How old is our creation really?

  • 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.

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
2,039
652
113
#41
This concept of a "Gap Theory" is not chiseled in a "Thus saith the Lord". It only attempts to give room to the above mentioned things in the previous post.

But you attempt to use science to answer a Biblical question? That is a very dangerous approach. There is no room for man's science are any concepts of Evolution. For God can make things to be what ever He wants them to be.
Observation/History

If I told you I'm 200 years old, would you think I'm a liar (Yes)

Because humans don't live to be 200 years old

If I said I was 15 feet tall, you would say the same?

Observation/History (y)
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
12,452
5,459
113
#42
Nothing I have ever come across would suggest that a behemoth, was a dinosaur. Must ancient and learned men believe this was an Elephant or a Hippopotamus, The Septuagint uses the Greek Word for Elephant.
The leviathan in Job 41 may have been a dragon, and dinosaurs and dragons could have been either related, or interchangeable.
 

Skovand

Active member
Aug 17, 2020
266
39
28
Southeastern USA
#43
The Bible is not a science textbook. It was written by people who did not have a 21st-century understanding of science, or even of the scientific method. It is unwise to take somewhat nebulous statements about the natural world from Scripture and make scientific declarations from them. However, there are many very clear statements in Scripture that can be used to provide some understanding of the earth's age. Discoveries have confirmed the biblical text, rather than refuting it.

It's the speculative "sciences" that contradict the Bible. Geologic ages, for example, are based on presumptions, not experimentation. Fossils are dated from the rocks in which they are found, which are dated by the fossils found in them... etc. Even radiometric dating is highly speculative and fraught with self-refuting inconsistencies.
Not true at all. Those are far from speculation. It’s also based off of multiple half lives from different elements, the fossil record, ice cores, dendrological calculations and even algorithms focused on genetic decoding.
 
Aug 17, 2020
266
39
28
Southeastern USA
#44
The earth is approximately 4.54 ± 0.05 billion based off the interpretation of data by over 99% of scientists who are experts in their fields and that includes scientists who are Christians. There are dozens and dozens of ways for us to determine this.

We definitely know for a fact not a single shred of science points towards a 6-10k year old earth. The only reason why some Christians struggle with being anti science is not because of faith in God or belief in the Bible. The only struggle arises from being scientifically undereducated coupled with a single misunderstanding of Genesis 1-11 created by a overly literal interpretation.
 
Aug 17, 2020
266
39
28
Southeastern USA
#45
The moment we leave open a possibility for a universe zillion of years old, we accept that evolution is possible and then I can become an atheist telling everybody there is no God.

If we look at the creation account and the gap theory, God needed a long time to create heaven and earth and then a day each to do the rest of the creation :unsure: think about the implication, we were rushed together in 5 days but the rest of creation, the Creator took His time to create. I don't know. The God I serve is a God of order and He will be consistent.

Just like I don't believe I was an after thought when Israel divorced Abba Father, I won't believe I was rushed together by my Creator. We are not His dirty little secret in the corner of His creation that took 5 days to create. We are the crown of His creation and that is why He took one day to design and build Adam before he seized and enjoyed His work.
Belief in evolution is not equal to belief in there being no God. I believe 100% in science being accurate about the age of the earth and evolution. I believe 100% in God being our creator and in the Bible. I however have 0% reason to believe that the literary context of genesis 1-11 Is meant to be literal as opposed to an ahistorical take full of hyperbolic images.
 
Aug 10, 2020
376
151
43
#46
Belief in evolution is not equal to belief in there being no God. I believe 100% in science being accurate about the age of the earth and evolution. I believe 100% in God being our creator and in the Bible. I however have 0% reason to believe that the literary context of genesis 1-11 Is meant to be literal as opposed to an ahistorical take full of hyperbolic images.
There is not one single shred of proof pointing at a common ancestor with apes.
Evolution is taught the wrong way imho. It has been surrounded by a scene of dictating how it happened and those raising questions being “demonized”. If those writers about the evil lucion theory did not bash creationists they would simply not fill a full book. That was in my day about 20 years ago.

We should realise that the origins of species is psuedoscience mixed with real science. Charles Darwin was a racist inspired by Alfred Rusell Wallace. Without Alfred’s observations on natural selection Darwin would’ve never been able to write his book, origins of species.

The proven science of evolution does not show evolution by mutation but by natural selection or genetic drift. With genetic drift you simply have less genetic variation getting fixated otherwise. With natural selection you have many variation where the fittest thrives, does not mean strongest.

This science was not discovered by Darwin.
 
Sep 8, 2014
244
26
18
#47
While the Bible is known to make gigantic leaps in time without specific details. It seems at first sight Abraham was born about 2000 years after Adam. This would show us a young creation according to our Bible.

