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.
Mar 23, 2014
435
1
0
There is a big problem here, because the earth is really old, billions of years old, and the dinosaurs did existed, sorry agricola, God does not make practical Jokes. And evolution did exist, the evidence is just overwhelming. How you explain Genesis? How you explain the hidrogen bomb to a 7 years old child?, I think God gave us a legend, because this is all we could understand at that time.
Sorry guys but science and religion have to converge at some point if they are interested in the truth.
 

Timeline

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2014
1,826
17
38
Science is the study of God's work. Although members of the scientific world make efforts to disprove God.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Science is the study of God's work. Although members of the scientific world make efforts to disprove God.
In what way does the scientific community make efforts to disprove God?
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
I have a question for people what evidence do we have for the formation of stars?

What evidence do we have that the Sun is powered by Nuclear Fusion?

What evidence is there that Stars produce heavy elements?

can you answer those?
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
There is only one account of creation and that account offers no alternative to a literal six day period of time.
I am curious, are you aware that large numbers of biblical scholars recognize two separate creation accounts with the second account beginning at Genesis 2:5?
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
You're kidding, right.?
You could scoff, or you could meet the challenge by presenting evidence. And by the way, not all scientists are created equal. Richard Dawkins for example doesn't teach the peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted theory of evolution, because he has an agenda against religion. So don't quote anything by him.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
I am curious, are you aware that large numbers of biblical scholars recognize two separate creation accounts with the second account beginning at Genesis 2:5?
Are you aware that there are a very large number of biblical scholars who do not separate the two accounts?
 

Timeline

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2014
1,826
17
38
You could scoff, or you could meet the challenge by presenting evidence. And by the way, not all scientists are created equal. Richard Dawkins for example doesn't teach the peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted theory of evolution, because he has an agenda against religion. So don't quote anything by him.
You said it yourself, but he is not the only one.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
It sounds a bit logical except that by the time floodwaters caused continental plates to move, we wouldn't have hills anymore....

This sounds completely illogical.

Most Mountains are caused by the movement of plates.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
As for the man.... Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. ... in this verse the "there was" has been added it reads correctly without addition: "Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.... where "no" is ayin = As if from a primitive root meaning to be nothing or not exist; a non-entity. The general biblical use of ayin is to denote it never existed ie man had never existed at this stage as in.....Gen 11:30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child. here the "had" was added... the meaning is that a child of Sarai had never existed, we couldn't infer here that she might have had a child that died... it simply means she never had a child.... Other instance where "no" is translated to mean absence of, use the word "lo" they do not use ayin.....

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the hights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that shook kingdoms:
Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed its cities; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

There were other beings on earth... not men
lol. There were no men walking the earth during the flood.

The verse says nothing about animals walking the earth.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Hills are small...tsunami's cover hills without causing earthquakes (although earthquakes do cause tsunami's), the amount of water needed to cause tectonic movement would cover the hills completely. The marianas trench is deeper than everest is high and it is filled with water, but there is little to no tectonic plate movement activity in the atlantic ocean...... the water in the atlantic is enough to cover everest, but it doesn't cause tectonic movement

and who said water caused tectonic movement? What school did you go to?
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
You said it yourself, but he is not the only one.
No, you missed my point. Dawkins doesn't push the correct understanding of evolutuion, he distorts it. He's a political figure, not an honest scientist. The challenge is to present a scientist who actually tries to prove God doesn't exist by using models that is accepted by the honest scientific community.

The point is you can't disprove God's existence; but you can't prove it either. A true scientist is not out to do either - he is only interested in learning and predicting the tangible complexities and outcomes of the natural world, understanding that like with Galieo, the church's intrepetation of a book could be flawed when one honestly investigates the world around them. The church, like what she did to Galieo and other free thinkers, has kicked herself out of the scientific community, and has rendered herself unreliable in understanding nature from an objective, real world viewpoint.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
I once was an atheist as I have pointed out many times. I beleived in the Old Earth model and specifically Darwinism when I was such. Here are 7 things that I found in my studies over the brief years of my life that forced me to abandon Old Earth model, darwinism, and ultimately atheism.

1. Human History meaning written record, extends back only thousands of years.

2. Human History accounts for a Global Flood with much collaborative evidence indicating such an event actually transpired globally.

3. ALL radio-dating methods have been proven to be wildly inaccurate.

4. Evolution (meaning One Kind morphing into another Kind under darwinist evolution theory) is in fact a fact, BUT, there's a catch. This is only a fact insofar as hybridization is a fact and hybrids are either sterile or must require a parent species to reproduce whereupon the offspring either revert back to the original Parent Kind or remain of the particular Hybrid Kind. Thus proving Darwin was correct, evolution is real, but it is not the Origin of Species it is the Dead End of Genetics.

5. Mutation does not drive evolution (neo-evolution theory.) Mutations can occur due to the environment or unclean breeding practices. Either way though the mutant is still of the same Kind, for instance with sickle-cell anemia sufferers, they are not a different Kind of human, they are still humans. Not only that but no mutation is beneficial. That is to say all mutations are either detrimental to the organism or have no tangible effect upon the organism.

6. Even at the micro-level no Kind of bacteria or virus evolves into another Kind of bacteria or virus. When a virus, for instance the flu virus mutates it is still a flu virus and will not change into say an ebola virus. Furthermore such mutations can be bred out of the virus or bacteria in relatively few generations by changing its environment.

7. Humans did not evolve, humans have always been humans. The specialness of Humanity above all animals and plants implies a Creator God that loves us in whose image we were made with that Creator God being confirmed by many humans throughout history and ultimately through Jesus.
 
Last edited:

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Science only has to do with religion in that you're studying God's creation and how it works - theology doesn't play into it. Once you invite theology, it would be dishonest academicly not to consider a Muslim's perspective, for example.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The proper language again is "for six days... not IN six days, the "IN" was added.... for starters... and as I have said these 6 days were a restoration to produce what we have now... there is no conflict
The literal words say 6 days, The word for was added also.

6 days the lord made (caused to be)

Talk about adding to the word. Your adding that he restored. when nothing in the passage states this
 
P

paulsfam4

Guest
8,456,821 years 21 months 11 weeks 15 days 04 hours and 55 sec.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
8,456,821 years 21 months 11 weeks 15 days 04 hours and 55 sec.
Lol you know the Old Earthers revised the date up another 100 million years a few months a go right?

That's okay though cause your guess is just as good as theirs cause they don't know.