How old is the earth?

[Plenipotent]

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.

Thank you very much! I'm grateful for your input! I'll definitely delve into this further. The scientific angle really captivates me!

 

[Diamond72]

Ok well that’s where we differ I believe the scriptures

You do not believe in the scripture. You believe in tradition and interpretation.

Mark 7:8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

 

[Diamond72]

Adam was the first man. If that’s not a contradiction between science and the Bible then you’re just not acknowledging the facts.

There is a difference between Science Time Magzine Adam and Bible Adam.

 

[Diamond72]

Thank you very much! I'm grateful for your input! I'll definitely delve into this further. The scientific angle really captivates me!

The study of gravity is amazing. I have a friend who does stained glass that deals with gravity and what they call the divine ratio. I like to balance stones and it amazes me the way water and gravity form the stones so that they are very easy to balance.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, its many pages in the past. If you are not willing to answer questions here, I am not willing to look for some old posts.

Ahh I see that might take a minute or two. I’d post a link to it but unfortunately we don’t have that option anymore on mobile devices.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is a difference between Science Time Magzine Adam and Bible Adam.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[trophy33]

Ahh I see that might take a minute or two. I’d post a link to it but unfortunately we don’t have that option anymore on mobile devices.

I am also suspicious when people refer to some old posts. From my experience, such posts are long and seen by their author as some work that cannot be easily repeated, summarized or read.

I am not too interested in those, I am more for a smooth conversation. If somebody thinks he has some new ingenious theory about something, let he present it in a proper place (scientific journals etc), not to common internet people. Its a needless burden to react to such posts.

 

[BNR32FAN]

They do not seem to know the difference between mythology and allegory, metaphor, archetype, homiletics, symbols, paradigms, parables, allusions and so on.

Nah you just refuse to accept what the scriptures plainly state. Is Adam the first man? Or are you still refusing to accept scripture?

 

[BNR32FAN]

They do not seem to know the difference between mythology and allegory, metaphor, archetype, homiletics, symbols, paradigms, parables, allusions and so on.

You don’t seem to be able to recognize the difference between metaphorical statements and literal statements. According to your interpretation methods we can just interpret any passage to mean whatever we want and if that’s the case then we might as well just throw the Bible away because it’s completely useless if there are no boundaries to interpretations.

 

[FaithT]

I already explained this. If they used the exact same method they’re going to come up with the same amount of C14 in the remains. The problem is they don’t think that the earth was created 6,000 years ago so they’re not expecting a low level of C14 in the atmosphere around this time. A low level of C14 is what makes organic materials appear to be old. The lower the level of C14 the older the material is believed to be. I demonstrated that Wikipedia specifically tells us that just in the last 70 years the C14 levels dropped dramatically then doubled. If that happened in just the last 70 years and they’ve only discovered C14 80 years ago then there’s no telling what the levels have been doing for the last 6,000 years.

Well, please forgive me. So, you still think the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? the reason I ask is because my church believes that and I want to be in line with their teaching.

 

[Halbhh]

God has impressed upon me many times that He is a God of Justice. His Justice is just as exact and precise as the laws of physics, chemistry and so on. His scale is perfectly balanced. This is why Jesus had to go to Calvary.

I agree!

 

[Halbhh]

I do not know that I have been able to keep up with all the posts in this thread.

I read a lot of the posts, but that's still only a relatively small portion. 800+ posts, but of course often people talk past each other...


I'm trying here (link below) to summarize what it means if we really believe John 1, in God creating "all things" --

Why we should believe God created all of Nature, and what that means...

To fully believe in God is so much more than just believing God is behind a few things... God is the creator of all things John chapter 1 tells us -- and that means (as the words say) everything 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with...

www.christianforums.com

 

[BNR32FAN]

You do not believe in the scripture. You believe in tradition and interpretation.

Mark 7:8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

Ahh I see, so believing what is plainly written is actually not believing, while not believing what is actually written is believing? Ok if that’s the way you want to play it let’s just test that theory.

