Researchers found a lake of water so large that it could provide each person on Earth an entire planet’s worth of water--20,000 times over. Yes, so much water out there in space that it could supply each one of us all the water on Earth--Niagara Falls, the Pacific Ocean, the polar ice caps, the puddle in the bottom of the canoe you forgot to flip over--20,000 times over.

The water is in a cloud around a huge black hole that is in the process of sucking in matter and spraying out energy (such an active black hole is called a quasar), and the waves of energy the black hole releases make water by literally knocking hydrogen and oxygen atoms together.

The official NASA news release describes the amount of water as “140 trillion times all the water in the world’s oceans," which isn’t particularly helpful, except if you think about it like this.

That one cloud of newly discovered space water vapor could supply 140 trillion planets that are just as wet as Earth is.

Mind you, our own galaxy, the Milky Way, has about 400 billion stars, so if every one of those stars has 10 planets, each as wet as Earth, that’s only 4 trillion planets worth of water.

The new cloud of water is enough to supply 28 galaxies with water.

...

The NASA announcement is also a reminder how quickly our understanding of the universe is evolving and how much capacity for surprise nature still has for us. There’s water on Mars, there’s water jetting hundreds of miles into space from Enceladus, one of Saturn’s moons, there are icebergs of water hidden in the polar craters of our own Moon. And now it turns out that a single quasar has the ability to manufacture galaxies full of water.

But it was only 40 years ago, in 1969, that scientists first confirmed that water existed anywhere besides Earth.

Both Genesis and 2 Peter describe water as instrumental in the creation of the earth. Maybe those passages are more than allegorical. Thanks for the link!

 

[Fascinated With God]

I've been talking about the cosmological principle, which is observably supported on a scale large enough that it already takes into account the clusters.

The distribution of galaxies is not random. You have no clue what you are talking about.

You're clearly new at this, because you thought the Big Bang has a center

Mike's own source rebutted this purely speculative hypothesis:

...there is still a possibility that these models are not accurate on scales larger than we can observe. We still have no real answer to the question.
Where is the centre of the universe?
​

and thought that the cosmological principle is somehow defeated by the observation of galactic clusters.

Show me where the cosmological principle dictates a uniform distribution of galaxies. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I suggest purchasing Russell Humphrey's book "Starlight and Time". He's a wonderful teacher and knows how to explain difficult subjects.

What you need to do is download one of several free 3D galaxy mapping programs so you can see with your own two eyes just exactly how regular and nonrandom the distrubtion of galaxies is.

Here are some still frames: Chandra Press Room :: Galaxy Clusters, Near and Far, Have a Lot in Common :: April 8, 2005

When Four Galaxy Clusters Collide! – Starts With A Bang (scroll down to the second image)

Infinity Imagined

Now eat crow.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The YEC camp doesn’t seem to have any explanation for how the universe could be young.

Genesis 1 is not theory, and it is fact, and it is God's science.
Just read it and see that there was nothing, no creation, no universe, nothing.
God made the heavens and the earth. Six days later, they were completely finished and all their laws were ordained, and all creation followed them.

On day 1 God called light into being; divided the light from the darkness and the revolving heavens around the earth made night, and day -one whole Day completed, from sunset to sunset- as the heavens bearing that light and darkness revolved over the entire globe.

On day 2 God cut the waters in two. Waters is Hebrew mayim.
God stretched out the firmament between the divided waters and named the stretched out firmament sha-mayim -basically two/cut/divided mayim.
-the forces of heaven/shamayim operate electro magnetically. Stars are conductors of the electric power of the universe.
The waters of division are still above the stretched out heavens, above the stars, the sun, and the moon. They are there, and they were created right here, as part of this earth. Everything in between them is stretched out from the earth, and in the stretched out expanse, the stars, sun, and moon have their orbits/paths to follow, according to divine plan, in the revolving around the heavens earth.

On day 3, God proceeded to call the waters of earth below to be gathered into one place, and for the dry/יבשה yabbashah to appear. He named the dry "eretz". and the gathered waters "seas/yam".


On day 4, God made the Menorah/the sun, and the moon; and set them in the stretched out heavens on day 4 of creation week to govern the light by day and by night.

On day 5, God commanded the earth to bring forth grasses and fruiting plants to fill the earth and multiply after their kind, each.
Then, God commanded the waters to bring forth flying creatures to fly in the face of heaven, and to bring forth sea creatures to fill the waters and to live in the waters, abundantly, and all were to multiply after their own kind.

Then on day 6, God commanded the earth to bring forth beasts and creepy crawlies, after their kind, and to multiply after their kind, and it was so.

Everything was perfect, and everything was finished, and everything was completed in six evenings and mornings; in six revolutions of the heavens around the globe, which was covered with one great gathering of waters, and one continent. The continent did have smaller bodies of water on it than the oceans we have today, but after the rebellion of Babel, the earth was divided up, and mankind was scattered over it with 70 tongues, so as to keep man separated and not "one people", in their evil state of fallen nature, Adam being, creatures, until God regenerates the heavens and the earth, back to its first state.


The divisions of the one continent came after the rebellion of Babel, equally, with the scattering of the tribes over the earth.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I think "quack" and "leech-advocate" are strong words to direct at a fellow believer who is doing nothing more than taking the scriptures at face value while publicly defending our faith. I know it can get hot in internet forums, but lets all remember that each of us will eventually have to give account to God for every word we speak (or type).

You folks putting Humphry forward as an objective writer about scientific consensus is either intentionally deceptive, or extremely gullible.
.

 

[ChetSinger]

Now eat crow.

OK, let's start from the beginning. We're brothers in the Lord, right? So we're on the same side.

Are you cool with the Big Bang model having no center and no edge?