How Old Is The Earth?

[nl]

Faith is not based on natural evidences. That is the complete opposite of faith.

Given That Nature And Astronomy Testify Concerning The Existence Of God Such That Mankind Is Without The Excuse Of Ignorance, Unbelief Is Not A Neutral PositioN But one Of Willful Ignorance And Disbelief. All Have Sinned. All Are Guilty. Yet, God Delights To Grant Mercy And Pardon To Those Who Believe.

Compare Jesus Christ To The Alternatives. His Words And Works Are All Excellent. He Was Humble And Homeless. No Mere Mortal Would Invent The Story Of Jesus Christ.

Men Seek God And Is Right To Honor Parents And Also To Seek God Who Is The Ultimate Source Of Our Existence. In A Sense, The Good Shepherd Also Seeks The Lost. Saving Faith And Salvation From Righteous Wrath Of God To Come Is Ever A Mercy And A Gift And Never Earned. Yet, It Is Good To Seek It. Whoever Wants To Boast, Let Him Or Her Boast In the LORD.

 

[oldhermit]

Given That Nature And Astronomy Testify Concerning The Existence Of God Such That Mankind Is Without The Excuse Of Ignorance, Unbelief Is Not A Neutral PositioN But one Of Willful Ignorance And Disbelief. All Have Sinned. All Are Guilty. Yet, God Delights To Grant Mercy And Pardon To Those Who Believe.

Compare Jesus Christ To The Alternatives. His Words And Works Are All Excellent. He Was Humble And Homeless. No Mere Mortal Would Invent The Story Of Jesus Christ.

Men Seek God And Is Right To Honor Parents And Also To Seek God Who Is The Ultimate Source Of Our Existence. In A Sense, The Good Shepherd Also Seeks The Lost. Saving Faith And Salvation From Righteous Wrath Of God To Come Is Ever A Mercy And A Gift And Never Earned. Yet, It Is Good To Seek It. Whoever Wants To Boast, Let Him Or Her Boast In the LORD.

Faith is the result of things that are unseen. The natural world was not created to produce faith. We live by faith, not by sight.

 

[KSublett]

Genesis 1:1-2 says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

The earth is not the GLOBE but the fruitful places where mankind can live and prosper. Just about c BC4000 the city states of Babylonia began to take people captive as slaves and destroyed the place God had created with free animals. The story begins with men confiscating all of the animals and fields and forcing the OWNERS to give tithes and offerings.

Can be translated:

Genesis 1:1-2 says: In the beginning the Elohim Cast Down (bara) the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

The Spirit OF Christ cleared that up:
Isaiah 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I have not said to the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

The Darkness is defined as IGNORANCE and the LIGHT is defined as enlightenment: Jesus said that truth had been hidden from the creation or casting down of heaven and earth from the CLERGY who too often restore serfdom and repay you with "making the lambs dumb before the slaughter"

Just in time c ad2000 the darkness has fallen over my old fellowship defined as Babylonianism in Revelation 17-18

6 days, 6 thousand years. Time seems right.

 

[nl]

Faith is the result of things that are unseen. The natural world was not created to produce faith. We live by faith, not by sight.

old hermit, I respectfully disagree. Let's consider more Scripture and how best to use the whole counsel of God. In everything, give thanks. (1Th 5:18). We ought to see the heavens and the earth and life and breath and rain and fruitful seasons and give thanks. Yes, salvation is of The Lord and God's salvation work is supernatural but...it is right to be good stewards of all God's gifts and graces and this includes natural endowments.

 

[Percepi]

Lol what you think a Theory is? Thy video said it. It's a Hunch.

The video I link said a theory is a hunch? Please, watch it again.

It's also important to understand what a scientific theory is. Outside science, people often use the word theory to refer to a hunch or an unsupported personal opinion. This is not what the word means in science. In science, a theory refers specifically to a well substantiated explanation accounting for a body of well-substantiated facts.

-QualiaSoup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0

So I will assume his Theory is an educated guess by his own words

Which you clearly misunderstood.

