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.

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,452
246
63
But you dont understand. You repeat and leave my arguments open digging deeper into it.
I did study the theory of evolution and had Bible study. Imho there is no in between.
There is also a difference in ’evolution‘ and the “theory of evolution‘.

Your replies on ignoring obvious arguments are not our but your ignorance. Mixing pseudoscience (evo by mutation) with real science doesn’t make it a really scientific proven. No matter how much peer reviewed it is.
And of course, one thing they forget is that science is not a proven concept. Science is the testing of concepts that are already there, put by God, so all they do is to understand what God has done or not as the case may be. Every time they say science proves this what they are actually saying is the science proves what God had already done.

Science didn't prove the law of gravity. Science discovered it but it was always there so they proved that God invented the law of gravity because it was there long before science took hold of it.
 

bojack

Well-known member
Dec 16, 2019
2,311
997
113
And of course, one thing they forget is that science is not a proven concept. Science is the testing of concepts that are already there, put by God, so all they do is to understand what God has done or not as the case may be. Every time they say science proves this what they are actually saying is the science proves what God had already done.

Science didn't prove the law of gravity. Science discovered it but it was always there so they proved that God invented the law of gravity because it was there long before science took hold of it.
Science is rock solid and created to be dependable except for when the supernatural intervenes at God's will ..
 
Jan 25, 2015
8,188
2,373
113
Science is rock solid and created to be dependable except for when the supernatural intervenes at God's will ..
People are quoting "scientific facts" as if we could trust them. In a court of law how many times do you have to be proving wrong before you are an unreliable witness?
 

Fundamental

Active member
Aug 10, 2020
540
226
43
And of course, one thing they forget is that science is not a proven concept. Science is the testing of concepts that are already there, put by God, so all they do is to understand what God has done or not as the case may be. Every time they say science proves this what they are actually saying is the science proves what God had already done.

Science didn't prove the law of gravity. Science discovered it but it was always there so they proved that God invented the law of gravity because it was there long before science took hold of it.
Science was awesome before old men not being able to think outside of the box defined how it should be lectured. It was set on a platform from where a scene was created mocking those thinking outside of the box. Glad we exposed those evolutionists that most of them believe in pseudoscience which is not scientific proven.

You are absolutely right, most of our great accomplishments are discoveries of what was already there. But science proved gravity was there and not just an idea. Newton had to be very careful in his age as he could be mocked and worse by the catholic church. Science did not invent gravity, but we can depend science calculated on the gravity of about any object in space. Making it able to send Voyagers into deepspace.
Yet we can not get to the bottom of our history by simply analysing rocks and bones in the ground. This idea being pushed is not done on scientific grounds imho.

We need science and science is not evil on its own, but everything humans get their hands on gets corrupted. Wether its science or religion
 

Fundamental

Active member
Aug 10, 2020
540
226
43
Check out this two pictures, the one on the left was taken first, and to make sure I took the second one. It was just a matter of second when the second one was taken after the first. What causes the effect on the second picture. Notice the spot off towards the left of the moon,
View attachment 221636 View attachment 221637
You will need a T2 adapter and connect your camera to your telescope with it.
Not all cameras can do this. I had to take a screenshot of a raw image to make it smaller in size.

This is the pink supermoon of april 2020 taken myself. It was taken with a Canon DSLR over 10 years old. I may confuse it with my M-series but I am quite sure it was taken with my old camera.
 

Attachments

UnoiAmarah

Junior Member
Jul 28, 2017
713
124
43
[
You will need a T2 adapter and connect your camera to your telescope with it.
Not all cameras can do this. I had to take a screenshot of a raw image to make it smaller in size.

This is the pink supermoon of april 2020 taken myself. It was taken with a Canon DSLR over 10 years old. I may confuse it with my M-series but I am quite sure it was taken with my old camera.
I took those pics with one of those Sanyo digital camera, the one that fits in you shirt pocket. You got pretty good close up with yours. I'll be glad when the telescope I ordered finally gets here. So what do you know about the star Polaris.

From what I hear it remains above the the N pole year around. I recall one guy who was talking about how it didn't make sense to him how they were saying it moved but stayed fixed and so on and so forth, I figured it had something to do with the tilting of the earth which would indicate that the position of the star should change when it did, but apparently it doesn't, or something like that.
 

UnoiAmarah

Junior Member
Jul 28, 2017
713
124
43
We have been placed on this earth by instant events.
I don't know. The human body starts off from the cell fusion of the male and female gametes which produces the a new cell, it is no longer a male gamete, nor a female gamete, neither is it part of each, it is a new and completely unique cell

I guess that is why i identify with Procreation instead of evolution or creation. It just seems like evolutionist or a creationist, they both say the same. The evolutionist says the new cell is living and the creationist says the new cell is a soul. The procreator says the new cell is a zygote. :whistle:

Yet the zygote goes through a process before it becomes a full formed body.
 

