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

[lordkalvan]

that wasnt the point, there a myriad of views all of them not even in a consensus.

I don't know that I would say there are a 'myriad of views'. There are different hypotheses which deal with the details of how the Canyon was formed, but none of those hypotheses suggest that the strata in which it was formed are anything less than millions of years old or that the Canyon was formed in recent historical times.

the creationists say the grand canyon and this were formed by large masses of water and quickly. since your camp hasnt observed the formations any cliams just speculated, what do you say to the mini grand canyon formed in 8 hrs.

The understanding of how the Grand Canyon formed is not speculative, it is based on the evidence. i would be pleased to hear your explanation of how large masses of water moving quickly (i.e. the receding waters of a global flood passing across the landscape in a matter of days) could form a feature such as this one:

Millions of gallons of water from the melting glacier on top of Mt. St. Helens flowed down the Tuttle river before the ash cloud begin spewing high into the atmosphere. The mud flow laid down hundreds of feet of sediment and then the ash settled on top of it.

So, it was not what geologists are used to seeing. They assume that sediment below ash and lava was formed by slow gradual sedimentation, but the eruption at Mt. St. Helens proved them wrong.


In the picture you can clearly see three different layers. The middle layer is sediment - not ash or lava - that was deposited before the ash settled. The bottom layer is ash from a previous eruption.

this from another creation site that i am on. we all know this did happen so it is possible that if these layeres were made that way by water alone for the earth to be old if we never have seen what was there save by prioris.?

Quite simply, no. Geologists have been aware for a long time that under certain conditions certain strata can form rapidly. You are not comparing like with like.

 

[lordkalvan]

Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience....

This is very interesting. Thanks. However, insofar as all it seems to be implying is changes of perhaps millions of years in a timescale of billions of years, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are saying that knowledge develops and understanding advances as a result of research and analysis, then that is what the scientific method is about.

 

[lordkalvan]

Why does it cut though a Plateau?...

Again, I do not know what point you are trying to make. That geologists are not certain as to absolutely how and when the Grand Canyon was formed is not evidence that it could have been formed in recent historical times. Nothing in the article quoted seems to be referencing timescales in anything less than the range of millions of years.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Why would scientists want to "credit christianity"? Supernatural claims cannot be tested, so it would make no sense to "test for it". I hope that simple statement is understood.

I am not sure what you're getting at with "the 47" femur or relation to T-Rex in the bible. Point me to what you're talking about.

remnantofgod.org/creation.htm add www. to it.

 

[lordkalvan]

remnantofgod.org/creation.htm add www. to it.

I hope that you are not seriously putting forward this farrago of nonsense as evidence in support of your arguments.

 

[theLords]

Stay on topic.

 

[felix]

I've read over the Bible and can see that it says the Earth is 6,000 years old. But I'm not sure I can believe that given the fact we've found species older than that and the fact that dinosaurs should still be around.

No, the earth could possibly be very old as the origin of time itself.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God created the earth in the beginning. The definition of a day by God is only after the creation of light. Hence, the first day is not 24 hrs (as no sun was created). A day was 24 hrs only when the sun starting ruling the day - which is from the 4th day.

Hence, God created everything on 6 days and rested on the 7th day. This day in Genesis is not necessarily 24 hrs as many think.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

No, the earth could possibly be very old as the origin of time itself.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God created the earth in the beginning. The definition of a day by God is only after the creation of light. Hence, the first day is not 24 hrs (as no sun was created). A day was 24 hrs only when the sun starting ruling the day - which is from the 4th day.

Hence, God created everything on 6 days and rested on the 7th day. This day in Genesis is not necessarily 24 hrs as many think.

Interesting I must say. However, I am going to present this to the elders of my church. I don't believe like to change beliefs without opinions. I happen to have a biologist so perhaps she knows.

 

[Deavonreye]

Unless the word for "day" for day 1-3 is different than the "day" for day 4-7, then it is clear that Genesis is talking about the same period of time for each. Regardless, it would only be adding text to a story where there isn't information. Speculation only.

 

[felix]

Unless the word for "day" for day 1-3 is different than the "day" for day 4-7, then it is clear that Genesis is talking about the same period of time for each. Regardless, it would only be adding text to a story where there isn't information. Speculation only.

Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

God's defn of a day by God has nothing to do with sun.

 

[Barbarian]

"Morning" means "when the sun rises." "Evening" means "when the sun sets." These terms are absurdities without the sun. This is why ancient Christians like St. Augustine realized that Genesis was not a literal history.

The idea that it is, is a very modern revision of Scripture.

 

[felix]

"Morning" means "when the sun rises." "Evening" means "when the sun sets." These terms are absurdities without the sun. This is why ancient Christians like St. Augustine realized that Genesis was not a literal history.

The idea that it is, is a very modern revision of Scripture.

