Age of the earth

[AnonymousNT]

I am curious how anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old can justify their belief? What happened to the dinosaurs? They did not exist at the same time as humans, there would be endless mentionings of them in texts from the past, but dinosaurs werent really discovered until the 1800's(I think). Also, if all humanity started with Adam and Eve and it spread from there, how in the world are there civilizations that existed at the same time as the Egyptians on the other side of the world(south america) Or even the Chinese or the inhabitants of Australia. The earth simply can not be 6000 years old, there is not enough time for dinosaurs to have existed or humans to have spread across the whole planet. To believe it would almost be an insult to god, to refuse to use the logic and ability think that he supposedly gave to us.

 

[platos_cave]

I am curious how anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old can justify their belief? What happened to the dinosaurs? They did not exist at the same time as humans, there would be endless mentionings of them in texts from the past, but dinosaurs werent really discovered until the 1800's(I think). Also, if all humanity started with Adam and Eve and it spread from there, how in the world are there civilizations that existed at the same time as the Egyptians on the other side of the world(south america) Or even the Chinese or the inhabitants of Australia. The earth simply can not be 6000 years old, there is not enough time for dinosaurs to have existed or humans to have spread across the whole planet. To believe it would almost be an insult to god, to refuse to use the logic and ability think that he supposedly gave to us.

Perhaps pointing out that there is zero evidence that the Earth is only 6000-10,000 years old would be a start, hehe

 

[AnonymousNT]

It makes me laugh that someone who could very likely become vice-president(or president if mccain gets a little excited and dies) believes the earth to only be 6000 years old...yeah, I want that person in the second highest office in the government.

 

[Free]

to refuse to use the logic and ability think that he supposedly gave to us.

Speaking of logic...

It makes me laugh that someone who could very likely become vice-president(or president if mccain gets a little excited and dies) believes the earth to only be 6000 years old...yeah, I want that person in the second highest office in the government.

Matt Damon uses the same argument against Palin. However, it is fallacious.

 

[Vic C.]

to refuse to use the logic and ability think that he supposedly gave to us.

Speaking of logic...

It makes me laugh that someone who could very likely become vice-president(or president if mccain gets a little excited and dies) believes the earth to only be 6000 years old...yeah, I want that person in the second highest office in the government.

Matt Damon uses the same argument against Palin. However, it is fallacious.

It certainly is, Free. Who is Matt Damon, or any of us, to make such a statement? What does their belief about the age of the earth have to do with establishing and maintaining Federal Government policies?

Lets not go down this road and lets confine ourselves to the topic at hand.

 

[guibox]

First, the Bible says that before life was created, the 'earth was without form or void'. And the 'Spirit of God moved over the waters'.

That means that there was some sort of mass before the Genesis account occurred. That 'formless mass' could very well be billions of years old in our timeline. Time is nothing compared to God and what really is 'time' before time as we measure it officially existed?

Second, I believe that there were dinosaurs in the Bible times.

Job 40:15-19

15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Some commentators have suggested that behemoth was a hippo or elephant. But the passage makes clear that this grass eating animal was "chief of the ways of God." Perhaps the bull elephant might fit that description, but their anatomy doesn't fit the description of verse 17. Elephants and Hippos do NOT have 'cedar' like tails. Legs, yes. Not a tail. A cedar tree brings to mind a dinosaur’s huge tail! Most likely a Brontosaurus.

And in Job 41

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

There is no creature on earth that fits the descriptions throughout Job 41 for Leviathan. It seems to be sea creature of mythical comparison, most likely a pleisiosaur.

Isaiah 30:6

The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent

Care to explain what the 'fiery flying serpent' is? Archaeological findings and heiroglyphs give scholars the impression that this beast was a pterosaur.

 

[mondar]

It makes me laugh that someone who could very likely become vice-president(or president if mccain gets a little excited and dies) believes the earth to only be 6000 years old...yeah, I want that person in the second highest office in the government.

