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.
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
I'm not going to debate evolution any further but I do want to add my thoughts to the discussion about dinosaurs. The Inca Stones are most likely a hoax, the decomposed plesiosaur is no more than a decomposed basking shark but even if half of those pieces of evidence are true, that's a lot of evidence for people having lived (at one time) with dragons (dinosaurs) and dragon-like creatures. The photos of the pteradons are particularly enlightening. I've never seen them before. Were those photos manipulated? If not, why aren't the general public getting all excited about such findings?

Here's a great video about dragons (dinosaurs): Part One.
Duration: 53mins.

[video=youtube;IF7JUdWOwRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF7JUdWOwRw[/video]
Interesting conclusions and input indeed. Personally I did not even perceive the dead animal on the beach to be a plesiosaur, but rather thought it was just some big dead sea animal lol. Hey I am not beholden to any proof myself, merely positing a video collage of what others point out as proof, and some of the figurines are quite genuine. But hey the way I see it, this is where all you all come in with great ability to cross-reference and sift through data to see what is left.

As for the videos you have given me, thank you, haven't checked them out yet, but I will be sure to review them and I'll post my conclusions and questions regarding it here. Either way though, I personally jsut enjoy the theorizing myself, so I am always glad to have a new documentary, conspiracy theory, or scientific theory to analyze. Kudos to you indeed Tintin!
 
T

Tintin

Guest
My pleasure, mate. I have the documentary on DVD and the accompanying book but this video is a highly-informative talk (with visuals) by the author. He collaborates information from many different fields. Enjoy. :)
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
My pleasure, mate. I have the documentary on DVD and the accompanying book but this video is a highly-informative talk (with visuals) by the author. He collaborates information from many different fields. Enjoy. :)

Nice, I especially enjoy when you can get information, theory, or evidence from a multitude of different fields/perspectives. I think I will start watching it now. Will definantly post my reaction to the video here either later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again for the recommendation.
 
Jan 13, 2014
960
16
0
Bible doesnt tell us how old it is
it tells us God created it by his word in 6 days.

Which side are you on, the devil or Jesus?
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Just finished Part 1 of the Dragons or Dinosaurs? lecture. Here is the link again for anyone interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF7JUdWOwRw

Again much thanks to you Tintin! This lecture totally blew me away and I haven't even got to part 2 yet! All ready I can tell this is a great documentary and I would highly recommend it to anyone on here.

Some things I noted:

First things first, I really liked the introduction the speaker gave into basics on paleontology (ie: how they dig the bones up, how almost all dinosaur skeletons are found in a state of disarray, and how most skeletons are vastly incomplete.) Also I very much enjoyed the host of the lecture and found him to be very knowledgeable and well-spoken. I also enjoyed the process he uses to posit his theory.

Secondly, things I all ready knew but it was cool just to see them collaborated:


1. Term dinosaur doesn't arise until the 1800s (can't remember if the speaker mentioned Dinosaur simply means Terrible Lizard)

2. Almost all mythologies have some sort of large lizard-like animal all with somewhat similarities to eachother when you take away all the supernatural glitz.

3. Oral histories and written histories also describe dragons/dinosaurs in a context that is supposed to be literal, not supernatural.

4. Archaeology shows the Ancients at least had a concept of the dinosaur, much of which is the same way our modern artists depict such creatures.

5. Rock layering and petrification of fossils themselves seems to indicate a mass catastrophe involving a lot of water.

6. The utter absurdity of the Sagan Hypothesis (dinosaurs and dragons are same, but are the product of the collective unconcious memories of our ancestors. Lol, didn't really need the documentary for me to figure out that's just far-fetched.)

7. I had heard the more plausible and skeptical hypothesis before that the Ancients merely saw dinosaur bones and thus created mythology around them. However this documentary does a fantastic job in showing why that is pretty improbable due to the cultures aversion to bones, and furthermore outright impossible since these cultures would have had to conduct their own paleontology for which there is no evidence they did such.

8. Ghost Lineages pretty much being science fiction.

Now for some points I either never realized before, though I still will have to investigate these further:

1. The Bombadier Beetle proving biological fire/heat creation is possible. (I personally never heard of this beetle before, and though I personally assumed dragons were dinosaurs due to the overwhelming prevalence of their mention throughout time, I personally always assumed the fire-breathing aspect was merely the product of myth. I won't say I believe all or any of the dragons could actually breathe fire, but the fact a mere beetle can do it at least implies a possibility worthy of some investigation.)

2. That many of the evolutionist scientists rely on daydreaming and visions in dreams for their "Revelations." Not only is this highly unscientific, but it is quite curious that furthermore it is asserted they receive such revelations by inducing "lucid dreaming" which is connected to paganism and demonism, which when we consider the mainstream "atheist" scientific bodies have a thing for the roman pagan gods this really makes me start to wonder about their motivations. Though I suppose that's better left for the Conspiracy Theory Section lol.

3. This I think is the most awesome thing in the Part 1 that I saw. This is the evidence of organic tissue, particularly blood found in a fossil in Montana. Now I have seen that some dinosaurs were recovered before with roganic tissue intact, however those were found in arctic or subarctic terrain always being frozen over, thus with plausible explanation. However, for them to find organic dinosaur tissue in a temperate climate like Montana is pretty much impossible if the Earth is Old. The only way this could be possible is if the Earth is Younger than the secular community asserts.

