How Old Is The Earth?

[oldhermit]

So you're saying that being wrong on one particular argument renders ANY argument made by the party invalid and not worth looking into. Just for a comparison, a math teacher could state "1 + 1 = 2" and then state the next day "2 + 2 = 6." Whether the latter is by mistake or intentionally misleading, the point is every argument should be examined on it's own merit, and not discounted solely because of the person making the argument.

I do not discount Catholicism simply because they are Catholic. I discount them on the basis of their teachings, practices, and their disregard for the biblical text.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

The reason compasses only point north is because that's how they're designed. If you reverse the needle, it will point south.



The Earth's magnetic field isn't caused by a giant magnet sitting on top of the planet. It's caused by, very loosely speaking, the rotation of the Earth and the magnetic core.

Dynamo theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If it was common sense, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



It's not landmass that's affecting compasses.

Heh very interesting stuff and I have seen a few different Dynamo Theories before myself.

Here's a good quote from that article:

"At the dawn of the 21st century, numerical modeling of the Earth's magnetic field has not been successfully demonstrated, but appears to be in reach. Initial models are focused on field generation by convection in the planet's fluid outer core. It was possible to show the generation of a strong, Earth-like field when the model assumed a uniform core-surface temperature and exceptionally high viscosities for the core fluid. Computations which incorporated more realistic parameter values yielded magnetic fields that were less Earth-like, but also point the way to model refinements which may ultimately lead to an accurate analytic model. Slight variations in the core-surface temperature, in the range of a few millikelvins, result in significant increases in convective flow and produce more realistic magnetic fields.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]"

Problem: All models show no Dynamo Theory works to accurately demonstrate that Earth in fact has a Dynamo Core in the way we think of the Core. Thus it may be possible there is not even a Core!

As for the rotation of Earth:

How fast you think Earth is spinning?

 

[jamie26301]

You only have to examine credible creation websites like Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis to see that there's plenty of evidence for creation, it just depends on your worldview. If you are a theistic evolutionist, you'll see the evidence in that light. If you believe in the authority of God's World, that's it's God-breathed and therefore infallible, then you'll see the evidence in a different light again.

Yes, you are correct. However, if one looks at the world APART FROM SCRIPTURE (that is, not through that lens) and look at the world objectively and without scriptural influences, I can see how one would easily come to those conclusions. Seeing something before your very eyes (the fossil record) doesn't mean one will embrace what it clearly seems to indicate by most of thinking society, including many Christians. Like you said, certain approach to the ancient text prevents them from seeing it.

I'm disgusted that so many Christians have so little regard for God's Word. It really weakens the foundations of one's faith and their witness to others. It's become so bad that some go so far as to say the whole of Genesis isn't true, and they even call into question Moses etc. This is madness! Where does the buck stop? You either accept all of the Bible as true, respective to the genres contained therein (Genesis as history etc.) or you believe whatever suits your own ideas.

I believe that evolution is a likely theory, and that the evidence supports an old earth, and my faith is not weakened in the slightest. Because I separate faith issues from real world issues. I'm sure many of the millions of Christians who share my sentiments would agree.

Well, yes, you DO accept all the Bible OR pick and choose. However, Christians ALL pick and choose Scripture. They have done it since the beginning, even going back to the Saddeces (sp) who didn't believe in the Resurrection or the prophets. Every church ignores certain verses to embrace select doctrines. There is no perfect church that fully embraces Scripture.

Any study of early Christianity will yield a HUGE variety and contradiction of ideas concerning who Jesus is, what He did, and what it means. There is even a Gospel of Judas. It is certain Christians in a position of power who choose what became the sole books thought to be inspired. If one wants to have faith that God guides the church to select the correct texts for inspiration, that's fine and good. However, I look at Christianity as whole from a historical perspective, and there ain't NO Christian who didn't "pick and choose what to believe."

 

[oldhermit]

How fast you think Earth is spinning?

About 1000 miles per hour at the equator.

 

[jamie26301]

I do not discount Catholicism simply because they are Catholic. I discount them on the basis of their teachings, practices, and their disregard for the biblical text.

In other words, you discount them because they're Catholic. And Catholics do have rebuttals for their "disregard" of the text. (Not saying they are GOOD ones, just that a Catholic scholar is not rendered speechless by a certain Protestant argument).

Their are plenty of Protestant churches that disregards certain texts. Let's not throw stones here.