I dont have much to say about the age of the earth. While I might be willing to accept a recent date for the earth, I am not sure I can buy the 4004BC date. However, this is not what I want to say talk about.

If I understand you, you are suggesting that a person who believes that the earth was created in 4004BC cannot make the correct decisions affecting our national security. This seems to be non-sequitor thinking. I sit in my seat, and watch congressmen and politicians making decisions that are only for political consumption. I heard the democratic vice presidential nominee say that he believes life begins at conception, but he does not want to force his religious opinions on anyone else. So then, would it not follow that he thinks abortion is medical murder, but for his own political advantages he will sell out all the unborn infants right to life?

I will grant that Palin seems very inexperienced. For me, I would probably choose an honest but inexperienced person to make decisions over a savvy hypocrite anyday.

 

[Rick W]

How old were the fish Christ created to feed the multitudes? If a recipient didn't know or believe they were created how old would they say the fish in his/her hand was?
If creation is not an option then there's nothing left but to extrapolate much further back than an actual event of something from nothing. After all, all evidence concerning the fish would undeniably attest to an age much greater than just a few hours or less.

 

[MISFIT]

I doubt the earth is 6000 years old, I also doubt it's billions of years old. I also doubt we will ever know for sure, and I feel this is a non issue, after all if we found out tomorrow that is was for a fact lets say 23,400,000 years old, and that shook your faith what would that say about your faith?

 

[ProphetMark]

I doubt the earth is 6000 years old, I also doubt it's billions of years old. I also doubt we will ever know for sure, and I feel this is a non issue, after all if we found out tomorrow that is was for a fact lets say 23,400,000 years old, and that shook your faith what would that say about your faith?

It would say my faith is firmly based on what the bible teaches. My understanding of this whole issue is that the 4004 BC date is based on the genealogies and ages of people in the bible. I'm not sure exactly which genealogies are used so I haven't checked it out for myself, but if they do imply that the world was created in 4004 BC, and I found that it was 23,400,000 years old, then Genesis isn't true. And if Genesis isn't true, then why believe any of the bible?

 

[Imagican]

There is no 'actual time-line' of the age of the earth offered in scripture. It is MERE speculation on the part of those that INSIST that the Bible does offer an age.

There is NO evidence of a 'LITERAL' six days of creation. MANY times throughout the scriptures time has been sybolically represented in terms of 'days' or weeks' or 'years'. Yet the scriptures DO state that 'to God' a thousand years can be 'as a day'.

One of the biggest reasons that science and religion clash as they do is the un-proven speculation of those that 'made up' their own timeline so far as this earth is concerned.

We KNOW that God is immortal. That He is 'everlasting' and therefore 'outside of time' as we know it. With this in mind, it is pure vanity to believe that the creation of this earth was DIRECTLY before the creation of man so far as time is concerned. So far as we know, God loves ALL that He has created and that man was simply the penacle of His creation.

While 'carbon dating' and other methods may not be 100 percent accurate in all instances. It IS certainly a viable means at our disposal to measure distances in time. While it may not be accurate 100 percent, it most certainly IS accurate to a degree. Simply admitting that it may be right 5 percent of the time PROVES that the earth is many many many millions of years in age.

My offering here has offer NOTHING contradictory to 'The Word'. Only contradicting ideas 'thought up' by men hundreds of years ago. And continued into the present.

Whether the earth is 9000 years old or 9 billion years old, this has absolutely NO bearing on OUR relationship to God. If it was proven one way or the other TOMORROW, it would not alter one bit of what we need to know in order to BE 'children of God'.

But, ALL the evidence that exists, indicates that the earth is of an age that is incomprehendable to US. That mankind has existed on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. Adam and Eve? Perhaps their creation was a mere 6-9,000 years ago. Who knows? But that there is evidence of humankind existing many many tens of thousands of years BEFORE this date is obvious to any that are willing to accept the evidence offered.

the simple FACT that man was a nomadic gatherer in the 'beginning' goes to show that humankind existed LONG before Adam. For Adam was a farmer. It took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years for man to go from a 'nomadic gatherer' to a 'cultivator'.