GraceAndTruth

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2015
2,031
637
113
I'd guess the earth is around 5.000 more or less. Using what "science" knows, and what we can judge by many of the things in nature (and beyond in the heavens!) there is a huge gap between 'scientific fact' and natures truth.

For instance:
1 Our sun grows smaller every year....by millimeters yet enough millimeters and you have quite a slice. Measurable by our scientists who like to do things like that.
Assuming the sun is mega-millions of years old, to grow back all those millimeters the earth would be too hot to sustain any life, it would look like Mercury.
ergo: not an old sun but a fairly new sun.

2 At the first moon landing the LEM was made with huge pods on the legs so that it would not sink into the many FEET of moon dust as predicted by the scientists (a condition that they were also concerned about for the astronauts) because of their belief that the moon was millions of years old due to the accumulation over that time, it was expected to be many feet deep. However, as we know now, the moon dust was barely more than a few inches. ergo: not an old moon but a rather YOUNG moon.

To top it off there is no 'geodetic column', it is a man made theory.
Much of what people think they know is what they have been influence by the theory of evolution.

Several years ago some college students took a tree frog, put it through some chemical potions and sent it to the science department to have its age determined by the method of radiocarbon dating. The report came back that it was over 2 million years old. LOL....so much for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating has come into disuse because of unreliability....so now all those OLD OLD OLD things they 'dated' were maybe not so old after all

Yup.....Evolution is just a theory still looking for a fact. LOTSA luck.
 

Fundamental

Active member
Aug 10, 2020
540
226
43
[


I took those pics with one of those Sanyo digital camera, the one that fits in you shirt pocket. You got pretty good close up with yours. I'll be glad when the telescope I ordered finally gets here. So what do you know about the star Polaris.

From what I hear it remains above the the N pole year around. I recall one guy who was talking about how it didn't make sense to him how they were saying it moved but stayed fixed and so on and so forth, I figured it had something to do with the tilting of the earth which would indicate that the position of the star should change when it did, but apparently it doesn't, or something like that.
The polar star remains in the same position. That is why we align our telescope first with the polar star so the nightsky will pass by while our mount can roll along equatorial. Thus making it possible to take pictures on long exposure without losing clarity. It remains positioned.
 

Fundamental

Active member
Aug 10, 2020
540
226
43
I don't know. The human body starts off from the cell fusion of the male and female gametes which produces the a new cell, it is no longer a male gamete, nor a female gamete, neither is it part of each, it is a new and completely unique cell

I guess that is why i identify with Procreation instead of evolution or creation. It just seems like evolutionist or a creationist, they both say the same. The evolutionist says the new cell is living and the creationist says the new cell is a soul. The procreator says the new cell is a zygote. :whistle:

Yet the zygote goes through a process before it becomes a full formed body.
I base my orientation more on what ancestors left behind then what evolutionists trying to tell me. Ancient cultures from around the world say they came from gods (God) and gained their knowledge from them.

It’s true that evolutionists and creationists in some way say the same.
“In the beginning God created...” vs “In the early days of earth single cells mutated to complex cells and formed all this biodiversity.” Or even “hydrogen and helium exploded becoming all this.”

But yet when we study the gaps and explore how some gaps are filled in (or even denied); it became clear to me the theory of evolution is a fabricated lie that is being forced with arrogance and mocking those questioning it.

In schoolclasses, jobs, pub, anywhere; there may be one person right, but when you get bullied for being right, most will simply shut up to keep out of trouble.
 

UnoiAmarah

Junior Member
Jul 28, 2017
713
124
43
The polar star remains in the same position. That is why we align our telescope first with the polar star so the nightsky will pass by while our mount can roll along equatorial. Thus making it possible to take pictures on long exposure without losing clarity. It remains positioned.
That is what I was hoping to see with the telescope which (fingers crossed) will be here by Friday. I can kind of see what the guy was talking about when he questioned how Polaris stay in the same position above earth year round, while he didn't say it, I took it to be questioning the tilt of the earth since the position of Polaris should change relative to degree of the tilt. However, if not mistaken I believe there is an attachment available that will allow pictures to be taken with a smart phone. I don't know.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
5,159
1,596
113
The old testament counts time according to the acts of the Lord. They count the years of the earth from the time God became he ruler on the earth at what we call creation. In the new testament, time is counted from the time of Christ.
 

Fundamental

Active member
Aug 10, 2020
540
226
43
That is what I was hoping to see with the telescope which (fingers crossed) will be here by Friday. I can kind of see what the guy was talking about when he questioned how Polaris stay in the same position above earth year round, while he didn't say it, I took it to be questioning the tilt of the earth since the position of Polaris should change relative to degree of the tilt. However, if not mistaken I believe there is an attachment available that will allow pictures to be taken with a smart phone. I don't know.
I don’t know how smartphones are today. But you need to change your diafragma, shutterspeed and ISO value.
When taking pictures of the moon you can do that on 1/250 shutterspeed and low ISO. Depending how bright she shines. But taking pictures of galaxies far away goes up to 20 seconds till a minut with a real professionals.
Some even film planets and stack the images of the movie as one picture.

