How Old Is The 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.

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
613
113
70
Alabama
Though that is just little nuance, which is really just a minor issue and somewhat irrelevant seeing as we live in an age of very high literacy. Apart from that I would say the Part 2 was a pretty good presentation and indeed very informative and I agree with it. Heh in the early part where Isaacs speculates that Noah would have only taken baby dinosaurs on board the Ark this reminded me of another Dragons=Dinosaurs Conspiracy, it was a little more speculative than this documentary, but I will have to search around for it (forgot the name of it at the moment) and I'll post it here for your enjoyment when I find it.
The different types of Dinosaurs take aboard the ark would not necessarily have been babies. It is more likely they would have been at least of reproductive age which means they could have been only a few years old and of relative size to the other animals on the ark. I have not taken the time to watch the video so I do not know all of the arguments he addresses.

Here are some statistics that are taken from the book "The Genesis Flood."

"There is no lack of misconceptions applied to the question of the capacity of the ark and the quantity of animals we presume were taken aboard. According to the Genesis narrative, Noah was commanded to board seven pair of every clean animal and two pair of every unclean animal. What many local-flood theorists have failed to take into consideration is that this cannot be measured by our current field of taxonomy. For example, take just those animals of the horse variety. Originally, there were only two basic types of horse at the time of creation, those of the ass-like variety, and those of the horse-like variety. By the time of the flood, this had expanded to only six known varieties. Now, there are presently ten different species of the horse and ass-like varieties. Currently, there are over 200 distinct species of dog but at the time of the flood, only ten known varieties existed. Ernst Mayr who was probably the leading American systematic taxonomist, lists the following numbers for animal species according to the best estimates of modern taxonomy.
Mammals 3,500Birds 8,600Reptiles ans amphibians 5,500Fishes 18,000Tunicates, etc. 1,700
Echinoderms 4,700Arthropods 815,000Mollusks 88,000Worms, etc. 25,000
Coelenterates, etc. 10,000
Sponges 5,000
Portozoans _ 15,000_
Total Animals 1,000,000
Of this number it is obvious that Noah would have had no need to include the Fish, Tunicates, Echinoderms, Mollusks, Coelenterates, Sponges, or Portozoas. This eliminates 142,000 species. Also some mammals are aquatic – Whales, seals, porposes, dolphins, and such. One could also dismiss the need for those of the amphibian groups ans well as a large number of the anthropoids such as lobsters and crabs. Also, many species of the worms and insects. This would reduce the need for no more that 35,000 individual invertebrate animals on the ark. Bear in mind that this list is according to current taxonomy. The total number of species during the time of the flood would have been much less. Relatively speaking, there are few really large animals and even these may well have been taken aboard the ark as very young specimens. Even if these were taken on as adults, the average size of all these animals would have been about the size of a sheep. So just how many animals are we talking about and how much space would be required to accommodate them? If we use a railroad stock car as a standard of measurement for what we would consider to be consumable animals, the average single-deck stock car would hold about 25 cattle, or 75 hogs, or 120 sheep to the deck. What this means is that 240 animals the size of a sheep could be transported in one double deck stock car. If you had two trains hauling 73 cars each they could easily carry the 35,000 animals. The carrying capacity of the ark was equivalent to 522 such stock cars. Thus the ark was not only more that sufficient to transport such a number of animals but also had room for them to be housed comfortably." End quote.

This also involved the storing of food for both his family and the animals,
And take with you of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to you; and it shall be for food for you, and for them,” 21. This would require:
1. The preservation of certain foods such the drying of meats and fish for the carnivores.

2. The harvesting, drying and storing of fruits, vegetables and berries for both human and animal consumption.

3. It would also involve the growing, harvesting and storing of grasses, hay, grains, nuts and seeds.

Even with all the animals aboard the ark, this leaves 63% of the ark's capacity remaining for the storage of food and sundry supplies.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
The Genesis Flood, eh? That book caused quite the stir back in the 60's. I hear it did great things in making it more mainstream to approach the Bible from a literal but scientific standpoint. Naturally the book would be out-of-date now but there would still be some worthwhile information. There are so many good books! Here's one that was published a few years ago. I've heard great things about it.

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study:
CMI (UK)
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The Genesis Flood, eh? That book caused quite the stir back in the 60's. I hear it did great things in making it more mainstream to approach the Bible from a literal but scientific standpoint. Naturally the book would be out-of-date now but there would still be some worthwhile information. There are so many good books! Here's one that was published a few years ago. I've heard great things about it.

