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

[Keachian]

No doubt. So explain why the first miliseconds of the big bang are more important than your little sisters killer still walking the streets?

Appeal to emotion. My sister died of natural causes. There are plenty of enough forensic scientists. I have just as much interest in the study of the universe, after all when I look at the heavens the work of his hands, I can't help but think what is man that he cared so much that he sent his only son that however might believe in him should not perish but have eternal life. It is humbling.

And should we really believe what these guys insist happened 352 Billion ya at the beginning of time?

You mean 13.5-14 bya

With OJ still on the streets?
What about that girl who drowned her baby?

The study of the universe and these killings do not have a link, you are still making appeals to emotion.

I don't like your priorities.

Yep, you set me up as some evil priorities person and then blame me for it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Sedimentary fossils and layers can't be radio dated. So the only layers that can be dated are lava layers over sedimentary. So Hawaiian lava flows should date out to be zero age. Why is that not the case?

I assume you're referring to a specific study with this? I know of one that uses an historical flow from Mt. St. Helens, but I was unaware of one from Hawaii.

At any rate, it depends on the dating method used. Various radiometric dating techniques are suited fer different lengths of time. For example, carbon-14 (which can't be used on rocks), has an effective range of 0-50,000 years. Its half-life is short enough (~5700 years iirc) that differences over a matter of a few years are measurable and don't have too large of an error associated with them. However, potassium-argon, the method used for the Mt.St. Helens study, uses potassium-40, which has a half-life of 1.26 billion years. The amount that would decay in historical time is so insignificant that it falls within systematic error. For this reason, it isn't used to date historically deposited rocks.

Incidentally, K-Ar dating actually isn't used anymore because it has too much inherent error. it's been replaced with Ar-Ar dating, which is much more accurate.

No doubt. So explain why the first miliseconds of the big bang are more important than your little sisters killer still walking the streets?
And should we really believe what these guys insist happened 352 Billion ya at the beginning of time?
With OJ still on the streets?
What about that girl who drowned her baby?
I don't like your priorities.

As progmonk already said, you're making a really lousy appeal to emotion. What you said is the equivalent of saying "Football is the only sport that matters. Therefore, all athletes should play football." Just because someone is a scientist does not mean that they are able to do any science job, or are even interested in other jobs. Everyone has their own skill set.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

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

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

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?

Doesn't the bible say that some people's minds are blinded?

Here is my take. I do not stand on any prefered "side", I find it silly to attach myself to any one dispostion when it comes to these topics. Very simple, we are finite beings limited in what we can know. Maybe the earth is that old, but maybe not. There is no one who can make such a claim with 100% certainty, as they are not God.

How did God begin when He decided to produce life? Mankind was made in His image, yet how did God modify the human genome when He created man's helper, Eve? How did God cut down man's lifetime from hundreds of years to 120? To give a few examples.

God tells us "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways", and has engineered the Bible perfectly so as this truth remains inescapable. We have no business being God's spokesperson for His personal timetables and activities. We do have business being the spokesperson for who He is and what His plans for humanity are.

 

[areil]

I have concidered the age of the earth question too. I believe the entire matter is one taken on faith no matter what 'book' you accept as truth. Science is the study of all things, humans included. What humans have observed over and over through history is that it is human to error. If scientist blantly recognize this absolute truth concerning the Human condition they also are forced to accept that their experiments and hypothesis will refect this understanding. Many honest ones openly accept this.

Therefore something concidered a 'scientific fact' always contains variation based on missing knowledge, evidence, or misinterpretation by the human defining it. Therefore a 'fact' in science is really just a way of saying this is what our evidence points to and so we conclude that this is what that is. It is really a tinder box of truth expecialy when it comes to dating things very old because such things are impossible for humans to observe unless if over millions or billions of years. The variations are to great to assume that such could even be true. The fact is we do know what kind of world existed beyond the time of recorded history, and even then it is debatable with out proper observation to come even remotely close to the 'truth'

I can and do accept many scientic facts and believe them well established, most of them I can see demonstated. However I still do not agree that they establish absolute truth concerning their peticular field, but are correct to a point. I could go on I do have a point pertaining to the tread in all this so I will spare you all and get to it.

