Is it possible that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

[Greg1234]

As far as the super natural, I have heard the phrase used before. It's just that I don't know that there is some seperate kind of reality, somehow distinct from "normal" reality, that some call the "realm of the supernatural."

lol

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm familiar with what Hawking has said and written. It's true I was utilizing a somewhat convuluted definition of void in that previous post. I was saying that nobody says that this matter and antimatter came from a void, in a way which would contradict the idea that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. Not really a proper definition at all, so let me explain. The reason people say, as you have, that matter cannot come from a void is because it is also said that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. Just like it is said that matter and energy are the same thing. However, If one were to consider that matter (and by which I mean matter or it's equivalent energy) along with equal amounts of one other thing, came from that which is left when matter and antimatter combine (a void, or nothing, for all intensive purposes), then I don't know why that would be disallowed.

I'm not "disallowing" either energy or particles.

Energy will dissipate until there is no usable accumulation left to accomplish anything.

Another scenario is space devoid of energy or mass.
"Science" says this will stay this way. Yet here we are.
According to scientific theory, something happened.
According to scientific theory things just don't appear or happen without effort.
So, according to the laws of science, something out side of the "natural" world interfered and produced mass and energy. That would be a "supernatural" force.

Do I have "proof of this? Yes, I just explained why it must be so.
Do I have personal evidence of this supernatural being? Sure.
And because He's of spirit origin, the proof is just between me and Him.

In fact, it has been known for a while, that, throughout space, what we call virtual particles are constantly appearing and disappearing. And that they are actually pairs of particles, one matter, one antimatter, of equal mass and opposite charge, which appear, go about their business for millionths of second, and then disappear.

So they say.

Little is known about the nature of virtual particles, either as they appear in the present, across space, or possibly as they appeared at the event we call the Big Bang.

No matter. (no pun intended) They exist and if they have always existed, then they are "god". If not, they must have come from somewhere, or are the idea of someone.

As far as the super natural, I have heard the phrase used before. It's just that I don't know that there is some separate kind of reality, somehow distinct from "normal" reality, that some call the "realm of the supernatural."

I've shown that it logically must exist. And God has "conversed" with me so I know He's there.

So if you want to claim that there is some kind of special, separate part of reality, I'd just ask you how you know that? Otherwise, it suffices to use this descriptive : "Some explanation involving a godly being." Though again, I'd still like to ask, if you would claim such a thing, how you came to know it.

By faith first, by answered prayer as a direct result of that, second.
Plus He put it in writing. It would be odd for a man to write this on his own: Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Moses doesn't strike me as a liar. Some men do. Not this guy.

 

[pjnlsn]

I'm not "disallowing" either energy or particles.

You mean, not disallowing that equal parts antimatter and matter were at the event we call the Big Bang? Well, I thought you did have some objection to that, but if not...nvm.

Energy will dissipate until there is no usable accumulation left to accomplish anything.

More or less.

Another scenario is space devoid of energy or mass.

Like a cold death? Sure.

"Science" says this will stay this way. Yet here we are.

What will stay this way?

According to scientific theory, something happened. According to scientific theory things just don't appear or happen without effort.

This is more like common sense, or epistemology perhaps.

So, according to the laws of science, something...interfered and produced mass and energy.

If not, they must have come from somewhere, or are the idea of someone.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "idea of someone," but we do want an explanation of those things not known, sure.

So, according to the laws of science, something out side of the "natural" world...That would be a "supernatural" force.

Well, like I said: As far as the super natural, I have heard the phrase used before. It's just that I don't know that there is some seperate kind of reality, somehow distinct from "normal" reality, that some call the "realm of the supernatural."

I also don't know how science proves such a thing. Or which law of science you refer to? A law which says, or leads to the conclusion, that there is a seperate kind of reality, etc, etc? Or do you mean all of them...?

I'm afraid I don't quite know what you mean.

Do I have "proof of this? Yes, I just explained why it must be so.

I've shown that it logically must exist.

Well, you did note that we don't know certain things. Like, you can say that there were equal parts matter and antimatter at the big bang, and that they did form similarly to how virtual particles form in the present, and more antimatter decayed than matter, and there was an excess of matter.

But then this raises questions about the nature of gravity and it's interaction with antimatter, as well as the nature of virtual particles.

So yes, these things are not explained, and the above description of the event is not proven, but I'm not sure how the fact that we don't know certain things means there must be a seperate kind of reality, somehow distinct from "normal" reality: A "realm of the supernatural."

Do I have personal evidence of this supernatural being? Sure.
And because He's of spirit origin, the proof is just between me and Him.

And God has "conversed" with me so I know He's there.

Well, I'm not telepathic, so.....

