How Old Is The Earth?

[Jasidy]

I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[Bowman]

Seriously? Avoid debating genealogies? Yes, but he didn't mean historical genealogies.

1 Tim 1.4 nor to give heed to fables and to endless genealogies, which occasion doubts, rather than a stewardship of God in faith,

 

[Tintin]

Yes, but endless genealogies refers to spiritual pedigree, people who were puffing themselves up as more important because they were descended from King David etc. It had nothing to do with arguing whether or not the historical genealogies were complete records.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Lol the error of the old earth creationists is that they try to think it took God the Almighty and Creator more than just 6 days plus 1 for rest to make all Creation. I see no reason this cannot be literal. What the Young Earth Creationists then play into is the geneologies and these are goodly in fact though you're not sure at all parts of them how long each person lived or when they begat the next. Plus we can go hyper-technical and debate the various techniques man has used to attempt to date earth.

The geneologies though go back to Adam. Really the question is not how long God took to make Creation, for He is true on this matter. The question be; how long Adam and Eve lived before they began to die and lost immortality?

Really kinda of a biblical question, but we shouldn't also be too worried about it of course because of Jesus and His promises and words about the future and looking forward. Lol it could have been billions of years, it could have been just a few hours or less. We do not know this much because we weren't there. Either way even after the fall there was an age undreamed of until what all supporting evidence seems to indicate, a Massive amount of water coming up and down reset all that, or some cataclysm involving a lot of water of some type. Then from the good ones that God salvaged from that world came this current one history, archaeology, linguistics, culture, etc. seem to imply. As you move through the Bible even more of it becomes more verifiable, even after the Bible when history shows us a whole lot of stuff went down between 100 AD to today.

Why people doubt? Eh, its fair, lots of indoctrination, and honestly most people I know don't even so much care how old the earth is and just enjoy the different theories and wondering about such things in discussion with friends and stuff for lack of conversation topics lol. Which I don't think is too bad because most people that are not even caring aren't really basing anything off of the earth. But, I have found even just trying to be objective before that when ya really try to investigate the Bible and all in its many books as theories along with "scientific" creation/earth age theories that scary or joyfully enough (depends on your religion at the time lol) the Bible account has the most proof by a long shot.

 

[Bowman]

Yes, but endless genealogies refers to spiritual pedigree, people who were puffing themselves up as more important because they were descended from King David etc. It had nothing to do with arguing whether or not the historical genealogies were complete records.

'Endless' means exactly that...that people were attempting to sum large numbers contained in the genealogies for their own purposes....this is just what YEC's do today...

 

[Jasidy]

Lol the error of the old earth creationists is that they try to think it took God the Almighty and Creator more than just 6 days plus 1 for rest to make all Creation.

I believe in a literal 6 day (24 hour) Creation ... 7th day, rest.

 

[Percepi]

Why people doubt? Eh, its fair, lots of indoctrination

Actually, science.

But, I have found even just trying to be objective before that when ya really try to investigate the Bible and all in its many books as theories along with "scientific" creation/earth age theories that scary or joyfully enough (depends on your religion at the time lol) the Bible account has the most proof by a long shot.

And by "most proof", you mean what exactly?

Literally all scientific proof points to an old Earth. If you want to argue science isn't reliable, then you need to stop trying to rely on science to prove a young Earth. If you want to argue that science does point to a young Earth, then you need to stop brushing away science when it contradicts your views. You can't have it both ways, where you accept science as reliable when it supports your pre-determined bias but you claim it's unreliable when it contradicts your views. This is precisely why science is verified through double-blind experiments, to avoid confirmation bias.

 

[Tintin]

'Endless' means exactly that...that people were attempting to sum large numbers contained in the genealogies for their own purposes....this is just what YEC's do today...

No. If Titus had issues with us discussing the biblical genealogies and material thereof, we would have to throw out most of the Bible! Clearly that's not the case. Still, if such things cause so much division, maybe we should just agree to disagree with each other.

 

[Tintin]

Actually, science.



And by "most proof", you mean what exactly?

Literally all scientific proof points to an old Earth. If you want to argue science isn't reliable, then you need to stop trying to rely on science to prove a young Earth. If you want to argue that science does point to a young Earth, then you need to stop brushing away science when it contradicts your views. You can't have it both ways, where you accept science as reliable when it supports your pre-determined bias but you claim it's unreliable when it contradicts your views. This is precisely why science is verified through double-blind experiments, to avoid confirmation bias.

I know right? Evolutionary scientists do this all the time. There's still no evidence for evolution. Ghost lineages are not evidence, they're nothing more than vision quests for the modern man (or woman).