“So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Do you believe this statement? Do you believe that Adam is the first man? No you don’t, you refuse to. Why? I don’t understand why you wouldn’t have seen that verse and realized ok man couldn’t have existed before Adam if Paul specifically said that Adam was the first man.

So let’s look at Mark 7:8.

“The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭7‬:‭1‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Here we have the Pharisees rebuking Christ’s disciples because they didn’t wash their hands before they ate. God never commanded that they had to wash their hands before they eat, He commanded Aaron and his sons to wash their hands & feet before performing the priest rituals. Washing their hands before eating was a man made idea. It wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the scriptures. So how can you claim that I’m following the “precepts of man” when I’m following what’s actually written in the scriptures while your directly contradicting what’s written in the scriptures because of your belief in the precepts of man? It’s man that says the earth is billions of years old not the scriptures. It’s man that says Adam was not the first man, not the scriptures. I’m preaching the scriptures your the one preaching the precepts of man. So I find it extremely ironic that you would post that particular verse in defense of your position that defies what is written in the word of God. That was probably one of the worst verses you could’ve picked for this particular discussion.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am also suspicious when people refer to some old posts. From my experience, such posts are long and seen by their author as some work that cannot be easily repeated, summarized or read.

I am not too interested in those, I am more for a smooth conversation. If somebody thinks he has some new ingenious theory about something, let he present it in a proper place (scientific journals etc), not to common internet people. Its a needless burden to react to such posts.

I just posted it yesterday.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am also suspicious when people refer to some old posts. From my experience, such posts are long and seen by their author as some work that cannot be easily repeated, summarized or read.

I am not too interested in those, I am more for a smooth conversation. If somebody thinks he has some new ingenious theory about something, let he present it in a proper place (scientific journals etc), not to common internet people. It’s a needless burden to react to such posts.

The source in that post is Wikipedia. It’s just Wikipedia explaining how carbon dating works.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am also suspicious when people refer to some old posts. From my experience, such posts are long and seen by their author as some work that cannot be easily repeated, summarized or read.

I am not too interested in those, I am more for a smooth conversation. If somebody thinks he has some new ingenious theory about something, let he present it in a proper place (scientific journals etc), not to common internet people. Its a needless burden to react to such posts.

If anyone is interested in understanding why I don’t trust the dating methods here’s why.

If you’re really interested read the first 3 paragraphs from this link and that will show you just how unreliable is actually is. This is from Wikipedia not some YEC website or some unknown source.

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia​

en.m.wikipedia.org

Here’s the most important part.

NOTE: because of the format they used on Wikipedia every time they mentioned C14 it ended up pasting backwards. So where it says 14C it should say C14.

“Research has been ongoing since the 1960s to determine what the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere has been over the past 50,000 years. The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's calendar age. Other corrections must be made to account for the proportion of 14C in different types of organisms (fractionation), and the varying levels of 14C throughout the biosphere(reservoir effects). Additional complications come from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and from the above-ground nuclear tests performed in the 1950s and 1960s.

Because the time it takes to convert biological materials to fossil fuels is substantially longer than the time it takes for its 14C to decay below detectable levels, fossil fuels contain almost no 14
C. As a result, beginning in the late 19th century, there was a noticeable drop in the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere as the carbon dioxide generated from burning fossil fuels began to accumulate. Conversely, nuclear testingincreased the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, which reached a maximum in about 1965 of almost double the amount present in the atmosphere prior to nuclear testing.”