Yet science had me almost convinced our earth is billions of years old. But knowing they lie and mock anyone raising serious questions I denounced science when it comes to our origins. I was really devoted in my studies but all I found was slander, corruptions, half truths to sell a full lie...

Yet my own mind raised a serious question last night: If our God is infinite, why would He only start creating roughly 6000 to 10000 years ago?

Maybe I should rewatch my beliefs on this and only see human life as a young creation? Any insight in this is very welcomed.
God created time. Whenever He started creating, evening, morning one day ... there was a beginning ... to time. Here's the point. The earth was created with a semblance of age. He created full grown plants, animals, humans, not seeds and embryos flopping around on the ground. In other words, if you could transport a group of scientists back to day seven of creation, except for the differences that would result in no rain, the earth being watered by a mist, a greater and a lesser light, no rainbows ... the earth, and universe would pretty much appear as it does today ... except for the earth not being divided and a few other things. We also have the concept of the original earth being created for the angels as they were present when the foundations of the earth were laid, and as when we humans had issues with sin, it is quite possible that when the angels sinned the garden of Eden that Satan walked amongst and the garden of Eden that Adam walked in, were quite different.

The earth being formless and void represents the one time in all creation that something created wasn't perfectly formed to start out with unless you use the other Hebrew meaning for the word translated as void, meaning "Lost it's proper function". But then, when Satan and a third of the host of heaven sinned, if this was their planet, destruction of it, given the flood, and the end of this current world fits fully.

So what age are you looking for? How long before the angels sinned? How long before the earth was "recreated" which is another possible translation for another Hebrew word in Genesis? the creatures listed in Job, how long ago did they exist?
 

bojack

Well-known member
Dec 16, 2019
1,929
829
113
#48
Not true at all. Those are far from speculation. It’s also based off of multiple half lives from different elements, the fossil record, ice cores, dendrological calculations and even algorithms focused on genetic decoding.
Can you explain polonium halos trapped in granite found all over earth , this proves quick creation in cool not molten heat ..
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
2,039
652
113
#49
The earth is approximately 4.54 ± 0.05 billion based off the interpretation of data by over 99% of scientists who are experts in their fields and that includes scientists who are Christians. There are dozens and dozens of ways for us to determine this.

We definitely know for a fact not a single shred of science points towards a 6-10k year old earth. The only reason why some Christians struggle with being anti science is not because of faith in God or belief in the Bible. The only struggle arises from being scientifically undereducated coupled with a single misunderstanding of Genesis 1-11 created by a overly literal interpretation.
Scientist don't have a clue on what age the earth is, not a clue!
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
2,039
652
113
#50
Belief in evolution is not equal to belief in there being no God. I believe 100% in science being accurate about the age of the earth and evolution. I believe 100% in God being our creator and in the Bible. I however have 0% reason to believe that the literary context of genesis 1-11 Is meant to be literal as opposed to an ahistorical take full of hyperbolic images.
Evolution is a fabricated lie of man, just as Piltdown man seen below showing just one instance!

World scientist and anthropologist allowed this lie to continue for 41 years, being printed into school text books, and displayed in museum figures as fact, brainwashing the unaware with (LIES)!!!

Wikipedia: Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953. An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was its likely perpetrator.[1]

In 1912, Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. In February 1912, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum, stating he had found a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex.[2] That summer, Dawson and Smith Woodward purportedly discovered more bones and artifacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual. These finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools.
 

bojack

Well-known member
Dec 16, 2019
1,929
829
113
#51
There is not one single shred of proof pointing at a common ancestor with apes.
Evolution is taught the wrong way imho. It has been surrounded by a scene of dictating how it happened and those raising questions being “demonized”. If those writers about the evil lucion theory did not bash creationists they would simply not fill a full book. That was in my day about 20 years ago.

We should realise that the origins of species is psuedoscience mixed with real science. Charles Darwin was a racist inspired by Alfred Rusell Wallace. Without Alfred’s observations on natural selection Darwin would’ve never been able to write his book, origins of species.

The proven science of evolution does not show evolution by mutation but by natural selection or genetic drift. With genetic drift you simply have less genetic variation getting fixated otherwise. With natural selection you have many variation where the fittest thrives, does not mean strongest.

