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.
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Cycel said:
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?
That doesn't answer my question, and I asked first.

I am certainly aware of the conservative view, I have read it often enough, I was wondering if you've heard the other message?
 
T

Tintin

Guest
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 academically not to consider a Muslim's perspective, for example.
But somehow it's not dishonest to teach uniformitarinism and naturalism as Science? Seems a bit disingenuous if you ask me. They're both philosophies used to explain that which observational science cannot. Evolutionists and theistic evolutionists can stamp their feet all they want, it doesn't make something true. They take their beliefs on faith too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
That doesn't answer my question, and I asked first.

I am certainly aware of the conservative view, I have read it often enough, I was wondering if you've heard the other message?
Yes I have. What you have to consider when you refer to someone as a "scholar" of the Bible is this. Are they secular, meaning one who views the Bible strictly as a narrative document, as nothing more that an anthology of stories with no eternal implications, there are many of these types of "scholars" or are they scholars who regard the Bible as the Word of God? If you will read post #940 this will explain what I am talking about.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
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?
It feels a bit like being asked to prove the Earth orbits the Sun. You really want evidence that the Sun is powered by fusion? Do you have a better suggestion? If you do the physicists will be keen to hear from you. Otherwise go to Wikipedia or pick up some astronomy books at the library. All your question can be answered, but I suspect you won't accept what anyone says unless it fits the Genesis account.

Genesis has some very serious problems.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
It feels a bit like being asked to prove the Earth orbits the Sun. You really want evidence that the Sun is powered by fusion? Do you have a better suggestion? If you do the physicists will be keen to hear from you. Otherwise go to Wikipedia or pick up some astronomy books at the library. All your question can be answered, but I suspect you won't accept what anyone says unless it fits the Genesis account.

Genesis has some very serious problems.
Heh, you'll all love this I'm sure:

Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? On this I am not totally convinced.

In fact I'll take it a step further (I can all ready hear the modernists' brains cracking before I even ask it)

How do you know Earth is even a sphere?

Either one as far as I am aware is technically plausible by both the Bible and Secular Science. Opinions?
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Yes I have. What you have to consider when you refer to someone as a "scholar" of the Bible is this. Are they secular, meaning one who views the Bible strictly as a narrative document, as nothing more that an anthology of stories with no eternal implications, there are many of these types of "scholars" or are they scholars who regard the Bible as the Word of God? If you will read post #940 this will explain what I am talking about.
On this we are both agreed, yet it seems nonetheless that there is a divergent creation story beginning at Genesis 2:5. It even gives a different order of events in the creation of the first humans, and that is only part of what is different. How do you account for the contradictions? It really does look like a different creation story.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Heh, you'll all love this I'm sure:

Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? On this I am not totally convinced.

In fact I'll take it a step further (I can all ready hear the modernists' brains cracking before I even ask it)

How do you know Earth is even a sphere?

Either one as far as I am aware is technically plausible by both the Bible and Secular Science. Opinions?
How many astronomical pictures have you seen of the earth? How many pictures have you seen of other planets? What shape do these pictures reveal?
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
How many astronomical pictures have you seen of the earth? How many pictures have you seen of other planets? What shape do these pictures reveal?
Meh I could say one of three things

1. Discs

2. Orbs

3. NASA been faking photos for years and that's infamous and well known. After all they been editting out the Elohim for years until they declassified that last year.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Meh I could say one of three things

1. Discs

2. Orbs

3. NASA been faking photos for years and that's infamous and well known. After all they been editting out the Elohim for years until they declassified that last year.
ooooook!!!!!!!
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Heh, you'll all love this I'm sure:

Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? On this I am not totally convinced.

In fact I'll take it a step further (I can all ready hear the modernists' brains cracking before I even ask it)

How do you know Earth is even a sphere?

Either one as far as I am aware is technically plausible by both the Bible and Secular Science. Opinions?
The Bible is explicit in indicating the Earth is flat. I can prove this, though not this evening as it is getting too late.

As for those other points you raised; you are only playing the devil's advocate, yes?
 

Radius

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2013
1,171
181
63
The Bible is explicit in indicating the Earth is flat. I can prove this, though not this evening as it is getting too late.

As for those other points you raised; you are only playing the devil's advocate, yes?
Lol. .earth is flat? Prove it. Pretty sure our satellites go around the earth and have taken every picture of the earth to prove otherwise.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
The Bible is explicit in indicating the Earth is flat. I can prove this, though not this evening as it is getting too late.

As for those other points you raised; you are only playing the devil's advocate, yes?
Not sure if the Bible explicitly states the Bible is flat, merely described its shape as circular, which could be either Sphere or Disc. Just an honest question that I find intriguing for ponderance seeing as I will never be an astronaut lol.
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
But somehow it's not dishonest to teach uniformitarinism and naturalism as Science? Seems a bit disingenuous if you ask me. They're both philosophies used to explain that which observational science cannot. Evolutionists and theistic evolutionists can stamp their feet all they want, it doesn't make something true. They take their beliefs on faith too.
Well, science and theology/worldview are two different things. Maybe a worldview is implied in certain school texts, but I took a secular, basic level science class last semester, and I certainly didn't feel that my values and perspective on life was influenced in the least. My theology didn't change, I didn't start questioning the redemptive work of Christ (as some YECers warn will most likely happen), or none of that silly stuff. I know how to separate things of faith and the natural world.