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study:
CMI (UK)
I am reading it now.

Andrew Snelling did a follow up to that book called The Earth's Catastrophic past. He updates alot of stuff that the genesis flood did not have access to. or findings we have found since then. Both are great books and highly recommended
 
T

TheTruthAboutTheTruth

Guest
The earth is really not that old at all its not billions and millions if years old its around 6,000 +ish I get you the exact number later
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
The earth is really not that old at all its not billions and millions if years old its around 6,000 +ish I get you the exact number later
Tell us what text you use to arrive at your date...the MT....or the LXX....?
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
The different types of Dinosaurs take aboard the ark would not necessarily have been babies. It is more likely they would have been at least of reproductive age which means they could have been only a few years old and of relative size to the other animals on the ark. I have not taken the time to watch the video so I do not know all of the arguments he addresses.

Here are some statistics that are taken from the book "The Genesis Flood."

"There is no lack of misconceptions applied to the question of the capacity of the ark and the quantity of animals we presume were taken aboard. According to the Genesis narrative, Noah was commanded to board seven pair of every clean animal and two pair of every unclean animal. What many local-flood theorists have failed to take into consideration is that this cannot be measured by our current field of taxonomy. For example, take just those animals of the horse variety. Originally, there were only two basic types of horse at the time of creation, those of the ass-like variety, and those of the horse-like variety. By the time of the flood, this had expanded to only six known varieties. Now, there are presently ten different species of the horse and ass-like varieties. Currently, there are over 200 distinct species of dog but at the time of the flood, only ten known varieties existed. Ernst Mayr who was probably the leading American systematic taxonomist, lists the following numbers for animal species according to the best estimates of modern taxonomy.
Mammals 3,500Birds 8,600Reptiles ans amphibians 5,500Fishes 18,000Tunicates, etc. 1,700
Echinoderms 4,700Arthropods 815,000Mollusks 88,000Worms, etc. 25,000
Coelenterates, etc. 10,000
Sponges 5,000
Portozoans _ 15,000_
Total Animals 1,000,000
Of this number it is obvious that Noah would have had no need to include the Fish, Tunicates, Echinoderms, Mollusks, Coelenterates, Sponges, or Portozoas. This eliminates 142,000 species. Also some mammals are aquatic – Whales, seals, porposes, dolphins, and such. One could also dismiss the need for those of the amphibian groups ans well as a large number of the anthropoids such as lobsters and crabs. Also, many species of the worms and insects. This would reduce the need for no more that 35,000 individual invertebrate animals on the ark. Bear in mind that this list is according to current taxonomy. The total number of species during the time of the flood would have been much less. Relatively speaking, there are few really large animals and even these may well have been taken aboard the ark as very young specimens. Even if these were taken on as adults, the average size of all these animals would have been about the size of a sheep. So just how many animals are we talking about and how much space would be required to accommodate them? If we use a railroad stock car as a standard of measurement for what we would consider to be consumable animals, the average single-deck stock car would hold about 25 cattle, or 75 hogs, or 120 sheep to the deck. What this means is that 240 animals the size of a sheep could be transported in one double deck stock car. If you had two trains hauling 73 cars each they could easily carry the 35,000 animals. The carrying capacity of the ark was equivalent to 522 such stock cars. Thus the ark was not only more that sufficient to transport such a number of animals but also had room for them to be housed comfortably." End quote.

This also involved the storing of food for both his family and the animals,
And take with you of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to you; and it shall be for food for you, and for them,” 21. This would require:
1. The preservation of certain foods such the drying of meats and fish for the carnivores.

2. The harvesting, drying and storing of fruits, vegetables and berries for both human and animal consumption.

3. It would also involve the growing, harvesting and storing of grasses, hay, grains, nuts and seeds.

Even with all the animals aboard the ark, this leaves 63% of the ark's capacity remaining for the storage of food and sundry supplies.

Were penguins on the ark too, brother...?
 
T

Tintin

Guest
By that Bowman means: do you use a translation based on the Masoretic Text or one based on the Septuagint?
 
D

djness

Guest
I think the earth is 6000 year old range.
I also think one year on crystal meth makes a person look like 40 years have passed and worse. Or krokodil, don't even bother googling that unless you aren't bothered by gruesome images.
I think sin has affected the universe like hard drugs.
I think the universe would look much different in a before and after shot if there was no sin.
So my theory is young earth ravaged by sin like drugs ends up looking much older.

