-
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.
- Status
I totally agree. Now considering the theory of relativity, if God is traveling at the speed of light. LOL. I won't go there. He probably travels at any speed he wants and hence time is as relative as you can imagine. There are so MANY things we don't understand. Physicists are starting to take string theory seriously. Go look at that. 6 dimensions and parallel universes. It seems crazy and yet Einstein was proven by experiments 100 times already and at one time people thought he was crazy. 
The earth is at least as old as the scientific experiments have discovered. 4.5 Billion years old.
The earth is at least as old as the scientific experiments have discovered. 4.5 Billion years old.
Last edited:
S
The earth is only as old as God has revealed in Scripture. He have us genealogies with chronology in two places in Genesis. And Adam was made at the beginning.
The point of a thousand years as one day is that what appear to men to need huge amounts of time took God but a day. Or has He specified, 6 days to create the entire universe and our galaxy, planet, and life.
Stop depending on the limited observations of fallible men who have a tendency to discount God and the miraculous. All that science can ever say is tentative.
The point of a thousand years as one day is that what appear to men to need huge amounts of time took God but a day. Or has He specified, 6 days to create the entire universe and our galaxy, planet, and life.
Stop depending on the limited observations of fallible men who have a tendency to discount God and the miraculous. All that science can ever say is tentative.
20000 years max I'd say assuming scientific dating of civilisations is in error by 20,000 or so years. Which is possible, these scientist people date rock paintings to be 40,000 years old which are right above a rock painting that shows 17th/18th centuary european ships or something and expect us to believe they're 40,000 + years old LOL.
Inspired, yes, but the question is in what manner? A vision? Visions don't necessarily reflect literal fact--just look at the visions John saw in Revelation. And even in a vision, you can only interpret what you see through the prism of what you know, hence the implication that the sky is solid and that the stars are literally in the sky.
A sudden burst of infallible divine insight? This also seems unlikely, again given the way in which the writer presuposes the world to be arranged, and how the Hebrew is carefully measured to have syllables and lines in multiples of sevens.
No, it seems more reasonable to assume that it's inspired in the same way we use the word today--that God gave the writer the spark, the revelation of an idea: a methodically created world that gradually went from chaos to order; and the writer took that idea and composed the narrative. Or more likely, passed the narrative down orally until a scribe wrote it down.
A sudden burst of infallible divine insight? This also seems unlikely, again given the way in which the writer presuposes the world to be arranged, and how the Hebrew is carefully measured to have syllables and lines in multiples of sevens.
No, it seems more reasonable to assume that it's inspired in the same way we use the word today--that God gave the writer the spark, the revelation of an idea: a methodically created world that gradually went from chaos to order; and the writer took that idea and composed the narrative. Or more likely, passed the narrative down orally until a scribe wrote it down.
Every method of dating has assumptions based on an a priori belief that the age of the earth is really really old. If those assumptions are wrong, the dates are wrong. With radiocarbon dating, they assume the earth's production and decay of carbon are in balance which is not really true. Many things dated to be millions of years old can also be explained by a single catastrophic event such as Noah's flood. We've even seen severe and wide-spread tsunamis, hurricanes (Katrina), volcanos, severe electrical storms, floods, droughts, in our life time. What's the chances of everything being nicely in balance for millions, or billions of years?
Methods of dating: In practice, if a radiocarbon date fits the preconceived theory, they include it, if it doesn't, they reject it. There is considerable amount of bias and weight put on those a priori assumptions (eg that the earth really is old). Those assumptions come from evolutionary theory which requires very long ages in order to work in the first place.
In the case of aboriginal rock paintings in Australia, they are dated to be tens of thousands of years old. Based on paintings of animals which are extinct - again, itself based on an assumption that they became extict 10's of thousands of years ago, when that is not really known.
Based on radiocarbon dating - they can't date the pigment itself (need enough organic material in it) but only the rock surrounding it I think. Even so this is the most prone to error method.
These paintings are merely clay and water. They can fade fairly easily yet are supposed to have lasted tens of thousands of years. They have probably been touched up (painted over) from time to time , and even due to water damage they've had to put coatings on them to stop them fading away - now what's the chances that these paintings lasted 30,000 years if they're worried about them fading away in a generation?
In the same areas where they have these paintings supposedly dated thousands of years old, there are aborigional paintings of Europeans with guns and ships which look pretty much the same as these thousand year old paintings.
Scenes of organised warfare in thousand of year old aboriginal paintings dated at 30,000 years contradict the evolutionary view that warfare only began after agriculture developed and resulted in conflict over territorial control of land.
They deliberately ignore other evidence we have such as aboriginal stories or legends that parallel Noah's flood and the tower of babel.
All in all, the evidence doesn't stack up to tens of thousand year histories, at least not conclusively.
