How old is the earth?

tonychanyt said:

So how old is the earth according to you?

Click to expand...

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

Halbhh said:

No such verse exists.

Click to expand...

We have to do the math. The Geneology from Adam to Abraham is very easy. After Abraham the math becomes more difficult. We go by Bishop Usshers book. His book is best known for its calculation of the age of the Earth and the universe, famously placing the creation of the world at 4004 BC. Some people believe that Jesus was born in 4 BC.

Published in the early 17th century (in 1650, with an earlier version in 1654), "Annals of the World" represents Ussher's meticulous effort to date historical events and genealogies described in the Old Testament of the Bible. Ussher was the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, and his work was a reflection of his deeply religious and scholarly pursuits.

Jonathan_Gale said:

the age of the earth is just a wedge issue, it was raised to create division among the body of Christ.

Click to expand...

I do not think Science has any regard for the Bible for the most part one way or the other. True Science is Agnostic because of a lack of evidence. If it were not for Science most of us would not be alive today to have this conversation. Abraham and Moses were very well educated in Science in their day.

Diamond7 said:

I do not think Science has any regard for the Bible for the most part one way or the other. True Science is Agnostic because of a lack of evidence. If it were not for Science most of us would not be alive today to have this conversation. Abraham and Moses were very well educated in Science in their day.

Click to expand...

Real science complements the bible, many mysteries in the bible are revealed in science, and many mysteries in science are explained in the bible. For example, in Gen. 1:29 and 9:3 God ordained plants and animals as food for human consumption, that indicates whole, natural food, not food-like edible substances from boxes, bottles and bags. We're instructed to eat natural foods created by God, not manufactured frankenstein stuffs created by big corporations for profit, which is a major contributor to all sorts of chronic metabolic diseases. Another is the kosher law, oh boy, that's a big one, right? Those dietary laws may seem primitive, antiquated and unreasonable, but with a little knowledge in zoology, it's easy to see that all those animals prohibited to eat are scavengers and bottom feeders, they eat trash and dead animals for a living, if you eat them, then whatever toxins and parasites they eat are naturally passed down to you, pigs in particular are carriers of trichinosis. Therefore kosher law is simply an instruction concerning food safety, it should never be a dividing issue, God has instructed us to eat what was designed for human consumption and to avoid what was NOT.

BNR32FAN said:

You’re assuming that scientists dating methods are correct and that the genealogy records in the scriptures are wrong.

Click to expand...

What I want to know is this….What about when the dating methods are the same for both tests on Cheddar Man and the results are the same? Then what?

I'm out if my depth in this discussion, but I've noticed that everyone responding seems well-informed. So, I'm hoping to present an honest question to those willing to enlighten.

Lately, I came across a website discussing how science can argue for a 6,000-year-old Earth. As a new Christian (in the sense of truly believing) I've struggled with this concept throughout my life. I can't help but wonder, "How could the Earth be only 6,000 years old given the evidence to the contrary?" The responses here have raised valid points that have really got me thinking.

My query stems from the website's argument, which I found intriguing. According to science, the moon moves away from the Earth due to rotation and gravity. The website points out that, based on its current rate of movement (and I was not oblivious to the use of the word current), around only 1.5 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth. It suggests that if the Earth were just 6,000 years old, this would be no problem, the moon would have moved something along the lines of only 800 feet.

The original poster drew a parallel with the water turning into wine, considering the varying perceptions of the witnesses and how this miracle aligns with science. This brings me back to the moon. I'm curious if anyone has insights on this or a different perspective. I'm no scientist, but the idea captivates me, and I'd love to hear others' thoughts or clarifications. Could this be a valid point for a young Earth, or is there an alternative explanation?

Jonathan_Gale said:

God has instructed us to eat what was designed for human consumption and to avoid what was NOT.

Click to expand...

The Ornish program of diet and exercise has been shown to reverse many different diseases. There is a huge problem now with the corn sweetener they put in soda is making a lot of people sick with diabetes. I went through physical therapy and diet was a big part of that. It is a real struggle for people to eat right. Even it is a struggle for them to go through the program to learn how to eat right. Good health is a choice we all make. I sit outside of the Health food stores and the people that go in and out look healthy. Then I look at the low cost food store and all the people who walk in and out of there look sick. Because they are eating cheap low cost food.

The Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease, developed by Dr. Dean Ornish, is a comprehensive lifestyle intervention that emphasizes dietary changes, exercise, stress management, and social support to improve cardiovascular health. The program is designed to address coronary artery disease and other related health conditions.
The Ornish Program is based on a whole-food, plant-based diet that is low in fat and emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and limited amounts of lean protein sources. It also includes regular physical activity, stress reduction techniques (such as yoga and meditation), and group support sessions.
Research on the Ornish Program has shown positive effects on several health markers and the potential for disease reversal in certain cases:

1. Cardiovascular Health: Studies have demonstrated that participants in the Ornish Program can experience improvements in various cardiovascular risk factors, such as cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and arterial function. Some research suggests that the program may lead to regression of coronary artery disease and reduced risk of heart attacks.
2. Type 2 Diabetes: The program's emphasis on a low-fat, plant-based diet and regular exercise can contribute to better glycemic control and weight management in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
3. Weight Management: The dietary and exercise components of the program may aid in weight loss or weight maintenance, which can have positive effects on overall health and disease risk.
4. Psychological Well-Being: The stress reduction techniques incorporated in the program, such as meditation and mindfulness, can contribute to improved mental and emotional well-being.

It's important to note that while the Ornish Program has shown promising results in improving cardiovascular health and related conditions, it may not be suitable for everyone. Individuals with specific health conditions or dietary needs should consult with their healthcare provider before making significant changes to their diet or exercise routine.
Additionally, the Ornish Program is just one approach among many that aim to improve health through lifestyle changes. Other dietary patterns, such as the Mediterranean diet, DASH diet, and others, have also been associated with positive health outcomes.
As with any health-related information, it's advisable to consult with qualified healthcare professionals before making significant changes to your diet, exercise, or other aspects of your lifestyle.

FaithT said:

What I want to know is this….What about when the dating methods are the same for both tests and the results are the same for Cheddar Man? Then what?

Click to expand...

Chedder man has to do with DNA. Bryan Sykes went into the tooth to extract the DNA. This is the only place he could find it preserved because of the protection of the enamel. The DNA for Kennewick Man was also very important.

I have done extensive studies on the oldest remains they find. Everyone was murdered in the prime of life. There is no evidence of any aging beyond 30. As we are told that people use to live to be 1,000 years of age. I have a challenge for anyone to produce remains where they died from old age or natural causes. So far no one has come up with anything to show that people aged before Noah's flood. Noah's father could have known Adam because they were both alive at the same times for a few years. I think it is 15 years.

Native American tribes in the region claimed cultural affiliation with the remains and sought repatriation and reburial based on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), a U.S. federal law that addresses the treatment of Native American human remains and cultural items. However, scientists and researchers argued that the remains were of significant scientific interest and could provide insights into the early history of human populations in North America.

The legal and ethical dispute over Kennewick Man's remains continued for years, involving multiple court cases and debates. Ultimately, in 2015, the remains were made available for scientific research after DNA analysis indicated that Kennewick Man was not closely related to modern Native American populations and likely belonged to an ancient population with different genetic affinities.

The Kennewick Man case highlighted the complex interactions between science, cultural heritage, and legal considerations when dealing with ancient human remains, particularly in cases involving Native American ancestry and heritage.

Diamond7 said:

It is a real struggle for people to eat right.

Click to expand...

I would argue that if its a real struggle for somebody to eat "right", then he is not eating what he was designed to eat. Not every "diet healthier than SAD diet" is the proper human diet we evolved to eat.

For example, almost nobody must be persuaded to eat animal fat, but most people do not like vegetables, legumes and similar. Why? Because for the most of our evolutionary history as humans, we ate animals and their products and seasonally some few fruits or nuts.

A whole plant-based diet can be healthier than a junk plant-based diet, but it does not mean its what we are supposed to eat in the ideal world.

Plenipotent said:

My query stems from the website's argument, which I found intriguing. According to science, the moon moves away from the Earth due to rotation and gravity. The website points out that, based on its current rate of movement (and I was not oblivious to the use of the word current), around only 1.5 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.

Click to expand...

This event is known as the Giant Impact Hypothesis and is widely accepted as the most likely explanation for the Moon's origin.

This hypothesis has gained support from various lines of evidence, including computer simulations, isotopic analysis of lunar rocks, and comparisons of the Moon's composition with Earth's mantle. It is considered the leading explanation for the Moon's formation.

