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

[Doulos Iesou]

I started looking up on google how old the earth is.
Every site I pulled up spoke as an authority and they all came up with a different age.
Let's face it, nobody knows and yet so many think they know.

You know that your google search is personalized based on sites you already visit. So for you, a person who probably is looking at creationists sites often will find conflicting information.

Meanwhile, I get the same answer 4.54 billion years old. This is something we know with a good amount of accuracy due to radiometric dating.

Are you an expert in geology who is qualified to say what we do and do not know on that subject? Statements like this seem incredible to me, that you would contradict all the experts on the topic with minimal knowledge on the matter, maybe not even knowing what radiometric dating is or how it works.

Nobody impresses me about this.

Would you like to learn about how radiometric dating works? Are you willing to address your presuppositions and hear the evidence objectively?

Dinosaurs?
They've been debated as much as OSAS on this forum and there is no common ground on the issue.

What do you mean there is no common ground on dinosaurs? If you mean by those who reject science, creationists and the rest of humanity then you are correct. Creationists twist or deny just about every facet of science. If you're talking about within paleontology then there would be differences but not on anything of a large scale that is noteworthy.

What is it that people can't seem to agree about concerning dinosaurs?

So just what is every one trying to say?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So far, I have yet to have anyone show me a species that lived longer than ten million years or so. Do you know of any?

None of the species in your video qualify.

From what I understand there is a chance that the Great White Shark can be a species that is 10+ Million years old, though this is highly disputed and likely is just ancestral fossils of a related species.

 

[turnorburn]

What does this have to do with what I posted?

You said: "The Earth is old. We must recognize that the Bible gives no indication as to its age" Just like that without blinking an eye you state "The Earth is old" then go on to say the bible doesn't give an indication of its age.. You trust the claims of evolutionists, right? Then why do they repeatedly do this, and why do you still take their word for Gods creation? Now can you tell us what things were like before sin entered and corrupted Gods creation?

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

tob

 

[Free]

You said: "The Earth is old. We must recognize that the Bible gives no indication as to its age" Just like that without blinking an eye you state "The Earth is old" then go on to say the bible doesn't give an indication of its age..

I should have said, "The Earth is most likely old." But I'm not really sure what your point is here.

You trust the claims of evolutionists, right?

Have I ever said that? The age of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. That has been mentioned before. There are many who are not evolutionists that believe the Earth is old.

Then why do they repeatedly do this, and why do you still take their word for Gods creation?

Do what, some dishonest things? I'm quite certain if one were to take an honest look, one could find the same dishonesty among creationists. A few cases of purposeful fraud does not mean the whole system is in error.

Now can you tell us what things were like before sin entered and corrupted Gods creation?

No, of course not, no one can. But again, what does this have to do with anything?

 

[turnorburn]

What do you mean "No, of course not, no one can. But again, what does this have to do with anything?"

God can that's who..God saw that it was good. Genesis 1

What does this have to do with anything you say?

Everything! everything was good, no death no decay no corruption everything was brand new all shiny and clean.. until sin entered..

tob

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You know that your google search is personalized based on sites you already visit. So for you, a person who probably is looking at creationists sites often will find conflicting information.

Meanwhile, I get the same answer 4.54 billion years old. This is something we know with a good amount of accuracy due to radiometric dating.

Are you an expert in geology who is qualified to say what we do and do not know on that subject? Statements like this seem incredible to me, that you would contradict all the experts on the topic with minimal knowledge on the matter, maybe not even knowing what radiometric dating is or how it works.


Would you like to learn about how radiometric dating works? Are you willing to address your presuppositions and hear the evidence objectively?


What do you mean there is no common ground on dinosaurs? If you mean by those who reject science, creationists and the rest of humanity then you are correct. Creationists twist or deny just about every facet of science. If you're talking about within paleontology then there would be differences but not on anything of a large scale that is noteworthy.

What is it that people can't seem to agree about concerning dinosaurs?

Wow, are you ever defensive when it comes to what you say is true.
And of course, you know ahead of time that my google searches are not reliable, but I'm supposed to listen to you?
Why don't you put something on google and prove your authority on the subject, and then I'll read it.

 

[Free]

What do you mean "No, of course not, no one can. But again, what does this have to do with anything?"

God can that's who..God saw that it was good. Genesis 1

What does this have to do with anything you say?

Everything! everything was good, no death no decay no corruption everything was brand new all shiny and clean.. until sin entered..

tob

Once again you are reading into the text. There was no death for man but nothing is said regarding animals. To think that once sin entered whole new species of animals came into existence and/or some had their DNA so altered that they became carnivores, is rather quite absurd. And why not all species, why would only some become carnivores or omnivores? Are herbivores the only ones that were untouched by sin? Should we all be vegetarians? Of course, this is still killing plant life.

What follows from all of this then, is that eating meat was a result of sin and is therefore sinful, which makes it strange then that God says afterwards that animals are for food.

God saying that things were good does not mean that there was no death or decay, it means that things were created and ordered the way he intended, including the food chain.

 

[Free]

Wow, are you ever defensive when it comes to what you say is true.
And of course, you know ahead of time that my google searches are not reliable, but I'm supposed to listen to you?
Why don't you put something on google and prove your authority on the subject, and then I'll read it.

Speaking of being defensive...

Most every link I find says the Earth is around 4.5 billion years, even the creationist ones that disagree cite that as being the generally accepted age.

 

[turnorburn]

Once again you are reading into the text. There was no death for man but nothing is said regarding animals. To think that once sin entered whole new species of animals came into existence and/or some had their DNA so altered that they became carnivores, is rather quite absurd. And why not all species, why would only some become carnivores or omnivores? Are herbivores the only ones that were untouched by sin? Should we all be vegetarians? Of course, this is still killing plant life.

