[_ Old Earth _] The Age Of Earth

[kenmaynard]

This thread is about the age of the earth. The scientists employed by the United States government say that the earth is billions of years old.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/contents.html

...The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.

Diagram of geologic time
Click on the image to see a graphical representation of geologic time
[344K]

Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited...

 

[Rick W]

Most Christians here believe the miracles Christ performed. One such example is the feeding of the masses.. twice. Those fish didn't have age but maybe a few hours at most before getting into the hands of those in attendance.

Without knowing or believing Christ created those fish one would be compelled to view the fish as having age. There could be no other deduction when creation is not believed. By all logic, by the evidence in one's hand the fish under examination would indeed appear to be at least some months old.

The scientific community has no law/s governing creation of something from nothing. There are no principles, no formulas, no laws by which we may know the mechanics of creation from nothing. Due to this fact only the observed can be used to deduce age. If I gave someone a newly created object, one created only moments before from nothing, it would be impossible for that person to rightly deduce it's age.

Christ created the fishes that fed multitudes. I'm not going to limit God's power of creation to the logic of men or their scientific conclusions.

 

[kenmaynard]

Most Christians here believe the miracles Christ performed. One such example is the feeding of the masses.. twice. Those fish didn't have age but maybe a few hours at most before getting into the hands of those in attendance.

Without knowing or believing Christ created those fish one would be compelled to view the fish as having age. There could be no other deduction when creation is not believed. By all logic, by the evidence in one's hand the fish under examination would indeed appear to be at least some months old.

The scientific community has no law/s governing creation of something from nothing. There are no principles, no formulas, no laws by which we may know the mechanics of creation from nothing. Due to this fact only the observed can be used to deduce age. If I gave someone a newly created object, one created only moments before from nothing, it would be impossible for that person to rightly deduce it's age.

Christ created the fishes that fed multitudes. I'm not going to limit God's power of creation to the logic of men or their scientific conclusions.

I never heard Jesus created fish from nothing. I heard that they were fish from the ocean but Jesus just transported them there. That would mean the fish had an age.

 

[Rick W]

I heard that they were fish from the ocean but Jesus just transported them there.

lol

That's exactly the point. Without believing in divine creation one is compelled to believe something else.

 

[Barbarian]

The miracles Christ did, were not done of necessity, but rather because He wanted to teach us something.

It tells us nothing about the way nature works.

 

[kenmaynard]

I heard that they were fish from the ocean but Jesus just transported them there.

lol

That's exactly the point. Without believing in divine creation one is compelled to believe something else.

So you think that geologists are conspiring to lie to everyone? Or that science is a worthless human pursuit, that reveals no true information?

 

[Rick W]

The miracles Christ did, were not done of necessity, but rather because He wanted to teach us something.

It tells us nothing about the way nature works.

"The miracles Christ did, were not done of necessity"

The people were hungry and weren't to be sent away. I'm quite sure the creation of the fish was necessary.

"It tells us nothing about the way nature works."

It tells us how God works.

I heard that they were fish from the ocean but Jesus just transported them there.

lol

That's exactly the point. Without believing in divine creation one is compelled to believe something else.

So you think that geologists are conspiring to lie to everyone? Or that science is a worthless human pursuit, that reveals no true information?

No, they aren't lying. They have no other course. There are no rules, laws, principles, standards governing any understanding of creation. Without any belief in creation one must make conclusions based solely on appearances.

If you don't believe creation of something from nothing is a divine act and has occurred then you must believe something else.

 

[kenmaynard]

So you think that geologists are conspiring to lie to everyone? Or that science is a worthless human pursuit, that reveals no true information?

No, they aren't lying. They have no other course. There are no rules, laws, principles, standards governing any understanding of creation. Without any belief in creation one must make conclusions based solely on appearances.

If you don't believe creation of something from nothing is a divine act and has occurred then you must believe something else.[/quote]


OK, I see where you are coming from. You don't believe there is any benefit to science, and there is no truth in science as science is nothing but the observation of the rules, laws, principles, and standards governing the universe which you say don't exist.

 

[Rick W]

OK, I see where you are coming from. You don't believe there is any benefit to science, and there is no truth in science as science is nothing but the observation of the rules, laws, principles, and standards governing the universe which you say don't exist.

You make that assumption because I believe a divine act of creation. Another assumption is that only by direct observation can the age of anything be rightfully known.

Science provides the data, the evidence by such observation. Science says or states nothing. Science is not an entity of it's own. Science simply provides or generates the data. Man makes the conclusions. The science of forensics is used to provide evidence for both a defense attorney and a prosecutor. It is by conclusion a judgment is made. Scientists are men judging by what science provides to come to the conclusions they themselves make. Scientific conclusion. Unfortunately those conclusion are made without any regard for the possibility of creation simply because man and man's science cannot provide laws, rules etc for something being created from nothing.

 

[kenmaynard]

Unfortunately those conclusion are made without any regard for the possibility of creation simply because man and man's science cannot provide laws, rules etc for something being created from nothing.

