Old Earth vs Young Earth

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Old Earth or Young Earth?


  • Total voters
    49

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
Although you did not mention me by name, I am fairly certain you are speaking to me. In this, you are correct. I have done this, and it is wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize, and ask for your forgiveness, and the forgiveness of others on this board, and most importantly, forgiveness from God. I have lost my temper, and that is no excuse for such extreme taunts. Please forgive me.


Awesome! Let me know when you have read it, we can discuss it.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
 
B

brad21

Guest
evolution theory is silly how did trees evolve
 
F

Fishbait

Guest
RADIONUCLIDE DATING IS RIGOROUS : Creationism • Rational Skepticism Forum

I think that should explain fairly well what the age of the earth is, and how we arrive at that conclusion.
Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon) At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).

So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
 
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
I am a old believer, 70 years of age, and I stick to the only explanation there is and that is God's word. A Christian MUST believe the the Bible and God's word without a doubt what so ever, there are no gray area's when it comes to God's word. It is either 100% or it is zero. Unfortunately, a true believer can not pick and choose what he or she will believe concerning God's Holy Word. Cheers
I agree with absolute faith in everything out Lord says. I even think that we must do everything we can to understand all that scripture tells us about God.

Many of our convictions are used to sin. We sometimes use our interpretations of scriptures to judge others when God doesn't tell us for certain about something. God does talk of things He did in seven days but the point God is making is far more important than the number of hours God took for something important. God is not teaching how to count time in a physical way, that is beside the point.

But when men go to such extremes that they say "God clearly says" about things that God does NOT clearly say, then fight about it, it is not of God at all. God clearly says that He created the world, but God does not clearly say that He took a precise number of days from beginning to end. He says that he created it "In the beginning", not what not the precise year that beginning was. We can wonder about it, but we may not judge those who God loves to judge over our personal interpret of God's word. Those ideas lead to sin and away from truth when God's truth is so important to us.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
Does not the bible say that the earth will wax OLD as a garment and as a vestage need to be changed?
 
F

Fishbait

Guest
I'm not sure why you keep saying this. I have said at least twice that it is not out of the scope of God's ability. This makes the third time I am saying that sure, if God had WANTED to, God could absolutely have created the world in six 24-hour days. What I have been saying is that God chose not to do this. If God had done this, the creation would indicate that age, because the God in whom I believe, in whom I put my trust, does not lie.

I would ask, "Can you show me one reason why God would lie," except that I know you've already said you don't believe he does.

Of course, your insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis requires a lying god. I've explained it several times, but maybe you haven't understood yet, so I'll try it again.

The creation says it is billions of years old. You believe that it is not, because you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Unfortunately, if creation is NOT billions of years old, that means that whoever created the world planted lies in that creation making it appear older than it was. If you believe that God created the world, planting lies in it, you believe that God is a liar. There's no getting around it, if you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The odd thing is, even before humans knew that the world was billions of years old, they read Genesis figuratively. They thought the world was much younger than it is, because they had no evidence to the contrary, but they did understand that Genesis 1:1-2:4a was clearly intended to be taken figuratively, and that, while God may have only taken six days (or six minutes, or six billions years ... they didn't know or particularly care) to create the universe, the descriptions given in Genesis were clearly poetic and symbolic, not literal.


Again, I have stated several times that I believe God DID write the Bible. I will ask you again, nicely, please do not lie about what I have said. If you don't remember what I said, that is one thing, but it seems you are more forgetful than someone of your advanced intellect should be.

God wrote the Bible. God chooses many different genres in his communication with us. Jesus spoke in parables as often as (if not more than) not. I believe that Jesus was and is God. Therefore, it makes sense that God would use parables as well.

I know there are some branches of Christianity that do not believe that Jesus is/was the same as God, but I think I remember you saying you did not belong to one of those sects.


I have given you several over the past several days, several more in this post, and will continue to give you more. I understand that you need to pretend like I'm not giving you actual explanations, because otherwise you might be forced to question your faith, and that can be scary. But it doesn't have to be. Please know that millions of devout Christians have been able to keep their faith completely intact while rejecting outmoded or even harmful ideas that have been taught to them. It's all up to you. I will continue to work on you, because I think you are intelligent, and it's worth trying to get you to understand. Call me stubborn, or maybe the Spirit has moved me to work on you, I don't know. For whatever reason, I seem to be compelled to keep on keeping on, long after most would have thrown in the towel.
By what criteria and authority do you determine what is from God and what is from men? If we accept your argument that the Bible is in error about creation in Genesis One, and that the Bible is filled with myths and errors, why should anyone accept your claim that the Bible is correct about Christ? What if the Bible is wrong about Christ as well? Since you use the claims of the modern scientific establishment to impugn Genesis, to be consistent, you must then also apply the same authority structure in your critique of the Gospel accounts. Surely these same scientists will deny the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles of Christ, the exorcism of demons, and so forth. What “Christ” does that leave you with? Certainly not the exalted Son of God found in the New Testament.