 

[jamie26301]

I have worked with a lot of college students over the years and I have seen a few who are forever asking questions but never seem to learn anything. I hope you are not one of these

I don't think it's not that they didn't LEARN anything - they just didn't learn and embrace what you think they should. Jesus advocated asking questions. "Seek, knock, ask." A lifestyle of inquiry is healthy for the mind AND the spirit, and anyone who stops asking questions indirectly admits that they know everything and is above any lesson.

 

[Bowman]

More thumb sucking...

About 1000 miles per hour at the equator.

That is a lot slower than when the planet was first formed......which would have made a 'day' being equal to ~8hrs.....again flying in the face of the 24hr YEC...

 

[oldhermit]

In other words, you discount them because they're Catholic. And Catholics do have rebuttals for their "disregard" of the text. (Not saying they are GOOD ones, just that a Catholic scholar is not rendered speechless by a certain Protestant argument).

Yes, and I have debated all of these points with then at one time or another.

Their are plenty of Protestant churches that disregards certain texts. Let's not throw stones here.]

I certainly agree. I regard them no differently than the RCC. I posted something earlier that you should probably consider. This will help you better understand why I respond the way I do to such discussions.

It is a mistake to think of the Bible as a historical, archeological, cultural narrative, ecclesiastical, or a soteriological document, nor is it just a collection of morals and ethics. The Bible is exclusively a representational document that reveals the mind of the Creator. This makes it unlike any other document in the history of the world.

The greatest mistake one can make is to approach this book as a dyadic reader. Dyadic reasoning needs to be understood as man reasoning toward his natural existence on the basis of human intelligence. Triadic reasoning, on the other hand, is man reasoning toward his material existence based on an inspired intelligence. Cosmic evolution certainly falls within this category of dyadic reasoning.

Historically, men have employed a dyadic structure of reasoning in the exercise of biblical interpretation. The world uses a hierarchical structure of human intelligence that we call the nine fields of inquiry to compile information about the Biblical text as it is fitted within the framework of these nine fields. All human knowledge is catalogued within these nine fields. This type of textual approach appeals to the respective fields of inquiry to see what each of these have to say about the text of scripture. The world feels that it is somehow important to know what the scientist, the historian, the clergy, the legal apparatus and others have to say about the value and place of scripture within the human community. This form if intertextuality regards scripture as only one of many texts that is subordinate to human analysis based on all other texts. The practice of intertextuality places the Word of God within the dyadic structure of human intelligence. This elevates human intelligence over the inspired intelligence of revelation. The world will never allow the Bible to be regarded as the single hierarchical text that relativizes all other knowledge.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

About 1000 miles per hour at the equator.

Aye this is the common answer for Sphere Earth Theory.

Problem: If the Earth is a Sphere and the Sphere is spinning, and the Earth spins at 1000 mph and it spins in one direction; why doesn't the Wind travel in one direction? In fact, if the Earth spins that fast there would theoretically have to be a constant wind everyday. However, some days there is no wind.

 

[Reee]

There is only one account of creation and that account offers no alternative to a literal six day period of time. What she is trying to do is find some way to forge scripture into her belief that the earth hosted a productive atmosphere complete with both human and animal life prior to the creation account recorded in Genesis one. There is simply no way to get this out of the text.

I think you have trouble reading.... I have clearly stated that NO human existed on earth before ADAM.... there were other beings.... angels.

 

[Daley]

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]Multiple methods of dating, such as isochron dating, the potassium-argon clock, carbon dating, ice-core series, tree-ring dating and so forth indicate that the earth is billions of years old. If it were not, all these various methods would not agree on an exact date, but they do. 4.5 billion years. Either millions of geologists, paleontologists, oceanographers, physicists, astrophysicists, and so forth across the world have all independently come up with the same dates by accident while dating different fossils, rocks and so forth, or there is some massive conspiracy that needs to be blown open, or else the earth really is that old. Here are some of the links to the actual scientific data: The Age of the Earth Ice Core Dating How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs' (continued) Radiometric Dating

The Bible says 'In the Beginning God created,' it doesn't say HOW LONG the BEGINNING is.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"][/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[jamie26301]

Dawkins is a neo-Darwinist, as are many evolutionary scientists. What is it you think Dawkins is distorting? How is he dishonest?

I've seen a video clip of him, via Answers in Genesis, and he said that evolution happens by LUCK, another words, random. I learned in my science class that evolution happens through adaptation, and the changes that happens in species is NOT random - genes are selected and passed on that helps the organism survive in the environment it's in. That's not luck, that's not random, that is natural selection.

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?

I'm sorry if I have spoken in ignorance. I assume you've read a book or two by him?

