Philosoft
Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related
Yeah, well, I can have it removed if it becomes a problem.MAC said:Those who are obsessed with teaching that the earth, man, and every living thing on earth naturally began and through natural selection evolved are engaging in the zenith of gall (Gen. 1; 2).
Do you know where the 6,000 year figure came from? It's really an astonishingly stupid deduction.There is particular interest today relative to the age of the earth. Some geophysicists tell us the earth is 4.7 billions years old. Some theologians say the earth is only 6, 000 years old.
And, as no sane man has proffered the "exact age," we can be pretty comfortable with our 4.6 billion years.Beloved, the simple answer regarding the age of the earth is, no man knows the exact age.
You do seem to understand the sheer inanity of Ussher's "calculations."The earth is 6,000 years old position. The date 4004 B.C. is found in the marginal notes (Genesis one) of many King James Versions. This date was first placed in the King James Version by James Ussher in 1701. He arrived at this date by adding the lengths of the lives of the patriarchs as given in Genesis 5 and 11. In reality, this dating method is not infallible for a number of possible reasons. As far as the Bible is concerned, we can not date the earth with accuracy. It must be remembered that Genesis presents the earth as being created mature or aged (Gen. 1: 20 ff.).
Fine, but no one method is held-up above all others as "the absolutely true method of dating the age of the earth." But they all have a significant degree of overlap.The earth is 4.7 billions years old view. Scientists have employed a number of methods in trying to arrive at the age of the earth. The rate of erosion, rate of salt accumulation in the ocean, and the rate of decay of certain elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium. All of these methods including the "ore method," "meteorite method," and the dating of fossil remains are unreliable and contain many attendant variables.
No, there are not. And you'd better not pull out a lame "50 scientists who are creationists" list.There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young.
Science isn't terribly concerned that their earth-age is egregiously wrong.They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old. Beloved, one thing we do know is life begets life and creation implies a Creator: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1: 1). In all honesty, there are matters scientists and theologians do not definitively know as to the age of the earth.
Oh? Then we should be able to get some good science from the Bible after all.True science and the Bible, though, do not conflict.
Upvote
0