The current methods available and the issues associated with using them are explained here:
http://www.une.edu.au/archaeology/WorldRockArt/dating.php
The one about getting enough material veruss ruining the ancient artwork is an interesting one. Those dates amounting to 30,000 years can easily drop back to 10-12000 years or even 6000 years.
Methods of dating: In practice, if a radiocarbon date fits the preconceived theory, they include it, if it doesn't, they reject it. There is considerable amount of bias and weight put on those a priori assumptions (eg that the earth really is old). Those assumptions come from evolutionary theory which requires very long ages in order to work in the first place.
In the case of aboriginal rock paintings in Australia, they are dated to be tens of thousands of years old. Based on paintings of animals which are extinct - again, itself based on an assumption that they became extict 10's of thousands of years ago, when that is not really known.
Based on radiocarbon dating - they can't date the pigment itself (need enough organic material in it) but only the rock surrounding it I think. Even so this is the most prone to error method.
These paintings are merely clay and water. They can fade fairly easily yet are supposed to have lasted tens of thousands of years. They have probably been touched up (painted over) from time to time , and even due to water damage they've had to put coatings on them to stop them fading away - now what's the chances that these paintings lasted 30,000 years if they're worried about them fading away in a generation?
In the same areas where they have these paintings supposedly dated thousands of years old, there are aborigional paintings of Europeans with guns and ships which look pretty much the same as these thousand year old paintings.
Scenes of organised warfare in thousand of year old aboriginal paintings dated at 30,000 years contradict the evolutionary view that warfare only began after agriculture developed and resulted in conflict over territorial control of land.
They deliberately ignore other evidence we have such as aboriginal stories or legends that parallel Noah's flood and the tower of babel.
All in all, the evidence doesn't stack up to tens of thousand year histories, at least not conclusively.
The current methods available and the issues associated with using them are explained here:
http://www.une.edu.au/archaeology/WorldRockArt/dating.php
The one about getting enough material veruss ruining the ancient artwork is an interesting one. Those dates amounting to 30,000 years can easily drop back to 10-12000 years or even 6000 years.
Last edited:
There is an article here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=1ba341e4bd66a5d7478e5bda096fb686
which explains dating of some paintings. Note that one is dated not later than 6300 years, the others 24000 years. All of the natural deposits on rock art and carbon from other sources mixing in can affect results and although the modern day methods seem to be improving, all these thousand of year old dates from 20 to 30 years ago are not to be trusted.
I like this article which explains the positives of radio carbon dating, it can support what the bible says that the earth is relatively young based on radio carbon dating:
http://www.biblequery.org/Science/RadiocarbonDatingAndTheBible.htm
Even a 20 to 30000 year figure is a lot better than 3 million.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=1ba341e4bd66a5d7478e5bda096fb686
which explains dating of some paintings. Note that one is dated not later than 6300 years, the others 24000 years. All of the natural deposits on rock art and carbon from other sources mixing in can affect results and although the modern day methods seem to be improving, all these thousand of year old dates from 20 to 30 years ago are not to be trusted.
I like this article which explains the positives of radio carbon dating, it can support what the bible says that the earth is relatively young based on radio carbon dating:
http://www.biblequery.org/Science/RadiocarbonDatingAndTheBible.htm
Even a 20 to 30000 year figure is a lot better than 3 million.
C
Well some carbon dating tests get the correct results, for example scientists have tested dinosaur bones and the result was a dating of a few thousand year old, but those dates are just rejected and the tests are done again, the good thing about carbon dating is the huge difference in the results, test again and you can get a result of millions of years old, so this is the benefit of carbon dating method, you can just retest until you get the result you want or are being paid to get.
anything that attempts to explain anything that has happened prior to recorded human history is speculation.
it always amuses me greatly to hear christians discussing things of science, and trying to use scientific terms to describe their matters of faith.
stick to what can not be proved, and you will have more safety christians. leave science, to the scientists. as has been reiterated several times over, that which is not in the bible, is not your territory.
it always amuses me greatly to hear christians discussing things of science, and trying to use scientific terms to describe their matters of faith.
stick to what can not be proved, and you will have more safety christians. leave science, to the scientists. as has been reiterated several times over, that which is not in the bible, is not your territory.
And people ask me why I never converted to Christianity like my parents. This is a perfect example. I have no room in my life for arrogance, nor is it a G-dly attribute.
Proverbs 22:4
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The reward for humility is fear of AD-NAI, along with wealth, honor and life.
Zephaniah 2:3
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Seek AD-NAI, all you humble in the land, you who exercise his justice; seek righteousness, seek humility - you might be hidden on the day of AD-NAI's anger. [/FONT]
Proverbs 22:4
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The reward for humility is fear of AD-NAI, along with wealth, honor and life.
Zephaniah 2:3
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Seek AD-NAI, all you humble in the land, you who exercise his justice; seek righteousness, seek humility - you might be hidden on the day of AD-NAI's anger. [/FONT]
- Status