What follows from all of this then, is that eating meat was a result of sin and is therefore sinful, which makes it strange then that God says afterwards that animals are for food.

God saying that things were good does not mean that there was no death or decay, it means that things were created and ordered the way he intended, including the food chain.

Your the one reading into text Free there was no death before sin entered.. everything was good.. brand new.. shiny and clean..next thing we know young earth creation beliefs will be tantamount to blasphemy.

tob

 

[turnorburn]

Speaking of being defensive...

Most every link I find says the Earth is around 4.5 billion years, even the creationist ones that disagree cite that as being the generally accepted age.

6000 years.. starting with Adam map it out.. mans opinions mean nothing when it comes to Gods word..

tob

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The number of Christians that take Genesis literally is dwindling.
The enemy is winning.
There was a time when it would have been considered blasphemy to say a science book is more accurate than the Bible.
Yet I read that right here today.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Wow, are you ever defensive when it comes to what you say is true.
And of course, you know ahead of time that my google searches are not reliable, but I'm supposed to listen to you?
Why don't you put something on google and prove your authority on the subject, and then I'll read it.

I was pointing out the fact that google searches are a terrible indicator of what is actually out there as it is relative to your own internet history.

Also, why would I need to make a website when there are plenty of good ones demonstrating the age of the earth?

You're the one arguing against the status quo.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The number of Christians that take Genesis literally is dwindling.
The enemy is winning.

Yes of course, the devil is behind why people like Free and myself disagree with you. Demonizing the opposition is always a way to not make friends...

There was a time when it would have been considered blasphemy to say a science book is more accurate than the Bible.

1. No Christians here are saying that the Bible isn't accurate, they disagree with you on a literal interpretation being applied to Genesis.
2. The Bible isn't a science book, and isn't meant to convey modern scientific observations.
3. They used to call people heretics and burn them at the stake for perceiving to be against the Bible as it is understood at the time. Are you uncomfortable that you can't say that Free and I are blasphemous heretics?

Yet I read that right here today.

Please show me where you read that.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Speaking of being defensive...

Most every link I find says the Earth is around 4.5 billion years, even the creationist ones that disagree cite that as being the generally accepted age.

Disagreement is now perceived as being very defensive, at least people aren't calling me a heretic here.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Disagreement is now perceived as being very defensive, at least people aren't calling me a heretic here.

I would like to hear more people on this forum talk about Jesus, that's my point.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I would like to hear more people on this forum talk about Jesus, that's my point.

I like discussing science, I also like discussing Jesus. I am not sure what Jesus has to do with the age of the earth though.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I like discussing science, I also like discussing Jesus. I am not sure what Jesus has to do with the age of the earth though.

Jesus made the earth.
He should be in the center of the conversation.
If you can't find Jesus in science, and find it worthy to talk about him because of it, than your science is not Christian, and this is a Christianity and Science forum.
Jesus should be in the center of every thread or else the thread is not Christian.
And if Jesus is not the center of everything we talk about here, then it is vanity, or meaningless.
Take your pick.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Jesus made the earth.
He should be in the center of the conversation.

No one disputes Jesus, the entirety of the Triune God working to create the universe. What we're talking about is the means by which God works in the natural world.

If you can't find Jesus in science, and find it worthy to talk about him because of it, than your science is not Christian, and this is a Christianity and Science forum.

I am a methodological naturalist, I believe that God works through natural causes as it relates to science. Therefore I don't know how one has Christian science without it becoming religious dogma more so than science.

Jesus should be in the center of every thread or else the thread is not Christian.

How is a thread Christian? Is a thread a person? This to me just seems like religious elitism.

If you'd like to make a thread about how Jesus relates to science, you are more than welcome. This thread is about the age of the earth, which the Bible is silent about. However, radiometric dating is not silent about this.

Would you like to know more?

And if Jesus is not the center of everything we talk about here, then it is vanity, or meaningless.
Take your pick.

I disagree, though this discussion is going nowhere. You've stated your opinion that you think Jesus should be at the center of our conversation about the age of the earth. I disagree. Let's move on.

 

[turnorburn]

No one disputes Jesus, the entirety of the Triune God working to create the universe. What we're talking about is the means by which God works in the natural world.


I am a methodological naturalist, I believe that God works through natural causes as it relates to science. Therefore I don't know how one has Christian science without it becoming religious dogma more so than science.


How is a thread Christian? Is a thread a person? This to me just seems like religious elitism.

If you'd like to make a thread about how Jesus relates to science, you are more than welcome. This thread is about the age of the earth, which the Bible is silent about. However, radiometric dating is not silent about this.

Would you like to know more?


I disagree, though this discussion is going nowhere. You've stated your opinion that you think Jesus should be at the center of our conversation about the age of the earth. I disagree. Let's move on.

The age of the earth is laid out in scripture have you taken the time to find it?

tob

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

No one disputes Jesus, the entirety of the Triune God working to create the universe. What we're talking about is the means by which God works in the natural world.


I am a methodological naturalist, I believe that God works through natural causes as it relates to science. Therefore I don't know how one has Christian science without it becoming religious dogma more so than science.


How is a thread Christian? Is a thread a person? This to me just seems like religious elitism.

If you'd like to make a thread about how Jesus relates to science, you are more than welcome. This thread is about the age of the earth, which the Bible is silent about. However, radiometric dating is not silent about this.

Would you like to know more?


I disagree, though this discussion is going nowhere. You've stated your opinion that you think Jesus should be at the center of our conversation about the age of the earth. I disagree. Let's move on.

I can't move on without Jesus.
I walk with him and talk with him all day long.
I don't know how to be a Christian any other way.
How do you do it?
And what denomination is the methodological naturalist church part of?
I would like to visit someday.