The first chapter of Genesis explains that men and women were created BEFORE Adam and Eve. For the beginning of the second chapter says that EVERYTHING was FINISHED so far as creation is concerned. Finished means DONE. And it was AFTER everythihg was DONE that Adam was created. For the Bible plainly states that there; 'was not a man to TILL THE EARTH'. It does NOT say that there were NO MEN. Simply that there was not a man with the knowledge to GROW plants.

And a simple question can prove what I have offered here. Do you BELIEVE that God NAMED the rivers and the communities that existed THEN? For we have the names of the rivers and even the name of communities that would have been NAMED BY PEOPLE that is the location of the garden that He created and placed Adam in to maintain.

Cain's sister was NOT his wife. For there is absolutely NO indication of such. ALL indication is that he found his wife in the land to which he traveled AFTER being cast out from among his family. And what mother or father would allow their murderous son to take one of their daughters as his wife AFTER murdering his own brother? Add a bit of that to the actual words offered up in scripture and you can eliminate much of tradition.

The flood is another issue that PROVES that mankind is MUCH older than what has been taught by the 'churches'. That there are 'peoples' on all continents and islands of this earth just PROVES that the 'flood' was NOT 'world wide' and there there WERE people unaffected by it.

Understanding the REASON for the flood offers much insight as to it's extent. The Bible PLAINLY offers the REASON for it and WHO it was that He intended to destroy. Read the story without the preconceived notions offered up by the churches and the story is SELF EXPLANATORY. The story even offers PROOF that Adam and Eve were not the 'first two people', but created way after God's first human creations. The reason for the flood was the watering down of the blood through the 'two separate creations' intermingling, (Read the story AS OFFERED in The Bible).

For Noah was a 'just man' and perfect IN HIS GENERATIONS. Get it? Perfect in HIS GENERATIONS. Ask your 'church' what this MEANS. They consistently IGNORE these words for their implication.

How do you 'think' there are 'so many DIFFERENT religions' to this day? If EVERYONE decended from Noah and his decendants, there may be different BELIEFS in God, but ALL would worship the SAME God regardless. Expecially considering that the flood took place a mere five thousand years ago. Yet we have instances such as the Maori on the islands compomising Australia that hava an oral history and religion that PREDATES the flood. And they DO NOT KNOW God: the father of Jesus Christ. HOW is this POSSIBLE?

Adam and Eve were the first people to have COMMUNION with God. The first to ACTUALLY KNOW HIM. But there were tons of 'other people' on the planet and we can see the evidence in the FACT that God has continually tried to keep them SEPARATE from THE BEGINNING. He has tried to keep the 'blood of HIS people PURE' since the creation of a people that He 'called His own'. Where do you think this 'separateness BEGAN'? and WHY?

Too much tradional 'guess work' has continued for far too long. We have much more understanding and information today. The Bible itself offers the information if those that read it could simply accept what is written within it's pages. The story is NOT that complex.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Gabe]

It makes me laugh that someone who could very likely become vice-president(or president if mccain gets a little excited and dies) believes the earth to only be 6000 years old...yeah, I want that person in the second highest office in the government.

......but if she happened to be an American of Indian origin and believed in a multiple armed godess and an elephant god, you do not have a problem with that?

Would you then voice your 'concern' (ridicule) that someone who holds to Hindu beliefs has no right to hold the second highest office in the US government or that because of her religious beliefs (which clash with science) you are doubtful of her being capable of such an important role? Do you consider Atheists as the only people mentally equipped to handle such a high position?

Just as the six day creation is not supported by current scientific knowledge, neither is the Hindu (or probably any other religions) creation story or is it? please correct me if I am wrong.

