The Earth is young

[GBTG]

I did mean concordance... thanks for the correction. Any translation as I said has its faults. For no translation can catch all the nuances. That said being able to see the other language and have a direct English translation AND the English KJV translation side by side is better than just invoking the English translation, as wholly accurate.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[Radagast]

I did mean concordance... thanks for the correction. Any translation as I said has its faults. For no translation can catch all the nuances. That said being able to see the other language and have a direct English translation AND the English KJV translation side by side is better than just invoking the English translation, as wholly accurate.

The other language is of limited use if you can't truly understand it.

The best thing to do is toss out the KJV and use a modern English translation produced by people who do know the language.

 

[Radagast]

Since science tends to speak as though what is being said is factual, it needs to be examined according to it's claims. If there is a change in the dating calibration, it then starts again from day one in terms of reliability.

That's just nonsense.

I however do not have sufficient evidence to say it is scientific fact.

I'm afraid you just don't know much about science.

 

[GBTG]

I disagree, time is a factor... The farther in time we get from the original language the less is known about the conversational or implied meanings. I would think that the KJV scribes had a better understanding of the use of the two languages being closer in time to when the scrolls were written. When writing the KJV translations for instance there were fewer words and less meanings available, hence less errors. Also with each translation the author or authors can take, shall we say certain liberties. I have many versions of the bible in my home and each has its own place for study. I don't believe there is any one best version.

As King Solomon said in Proverbs 15:22:

KJV "Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established".

or in the NIV "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed."

or the Aramaic Bible in plain English "Those who honor the assembly bypass reasoning, and by the multitude of advisers advice is established."

Therefore many reference bibles as with counselors through agreement will reveal intention. So it goes with languages...

Warm regards, GBTG

PS This foregoes any literary argument as well, as which is literally the most correct?

 

[Radagast]

I disagree, time is a factor... The farther in time we get from the original language the less is known about the conversational or implied meanings. I would think that the KJV scribes had a better understanding of the use of the two languages being closer in time to when the scrolls were written.

Not so. In fact, the KJV translators sometimes made errors with the Greek.

When writing the KJV translations for instance there were fewer words and less meanings available, hence less errors.

Huh?

 

[GBTG]

Direct Hebrew translation from Hebrew word of the same verse for example: "to-squash, designs, in·there-is-no, deliberation, and·in·many, ones-counseling, she-shall-be-confirmed."

Regards, GBTG

 

[GBTG]

"Huh?" Humans add around ~750 new words to our language every year.

I have stated many times that ALL translations have errors. There is no best translation...

Regards, GBTG

 

[Grandliseur]

I thought my OP was clearly focused on the scientific arguments I listed.

I already answered this once.
I have no real interest in what science says about the YEC versus OEC matter. It is and should be entirely about what holy scripture reveals about it. Nothing less, and nothing more.

The reason I post this is because someone told me it was about scientific arguments, however, your main statement in the post is "the earth is young!" and I disagree based on the Bible's arguments.

Just wanted to get that point across.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That's just nonsense.



I'm afraid you just don't know much about science.

='s I don't agree with you.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Marvin Knox said: ↑

Like most of us I suppose, I'm no scientist.

You don't have to be.

I'm not sure how you mean that. But if you are giving me permission - thank you.

No it doesn't, it says God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Thats all it says,

Actually no. It says quite a bit more.

While it is true that (linguistically speaking) there could be a long period before God created light and separated light from darkness that first day - it specifically tells us that whatever was created before that first day was "formless and void".

That leaves out the possibility of it being the earth as we know it. The earth as we know it is what we are talking about - not just some kind of physical mush.

Immediately after telling us that God was moving over a "formless and void non-earth as we know it" - He starts with clear statements concerning the various days of creation. But until those days start - there was no earth as we know it - which is what we are talking about.

Again - we are not talking about some physical "mush" which was created to be available to make into the earth as we know it when God got around to it. We are talking about the earth as we know it and it's age as such.

The OP is talking about the earth as we know it - as anyone can see by looking at the particular "proofs" being considered.