Your argument also assumes that present natural phenomenon in the observable present day can be extrapolated into the distant past. This is another unprovable philosophical assumption: the assumption of uniformitarianism. This is “the idea that the processes we see at work now in the universe were always at work at the same rate in the same way,” The assumption of uniformitarianism is fraught with numerous insuperable difficulties. One problem is that it is unprovable, since the distant past is beyond scientific observation. It also precludes against miracles, catastrophism and God Himself.
 
Last edited:
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
By what criteria and authority do you determine what is from God and what is from men? If we accept your argument that the Bible is in error about creation in Genesis One, and that the Bible is filled with myths and errors, why should anyone accept your claim that the Bible is correct about Christ? What if the Bible is wrong about Christ as well? Since you use the claims of the modern scientific establishment to impugn Genesis, to be consistent, you must then also apply the same authority structure in your critique of the Gospel accounts. Surely these same scientists will deny the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles of Christ, the exorcism of demons, and so forth. What “Christ” does that leave you with? Certainly not the exalted Son of God found in the New Testament.

Your argument also assumes that present natural phenomenon in the observable present day can be extrapolated into the distant past. This is another unprovable philosophical assumption: the assumption of uniformitarianism. This is “the idea that the processes we see at work now in the universe were always at work at the same rate in the same way,” The assumption of uniformitarianism is fraught with numerous insuperable difficulties. One problem is that it is unprovable, since the distant past is beyond scientific observation. It also precludes against miracles, catastrophism and God Himself.
Another fine job of you copying and pasting and passing off words of another as your own.

You know, it's very easy to determine when you are doing this.

And not just because I don't see you using words like catastrophism.
 
2

2Thewaters

Guest
When you put the ages together with the bible the creation happened about 6000 years ago, o ye of little faith.
 
D

Delivery

Guest
First of all, I wanna point out that this is not a matter of salvation. I dont see any harm in believing in an old earth or a young earth. So lets be friendly in the discussion. This is something I haven't made up my mind about. All I am sure of is that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. Was the beginning six thousand years ago? Six million years ago? Six billion years ago?

What do you think?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24 hour days. Contrary to what some people believe, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves the earth is older than what the bible says. If each of those 6 days of creation actually took millions of years of time then that means on the seventh day God rested for millions of years, and when He gave the law to Moses and told them to keep the Sabbath as a day of rest he was telling them to rest for millions of years. So you see, contrary to what some believe, you can't really believe in both evolution and creation, or that God created the world by the process of evolution. Because the 2 just don't jive or agree together.

Evolution is the big lie latched onto by people who reject the truth.

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:(God's creation, itself, is proof of His existence as the divine designer and creator of the universe)


1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,(These lying scientists who think they're so smart and wise and educated are actually mentally retarded morons in God's eyes. A lot of them know that there is no evidence for their idiotic theories but they continually lie to themselves and the world because they don't want to acknowledge God in their education)

1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge(Education), God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Because they were already rebellious toward God in their hearts and had rejected the truth of God, they immediately latched onto the strong delusion and lie of evolution the second it was put forth by Charles Darwin. Yep, Charlie definitely made monkeys out of those wicked, truth rejecting morons.

1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The power and majesty of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is the Truth and righteousness of God, whereas, the theory of evolution is the cunningly devised fable that people latch onto because they don't want to believe in God and acknowledge the Truth.

3:5 For this they willingly(Choose to be) are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

People who believe in evolution can't really believe in the flood of Noah either. Because a lot of the things that they use to try to prove their idiotic theories, such as seashells being found on top of mountains, the grand canyon and other natural phenomena, the petrified fossils, the fossilized remains of different kinds of animals found in one place, etc., etc., can all just as easily be explained by the flood of Noah. But they willingly choose to refuse to acknowledge that fact. They say they found whole Mammoths with food still in their mouths frozen in Siberia. Then they theorize that this happened through a million year process they call the ice age. Of course any clear thinking person can see how ridiculous that is. So the Mammoth was standing there there chewing on food for a million years while the ice slowly came down from to north til it engulfed him? Only idiots and morons would believe that crap. The only way that could have happened was if the mammoth froze instantly, which is what happened at the flood of Noah. Before the flood there was a covering of water above the atmosphere which filtered out the cosmic rays from the sun which also caused the temperature of the earth to be the same all around the world. I would imagine it was probably an ideal temp. of 70-75 degrees. This is also the reason why people lived to be 800-900 years old before the flood, instead of the 80-90 years that they live today. And science has proven that the cosmic rays from the sun are what cause aging. Well, at the time of the flood all that water came tumbling down out of the sky which also let in the cosmic rays from the sun which caused the temperatures at both poles to immediately drop from 70 degrees to well below 0 which is what also caused the climate change which we are still dealing with today.