 

[Percepi]

I know right? Evolutionary scientists do this all the time. There's still no evidence for evolution. Ghost lineages are not evidence, they're nothing more than vision quests for the modern man (or woman).

You'll have to define "ghost lineages" because that's a new word to me. It sounds like a statement referring to the false idea that there's a lack of transitional fossils. Heck, even young earth creationists accept evolution, they just believe in "micro" evolution, even though the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is the difference between an inch and a yard. All the science that proves micro-evolution is the same exact evidence that confirms macro-evolution.

Here are some of the basics you need to familiarize yourself with before studying evolution:
An introduction to evolution
Actionbioscience | Evolution: Fact and Theory
Actionbioscience | Natural Selection: How Evolution Works
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

Here are some proofs of evolution:
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
Examples of evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Observed Instances of Speciation
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home -- ScienceDaily
Actionbioscience | Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

Here we get more into fossils:
Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Actionbioscience | Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions
Archaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record
All About Archaeopteryx
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
Peking Man and Homo erectus
Actionbioscience | Evidence and the Cambrian Explosion
An Overview of Dinosaur Tracking
Dinosaur Footprints in Coal

That's just a short sample of what we know about evolution. Here's the blog of a person I talked to quite a bit on a different forum. He has a wonderful list (where all of these links were taken from). If there's ever anything you need to know about evolution, you can probably find it there in what he listed.

Mind of Mage: Evolution Bomb

I'm sure you have "scientific proofs" of a young Earth, but you'll be amazed at how quickly young earth proofs are shot down. They aren't shot down blindly, mind you. They're shot down because they don't rely on evidence verified by the scientific method, are straight up WRONG, or the proofs are simply lies.

 

[Tintin]

No, no. There's a huge difference between a wolf leading to a dog and what evolutionary theory perpetrates as fact. The former involves one kind begetting something different but of the same kind (also in some cases a loss of DNA information). The latter (evolutionary theory) is something of one kind begetting something altogether different.

Also, the Archaeopteryx isn't good evidence for evolution but a Chinese fake. It's sad that you guys cling to such things as truth.

 

[Shava]

Aprox. 6-8 thousand years, based on the genealogy from Adam to Christ.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Actually, science.



And by "most proof", you mean what exactly?

Literally all scientific proof points to an old Earth. If you want to argue science isn't reliable, then you need to stop trying to rely on science to prove a young Earth. If you want to argue that science does point to a young Earth, then you need to stop brushing away science when it contradicts your views. You can't have it both ways, where you accept science as reliable when it supports your pre-determined bias but you claim it's unreliable when it contradicts your views. This is precisely why science is verified through double-blind experiments, to avoid confirmation bias.

Lol what is science? Seems like to me there is a lot of proof a lot of water destroyed everything long ago and mankind uses current dating technologies that are inaccurate and proven to be unreliable like atom dating. So... there is still room for true science which is simply testing and experimenting and observing stuff objectively. The real argument is the Od Earth Theories are based off theories that themselves are not science but they call it such. Which is why I put it as "scientific" creation to imply sarcasm like I do in real life because it is not even really science lol.

The proofs I have seen for Old Earth are mostly unprovable theories and/or methods all ready disproven, some like carbon dating got disproven years ago lol. At the same time the Young Earthers go on their own theories too. I myself just don't think Earth is as Old as the old agers, though it is a possibility if I play by the Genesis account and consider for the variable of Adam and Eve's Night and Days on the land before they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and started to die. Therefore by that standard and for the fact we do not know how long each geneology lived for plus the flaws of modern calendars that we cannot arrive at a precise date for Earth. Though by all accounts since Man and Woman became mortal we have been here only a few thousand years.

The proof of this is written throughout all history and in archaeology with the fact people even exist and had written record and thus history lol and even shown off by the skeptics themselves though they either do not understand what they have on hand or they do and just hide it from the public lol.

Science by just asking questions can actually help us realize past the misinterpretations of others inthe past. Take evolution and fossils for instance, if I say the earth is billions of years old like the modern western scientific mythology proposes and went through all the theoretical catastrophes and ages they also propose; how is it life forms that exist even today are still present and were not wiped out, or the fossils show different variant of animals that are similar in overall form to those of today? Also during the many proposed theoretical catastrophe events and ages that would have drastically destroyed life; would it not also even vastly altered and tainted all evidence of the ages prior and thus rendered it impossible to date the earth's age?

