[_ Old Earth _] How old is the Earth?

[Pizzaguy]

I think that the crisis in thought over the age of the earth goes to one argument and one only: those who believe in a 10,000 year (or younger) earth and creation do so out of well-meaning faith.

They see early Genesis as God's literal explanation of how He started things, how He created things. These people believe that you can read the bible word-for-word and gleen from it a literal meaning, almost without interpretation at all. You simply read the words and take them literally. (There are those who go so far as to say that, IF you can't get away from porn, that is, "your eye offend you", you should blind yourself to save your own soul. YES, these people believe that Jesus WAS advocating causing physical harm to yourself to save your soul).

I find this viewpoint admirable from a spiritual sense. These people put such faith in God, they will be a "fool" for God before they believe any source outside the Bible.

But I can't quite join them. There are stretches you must make to reconcile this "biblical" view with observation. These problems are numerous, they start with the problem of the speed of light (how could I see stars 500,000 light years away if all of this has only been here 10,000 years?) and move on to other areas.

Personally, I dont think that God "fabricated" or compromised anything to make the universe look old, if it isn't. My opinion is that the earth and universe ARE probably a few billion years old to as much as hundreds of billions of years old.

I don't see early Genesis as a technical description of creation - I see it as stating "GOD DID IT", but not at all HOW he did it. As I have previously posted, less than one tenth of 1 percent of the bible describes His acts of creation. It seems to me that this fact alone tells us that he didn't see much importance in providing us a description of His creative work.

He just wanted us to know that HE did it.

How old is the earth? I don't know - but it appears to be VERY old, at least in human terms.

 

[lordkalvan]

A marriage partner can only be a husband or wife - not two husbands or two wives.

In civil law, marriage is a contract between two individuals. There is no moral or ethical reason why society cannot extend that contractual relationship to same-sex partners. 'Spouse' is a non-gender specific term which legally and actually describes each partner to that contract, i.e. the other's marriage partner; no redefinition of 'spouse' is required. I think this is a horse which has been well and truly beaten to death.

They simply conveyed the message, they are merely translating what God had defined.

You are assuming that God 'defined' anything or even that those who wrote the Bible correctly 'translated' it if he did.

o, what does gay mean before in 1900s? and what does windows and mouse means before the computer age? Language changes rapidly.

language changes, but the three words that you mention have simply had extended meanings attached to them. Gay still means carefree and happy, mouse is still a small rodent and windows let light into buildings.

This is why God not only mentioned the word, He defines it what He meant.

See above. You are assuming your conclusion, rather than looking at the culture that produced Genesis and understanding what they saw as the causes of light. Can you show that they understood that daylight was caused by the Sun (as was moonlight), rather than the Sun simply being a light in the daytime sky, just as the stars are lights in the nighttime sky?

Sun is the ruler of the day (Gen 1:16).

A common motif in many religions which deified the Sun.

Day by itself has nothing to do with Sun.

Day is defined by the rotation of the planet it is used in relation to.

Day means light.

Day is generally used in this context as that period during which a location is illuminated by the Sun. If the ancients who produced Genesis failed to understand that it was the Sun that caused that illumination, then it is scarcely surprising that they would make such a basic cosmological error as to suppose that daylight could exist absent a star to provide it.

The Sun is given to rule the day. Morning is the beginning of the day which is light. I don't see any problem with the ruler of the day rising on the sky to rule the day.

And neither do I if the understanding is that the Sun and daylight are dissociated causally one from the other. As they clearly are not, I am led to the conclusion that the confusion existed in the minds of those responsible for writing Genesis. As I said before, this concept of the Sun as a ruler (metaphorical or otherwise) testifies to the polytheistic origins and beliefs of early Judaism in which Yahweh was but one god amongst several competing deities.

 

[felix]

In civil law, marriage is a contract between two individuals. There is no moral or ethical reason why society cannot extend that contractual relationship to same-sex partners. 'Spouse' is a non-gender specific term which legally and actually describes each partner to that contract, i.e. the other's marriage partner; no redefinition of 'spouse' is required. I think this is a horse which has been well and truly beaten to death.

That's why I cursed all people in Australia who support 'Homosexuals' to have homosexual children - they will have what they wanted. This way, their bloodline will stop and all their wealth will be inherited by my generation and my bloodline .

 

[Deavonreye]

If you are reading the Bible, you must take the meaning of what the Bible says, not any dictionary.

But you seem to be making it say more than it is.

He didn't replace any light.
God created light (H216 אוֹר 'owr (ore)) as the first creation. Later in verse 14, He created a luminous bodies (H3974 מָאוֹר מָאוֹר מְאוֹרָה מְאוֹרָה ma'owr) often translated again as light in English.

Light photons are not magical. There must be a source. What was the source for this light, . . . . before the star was created?