By faith first,

Faith as in...you believe without proof? So you believe it because.....you believe it? You might be using this word in a different way than I do, but otherwise I'm not sure how to make sense of this bit.

by answered prayer as a direct result of that,

Mm. Like what?

second.
Plus He put it in writing. It would be odd for a man to write this on his own: Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Moses doesn't strike me as a liar. Some men do. Not this guy.

"He" put it in writing? Your god, then?

So you're saying you know that there's a special sepearate part of reality, set apart from normal reality, because (a it's written in the book and (b it would be odd for someone to write that?

Well, I've met a few odd people in my life, and some of them have said some right strange things, sometimes dealing with what would be called the supernatural, sometimes not. But I don't see how the fact that it's odd for a person to say it makes what they said true.

So they say.

Here you say this as though you doubt virtual particles exist, and then you say:

No matter. (no pun intended) They exist...

..so which is it? Unless I'm wrong about what you refer to.

They exist and if they have always existed, then they are "god".

Are you talking about virtual particles? Because I'd like to hear how virtual particles equals a godly being.

 

[SkyWriting]

You mean, not disallowing that equal parts antimatter and matter were at the event we call the Big Bang? Well, I thought you did have some objection to that, but if not...nvm.

It is said they were. But where did they source from?

What will stay this way?

Empty will remain empty.

This is more like common sense, or epistemology perhaps.

Agreed. But Law as well.

A) Law of conservation of matter
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

B) First law of energy (first law of thermodynamics)
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
dU = dQ - dW
Where dU is a small increase in the internal energy of the system, dQ is a small amount of heat added to the system, and dW is a small amount of work done by the system.

I also don't know how science proves such a thing. Or which law of science you refer to? A law which says, or leads to the conclusion, that there is a seperate kind of reality, etc, etc? Or do you mean all of them...?
I'm afraid I don't quite know what you mean.

The laws above state that matter and energy is impossible
unless it has a source.

The source must be supernatural to avoid the endless question
of "....and what was THAT source?".

Faith as in...you believe without proof? So you believe it because.....you believe it? You might be using this word in a different way than I do, but otherwise I'm not sure how to make sense of this bit.

Yes, as in I first believed it based on circumstantial evidence. Like a person would if on a Jury. Based on evidence and testimony of persons who are determined not to be liars. Mostly the latter.

"He" put it in writing? Your god, then?

Yes. The scriptures are "God-breathed."
You may define GOD BREATHED most any way you choose.
Good breath, bad breath, words, or "Hot Air" if that's what you feel is correct.

So you're saying you know that there's a special sepearate part of reality, set apart from normal reality, because (a it's written in the book and (b it would be odd for someone to write that? Well, I've met a few odd people in my life, and some of them have said some right strange things, sometimes dealing with what would be called the supernatural, sometimes not. But I don't see how the fact that it's odd for a person to say it makes what they said true.

OK. But that's my claim. Some people are insane, some are liars, and some seem to be sane and have no clear investment in the beneficial outcome of their words. Those who are killed because of what they say or write are given special consideration.

Are you talking about virtual particles? Because I'd like to hear how virtual particles equals a godly being

.
Being eternal, critical, influential, fundamental, invisible, temporal, and hard to understand, they would have some of the aspects of a god. Missing personality for sure. Maybe enough to have a book written about them like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

[teagranny]

in response to the op, me to. I had no idea there were so many Christians who believe in an old earth.
It seems much more convoluted to believe in an old earth. What verse suggests the evening and morning were the third day doesn't mean just that?

I remember watching a program about Mt St Helens. Apparently in two or three days after the eruption there were deposits on the ground which perfectly mimicked deposits which, if the actual timeline wasn't known, would have been classified as many many thousands of years old.

I have also heard theories that preflood the air was different, the atmosphere was different therefore the 'evidence' would also be different.

Of course since no one can time travel neither side can be proven.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Of course since no one can time travel neither side can be proven.

I think our side could be proven by their "experts" (and resources) if they had the mind for it.

 

[Ronald]

Yes, the earth can be close to 6,000 years old. Dating methods are flawed and most evolutionary theory is guessed at. Their science leaves out initial ingredients and conditions that must be present for an accurate tests using carbon-14 or potasium-argon to work. They assume the amounts because they do not know them nor can they. Do you really think that any sun can burn for 13.5 billion years? The Jewish calendar may not be that far off. Year 5772

 

[miamited]

I'm with Ronald and the Jewish calander. After all, everything that God wants His creation to know, He has delivered to us through the Jew. HMMMMMMMM.

God bless you all.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Incariol]

Yes, the earth can be close to 6,000 years old. Dating methods are flawed

I'm sure they are. Such would be a requirement for anything like that to be even remotely plausible.

and most evolutionary theory is guessed at.