My point is that God is perfect, man is not. Therefore I take on faith what the word of God says is accurate, concering the rendering of Scripture. I believe that the earth was created in 6 litteral days. Not based on science. Scripture is a book of trust or faith of scientific evidence. The word of God is not inferior to mans prescribed tests or conclusions. One does not have to agree with the other and they will not, scripture warns us of this. Gods wisdom is beyond that of men. If that shakes your faith then pehaps you need to concider who's your master man or God.

Many wish to argue that God used millions of years misquoting scripture to manipulate what a 'day' really means. Yet we see from the creation account that 'morning and evening' consituted a day. The writer was not intrested in weither or not God created the sun or moon yet but in providing a known time line. We know a day to 24 hrs or somewhere there in. I see from scripture this in the creation account. Furthermore Scripture provides us with the understanding that the Jews were called to celebrate the Sabbath on the seventh day as it was Gods day of rest. Now if this refered to Billions of years then the first Jewish Sabbath would not happen for some time. Paul was fasting and praying for 3 days on the street straight Acts 9 does this mean 3 billion years? Of course not.

Many will bring the 'day = thousand years' into it, however if you go back to the context of how it is worded you will find that it does not denote time but provides us with Gods perspective on a day. To us it is a long time to him it is a blip, he is eternal.

Finally it is assumed by Creationists that God spent billions of years creating the earth then man is created sort of last of all things which is fine and all but how do we know that if the earth is 4.54 billion years old that the time is not equally spread out. This would lend the possiblity that man is himself at least a few hundered million years of age. Unless God is refering to the single celled emeoba as man with would evolve into homosapiens then I am at a loss.

Thanks

 

[areil]

I wanted to further point out that my post was intended to refect that the Bible is a book of 'faith' NOT of science. Christians make the mistake of trying to force meanings that are just not found in scripture, and at best are misrepresented to jusify a hybrid form of faith that holds to 'science' in one hand and 'God' in the other or visa versa. We as Christians are called to made a choice, between his word and mans 'wisdom'.

 

[cimbk]

hi cimbk,

You responded: I only wonder what age scientist would of given Eve the day of her creation.

That's actually a discussion I've had many times on these creation boards, although I've always posted it in relation to Adam. Had Adam died one week after God created him from the dust of the ground and a forensic pathologist with all of the knowledge of the entire world regarding that science performed an autopsy on Adam's lifeless body, he would no doubt, with all of the scientific assurances of every other forensic patholgist on the planet have written his autopsy thusly:

Male
Approximately 26 years old
healthy organs

Had anyone stood before him and declared that Adam was only one week old the entire world would have slapped their collective knee and hooted and hollered in mocking derision. "Impossible!!!", they would declare. "Science has proven that a man with such size and stature and weight and other 'facts' that that body portrays cannot possibly be one week old!!!! Why, if he were one week old he'd still be in diapers. What a complete ignoramous you are!!"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

No doubt Ted!.....I don't argue evolution, the things I've witnessed, I have no doubt God and science will never mesh, He is so far above our ways,

everything He does is outside the realm of science, anyone who would try to weave creation with science has no idea of the Magnitude of genius the Creator has. He merely speaks and it is. (I don't even try to figure it out)

 

[valkyree]

Science:
Matter doesn't come from non-matter.



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.

love that quote

what about at the original creation?

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

love that quote

What about at the original creation?

What aspects are you asking about?

 

[SkyWriting]

Finally it is assumed by Creationists that God spent billions of years creating the earth then man is created sort of last of all things ....

All generalizations about "Creationists" are not valid. (except for that one )
Our the differences in our specific beliefs are legion.

 

[Jazer]

Once you allow that kind of possibility, absolutely anything could be true about anything.

Actually nothing would be true. String theory is the flip side of the coin and it says everything is true.

 

[pjnlsn]

So, SkyWriting, or anyone really, where's the proof?

And if you, or anyone who believes, doesn't know what it is quite precisely, so that I could tell you, "well, based on that description, the following would be indicators...," then I really don't know why you all say that the thing exists in reality. Although if it's just that the belief is useful, then w/e, but otherwise.....

 

[Drogheda]

nope