Stomping feet in protest to evolution being taught doesn't make it NOT true. What disproves the theory is evidence. Bill Nye said himself at his debate with Ken Ham "You have evidence against evolution? Bring it on! You would change the world! I would gladly reject evolution in the light of evidence." (paraphrase) Also, in my science class, it was taught that evidence would disprove the theory. There are several ways to disprove it - if Christians really wanted to do that, they would be digging away relentlessly at the fossil record, rather than arguing about "two kinds of science."

In my class, it was not taught as a dogmatic, philosophical worldview, but a theory that has been formulated due to certain evidences in the fossil record and other places, and just because it is a viewpoint about the past, doesn't make it invalid, anymore than a creationist perspective is automatically invalid because it is in the past. We have developed many theories and conclusions about the way civilization in the past worked - with archeology. But I don't see Christians jumping to say that the Egyptians didn't worship multiple gods because the statues were examined under a bias. And the same could be applied to things we've learned about other cultures not mentioned in Scripture. The evidence is there, and we examine it.

The issue at hand is that we haven't been around long enough and been aware of this idea long enough to see such progression that the theory suggests... but we see it in the fossil record. And that is tangible evidence in which we can make a prediction that will take a while to test in its entirety, not merely a preconceived notion based on a bias. That's what science is - making a prediction, testing it many many times, recording the results, and examining the data.

This is not to say there isn't evidence for YEC. However, I personally feel the arguments are lacking, in light of what I have learned. This is not an invitation to discuss anything in particular, I am just stating.
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Heh, you'll all love this I'm sure:

Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? On this I am not totally convinced.

In fact I'll take it a step further (I can all ready hear the modernists' brains cracking before I even ask it)

How do you know Earth is even a sphere?

Either one as far as I am aware is technically plausible by both the Bible and Secular Science. Opinions?
We have been to space and actually OBSERVED the sphere-like shape?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
We have been to space and actually OBSERVED the sphere-like shape?
You do not need astro photos to confirm the shape of the earth. One need only go to sea to discover that the line of sight is only 2.6 nautical miles. This is due to the curvature of the earth. Even the ancient mariners understood this.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Heh pictures prove nothing if they can be faked and NASA has a proven long history of faking pictures. What other ways can you prove to me Earth is sphere?

For me the most questionable thing about Sphere Earth is: Why is 1/4th of Antarctica unclaimed? Why the UN flag display a Flat Earth with no Antarctica? Why does the Compass only point to the North Pole but not the South Pole? Is it possible no man has ever actually been to the South Pole?
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
You do not need astro photos to confirm the shape of the earth. One need only go to sea to discover that the line of sight is only 2.6 nautical miles. This is due to the curvature of the earth. Even the ancient mariners understood this.
Aye this is the common proof given for spherical earth. But I could easily prove that is an optical illusion as all one needs is a telescope and they will be able to view the ship continuing across the flat surface of the water that only appeared to sink below the horizon with the naked eye.


Heh, just want to note, don't matter to me whether Earth is a sphere spinning at 1000 miles per hour (seems kinda ridiculous, but why not) or a disc flying upwards so many miles per hour lol. Is a nice break from the monotony of the typical debates though lol.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Heh pictures prove nothing if they can be faked and NASA has a proven long history of faking pictures. What other ways can you prove to me Earth is sphere?

For me the most questionable thing about Sphere Earth is: Why is 1/4th of Antarctica unclaimed? Why the UN flag display a Flat Earth with no Antarctica? Why does the Compass only point to the North Pole but not the South Pole? Is it possible no man has ever actually been to the South Pole?
They conceal information like that in books.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
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.
Dawkins is a neo-Darwinist, as are many evolutionary scientists. What is it you think Dawkins is distorting? How is he dishonest?

jamie said:
The point is you can't disprove God's existence; but you can't prove it either.
Dawkins himself makes this same point. He has said he will not state categorically God does not exist, and describes himself as a 6.9 on his scale of religious belief. I do not think Dawkins would say that evolution disproves God. He would say that evolution makes God unnecessary. He does argue that the creation account makes no sense except in terms of bronze age cosmology which is what every single evolutionary scientist states. Can you think of an exception?

jamie said:
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.
Actually that Catholic Church has turned it around. Even the Pope now accepts evolution.

What a lot of people don't seem to get is that in 1995 Dawkins was appointed the Oxford Professor for Public Understanding of Science. This cast him into the role of defending science against attacks by creationists. Also, his field was the main focus of attacks by the Christian Right. What do you expect him to do, stand back and ignore them?