 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Contrary to what some people believe, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves the earth is older than what the bible says.
And how old, exactly, does the Bible say the earth is?

Please quote the verses that say exactly how old the earth is.
 
F

Fishbait

Guest
Another fine job of you copying and pasting and passing off words of another as your own.

You know, it's very easy to determine when you are doing this.

And not just because I don't see you using words like catastrophism.
Thank you for agreeing I did a 'fine' job. Rather than focus on 'copy & paste' why not give your opinion on what was 'copy & pasted'? As to my using the word "catastrophism ( 'the theory that changes in the earth's crust during geological history have resulted chiefly from sudden violent and unusual events'). Not everyone is inferior to you as you seem to infer on some of your post.

You're good at asking question's. Here's one for you. Give me your thoughts on why you assume that present natural phenomenon in the observable present day can be extrapolated into the distant past?

Please use correct spelling (as you have chastised others for not doing) and try and refrain from being hateful or name calling.

I'll be watching for any thoughts or words that may be the results of your 'copying & pasting'.
 

Timeline

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2014
1,826
17
38
And how old, exactly, does the Bible say the earth is?

Please quote the verses that say exactly how old the earth is.
No such verse, and you know it, but if you add the years together you can get to the end of Solomon's reign pretty easily at approximately 3190. But it gets a little more complicated after that with the two kingdoms. You can reasonably get to approximately 4000 to 4200. Honestly, I am more skeptical about our (man's) record keeping since the "1st Century" than I am about the 4,000-4,200 years before the first century. According to the Gregorian Calendar we are at 6014-6214 (after adding the previous numbers), but the Hebrew Calendar is 5775. But if you subtract 2014 from 5775, you get 3761, which seems highly improbable. So one or both calendars are off somewhere (or I am).

I will agree with you PARTIALLY. Because the Bible does say that the earth was here before Day 1. But it also strongly suggests that the earth was completely covered in water. It does not get into any prior events. But I will not agree with any evolution bologna. As I find it absurd and full of agenda. I personally believe that the scientific world would have already scrapped it if there was a "better" explanation - Other than God.
 

Timeline

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2014
1,826
17
38
No such verse, and you know it, but if you add the years together you can get to the end of Solomon's reign pretty easily at approximately 3190. But it gets a little more complicated after that with the two kingdoms. You can reasonably get to approximately 4000 to 4200. Honestly, I am more skeptical about our (man's) record keeping since the "1st Century" than I am about the 4,000-4,200 years before the first century. According to the Gregorian Calendar we are at 6014-6214 (after adding the previous numbers), but the Hebrew Calendar is 5775. But if you subtract 2014 from 5775, you get 3761, which seems highly improbable. So one or both calendars are off somewhere (or I am).

I will agree with you PARTIALLY. Because the Bible does say that the earth was here before Day 1. But it also strongly suggests that the earth was completely covered in water. It does not get into any prior events. But I will not agree with any evolution bologna. As I find it absurd and full of agenda. I personally believe that the scientific world would have already scrapped it if there was a "better" explanation - Other than God.
The 4,000 to 4,200 years would be from Adam to Jesus (4,000 being an early birth date (I've seen 3996)) and 4,200 being a late crucifixion date.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Thank you for agreeing I did a 'fine' job. Rather than focus on 'copy & paste' why not give your opinion on what was 'copy & pasted'? .
What was copy and pasted is crap from one of your YEC crap websites.

I told you before about this copy and paste business, and so did others, even ones who agree with your nonsense.

What you are doing is generally a copyright violation.

And you don't even give an attribution or anything. You try to pass it off as your own thoughts.

Do you know what that makes you?
 
F

Fishbait

Guest
We may not in our lifetimes discover exactly how God created the heavens or the earth, or how old they are, but it is also the case that if we are not faithful to His Word we may never find the truth we seek.

“He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.”
(Ecclesiastes 3:11)