When you are orientated to the polar star, you are orientated with earth’s tilt and all stars will roll in the same degree. You have to google out on which latitude she is in your country. When found in the sky, fine tine your telescope mount by centering the polar star in your lense.
When you watch through your tracker, it must be positioned to look at the same object your telescope does.

Is it a 150 newton?
 

UnoiAmarah

Junior Member
Jul 28, 2017
713
124
43
The old testament counts time according to the acts of the Lord. They count the years of the earth from the time God became he ruler on the earth at what we call creation. In the new testament, time is counted from the time of Christ.
Humm, I thought time was counted by the two great lights, "...and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
5,159
1,596
113
Humm, I thought time was counted by the two great lights, "...and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

Time yes, but we put a number to the years based on when the Lord became Lord of the earth, and when Christ became our Savior.
 

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,452
246
63
Science is rock solid and created to be dependable except for when the supernatural intervenes at God's will ..
Not always. When they discovered the supposed Piltdown man scientists said it was the missing link they had been looking for. 50 years later they said it was a false assumption because what they found was not the skeleton of a human. It was the head of a pig.

And in another case, they found a tooth at a dig and those in charge said they could determine who it came from. What his wife was like. What his children were like. What their living conditions were like and what the neighborhood was like.
 
Oct 6, 2020
58
67
18
85
New South Wales
I personally have never found any difficulty in reconciling my faith with Science.

It was in 1956 while studying Relativity, Quantum Mechanics et‑al in my final year of Science, that I started, for the first time in my life, to think about God. I can still remember saying to friends, at that time, “there must be a God.” It was in the next year or so that I knelt down at my bedside and accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour.

The Bible is not a book of Science it is a book of Redemption. It tells us about Creation in the first two chapters, about the fall in Chapter 3. From there to the end of Revelation it deals with Redemption, that is the rescuing the human race from the consequences of rebellion against the Creator of the Universe. It tells us who created the Universe, not how.

The debate about the age of the Universe is, to my mind, of little value. God could have, if he had so chosen, set the wheels in motion 13.7 billion years ago. He would have known its destiny down to the last quark and muon. He could also have, just as easily, created it all in 6 days or, for that matter, in 6 nanoseconds, backdating the carbon atoms in the process (Matthew 11:25).

________
 

Fundamental

Active member
Aug 10, 2020
540
226
43
I personally have never found any difficulty in reconciling my faith with Science.

It was in 1956 while studying Relativity, Quantum Mechanics et‑al in my final year of Science, that I started, for the first time in my life, to think about God. I can still remember saying to friends, at that time, “there must be a God.” It was in the next year or so that I knelt down at my bedside and accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour.

The Bible is not a book of Science it is a book of Redemption. It tells us about Creation in the first two chapters, about the fall in Chapter 3. From there to the end of Revelation it deals with Redemption, that is the rescuing the human race from the consequences of rebellion against the Creator of the Universe. It tells us who created the Universe, not how.

The debate about the age of the Universe is, to my mind, of little value. God could have, if he had so chosen, set the wheels in motion 13.7 billion years ago. He would have known its destiny down to the last quark and muon. He could also have, just as easily, created it all in 6 days or, for that matter, in 6 nanoseconds, backdating the carbon atoms in the process (Matthew 11:25).

________
But is the science on our origins conform to the Bible? When they were pushing to educate “their version” into schools, was this based on actual science or an elite group pushing an idea on arrogance and mockery?

The Bible says each animal was created to its kind, the theory of evolution says each organism comes from single cells billion years ago.
I’ve been wrestling with “Darwinism” for quite some time now (decades) and I came to realisation they WANT to believe it and most don’t even know what they believe in. They even admit they trust others because they think they are smarter then them. All it takes is devotion and research and each member of earth will find there is no proof on the origins of anything. Not our universe, not life on earth.

In fact we have a God that seems to tease humanity. Each time we discover something, something along the ways pops up turning what we think to know upside down. Look at some moons and planet defying the law of gravity for instance.

Why would we not make the Bible the science of our lives? Should a person trying to be christian not place the Word of God first? When a man in suit is trying to tell you you came from fish, could he not serve an agenda against God?
 
Oct 6, 2020
58
67
18
85
New South Wales
When a man in suit is trying to tell you you came from fish, could he not serve an agenda against God?

Yes. This is the essence of the rebellion that has cursed the human race since the fall.

There is no real conflict between the Bible and science. Those who would say otherwise are “serving an agenda against God.”

The Bible makes no attempt to describe how the universe was created. Science tries to do this but has hardly scratched the surface.


_______________