The important thing to notice here is how much the level of C14 fluctuates just in the last 70 years. It was noticeably decreased as a result of burning fossil fuels then doubled as a result of nuclear testing. Then there’s different amounts in different biomes and different types of organic materials. The readings are all over the place and they have no idea what took place during the last 6,000 years that would also affect the C14 amounts. Furthermore they can only guess at what the amounts were 6,000 years ago. If the planet was created 6,000 years ago one would expect the levels of C14 to be on the extreme low side making everything they test near that period of time to appear to be much older than it actually is. Scientists don’t believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago so their calibration is based on the assumption of C14 levels being much higher than what they actually would’ve been which would naturally make everything appear to be much older than it actually is because of the low C14 count. This is why I keep saying that the dating methods are based on IF X, Y, & Z are true then the earth is X amount of years old. They’re not basing their calibration on the earth being 6,000 years old because they think that idea is ridiculous so they’re not expecting a very low amount of C14 in the atmosphere during that time. If the amount of C14 has drastically changed both decreasing then doubling in just the last 70 years like Wikipedia says then how can they have any idea what it was doing for the last 6,000 years? They’re guessing, that’s all they can do and most of these guesses are coming from geologists guessing at how old sediment layers are where these fossils are found. Thermoluminescence dating has the exact same problems because they have to guess at the amount of heat or radiation an object has been exposed to in order to measure the crystalline decay. Neither of these methods are reliable because of the huge absence of data that has to be filled in with nothing more than their best guess.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, please forgive me. So, you still think the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? the reason I ask is because my church believes that and I want to be in line with their teaching.

Nothing to forgive my friend. I apologize if my post appeared to be impolite it was surely not my intention. Yes I believe the universe is 6,000 years old.

 

[tonychanyt]

Not all dichotomies are false, some are true, such as this, “young earth” vs “old earth”. And this is not really about the age of the earth, it’s about your own perspective of time, not anybody else’s.

Why do you think this one is a true dichotomy?

 

[Halbhh]

Well, please forgive me. So, you still think the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? the reason I ask is because my church believes that and I want to be in line with their teaching.

While some churches must be mistaken about some things (as they disagree with other churches), we can rely on Christ instead, to know with 100% clarity what we must get right and that told to us in a clear way:

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

This is as serious as it sounds like also, we read, in verses like 13, 14, 21, 23 -- so really the full passage to best read is all of from verse 12 through 27 (Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 7:12-28 - New International Version) when we read this carefully: it's literally do or die.

 

[Diamond72]

Ahh I see, so believing what is plainly written is actually not believing

That is what you are trying to tell me. Because you do not believe in Science. I used to sell knives. Even I sold a lot of hunting knives that the Amish use on the farm to butcher their dinner. I would tell people a knife is neutral. It can be used for good for healing and it can be used for harm. People need to make their choices. Science can be used to harm others with weapons of mass destruction. Science can also be used for life, health and healing.

You can do what you want. If you want to ignore Science for your traditions then that is your choice. It is all going to get straightened out in Heaven.

Do you believe this statement? Do you believe that Adam is the first man?

Of course it depend on your definition of "man". Clearly people lived before Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. I am mostly a dispensationalist. The last ice age and last major extinction was 13,000 years ago. I live far enough north we can see the effect of the glaciers even today.

I can accept OEC with the viewpoint that Schroeder has because he gets the days and the events in Genesis to line up with Science. I also accept YEC because Adam and Eve did live 6,000 years ago in Eden. In the Tigris - Euphrates river valley. Abraham was the first to cross over the river. He was given all of the Arab continental plate. That is 1500 by 1500 by 1500 miles. BOTH of his sons qualify, the Muslims are descendants of Abraham with Hagar his wife handmaiden. There the descendants of Abraham with Sarah his half-sister.

You don’t seem to be able to recognize the difference between metaphorical statements and literal statements.

You are telling on yourself again. Do you not understand that YOU are guilty of what you accuse others of? With the same judgment you judge others, you are going to be judged. I actually used to be YEC, it took a lot of evidence to get me to accept OEC. Esp looking at the geology. If you can not see from Geology that this planet is MORE than 6,000 years old then I have nothing more to say. You need to study the evidence for yourself. If you want to ignore the evidence then that is up to you.

It really does not matter to me what you believe. I like YEC because they accept that Adam and Eve were real people who lived in a real garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. So the only thing we do not agree on is the 32 verses in Genesis chapter one. Although even though I have read the Bible 7 times, you want to accuse me of never having read the Bible and not believing what the Bible says.

For me, this should be the end of our conversation, because of your accusations. If you continue to accuse me then do not expect me to respond to you anymore.