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

Ah, I didn't know that. Aw darn, another strike for those evil, wicked, conniving Catholics! What was the first Pope to embrace it? I have the Catechism of John Paul the II - would I find that doctrine in there? I guess I need to do some reading tomorrow. Or was Francis the one who turned it around? I know John Paul did a lot to help loosen some of the stigma of the Catholic church and made services more accessible by starting to do them in English (it's nice to finally be able to understand what is said! LOL).

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?

Well, no, I wouldn't expect him to ignore dogma. Dogma, be it conservative OR liberal, is bad. Extremes are NOT good.

 

[oldhermit]

Aye this is the common answer for Sphere Earth Theory.

Problem: If the Earth is a Sphere and the Sphere is spinning, and the Earth spins at 1000 mph and it spins in one direction; why doesn't the Wind travel in one direction? In fact, if the Earth spins that fast there would theoretically have to be a constant wind everyday. However, some days there is no wind.

I am not sure I know the answer to that one but I would assume that it is the same force that holds you and I in place even though the earth is rotating at such a speed. I have a better question for you. When Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in Gibeon in Joshua 12:10, why did not everything on the surface of the earth fly off into space?

 

[Percepi]

Problem: All models show no Dynamo Theory works to accurately demonstrate that Earth in fact has a Dynamo Core in the way we think of the Core. Thus it may be possible there is not even a Core!

If only scientific, peer reviewed, and published sources were free on the internet, I could easily show you all the science that's put into verifying the dynamo theory.

Although we don't have an exact answer - we do have enough evidence to support the dynamo theory.

Aye this is the common answer for Sphere Earth Theory.

Problem: If the Earth is a Sphere and the Sphere is spinning, and the Earth spins at 1000 mph and it spins in one direction; why doesn't the Wind travel in one direction? In fact, if the Earth spins that fast there would theoretically have to be a constant wind everyday. However, some days there is no wind.

Honestly, most of your questions can easily be answered using Google.

What causes wind?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I am not sure I know the answer to that one but I would assume that it is the same force that holds you and I in place even though the earth is rotating at such a speed. I have a better question for you. When Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in Gibeon in Joshua 12:10, why did not everything on the surface of the earth fly off into space?

Heh my answer will tie into the possibilities on the Problem of Earth Spinning 1000 MPH

1. Earth is not spinning

2. Earth is not a Sphere

3. A combination of Both Possibilities

EDIT: actually a 4th possibility came to mind just now

4. Earth is a Sphere, but the Heliocentric Theory is incorrect

 

[oldhermit]

I think you have trouble reading.... I have clearly stated that NO human existed on earth before ADAM.... there were other beings.... angels.

My apologies for the misrepresentation. So you think only angels were on the earth before Gen 1:1?

 

[jamie26301]

I certainly agree. I regard them no differently than the RCC.

Well that's a relief. I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it's nice to see that someone doesn't elevate one side while condemning the other - when THEY'RE both guilty of the same thing.

I posted something earlier that you should probably consider. This will help you better understand why I respond the way I do to such discussions.

Thank you for the reminder. I have no comment, because I largely agree, if the person assumes that the Bible is infallible. But I don't (inspired with errors), so the argument doesn't address my perspective.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]Multiple methods of dating, such as isochron dating, the potassium-argon clock, carbon dating, ice-core series, tree-ring dating and so forth indicate that the earth is billions of years old. If it were not, all these various methods would not agree on an exact date, but they do. 4.5 billion years. Either millions of geologists, paleontologists, oceanographers, physicists, astrophysicists, and so forth across the world have all independently come up with the same dates by accident while dating different fossils, rocks and so forth, or there is some massive conspiracy that needs to be blown open, or else the earth really is that old. Here are some of the links to the actual scientific data: The Age of the Earth Ice Core Dating How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs' (continued) Radiometric Dating

The Bible says 'In the Beginning God created,' it doesn't say HOW LONG the BEGINNING is.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="align: left"][/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[TH][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Problem: All dating methods give different results, and the dating methods have been proving inaccurate, wildly inaccurate at that. No conspiracy about it, this has all ready been established.

 

[oldhermit]

Thank you for the reminder. I have no comment, because I largely agree, if the person assumes that the Bible is infallible. But I don't (inspired with errors), so the argument doesn't address my perspective.

Then since we have no common frame of reference for discussion, what could you possibly gain from this?

 

[Reee]

This sounds completely illogical.

Most Mountains are caused by the movement of plates.

We are not talking about the creation of mountains we are talking about mountains that were already there... these were trembling... what caused the trembling.... you said the flood? How did the flood cause the mountains to tremble? There is no mention of this in Genesis, what Genesis does say is that the mountains were covered: Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. There is no mention of trembling mountains or darkness