 

[felix]

Light photons are not magical. There must be a source. What was the source for this light, . . . . before the star was created?

Why don't you ask the Creator?

 

[Deavonreye]

Why don't you ask the Creator?

Besides ~30 years of asking and having absolutely nothing coming back, . . . I would say that such a being is not one I neither COULD nor WOULD get an answer from.

Regardless, I am asking you where this light source emitted from?

 

[felix]

Besides ~30 years of asking and having absolutely nothing coming back, . . . I would say that such a being is not one I neither COULD nor WOULD get an answer from.

You should ask properly:
Jas 1:5-8 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; [he is] a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Will you be answering anyone who comes as says.... I know you're not going to help but anyways please help. The same is with God.

Regardless, I am asking you where this light source emitted from?

• Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
• Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, things in the heavens, and things upon earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones, whether dominions, whether beginnings, whether authorities: all were created by him, and for him:

Ans: Word of God (who is Jesus Christ)

 

[jasoncran]

deavonrye, is asking for a peer reviewed naturalistic answer.

while, i agre with felix on that, but that isnt science.

 

[Free]

What the.....? Who are you to curse anyone and what is this nonsense about homosexuals having homosexual children? What research underpins this assertion? And how will you inherit anything?

Good questions.




Let's make sure to keep this on topic.

 

[Deavonreye]

You should ask properly:
Jas 1:5-8 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; [he is] a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Will you be answering anyone who comes as says.... I know you're not going to help but anyways please help. The same is with God.

Ah. . . .we've come to the "you didn't pray the right way" part of the game. Pardon me, but you have absolutely NO way of knowing how I lived my life as I attempted to be a christian. I was COMPLETELY serious, AND very much expecting. Don't talk down to me or give me a sermon. I am well versed in it all!

• Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
• Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, things in the heavens, and things upon earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones, whether dominions, whether beginnings, whether authorities: all were created by him, and for him:

Ans: Word of God (who is Jesus Christ)

You are tellling me nothing here. What was the light? From what process did it originate? Is it still here? Was it removed after the star was set in its place? Was it even necessary? There was nothing that needed light to see! My point is, if you're going to make an assertion, then you need to have some backing . . . or it is just your opinion. That's fine for the theology section, but it isn't science.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

You are tellling me nothing here. What was the light? From what process did it originate? Is it still here? Was it removed after the star was set in its place? Was it even necessary? There was nothing that needed light to see! My point is, if you're going to make an assertion, then you need to have some backing . . . or it is just your opinion. That's fine for the theology section, but it isn't science.

When the Bible is silent so must we. We can only make assertions to what it really is. Given the fact there's a star conveniently placed by us I'd say that's the light.

 

[Deavonreye]

Or, it was never meant to be a literal story. As far as the first light being our star, that wasn't until day 4. My questions, though they cannot be answered via scripture, still have merit.

 

[felix]

Ah. . . .we've come to the "you didn't pray the right way" part of the game. Pardon me, but you have absolutely NO way of knowing how I lived my life as I attempted to be a christian. I was COMPLETELY serious, AND very much expecting. Don't talk down to me or give me a sermon. I am well versed in it all!

There is a difference between 'attempting to be a christian' and 'being a christian'. 'very much expecting' is not something a christian should have because you should have asked for His will. God will answer the prayers of a christian as long as it aligns with His will.

God does not answer all prayers and desires. Heavenly Father did not answer for what Jesus expected and desired in the garden before His crucifixion. He even pleaded with the Father for any alternate way for avoiding crucifixion, yet He left it to His Father's will. Similarly, what you have desired or wanted might cause danger to you and God doesn't want that to happen in your life and whatever He did is always for your good, if you are a christian.

You are tellling me nothing here. What was the light? From what process did it originate? Is it still here? Was it removed after the star was set in its place? Was it even necessary? There was nothing that needed light to see! My point is, if you're going to make an assertion, then you need to have some backing . . . or it is just your opinion. That's fine for the theology section, but it isn't science.

'but it isn't science' - This is exactly what I am speaking about. Science in short, you can experiment, observe and produce results by repeating it.

Science: the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms (Refer: dictionary.com)

You cannot do experiment with God to observe Him or produce a formula to predict Him.

Satan experimenting with Jesus Christ and you have His answer:
Matt 4:6-7 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In [their] hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.' " Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.' "

 

[felix]

What does all this have to do with the age of the Earth, by the way?

Because, you simply can't accept the Scripture truth that "Morning" has nothing to do with "sun rise", where I gave an example of the word spouse which changed meaning through a parliament.

totopic

As I previously stated, Earth is as old as time itself which could millions or billions of years, not 6000 years which I already stated in #47
http://www.christianforums.net/f22/how-old-earth-36695/index4.html#post565365

I believe we atleast agree on this.