This science was not discovered by Darwin.
Plants and animals were created distinct kinds .. Each original kind contained all the vast DNA-RNA information to breed out into every variation of it's kind today .. In any environment to breed out according to what was equipped in the original created kind .. You can not add or evolve DNA .. In Africa the harmful mutations added up quicker caused by harsher living conditions and DNA damage to appear an older population .. Mutations are almost never helpful but harmful ..
 

bojack

Well-known member
Dec 16, 2019
1,929
829
113
#52
Belief in evolution is not equal to belief in there being no God. I believe 100% in science being accurate about the age of the earth and evolution. I believe 100% in God being our creator and in the Bible. I however have 0% reason to believe that the literary context of genesis 1-11 Is meant to be literal as opposed to an ahistorical take full of hyperbolic images.
You do not understand true science ..
 

bojack

Well-known member
Dec 16, 2019
1,929
829
113
#54
The earth is approximately 4.54 ± 0.05 billion based off the interpretation of data by over 99% of scientists who are experts in their fields and that includes scientists who are Christians. There are dozens and dozens of ways for us to determine this.

We definitely know for a fact not a single shred of science points towards a 6-10k year old earth. The only reason why some Christians struggle with being anti science is not because of faith in God or belief in the Bible. The only struggle arises from being scientifically undereducated coupled with a single misunderstanding of Genesis 1-11 created by a overly literal interpretation.
40 Yrs after Mt St Helens eruption radiometric dating was performed on the new formed volcanic rock .. This new rock tested out to be from a couple million yrs old down to a couple hundred thousand yrs old .. Not even close to 40 yrs ..
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
2,039
652
113
#55
40 Yrs after Mt St Helens eruption radiometric dating was performed on the new formed volcanic rock .. This new rock tested out to be from a couple million yrs old down to a couple hundred thousand yrs old .. Not even close to 40 yrs ..
Mt St Helens was a living laboratory for Creation scientist.

Spirit lake with all the trees deposited, an exact image of the petrified standing forest, created in like 10 years.

Secular scientist have claimed tree deposits as this around the world are millions of years old, proven wrong.

The mini grand canyon, created in just one week, by the catastrophic event.

Institute For Creation Research
 

bojack

Well-known member
Dec 16, 2019
1,929
829
113
#56
Mt St Helens was a living laboratory for Creation scientist.

Spirit lake with all the trees deposited, an exact image of the petrified standing forest, created in like 10 years.

Secular scientist have claimed tree deposits as this around the world are millions of years old, proven wrong.

The mini grand canyon, created in just one week, by the catastrophic event.

Institute For Creation Research
Ha, Spirit lake was a real butt kicker to old earthers and Atheists..
 
Aug 17, 2020
266
39
28
Southeastern USA
#58
40 Yrs after Mt St Helens eruption radiometric dating was performed on the new formed volcanic rock .. This new rock tested out to be from a couple million yrs old down to a couple hundred thousand yrs old .. Not even close to 40 yrs ..
What type of dating did they use? Based on element half lives you use different ones for different things. One big mistake unqualified people often make is that they use the wrong approach to the wrong circumstance, and then they don’t at least double check it using the same process plus double check it using another viable option.
 
Aug 17, 2020
266
39
28
Southeastern USA
#59
There is not one single shred of proof pointing at a common ancestor with apes.
Evolution is taught the wrong way imho. It has been surrounded by a scene of dictating how it happened and those raising questions being “demonized”. If those writers about the evil lucion theory did not bash creationists they would simply not fill a full book. That was in my day about 20 years ago.

We should realise that the origins of species is psuedoscience mixed with real science. Charles Darwin was a racist inspired by Alfred Rusell Wallace. Without Alfred’s observations on natural selection Darwin would’ve never been able to write his book, origins of species.

The proven science of evolution does not show evolution by mutation but by natural selection or genetic drift. With genetic drift you simply have less genetic variation getting fixated otherwise. With natural selection you have many variation where the fittest thrives, does not mean strongest.

This science was not discovered by Darwin.
Well I never made any claims about Darwin period.

There is a bunch of scientific evidence for human evolution. Besides genetics we see tons of fossil evidence. There are literally millions of search hits by typing in human evolution. It’s 2am where I live and I only woke up to turn on a generator because Hurricane Sally knocked out power. I’ll try to respond more in depth sometime later. I also suggest checking out the forums in BioLogos where dozens of experts are there and can answer these questions from their own research and careers.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,462
113
#60
I believe the age of Creation is a major issue.

It's the world and liberal secular humanist that want to remove God from the world.

What better lie can you give the world than to quote (Billions) of years ago, a God forgotten?

The oldest life form in California the (Bristle Cone Pine) is dated to be around 5,000 years old, putting it in line almost perfectly with Noah's Flood, in agreement with the Holy Bible

Wikipedia: Bristlecone pine covers three species of pine tree (family Pinaceae, genus Pinus, subsection Balfourianae). All three species are long-lived and highly resilient to harsh weather and bad soils. One of the three species, Pinus longaeva, is among the longest-lived life forms on Earth. The oldest Pinus longaeva is more than 4,800 years old,[1] making it the oldest known individual of any species.


Great Basin bristlecone pines in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest of the White Mountains, California
Sure....no one can date it precisely.....other than God!