 

[Shava]

The bible is the only true source. I just love your carbon dating machines for accuracy, oops, I mean inaccuracy. Common sense is all it takes to wipe out Evolution. The age of the earth you love to use is so inaccurate. Billions and billions of years ago you say, hardly. You and I were not there so you and I haven't a clue how old the earth is using your source for verification, because it's man made , and you and I being a man were not there to identify anything to use as a way of measuring other than what we have on the earth which you haven't a clue how old it is except for your man made toys which have such a drastic measure of inaccuracies. Data research has such a limit that it's only as accurate as man has been able to leave data from the past, that's all you have and to say something like billions of years being the age of the earth is pure folly, the bible's genealogy on the other hand is accurate.

 

[Tintin]

Fallible humans couldn't possibly have incorrect presuppositions and conclusions, could they? The only ones that are rock solid truths are the Bible and God himself.

 

[Percepi]

No, no. There's a huge difference between a wolf leading to a dog and what evolutionary theory perpetrates as fact. The former involves one kind begetting something different but of the same kind (also in some cases a loss of DNA information). The latter (evolutionary theory) is something of one kind begetting something altogether different.

I provided a link discussing micro and macro evolution. Please refer to the link I provided.

Also, the Archaeopteryx isn't good evidence for evolution but a Chinese fake. It's sad that you guys cling to such things as truth.

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know I linked Wikipedia, but if you have any doubts, just look at the sources near the bottom.

Lol what is science?

Lol the science you intentionally ignore!

Talking to you is hard, because you essentially put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and shout "THERE IS NO PROOF, THERE IS NO PROOF" whenever I provide the evidence and it's staring you in the face waving flags saying, "HERE I AM", with a full orchestra in the background and neon signs pointing towards it.

The proofs I have seen for Old Earth are mostly unprovable theories and/or methods all ready disproven

The only reason you believe this is because you've listened to frauds. You are ignorant of actual science. What you perceive as actual science is just Kent Hovind or Ken Ham spewing absolute lies.

some like carbon dating got disproven years ago lol.

I'm assuming you're referring to the fact that carbon dating has yielded tremendously flawed dates. The thing is, scientists understand that these flaws exist, and more importantly, they understand WHY these flaws exist. Being aware of why the flaws exist allows scientists to know when to use carbon dating, and when they shouldn't use carbon dating.

(This video contains mild profanity) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

Carbon dating isn't the only dating method scientists use. There are numerous dating methods out there and multiple dating methods are used on fossils to determine their age as to obtain a more accurate estimation.

The proof of this is written throughout all history and in archaeology with the fact people even exist and had written record and thus history lol

You mean the written accounts declaring Ra to be real? Declaring Apollo as the God who raised the sun into the sky? Much of what we find are legends and myths. More reliable than written words is geology.

Science by just asking questions can actually help us realize past the misinterpretations of others inthe past. Take evolution and fossils for instance, if I say the earth is billions of years old like the modern western scientific mythology proposes and went through all the theoretical catastrophes and ages they also propose; how is it life forms that exist even today are still present and were not wiped out, or the fossils show different variant of animals that are similar in overall form to those of today?

A good place to start is to actually study evolution.

Also during the many proposed theoretical catastrophe events and ages that would have drastically destroyed life; would it not also even vastly altered and tainted all evidence of the ages prior and thus rendered it impossible to date the earth's age?

I'm curious as to what catastrophes you're referring to. I'm also curious where you got the idea that all catastrophes must wipe out all of life.

 

[Tintin]

I've looked through some of the links you've provided. I've got to be honest, I read them but I find evolutionary theory so dull and lifeless and very, very silly (to me, it's lies/fiction). Even as a child, when I was learning both biblical creation and evolutionary theory, I found the latter bizarre (and no, I wasn't homeschooled).

I'll take those links slowly.

 

[Percepi]

If you make the claim that evolution is wrong, and you provide a reason as to how it's wrong, then please do the following.

1. Go to this blog: Mind of Mage: Evolution Bomb

2. Find a link that addresses your statement against me.

3. Respond to me with a link to the source you found, prove to me you read/watched the source, then address how the source is wrong.

For example, if you want to argue that there are no transitional fossils, find a link having to do with transitional fossils from the blog I provided, link it, and address how the source is wrong. That way, I don't have to waste my time with people who claim to have answers, but ignore everything I link.

 

[Tintin]

I said I've been reading your links. Good grief! Grow up!

 

[Percepi]

I said I've been reading your links. Good grief! Grow up!

Really? Because your last response to me was already debunked in one of the sources I provided. Clearly you either failed to read the source or you failed to address the source.

EDIT: I apologize. When I typed my post, it wasn't a response to you. In fact, I started typing it before you posted explaining how you were going through the links.