Now like I said this evidence is new to me so I will have to investigate this further, however if it is indeed true that organic dinosaur tissue has been found in a dinosaur that has not been frozen or in a severely cold climate, this would seem to me to be the final nail in the coffin of a billions or millions year old Earth.

Kudos again for the documentary Tintin, and I recommend this to anyone on the page. Kinda tired so I will watch Part 2 tomorrow and post my review of it here as well.
 
Last edited:

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
There are provable gaps in the genealogies...you are not supposed to sum them to arrive at a date.
I have heard this speculation before. My response to that is simply this. Prove it. There are three generations missing from the account in Matthew 1 but they are all well documented in Genesis and 1Chro. Like I said, You just do not like this dating model because it does not fit your concept of reality.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama

I find it most interesting that you posit scholarly exegesis (not yours obviously) when it some to defending Jesus' deity and The Trinity....then you resort to thumb-sucking when it comes to the age of the earth...
Why would you assume the exegesis is not mine?
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
I have heard this speculation before. My response to that is simply this. Prove it. There are three generations missing from the account in Matthew 1 but they are all well documented in Genesis and 1Chro. Like I said, You just do not like this dating model because it does not fit your concept of reality.

Show me the scripture which commands you to sum the genologies to arrive at a date.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
Why would you assume the exegesis is not mine?
Because it is already known material....and it does not fit with your lack of scholarly attention when it comes to the age of the earth.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Show me the scripture which commands you to sum the genologies to arrive at a date.
You've got to be kidding me!!! The information is provided by inspiration. All you have to do is gather the information from the text.
 
Oct 29, 2013
301
0
0
The Earth dates back to the moment of time at which God made it. Do we NEED to know exactly when, or do we just use and exploit this lack of knowledge to tear down our fellow Christians in the form of irrelevant debate?
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
You've got to be kidding me!!! The information is provided by inspiration. All you have to do is gather the information from the text.
The geneologies where written showing certain key male names, in certain sequences....they are NOT intended to be summed to arrive at a date.

Further, what text would you even use....the MT...or the LXX...?

They differ by thousands of years.

 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
Because it is already known material....and it does not fit with your lack of scholarly attention when it comes to the age of the earth.
You know, this is the second time on this thread you have impugned my integrity. I want you to provide any information I have posted on the deity of Christ and show me where my posts appear ANYTIME in ANY publication. All of the exegesis I have posted concerning the nature of God is my own material and is soon to published online through the website "MyLifeIntheSon.org". The only information that I have posted in part on that topic is a presentation on John 1 by a retired professor of NT Greek whose name I never heard and this was so stated the first couple of times I posted that information. It is time for you to either put up or shut up!
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama

Further, what text would you even use....the MT...or the LXX...? They differ by thousands of years.
When it come to the OT, I have no skills in the Hebrew language so when it comes to linguistic matters I have to depend on the scholarship of others. I do use the LXX from time to time because I do have some understand of the Greek.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
The Earth dates back to the moment of time at which God made it. Do we NEED to know exactly when, or do we just use and exploit this lack of knowledge to tear down our fellow Christians in the form of irrelevant debate?
Actually, it's important to discuss such things, because once people let comprising theories that draw from a humanistic understanding of Science, rather than God's Word, in the door, anything goes and the Bible is no longer believed to be God's Authoritative Word but something to be questioned at every turn. That said, this discussion is getting pretty heated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 29, 2013
301
0
0
I mean I totally understand that things need to be brought up and talked about but with both sides being so up in arms, is this debate glorifying our Lord and strengthening our faith or are these Christians simply throwing rocks at each other about a moot point to the benefit of evil?
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
I mean I totally understand that things need to be brought up and talked about but with both sides being so up in arms, is this debate glorifying our Lord and strengthening our faith or are these Christians simply throwing rocks at each other about a moot point to the benefit of evil?
Moot point.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
You know, this is the second time on this thread you have impugned my integrity. I want you to provide any information I have posted on the deity of Christ and show me where my posts appear ANYTIME in ANY publication. All of the exegesis I have posted concerning the nature of God is my own material and is soon to published online through the website "MyLifeIntheSon.org". The only information that I have posted in part on that topic is a presentation on John 1 by a retired professor of NT Greek whose name I never heard and this was so stated the first couple of times I posted that information. It is time for you to either put up or shut up!
Stop and actually read my posts BEFORE retorting.

Your scholarly material is already known.

Period.

You present nothing new....but, in contrast to your research on the age of the earth, there is great disparity.

Here is one of your more scholarly posts which contains material already known, of which, I liked last year..


http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...riptures-disprove-trinity-30.html#post1306558


Its just rather odd that your taste in scholarly material falls-flat when confronted with old earth material...
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
When it come to the OT, I have no skills in the Hebrew language so when it comes to linguistic matters I have to depend on the scholarship of others. I do use the LXX from time to time because I do have some understand of the Greek.
So...

The question remains.....what source material do YOU use to arrive at a date for the earth and humanity?

The MT....or...the LXX?

Already, I have proved my point, as the two text differ by THOUSANDS of years!