[_ Old Earth _] How Old Is The Earth ?

[Sparkey]

When we look at those things that may be measured there comes an assumption—without proof—that all processes (geological, biological, astronomical, etc.) have proceeded at the same pace and in the same way since the universe supposedly sprang into being from nothing. Yet nothing in science can prove such claims. The Bible points to this and shows the error in the thinking that is associated with those who are obsessed with observational science.

Peter addressed the ultimate implications of such things making explicit the reason: To deny the return of Christ.

Those who wish to deny the immanent return of Jesus say, "Where is the promise of his coming?" The assumption is exposed with their statement, given as fact, that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

The earth is here. We all agree with that. It's observational. Does observational science show that the earth was created by God? One may conclude that the magnificence of creation demands a magnificent creator but beyond that speculation is there any proof that may be brought forward? We do have eyewitness testimony for what actually happened. God inspired people to write down His very words that became books that were compiled into what we know as the Bible. The bible has been verified over and over again and has demonstrated itself to be totally trustworthy in all it claims and teachings. Even secular scholars will concede that the Bible accurately records historical events.

Jesus is coming. The account of our beginnings, given by God, is trustworthy. Observational science requires repeatable, testable conclusions and since we are not able to roll back time we are therefore unable to demonstrate any position that is contrary unless we admit assumptions that are ultimately designed to deny the return of Jesus. Both teachings are based on the trustworthiness of our Father in heaven.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

When we look at those things that may be measured there comes an assumption—without proof—that all processes (geological, biological, astronomical, etc.) have proceeded at the same pace and in the same way since the universe supposedly sprang into being from nothing. Yet nothing in science can prove such claims. The Bible points to this and shows the error in the thinking that is associated with those who are obsessed with observational science.

There is no evidence to lend to the idea that they have changed, we can make observations about the past by looking at what may be observed about the effects, those previous events had. For instance, take Mount Rainier into account, the beautiful mountain that we both enjoy.

This mountain was not zapped into existence in it's current shape, hundreds of thousands of years of volcanic activity has shaped it cone top. Natural events, leave natural evidence. People don't assume the age of the Earth, they observe it by measuring the daughter to parent ratio of isotopes in ancient rocks.

There is nothing scientific about your attempt to refute the notion.

Peter addressed the ultimate implications of such things making explicit the reason: To deny the return of Christ.

I'm sorry but this is absurd, if Jesus were to invade the natural world, it would of course counter all scientific conclusions that one might have about the future of the universe. The coming of Jesus isn't a scientific hypothesis though, it is a theological event.

Those who wish to deny the immanent return of Jesus say, "Where is the promise of his coming?" The assumption is exposed with their statement, given as fact, that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Christians who affirm discoveries made by modern day science, such as myself. Do not deny our Lord's coming.

The earth is here. We all agree with that. It's observational. Does observational science show that the earth was created by God? One may conclude that the magnificence of creation demands a magnificent creator but beyond that speculation is there any proof that may be brought forward?

That's a fallacy, begging the question.

We do have eyewitness testimony for what actually happened.

Moses was an eyewitness?

The bible has been verified over and over again and has demonstrated itself to be totally trustworthy in all it claims and teachings. Even secular scholars will concede that the Bible accurately records historical events.

Do you actually read what secular scholars have to say?

Jesus is coming.

Indeed.

The account of our beginnings, given by God, is trustworthy.

Your interpretation is not. It will cause you to deny everything science has plainly discovered.

Observational science requires repeatable, testable conclusions and since we are not able to roll back time we are therefore unable to demonstrate any position that is contrary unless we admit assumptions that are ultimately designed to deny the return of Jesus.

You do understand there is more to science than "observational science," I suggest a lesson or two in the philosophy of science for you. Also, we can observe the EFFECTS of previous events, when a comet hits the earth.. does it not leave observable evidence? Your whole argument has a huge gaping hole in it.

And these assumptions are not really assumptions, and they are not designed to deny the return of Jesus.

 

[turnorburn]

The mountain ranges were formed during the time of Noah's flood..

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The mountain ranges were formed during the time of Noah's flood..

tob

Has your flood geology ever been useful for predicting the location of useful resources, namely oil, iron, copper, etc. If it were true, you would be able to make predictions off it right?

 

[Sparkey]

Those who wish to deny the immanent return of Jesus say, "Where is the promise of his coming?" The assumption is exposed with their statement, given as fact, that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Christians who affirm discoveries made by modern day science, such as myself. Do not deny our Lord's coming.

I was speaking of Christians who wish to deny the immanent return of Jesus and what the Bible shows us about their thinking. Why would you assume that I was speaking of you? The fact is, I wasn't.

 

[Free]

The mountain ranges were formed during the time of Noah's flood..

tob

Interesting how YECs argue to a literal telling of Genesis, yet make such unbiblical claims such as this.

Gen 7:18-20, 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (ESV)

Sounds rather like the mountains already existed.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Interesting how YECs argue to a literal telling of Genesis, yet make such unbiblical claims such as this.

Gen 7:18-20, 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (ESV)

Sounds rather like the mountains already existed.

A very good point. Thanks for sharing.

 

[turnorburn]

Try these Free it will be like a breath of fresh air..

http://realityzone.com/catfromspac.html

http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/index.htm

tob

 

[Barbarian]

If Mr. Patten was willing to show some of those "evidences" up front, it might be more persuasive. But if you want to see it yourself, the video is $19.50. Who would fall for that kind of story?