If your problem is not with her creation beliefs and is due to the fact that her religion of choice happens to be Christianity, then why not insult Obama? Or is insulting a mixed-race person not politically correct?

And there I was, thinking it was only the religious who were intolerant of others personal beliefs.....I guess scientific knowledge doesn't tackle bigotry.


AnonymousNT, please reply to ALL of my questions, I'm sure everyone on this forum is looking forward to your answers.

 

[Rick W]

But, ALL the evidence that exists, indicates that the earth is of an age that is incomprehendable to US.

exactly.
The fish in your hand must be older than just a few hours or so. Anyone with eyes can see that :wink:

 

[platos_cave]

Some commentators have suggested that behemoth was a hippo or elephant. But the passage makes clear that this grass eating animal was "chief of the ways of God." Perhaps the bull elephant might fit that description, but their anatomy doesn't fit the description of verse 17. Elephants and Hippos do NOT have 'cedar' like tails. Legs, yes. Not a tail. A cedar tree brings to mind a dinosaur’s huge tail! Most likely a Brontosaurus.

Well, considering the fact that you just used the term Brontosaurus I am confident that you have no idea what you're talking about. A Sauropod tail looks nothing like a "cedar", and it's a good bet that animals which weighed over 40 metric tonnes would have eaten grass to sustain themselves (nor did grass even exist in its present form at the time).

The behemoth is, first and foremost, a mythical creature. Whatever it might be based on is irrelevant. There is no evidence that dinosaurs lived during biblical times or at any time post-64 million years ago.

There is no creature on earth that fits the descriptions throughout Job 41 for Leviathan. It seems to be sea creature of mythical comparison, most likely a pleisiosaur.

Ah, no. Not sure how or why an aquatic beat would breathe fire nor why it would have more than one head, as Psalms seems to indicate. Again, probably it's more likely that these were mythical creatures.

Care to explain what the 'fiery flying serpent' is? Archaeological findings and heiroglyphs give scholars the impression that this beast was a pterosaur.

Ah, does it? Interesting how we can jump to this conclusion since the pterosaur wasn't a serpent.

 

[platos_cave]

......but if she happened to be an American of Indian origin and believed in a multiple armed godess and an elephant god, you do not have a problem with that?

I would have a problem with anyone in leadership claiming to commune and get information about how to run the country from imaginary beings. Whether it's talking snakes or people with elephant heads, both are completely ridiculous.

Would you then voice your 'concern' (ridicule) that someone who holds to Hindu beliefs has no right to hold the second highest office in the US goverment or that because of her religious beliefs (which clash with science) you are doubtfull of her being capable of such an important role? Do you consider Atheists as the only people mentaly equipt to handle such a high position?

Yes, I would voice my concern over any behaviour I would view as irrational, just as you would if a Muslim were to take office, I assume.

I consider people who don't use their beliefs to emotionally sway people into voting for them, or who abandon reasoning faculties in order to pray to any God they worship as mentally unequipped to handle a situation.

Francis Collins, a notable Scientist, and many other scientists, don't allow their faiths to get in the way of maintaining fairness and objectivity in their field...why should we let politicians do it?

Would you rather have some nutjob zealot or someone who uses their head?

If youre problem is not with her creation beliefs and is due to the fact that her religion of choice happens to be Christianity, then why not insult Obama? Or is insulting a mixed-race person not politicaly correct?

Could you point out where Obama has overtly appealed to his religion as his guiding force for foreign policy and war? The only problem with Obama and his religion that I've seen are his ties to that racist bigot preacher.

If his political views and how he would lead the US is very clearly affected by those negative ties or any ridiculous beliefs he might hold, then he is no more worthy of office than any other person.

 

[Gabe]

[quote="Gabriel Ali":fmpzrakl]
......but if she happened to be an American of Indian origin and believed in a multiple armed godess and an elephant god, you do not have a problem with that?