 

[Deavonreye]

There is a difference between 'attempting to be a christian' and 'being a christian'. 'very much expecting' is not something a christian should have because you should have asked for His will. God will answer the prayers of a christian as long as it aligns with His will.

God does not answer all prayers and desires. Heavenly Father did not answer for what Jesus expected and desired in the garden before His crucifixion. He even pleaded with the Father for any alternate way for avoiding crucifixion, yet He left it to His Father's will. Similarly, what you have desired or wanted might cause danger to you and God doesn't want that to happen in your life and whatever He did is always for your good, if you are a christian.

felix, . . . for the last time. STOP talking down to me as if I had no idea how it all worked! If I read another "you didn't pray the right way" post. My final word on this. I was not talking about "getting prayers answered". I'm talking about hearing ANYTHING at all!! If a sincere young person, praying so hard that he would get a nose bleed, yet hears nothing, and years of "going to the alter sincerely wanting to hear from god" results in the same, then it is fair for me to conclude what I have. But do NOT dare to state that I wasn't doing it right. "Come to me as a little child"??

Now, let's focus solely on the science part, and I will thank you.

'but it isn't science' - This is exactly what I am speaking about. Science in short, you can experiment, observe and produce results by repeating it.

You cannot do experiment with God to observe Him or produce a formula to predict Him.

Satan experimenting with Jesus Christ and you have His answer:
Matt 4:6-7 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In [their] hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.' " Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.' "

I'm not talking about "experimentation". I want answers to the valid questions I asked. If you do not know the answers, fair enough. However, you cannot [then] expect non-christians to be swayed.

The story of "Satan tempting Jesus" has several major flaws in it, but for another thread. Regardless, I am not sure why you would bring it up since it has no relevance to this thread.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

What flaws in the story?

 

[Deavonreye]

What flaws in the story?

I am very limited on what I can reply with here, as per TOS.

 

[Pizzaguy]

felix, . . . for the last time. STOP talking down to me as if I had no idea how it all worked! If I read another "you didn't pray the right way" post. My final word on this. I was not talking about "getting prayers answered". I'm talking about hearing ANYTHING at all!!

It gets worse than even how Felix is making it out to be. I have been told my sister has M.S. only because she (and 'we', those who love her) are not praying right to get God to heal her! There is really no way to respond to such people!

As to God answering your prayers: God answers the prayers of Christians and non Christians alike. He actually answered at least one of my prayers before I was a Christian - or knew what one even WAS. I was about 10 years old at the time.

Why did He answer me? I think because of my childish faith - a faith I have tried to not outgrow.

He always answers my prayers - but often, it is His answer that I don't like.

You are a very engaging person, I have several non-Christian friends and I wish you were close by to be one of them!

I also hope you become a believer one day.


Oh, and as to the topic, the earth is old, it is STILL old (like it was the last time I posted here), it is so old that you almost run out of zeros counting the years it has been here.

 

[Sparkey]

I heard a rather creative story the other day. (see what I did there? "creative story, heheheh). It was call the "Expanding Time" theory and it included the concept of the Big Bang. The way that I viewed the story in my imagination was to think about my position being right "here" where the earth is now and fix my point of view while instantaneously traveling back in time to when the big bang happened. Of course that's impossible, but it's a story, so...

The story also included concepts of Einstein's Relativity and the effect of movement on time. So we could imagine another observation point, located right at the center of the Big Bang, and traveling along with it during the expansion.

So then, to me - in my position of rest, "they" would be traveling very fast toward me. My point of view might be 1 day of time has passed and theirs may be more on the order of 8 billions years. My next 24 hour period would be experienced by them as 1/2 the amount of time because the total velocity had slowed enough to make it seem that way to them, hence my 2nd day would be 4 billion years.

The change to "their" time frames would continue and "mine" would remain constant for the next several "days". The "creative story" that was told pointed a coincidence (perhaps it was engineered on purpose) where if we add 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 (billion years) we get 15.75, which is similar to what some (many) scientists say the age of the earth is.

This doesn't reconcile the two different points of view but it does give us a nice thought experiment, doesn't it? I don't buy the concept because it's an oversimplification. There is no mention of the effect on time that gravity has, for instance, but it would explain how there could be stars located millions and billions of light-years away. Further, the theory assumes something that I do not: The concept of stationary laws.

The laws guiding the universe are assumed to be
stationary.

Stationarity is a concept derived from the theory of random processes which
states that what has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future (as
time goes to infinity) will always follow the same distribution. Stationarity is
an extremely important assumption required for the scientific method to hold,
since, given that a result is validated, then it has always held in the past,
holds in the present, and will always hold in the future. Otherwise all
experimental results are meaningless.

http://theoryworld.wordpress.com/20...y-factor-in-the-creation-vs-evolution-debate/

 

[Deavonreye]

When all sciences agree on an age, why try to resist it? I will post more. . . . gotta get to work.