Referring to the concept of "tidal locking" between the Earth and the Moon, which is a result of the gravitational interactions between the two bodies. Tidal locking occurs when the gravitational forces between two celestial bodies cause one body to always face the other with the same side, as is the case with the Moon and Earth. This process is a consequence of the conservation of angular momentum.

My son is a computer engineer and he came up with a formula we can use for the spindown rate of the earth and the effect that has on the moon moving away from the earth. His formula makes the math quicker on that. All of this can be done with fifth grade math.

myst33 said:

I would argue that if its a real struggle for somebody to eat "right", then he is not eating what he was designed to eat. Not every "diet healthier than SAD diet" is the proper human diet we evolved to eat.

Click to expand...

Actually, my wife would be very happy to eat just fish and vegetables. If she starts to gain weight that is what she eats to get her weight under control.

myst33 said:

Because for the most of our evolutionary history as humans, we ate animals

Click to expand...

I do not like to eat animals and I try to avoid that to some degree. We have to have bacteria in our digestive system to break down the animals enough so our enzymes can take over to digest them. There are buddist monks who purified themselves to the point when they died they did not decompose. Of course there are other explanations.

The monk was likely a Tibetan dzogpa-chenpo practitioner and similar mummies have been found in Tibet and East Asia. The preservation of the mummy for at least five centuries was possible due to the aridity of the area and cold weather.

My brother is a Buddist Monk. So he knows a lot more about this than I do.

Diamond7 said:

We have to have bacteria in our digestive system to break down the animals enough so our enzymes can take over to digest them.

Click to expand...

Digesting meat is actually a very effective process and we are able to digest about 95-99% of meat, so the waste is minimal. Not so with plants, much of the plant mass simply goes through us and leaves. Plants are only an emergency food for humans, not the ideal.

Diamond7 said:

Of course I believe people lived before Adam and Eve. You would have to throw away your Science book and your History book to believer otherwise. I say there is no contradiction between Science and the Bible. I understand most people believe that requires us to manipulate our translation and interpertation to get Science and the Bible to agree. But my main point is no one has any evidence at all that there is a conflict between Science and the Bible. We can all agree that not everything in the Bible can be proven by Science.

This is where Dr Kurt Wise usually enters the conversation.

Click to expand...

Adam was the first man. Sorry. 6000 years ago

Platte said:

Adam was the first man. Sorry. 6000 years ago

Click to expand...

In the context of the sacred/mythological history, yes.

But not in the context of the secular history. The life on this planet is much older.

FaithT said:

Yes, the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days, rested on the 7th. The Bible suggests the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. BUT what does the evidence show us?

Click to expand...

The evidence supports a 6000 year old earth

myst33 said:

In the context of the sacred/mythological history, yes.

But not in the context of the secular history. The life on this planet is much older.

Click to expand...

No it is not. History supports 6000 year old Creation. Understanding that secular recorded History begins about 5500 years ago. Not billions of years ago

Platte said:

The evidence supports a 6000 year old earth

Click to expand...

Can you point me to the source?

Platte said:

No it is not. History supports 6000 year old Creation. Understanding that secular recorded History begins about 5500 years ago. Not billions of years ago

Click to expand...

Life existed before the writings, though. History is not just what is written in letters, but also what is found in the fossil records and other places.

Settled down society in Mesopotamia was not the beginning of life as such, but the beginning of the agricultural civilization. This allowed for writings or more preserved buildings and it may seem as "the" beginning, but it is not.

lanceleo said:

Can you point me to the source?

Click to expand...

Here is a great starting point.

Recorded history or written historydescribes the historical events that have been recorded in a written form or other documented communication which are subsequently evaluated by historians using the historical method. For broader world history, recorded history begins with the accounts of the ancient world around the 4th millennium BC

Recorded History begins 5500 years ago not billions of years ago

myst33 said:

Life existed before the writings, though. History is not just what is written in letters, but also what is found in the fossil records and other places.

Settled down society in Mesopotamia was not the beginning of life as such, but the beginning of the agricultural civilization. This allowed for writings and it may seem as "the" beginning.

Click to expand...

Yeah about 500 years before. Mesopotamia was the first civilization. Fossils were mostly formed as a result of the Flood. All fossils are less than 6000 years