I would have a problem with anyone in leadership claiming to commune and get information about how to run the country from imaginary beings. Whether it's talking snakes or people with elephant heads, both are completely ridiculous.

Would you then voice your 'concern' (ridicule) that someone who holds to Hindu beliefs has no right to hold the second highest office in the US goverment or that because of her religious beliefs (which clash with science) you are doubtfull of her being capable of such an important role? Do you consider Atheists as the only people mentaly equipt to handle such a high position?

Yes, I would voice my concern over any behaviour I would view as irrational, just as you would if a Muslim were to take office, I assume.

I consider people who don't use their beliefs to emotionally sway people into voting for them, or who abandon reasoning faculties in order to pray to any God they worship as mentally unequipped to handle a situation.

Francis Collins, a notable Scientist, and many other scientists, don't allow their faiths to get in the way of maintaining fairness and objectivity in their field...why should we let politicians do it?

Would you rather have some nutjob zealot or someone who uses their head?

If youre problem is not with her creation beliefs and is due to the fact that her religion of choice happens to be Christianity, then why not insult Obama? Or is insulting a mixed-race person not politicaly correct?

Could you point out where Obama has overtly appealed to his religion as his guiding force for foreign policy and war? The only problem with Obama and his religion that I've seen are his ties to that racist bigot preacher.

If his political views and how he would lead the US is very clearly affected by those negative ties or any ridiculous beliefs he might hold, then he is no more worthy of office than any other person.[/quote:fmpzrakl]


If you feel you must reply to a post which was meant for someone else, the least you could do is not twist my words and give me a straight answer.

I was referring to AnonymousNT's statement which implies that anyone who believes in a young earth is unsuitable for the second highest office in the US government. THIS was the only criticism that he levelled against Palin and THAT is what I was commenting on. If he said "it makes me laugh that someone who could very likely become vice-president communes and gets information about how to run the country from imaginary beings.........yeah, I want that person in the second highest office in the US government." then I would have understood but he did not and you are well aware of this.

The fact that you 'misunderstood' my first question makes the rest of your answers irrelevant.

 

[platos_cave]

If you feel you must reply to a post which was meant for someone else, the least you could do is not twist my words and give me a straight answer.

Dude, settle down. This is an open discussion where anyone can respond to a post. I was offering my viewpoint and I didn't twist your words. I quoted you in full context and wasn't responding for Anonymous.

If you're having a bad day, I understand, but don't get huffy with me.

 

[Gabe]

Yes, I understand that this is an open forum but I felt that the answer you gave did not relate fully to the question I asked. I understand your viewpoint as to why you would not want someone who claims to get instructions on how to do her job from an imaginary being/god to be in that office, but your response makes it appear as if I do not. The choices she makes will no doubt effect people of all faiths but What I found surprising was NT's disapproval of someone becoming Vice-president purely on the fact that they believe in a young earth and that is what I was addressing.

 

[platos_cave]

Yes, i understand that this is an open forum but i felt that the answer you gave did not relate fully to the question i asked. I understand your viewpoint as to why you would not want someone who claims to get instructions on how to do her job from an imaginary being/god to be in that office, but your response makes it appear as if i do not. The choices she makes will no doubt effect people of all faiths but What i found suprising was NT's disapproval of someone becoming Vice-president purely on the fact that they believe in a young earth and that is what i was addressing.

Two last things:

1) I didn't intend on implying anything regarding your belief, and I don't think I did imply it. If you got the wrong message then I'd appreciate a request for clarification instead of such a heavy criticism, but I apologize if you were offended. You brought up a number of valid criticisms on a subject regarding a persons religious beliefs and how it affects their ability to lead, so I responded the way that I feel on the subject.

2) Even though AnonymousNT did not mention any other criticisms of Palin, it doesn't support the conclusion that it is his ONLY issue with the VP. I believe he was merely providing a criticism that was germaine to the topic of the age of the Earth. Strictly what I think, I could be wrong.