What regard should the possibility that the universe was created be given? Science doesn't really have anything to say on the matter. What science does have a say on is the age of the earth. Young earth creationists insist the earth is somewhere between six and ten thousand years old. Science says it is much older. Scientists point to evidence and facts. Young earthers do not. They point to their particular interpretation of the bible.

In conclusion scientists don't say God doesn't exist. They say Young Earthers are wrong.

 

[Rick W]

The fish Christ created would also be seen as having an age far greater than just a few hours if that. For the conclusions of man to be correct then scripture cannot be true concerning Christ's feeding of the masses. For the secular this isn't a problem since there's no belief scripture is true anyway. But for the Christian these 2 instances are evidence of divine creation.

If you were given one of those fish I'm quite sure you would deduce an age greater than what was true.

 

[kenmaynard]

The fish Christ created would also be seen as having an age far greater than just a few hours if that. For the conclusions of man to be correct then scripture cannot be true concerning Christ's feeding of the masses. For the secular this isn't a problem since there's no belief scripture is true anyway. But for the Christian these 2 instances are evidence of divine creation.

If you were given one of those fish I'm quite sure you would deduce an age greater than what was true.

Not true for several reasons. First you haven't demonstrated that Jesus created the fish. The miracle could simply transporting the fish from the ocean, and not creating them out of thin air. Second mistake is thinking that if Jesus did create them out of nothing to be one year old, that they wouldn't be one year old. Even if the fish didn't exist 20 minuets ago if they are created one year old they are one year old.

 

[Rick W]

No way around it. They weren't beamed to the site and they had to have been mature enough to eat. Maturity by any observation would be evidence of a past and history when creation is not believed.

Gotta get to work.
later

 

[kenmaynard]

No way around it. They weren't beamed to the site and they had to have been mature enough to eat. Maturity by any observation would be evidence of a past and history when creation is not believed.

Gotta get to work.
later

Well you haven't demonstrated that they weren't beamed there. Either explanation is fine. If Jesus created the fish mature they could be created with a past and history too. So the fish might not have existed 20 minuets ago, but they could be created with a past and history anyway, which means they could have existed before they were created.

Or we could just say the earth is not 6,000 years old, but is instead billions.

 

[Rick W]

The miracle could simply transporting the fish from the ocean, and not creating them out of thin air.

The entire point is the exclusion of creation, something from nothing.

If a person who opts not to believe creation, something from nothing, because science cannot produce evidence to support the idea and would rather believe the fishes were "beamed" to the site thereby explaining away the problem of creation then I would have to ask by what scientific laws/rules govern this more "acceptable" phenomenon? What scientific proof is there that the fish could have been teleported to the site? And what observable evidence is there of such an idea? Scotty and Captain Kirk aren't evidence I'm afraid.

Scientific conclusion can't explain the miracle of the fishes, one "small" miracle. Twice. Creation must be denied for ideas to conform to the wisdom of men. If something is beyond man's knowledge then it cannot exist. There must be another way.

The age of the Earth, the creation of the universe comes right back to those fishes. For it was by creation, a concept totally unknown to man, that Christ fed the masses.

In some cases creation is only believed once the wisdom of man has reached a limit. Only when existence can no longer be explained by man's conclusions will creation be thought to have occurred. And only then. In short, man is looking for another beginning.

 

[Orion]

Rick, I would like to ask you a question. For what purpose would there be for God to create the aftermath of an event . . . which never actually took place?

As for "the feeding of the five thousand", . . . . I have a very logical thought on how it probably happened. If you knew that you were going to travel a distance to see a man preach, and it was going to take a good part of the day, wouldn't you bring your own food with you on the trip? The story seems rather odd in that NO ONE seemed to bring their own food. Really? In a society where foot travel was normal? In a time where getting to other locations could take a long time? The disciples may have picked up extra food from the ground, but it could have easily been from what the people left [that they brought], . . .and this story became inflated into a miracle.

 

[kenmaynard]

I wonder why it is so difficult to have a real conversation with the young earther's with regard to this issue. Geologists, chemists, physicists say the earth is much older than 6,000 years. If they are so wrong about their respective areas of science, how is it their discoveries have lead the the modern world of technology that obviously exists?

 

[lordkalvan]

I wonder why it is so difficult to have a real conversation with the young earther's with regard to this issue.

Because they have theological constraints which determine and limit their understanding. If the evidence suggests they are wrong, then it is the evidence that must be wrong (or re-interpreted), not the theology.

Geologists, chemists, physicists say the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

And historians, archaeologists and palaeontologists.

If they are so wrong about their respective areas of science, how is it their discoveries have lead the the modern world of technology that obviously exists?

How, indeed?

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

The miracles Christ did, were not done of necessity, but rather because He wanted to teach us something.

It tells us nothing about the way nature works.

Makes you wonder why he didn't slip in that little bit about slavery, women's rights or bacteria. Something tells me that would have saved a lot more lives and stopped a lot more suffering than feeding a few Jews 2000 years ago

 

[Orion]

It really seems like there was a HUGE opportunity wasted with a few "parlor tricks". Man could have been advanced past the point of where they were (how advanced would we be now???), and a lot of the stupid wars probably would have been averted. However, it seems like more than Job have been "experiments" for celestial beings.