What is the age of the Earth?

[jad123]

By any definition if one leaves the Church one is a protestant. Protestant is a form of the word "protest".

1. A formal declaration of disapproval or objection issued by a concerned person, group, or organization.
2. An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval.

Protestantism began during the Renaissance as a protest against the established (Roman Catholic) church.

You can call yourself a Christian if you want, that's fine. But in technical terms you are a protestant Christian, just as I am and thankfully a Catholic Christian.

Definatley another topic but everything you just stated is historically and biblically inaccruate......

 

[simplyg123]

ok, heres where i am, science is not always right, to say that it is is a lie.

Usually sciences theory changes, which they have on this subject, as a matter of fact, have scientist decided yet which theory is scientific?

The fact is, scientist are undecided

The fact is Only God Knows

So maybe im wrong, but i dont have A record of that.
whereas the scientist do

 

[KerrMetric]

ok, heres where i am, science is not always right, to say that it is is a lie.

Never said science was always right - so I guess I am not a liar.

Usually sciences theory changes, which they have on this subject, as a matter of fact, have scientist decided yet which theory is scientific?

Not as often as people want to make you think. Most theory on the major points is unchanging. It is the minutae that changes. Whether the Earth is 4.57 or 4.58 billion years old is minutuae. Whether it is 6000 years or 4.5 billon or so is a something that is factual. It isn't the 6000 one by the way.

Your last point makes little sense from what I read.

The fact is, scientist are undecided

On some things yes - on others no. But on these topics we are right more than those who don't know a thing about the issues.

The fact is Only God Knows

True.

 

[simplyg123]

i believe the amount of years is a big major disagreement, if one believe 4 billion and another says 6000, someone has something completely wrong

 

[KerrMetric]

i believe the amount of years is a big major disagreement, if one believe 4 billion and another says 6000, someone has something completely wrong

It is and you are right. Science says 4.5 billion approx. and the non-scientists using a few scriptural verses and some half baked fake science say 6000.

The 6000 people are out to lunch on this issue and quite simply don't know how to do science.

Add on to that some of them pushing this are doing so for no other reason than linin their own pockets by donations to their "ministries".

 

[simplyg123]

A survey published in American Scientist in 1993 found between 6% and 9% of respondents were personally aware of results that had been plagiarised or fabricated within their faculties. In 1995, a poll of almost 300 randomly selected researchers in Norway found 22% were aware of "serious breaches of research ethical guidelines" among colleagues. The consensus is that while most do not intentionally set out to falsify their work, by cutting corners research is inevitably flawed.

 

[pgp_protector]

A survey published in American Scientist in 1993 found between 6% and 9% of respondents were personally aware of results that had been plagiarised or fabricated within their faculties. In 1995, a poll of almost 300 randomly selected researchers in Norway found 22% were aware of "serious breaches of research ethical guidelines" among colleagues. The consensus is that while most do not intentionally set out to falsify their work, by cutting corners research is inevitably flawed.

While no minister or preacher or priest has ever lied right ?

 

[KerrMetric]

A survey published in American Scientist in 1993 found between 6% and 9% of respondents were personally aware of results that had been plagiarised or fabricated within their faculties. In 1995, a poll of almost 300 randomly selected researchers in Norway found 22% were aware of "serious breaches of research ethical guidelines" among colleagues. The consensus is that while most do not intentionally set out to falsify their work, by cutting corners research is inevitably flawed.

I'm personally aware of plagiarism and I beleive that like all human endeavours some fudging has occurred. But this is all a non sequitor to the age of the earth topic. But to suggest all research is flawed is ludicrous in the extreme.

As I said earlier - why does you car, computer, antibiotics, shampoo work? Isn't this all the product of scientific research? Was this 6 - 9% flawed as well?

The Earth is 6000 or 4.5 billion years old does not depend on two or three results from 2 or 3 researchers but tens of thousands of results and data points ans analyses by literally tens of thousands of researchers over decades and hundreds of thousands of researchers and employed scientists over those decades utlising the work and techniques. But a few nuts say they are all wrong because of a few verses in a contradictory Genesis account?? No thanks.

 

[Scholar in training]

A survey published in American Scientist in 1993 found between 6% and 9% of respondents were personally aware of results that had been plagiarised or fabricated within their faculties. In 1995, a poll of almost 300 randomly selected researchers in Norway found 22% were aware of "serious breaches of research ethical guidelines" among colleagues. The consensus is that while most do not intentionally set out to falsify their work, by cutting corners research is inevitably flawed.

Where did you copy and paste this from? I might note that these surveys were taken over ten years ago.

 

[simplyg123]

While no minister or preacher or priest has ever lied right ?

never said that, the bible speaks of many diceivers

Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Mar 13:6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am [Christ]; and shall deceive many.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

It was here when I arrived.

 

[simplyg123]

you know what bothers me is for someone to say they know something, when it would be impossible to know.

again if the world was then as it is today, i would agree with you, but there is much evidence stating otherwise.

we cant take what we know of the earth right now, and use it to understand the earth then, it was not the same

 

[KerrMetric]

you know what bothers me is for someone to say they know something, when it would be impossible to know.

No it is not impossible. There are many things we can and do know. You don't need to memorise the entire KJV to know the message.

again if the world was then as it is today, i would agree with you, but there is much evidence stating otherwise.

True in one sense but incorrect in many others.

we cant take what we know of the earth right now, and use it to understand the earth then, it was not the same

Yes we can. I'm sorry but you are just wrong on this.

Just like we can take a murdered corpse and approximate the time and manner of death. It's all science.

As I asked earlier - wy are you not asking for most prisoners to be immediately released from jail since they were convicted on evidence utlising the past?

 

[hoser]

Definatley another topic but everything you just stated is historically and biblically inaccruate......

Really? Those definitions (quotes) came from answers.com. So are you saying that they are "historically and biblically inaccurate?"

 

[leothelioness]

What is your opinion of the age of the Earth?

I think the earth is millions possibly billions of years old. I don't believe the Genesis account meant the earth was created in 6 literal days because of course when the earth was being made there was no concept of time. Genesis was speaking in God's time.

The first day of creation could have been 6 million years and the second day could have been 6 million more. I don't think it was six literal days, though.

 

[icedtea]

I happen to believe it was 6 24 hour days. In many places, it says So the evening and the morning were the second day. The Jews consider evening the start of a day, til sunset the net.
I don't think the plants would've survived a 6,000 year night. Photosynthesis and all.

 

[pgp_protector]

I happen to believe it was 6 24 hour days. In many places, it says So the evening and the morning were the second day. The Jews consider evening the start of a day, til sunset the net.
I don't think the plants would've survived a 6,000 year night. Photosynthesis and all.

On what day was the Sun and Moon created ?

 

[icedtea]

It says 4th. But I still believe these were 6 literal days.

 

[pgp_protector]

It says 4th. But I still believe these were 6 literal days.

So how did you have a sunrise & sunset before the sun was created ?
One of the two events don't jive.

 

[leothelioness]

So how did you have a sunrise & sunset before the sun was created ?

Oh, aren't you sneaky.