Just a theory based on
[h=3]Romans 8:20-22[/h]King James Version (KJV)

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
Carbon dating is not usable at 100k years to begin with...and it is only good on testing the remains of once living matter.

Thus, you are perpetuating more YEC myth...
Sorry for the long response working on my garden...but if carbon dating is used just for once living matter. Why do they use it to test metals, cloths, rocks, and so forth ?
 

robbomango

Junior Member
Feb 11, 2014
29
2
3
I'm just curious, Do OEC propose Genesis be retranslated in english to accommodate a long age interpretation? As it stands, in every english translation it clearly reads 6 literal days. After you change day to age then you have morning and evening to deal with, those must'v been some mighty slow earth rotations...:p

Sorry if this has already been addressed, I didn't see it.
 

Elizabeth619

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
6,397
109
48
I do have an observation/theory/guess...whatever you want to call it.

The argument is obviously how old the earth is. The YECs Genesis describes literal days. To OECs the "day" is symbolic which could mean millions of years, The bible does use quite a bit of symbolism, but the fact that Genesis is about the beginning of everything then how would the "early people" understand the concept of symbolism to where the "day" was actually several years?
 
J

Jda016

Guest
I do have an observation/theory/guess...whatever you want to call it.

The argument is obviously how old the earth is. The YECs Genesis describes literal days. To OECs the "day" is symbolic which could mean millions of years, The bible does use quite a bit of symbolism, but the fact that Genesis is about the beginning of everything then how would the "early people" understand the concept of symbolism to where the "day" was actually several years?
I had thought of that too, but Genesis shows that God separated night and day and their was an evening and morning the first day. This could only refer to our 24 hour cycle.

Genesis1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
 

Elizabeth619

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
6,397
109
48
I had thought of that too, but Genesis shows that God separated night and day and their was an evening and morning the first day. This could only refer to our 24 hour cycle.

Genesis1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
That's how I see it. I don't see how the Old Earth Theory adds up.
I even mentioned several pages back that there was no death before the fall of man, and the bible does say that animals and man ate plants(no meat at all). That tells me that not even animals killed for food. Everything was peaceful and worked how God originally designed it to be. So, if dinosaurs became extinct before the creation of man(as the OECs claim) then there was death, and Genesis is completely wrong altogether. According to the OECs God created a decaying earth if animals were already dying. That doesn't line up with scripture considering He said at the end of his creation that it is GOOD.
 
J

Jda016

Guest
That's how I see it. I don't see how the Old Earth Theory adds up.
I even mentioned several pages back that there was no death before the fall of man, and the bible does say that animals and man ate plants(no meat at all). That tells me that not even animals killed for food. Everything was peaceful and worked how God originally designed it to be. So, if dinosaurs became extinct before the creation of man(as the OECs claim) then there was death, and Genesis is completely wrong altogether. According to the OECs God created a decaying earth if animals were already dying. That doesn't line up with scripture considering He said at the end of his creation that it is GOOD.
Thats a good point! I had not thought of it like that.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
Sorry for the long response working on my garden...but if carbon dating is used just for once living matter. Why do they use it to test metals, cloths, rocks, and so forth ?
These things would need to contain carbon in order to be carbon dated....hence the namesake...

 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
I'm just curious, Do OEC propose Genesis be retranslated in english to accommodate a long age interpretation? As it stands, in every english translation it clearly reads 6 literal days. After you change day to age then you have morning and evening to deal with, those must'v been some mighty slow earth rotations...:p

Sorry if this has already been addressed, I didn't see it.

OEC is literal.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
I do have an observation/theory/guess...whatever you want to call it.

The argument is obviously how old the earth is. The YECs Genesis describes literal days. To OECs the "day" is symbolic which could mean millions of years, The bible does use quite a bit of symbolism, but the fact that Genesis is about the beginning of everything then how would the "early people" understand the concept of symbolism to where the "day" was actually several years?

OEC is just as literal as YEC.

The difference being that YEC's make Adam out to be superman.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
I had thought of that too, but Genesis shows that God separated night and day and their was an evening and morning the first day. This could only refer to our 24 hour cycle.

Genesis1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
The Hebrew day is from evening to evening.

Evening to morning, at best, would be 12hrs.

A vital clue that it simply refers to the end of an epoch and the beginning of a new one...