Not really.

Their science leaves out initial ingredients and conditions that must be present for an accurate tests using carbon-14 or potasium-argon to work.

No they don't...

They assume the amounts because they do not know them nor can they. Do you really think that any sun can burn for 13.5 billion years?

Yeah, certain low-mass stars burn quite slowly.

The Jewish calendar may not be that far off. Year 5772

Too bad human civilization predates the Jewish year of creation by thousands of years.

 

[Keachian]

Yes, the earth can be close to 6,000 years old.

The only way this could happen is if you take the idea of embedded age.

Dating methods are flawed and most evolutionary theory is guessed at. Their science leaves out initial ingredients and conditions that must be present for an accurate tests using carbon-14 or potasium-argon to work. They assume the amounts because they do not know them nor can they.

Incariol addresses this

Do you really think that any sun can burn for 13.5 billion years?

Well yeah, we use geometry with the known rate of exapansion of the universe and speed of light to find out how old they are

 

[Assyrian]

Do you really think that any sun can burn for 13.5 billion years?

That's ok, our sun is only about 4.54 billion years old.

The distant stars we see that are 13.5 billion years old may have burned out long ago. What we see is the light that was shining 13.5 billion years ago. It has taken that time to reach us.

 

[Incariol]

Well yeah, we use geometry with the known rate of exapansion of the universe and speed of light to find out how old they are

Really? I always assumed it was analysis of line spectra and mass calculations to derive what fusion processes it is in, which would allow a calculation of age and life expectancy.

 

[florida2]

For the age of stars, E=MC2 allows it as it demonstrates that such huge amounts of energy that a star produces can come from a 'relatively small' (I use that word carefully!) amount of mass. Before that, scientists were at a loss to explain why a star didn't burn up in a few thousand years. (Of course, using the word 'burn' here is totally inaccurate but you get my drift!)

 

[SkyWriting]

in response to the op, me to. I had no idea there were so many Christians who believe in an old earth.

The Bible doesn't clearly says much about "the age of the earth" old or young. But it does give testimony as to what we can expect from God's "intervention" in our world.

Go through each one, pretending you were there one hour after they happened, and label them "appearing old" or "appearing young" if possible.

Cure of two blind men (Matt 9:27-31)
Piece of money in the fish's mouth (Matt 17:24-27)
The deaf and dumb man (Mark 7:31-37)
The blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26)
Jesus passes unseen through the crowd (Luke 4:28-30)
The miraculous draught of fishes (Luke 5:4-11)
The raising of the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-18)
The woman with the spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:11-17)
The man with the dropsy (Luke 14:1-6)
The ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)
The healing of Malchus (Luke 22:50-51)
Water made wine (John 2:1-11)

 

[SkyWriting]

Unmarred? No, the creation groans together with us in travail since man fell in sin & will continue that way until the Lord makes a new heavens and a new earth. But it bears unmistakeable signs of God's recent creation.

Here are just two examples.

We can't count recent, maybe even scientific evidence. The scriptures say no to that. "Unmistakable" must be ancient evidence.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[SkyWriting]

The only way this could happen is if you take the idea of embedded age.

When Jesus made water into wine, it came with "Embedded Age".
That's a "leading" term though. The wine was "The BEST Wine".
We don't really know HOW that wine became the best.
It's wrong to assume some age was "embedded" into it.
Maybe it just.....became.

 

[valkyree]

Could all the scientific evidence that says the earth is around 4.54 billion years old be wrong?

?

yes!!!

there are many unproved assumptions that form the foundation of radiometric dating

until those foundational assumptions are proven to be true then any age of anything determined by those methods can be wrong

radiometric age dating is notoriously unaccurate - several age dates of the same rock will often vary widely and the average is taken - is that true and accurate science?

one unproved assumption is that radioactive decay rates have been the same thru time - this is unproven - that is why it's called an assumption

radiometric age dates of the 1980 Mt St Helens eruption were much older than the known age of the eruption!!!!!

 

[valkyree]

Is it possible that God used super natural methods to create everything and we are unable to measure these?

?

God has certainly used methods we no longer understand - it is forgotten knowledge

Our knowledge today is but a fraction of what it was before the great flood

A study of the precision of the placement of all the ancient pyramids found all around the globe is a testament to the ancient knowledge that is now lost - and that is but one example of the many ancient things that have been found that we do not understand today

 

[Volokh]

no. to original question.

 

[valkyree]

Is this the best science can do or are scientist blinded by satan to the possiblity that the earth is around 6,000 years old?

No this is not the best science can do - it is a carefully crafted and deliberate deception created and pushed to the forefront by those who do not love the truth