The reference to time are the genealogies come later and they are an unbroken genealogy leading all the way to the birth of the Messiah.

I agree.

But we aren't considering the literal genealogies here - even though I will say that the straight forward way God presents the genealogies tends to lead one to think of those earlier statements about the creation of earth as being very straight forward as well.

A straight forward reading of the Genesis account renders the age of the universe and the earth irrelevant.

The age of the material the earth was formed from - yes.

But not so the age of the earth as we know it (the topic of this thread).

Science has nothing to do with this, the doctrine of creation is inextricably linked to God creating life, not the planet and certainly not the universe.

Science has everything to do with what the OP lays out for us to consider.

What that is is the age of the earth as we know it.

You are absolutely incorrect that the doctrine of creation has only to do with the "creation of life" and not the creation of all things.

The doctrine of creation has to do with God speaking all things created into existence ex nihilo - meaning out of nothing. It has to do with the eternality and aseity of God Himself vis a vis His contingent creation.

 

[Ronald]

Thats all fine - you can debate it with an evolutionist or a creationist - not me. My point is purely from one who reads journals. The end text references highlight this is merely an opinion piece as opposed to researched factual article which is what the OP attempted to indicate. Take what ever position you want in the debate itself because I really dont care. My entry was to merely highlight the quality of the chapter articles from a referencing perspective.

Are you implying that the TOE is based on quality, factual research?

 

[Ronald]

The YEC view is that basically the earth is 6-10000 years old. Answers in Genesis list 10 strong evidences for this here.

These are basically the following

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
#2 Bent Rock Layers
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
#4 Faint Sun Paradox
#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
#8 Short-Lived Comets
#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

How would those of you who believe in an Old Earth counter these scientific arguments?

EDIT:

I thought my OP was clearly focused on the scientific arguments I listed. I will add the text of this post to my OP to clarify that. I have assumed since this is the Christians only section of the forums that everybody here is happy with the view God did it. But yes there is a variance on how he did it. I am happy to hear the opinions of Christians only as to whether the various scientific evidences I listed are credible or not with a focus on the age of the earth.

If the arguments are valid then a YEC position has some scientific credibility, if not then an Old Earth or TE position or day age theory may be better. But I would prefer to discuss the biblical evidences and positions elsewhere. This is focused on the scientific evidences listed. I hope the list is not too long but it gives people the opportunity to pick and mix the ones they are interested in.

This was a refreshing study. I must admit, it covered uncommon arguments against the TOE. It reminded me of when they landed on the moon. Scientists expected several feet of cosmic dust due to billions of years, but were shocked when they found only a couple inches, suggesting the moon has been around less than 10,000 years as well. I also agree that the flood was about 4300 years ago. We have living trees that are that old. Too bad they can't talk.

 

[Zoii]

Are you implying that the TOE is based on quality, factual research?

Im not implying anything. Ive been factual. If you want to debate evolution v creation do it with someone else not me. My comment is purely in relation to the end text referencing in the OP articles used. Theres no implication. The references listed in these articles are opinion pieces not research and the opinions are derived from creationist sites. That's my only position in this thread.

 

[mindlight]

Virtually every argument AIG proposes is rebutted by Talk Origins:

An Index to Creationist Claims

That is an interesting resource for comparisons sake and explains the rapidity of some peoples answers.

 

[mindlight]

That's how all scientific laws are formed: They are the explanation that survived the evidence of a phenomena. They are, in Popper's view, the explanation that wasn't falsified.

And here's the clincher (to carry on with Popper): that's how all explanations are. They are only valid and useful so long as they have not been falsified.



That part doesn't follow. Explanations become theories because they withstand the evidence. They are theories because they are are the explanations that are consistent with all the available evidence. That's how they become authoritative explanations within science. They don't themselves rely on the authority of the scientific community. They are the authority of the scientific community.