Australia recently voted in parliament to include same-sex as spouse. When a country can change the meaning of a word in English, why shouldn't God define the word and explain what He meant? "Morning" means "when the sun rises" is according to you not according to Bible.

 

[lordkalvan]

Australia recently voted in parliament to include same-sex as spouse. When a country can change the meaning of a word in English, why shouldn't God define the word and explain what He meant? "Morning" means "when the sun rises" is according to you not according to Bible.

As priests of a pre-scientific culture wrote these words down and as these words were translated by scholars from another pre-scientific culture, when they wrote down the words 'morning' and 'evening' one presumes that they intended to use them with a meaning that was meaningful to their target audience. Or are you seriously suggesting that 'morning' does not mean 'when the sun rises' in the Bible? What other meaning are you proposing it should have and what informs your argument? By the way, in English 'spouse' is a general-neuter word: I am my wife's spouse and she is mine.

 

[Barbarian]

Australia recently voted in parliament to include same-sex as spouse.

That's no crazier than mornings and evenings with no Sun, is it?

When a country can change the meaning of a word in English, why shouldn't God define the word and explain what He meant?

You're not God, though. When God redefines it, then we have an issue. Until then, anyone else's redefinition, is just a personal problem.

"Morning" means "when the sun rises" is according to you not according to Bible.

So far it does. Let us know if you locate where God changed it.

 

[felix]

As priests of a pre-scientific culture wrote these words down and as these words were translated by scholars from another pre-scientific culture, when they wrote down the words 'morning' and 'evening' one presumes that they intended to use them with a meaning that was meaningful to their target audience. Or are you seriously suggesting that 'morning' does not mean 'when the sun rises' in the Bible? What other meaning are you proposing it should have and what informs your argument? By the way, in English 'spouse' is a general-neuter word: I am my wife's spouse and she is mine.

I am seriously saying that morning has nothing to do with Sun in the Bible and nowhere in the entire Bible it contradicts. I know spouse is a general neuter word, but that does not mean your wife is a male. Does it? The meaning of spouse is changed to fit homosexuality, so that a female can say, she is my spouse... I hope you understood now.

 

[lordkalvan]

I am seriously saying that morning has nothing to do with Sun in the Bible and nowhere in the entire Bible it contradicts.

Thanks for your reply. There was a mistake in my post to which you are responding - general neuter should have read gender neutral, but I think you got my point.

If 'morning' in the Bible 'has nothing to do with the Sun', what do you suppose the writers (and translators into English, for example) of the BIble were intending to convey when they used the word? Again, what informs your understanding of this meaning?

I know spouse is a general neuter word, but that does not mean your wife is a male. Does it?

No, it means she is my spouse, i.e marriage partner.

The meaning of spouse is changed to fit homosexuality, so that a female can say, she is my spouse... I hope you understood now.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but this does not change the fact that spouse is a gender neutral word and no meaning is changed by implementing its use legally as a reference to a same-sex partner. This is probably a minor point in the context of this thread, however, and really impacts not at all upon our understanding of what is meant by the use of 'morning' in the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

I am seriously saying that morning has nothing to do with Sun in the Bible

2 Kings (2 Samuel) 23:4
As the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, shineth in the morning without clouds, and as the grass springeth out of the earth by rain.

So we can rule out the morning with no sun to have it.

and nowhere in the entire Bible it contradicts.

Surprise.

 

[felix]

No, it means she is my spouse, i.e marriage partner.

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

If 'morning' in the Bible 'has nothing to do with the Sun', what do you suppose the writers (and translators into English, for example) of the BIble were intending to convey when they used the word? Again, what informs your understanding of this meaning?

They simply conveyed the message, they are merely translating what God had defined. So, what does gay mean before in 1900s? and what does windows and mouse means before the computer age? Language changes rapidly. This is why God not only mentioned the word, He defines it what He meant.

2 Kings (2 Samuel) 23:4
As the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, shineth in the morning without clouds, and as the grass springeth out of the earth by rain.

So we can rule out the morning with no sun to have it.

Surprise.

Sun is the ruler of the day (Gen 1:16). Day by itself has nothing to do with Sun. Day means light. 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.

 

[Deavonreye]

Sorry felix, but your arguments just don't hold water. Barbarian and lordkalvan [and myself] are taking the words and their meanings for what the text says. There is no need to tap dance around them unless you are trying to rationalize a figurative story into a literal one.

BTW, . . . . . what WAS the "first light"? Why was it made, . . . only to be replaced, literally 3 days later, by our star?

 

[felix]

Sorry felix, but your arguments just don't hold water. Barbarian and lordkalvan [and myself] are taking the words and their meanings for what the text says. There is no need to tap dance around them unless you are trying to rationalize a figurative story into a literal one.

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

BTW, . . . . . what WAS the "first light"? Why was it made, . . . only to be replaced, literally 3 days later, by our star?

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.