I am quite happy to accept the expertise of experimental scientists as setting limits to discussions. Inferential science is however just a word game and its so called experts are really just guessing. Falsifiability very often does not even apply. I noticed In recent discussions of the Cambrian explosion and of chemical evolution that no experimental data is really available and actual demonstrable facts are few and far between. So if I can understand the ideas and concepts being discussed then I or anyone else can just as easily contribute to the discussion. I have no fear anymore of sciences ivory towers and abstract experts whose theories add intellectual burden in the name of explanatory power and provide no tangible life benefit. Knowledge should build up not puff up. When it is accompanied by the levels of arrogance I have witnessed i cannot believe it to be knowledge at all.

 

[mindlight]

Solid rocks can bend without breaking over eons of time.

CHAPTER 10 (Folds, Faults and Rock Deformation)
"(a) Fig. 10.6a: Compressive forces generate folding and faulting as a consequence of shortening. Compressive forces are common along convergent plate boundaries resulting in mountain ranges."

"4. Fig. 10.7c: At higher confining pressures, a similarly directed external force will cause the deeply buried rock to actually flow and deform without fracturing. This is known as ductile deformation and the rock is said to behave plastically."

OK that is interesting, how would you test the one theory over the other though. Effectively we have 2 reasonable sounding explanations born of entirely different paradigms. The one saying the rocks bent in the flood cause soft and the other referring to compressive forces. At the end of the day the facts are just the bent rocks.

 

[mindlight]

#2, bent rock layers.

This is over simplified. Clean fractures wouldn't form if rock were unsolidified. Yet we have clean fractures of rock. Therefore, rocks had solidified prior to fracturing.

We were discussing examples where there were no fractures and yet the rocks bent. Fractures can of course occur after solidification and that is not in dispute.

 

[mindlight]

The Earth is currently estimated to be about 4 billion years old. Of course, scientists will revise this estimate, as more data are gathered. Science is in a constant state of discussion and debate - which is healthy. Many sciences support this viewpoint about the age of the Earth .. physics, biology, geology, astronomy. It is a consensus view .. meaning that data are compared and shared amongst all the sciences.

Not only that ... We know that the Earth contains elements from hydrogen (atomic number 1) to uranium (atomic number 92). It is IMPOSSIBLE for the heavy elements to have been synthesized by our present Sun. Therefore, the heavy elements must have come from a dust cloud, after the explosion of a supernova ... somewhere else in our Galaxy. Therefore, in some ways you could say that the Earth is much, much older than 4 billion years. Interesting to think about!!

There is no credible evidence supporting the age of the Earth as 10,000 years. This view is in contradiction with all the major sciences today.

There is also no reason for Christians to be pushing such a viewpoint. WHY do it? It makes Christianity look like we are stuck in the dark ages. It is archaic, and that is an understatement.

It is entirely possible to interpret the first verses in Genesis as a metaphorical description given by God. And what is wrong with that? If God sometimes speaks to us with beautiful poetry and metaphors, does that make His word any less important? I don't think so.

Gideon123

The only fact in what you said above was that hydrogen and uranium exist on the planet. The rest was speculation.

 

[mindlight]

uhhh This has nothing to do with me. A sin is a sin. I didn't write the rules. Talk to the boss upstairs.

Are you accusing me of a sin and if so what? My conscience is clear about my reasons for seeking the truth here.

There are other types of physical dating used by paleontologist including potassium-argon dating, argon-argon dating, fission track, direct chemical analysis, stratigraphy, biostratigraphy, and paleomagnetic stratigraphy. Non-exponential carbon 14 dating is primarily used for very recent events but it is NOT the be all and end all.

Yes the half lives for different elements vary making different kinds of tests appropriate in different circumstances but you seemed to have missed the point of the response. If there is still carbon 14 in readable amounts in a sample then given the half life of carbon 14 and clean conditions then that sample cannot be millions of years old.

 

[Radagast]

If there is still carbon 14 in readable amounts in a sample then given the half life of carbon 14 and clean conditions then that sample cannot be millions of years old.

Not true. Tiny, but readable, amounts of C14 may be present due to other causes.

It's possible that your analysis comes out saying: youngest possible age: 30,000 years / oldest possible age: infinity