I watched your video and I enjoyed it and gave you my opinion where I believe the evolutionist religion is blind to the fact Darwin's theories of both Origin of Species from the Amoebanation and Descent of Man from Monkey Kind are today verifiably laid to rest and done with.

Actually, science has verified Darwin's position. The only people who disagree with Darwin are creationists.

Darwin's Theory is a religion, and Theory, a theology.

Darwin's theory is not a hunch, it's not theology, and it's not religion.

I already explained what a theory actually is.

Theology deals with the concept of God or gods. The theory of evolution does not deal with the concept of God or gods.

And evolution is not a religion. It isn't something that is worshiped. That's like calling Germ Theory a religion.

The rest of your paragraph is pure nonsense, because you treat evolution as if it's a religion. You have this incredibly false idea that Darwin is some sort of Darwinian prophet. That's pure, total, bogus.

You are completely ignorant of what the theory of evolution is. What you know about evolution is completely wrong. I'm not just saying you rebuttals are wrong, but your basic understanding of what evolution is - is entirely false.

It is true Darwinist Evolution is possible Eugenically. But it proves its not the origin of species, its the dead end of genetics. Horse Kind is Horse Kind and Donkey Kind is Donkey Kind. Cross em, Mule Kind. Kind Hybrid.

Evolution does not support eugenics. Eugenics is the practice of wiping out a species because it's "inferior". However, this is not based off the theory of evolution. It is based off of a misunderstanding of evolution as well as BASELESS racism.

You then explain that we have "kinds" of animals. But you can't define what a kind is.

You accept micro-evolution. Yet, you don't even understand how micro-evolution works.

You then go on to explain the different kinds of humans. However, this doesn't explain what a kind is. More importantly, you keep using kind in a meta sense. You have human kind, but then you have Shemite kind. What's next? Woman kind? Baby Kind after that? In every day language, kind generally refers to a group of people with a shared trait. It's too vague of a term to simply use it scientifically unless you define what a "kind" refers to.

It's like saying, "Well, we have dog kind. We also have wolf kind, poodle kind, and dalmatian kind." But, you could argue, we have "animal kind" and "plant kind".

Scientists don't refer to animals as "kinds" because the term is completely useless. Instead, scientists use the following: species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum.

If anyone asks if you accept the theory of evolution, just tell them you don't understand evolution, and that you're a creationist because the creationist explanation makes sense to you. Because you clearly don't understand what evolution is, what a scientific theory is, or what the general consensus among scientists is.

 

[oldhermit]

old hermit, I respectfully disagree. Let's consider more Scripture and how best to use the whole counsel of God. In everything, give thanks. (1Th 5:18). We ought to see the heavens and the earth and life and breath and rain and fruitful seasons and give thanks. Yes, salvation is of The Lord and God's salvation work is supernatural but...it is right to be good stewards of all God's gifts and graces and this includes natural endowments.

We are not talking about how the natural world responds to God. We are talking about how faith is created. Faith is the product of the hearing of the word of God, not the weighing on the natural evidences.

 

[Timeline]

Faith is not based on natural evidences. That is the complete opposite of faith.

I believe that is what I said.

 

[Timeline]

Faith is not based on natural evidences. That is the complete opposite of faith.

To elaborate, I think we should see God in creation but he cannot be proved through the study of it.

 

[nl]

We are not talking about how the natural world responds to God. We are talking about how faith is created. Faith is the product of the hearing of the word of God, not the weighing on the natural evidences.

I can name Bible characters who owned no Bible. They include Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. Yet, I believe that there was salvation among them. Many, including Charles Spurgeon in the nineteenth century have taught that infants who die before an age of accountability have salvation. Moses and David and Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar in the OT were likely saved but the name of Jesus was unknown to them and their Bibles were incomplete.

In John 1:9, there is a declaration that Jesus has given light to every man.

I assert that salvation did exist in the OT and that at least some infants like Jeremiah and John the Baptist were saved as infants.

John 1:12 and Acts 4:12 might be quoted but greater understanding and discernment came come from consideration of additional texts.

Was there salvation before Jesus? I say yes. What are your views?

 

[Falcren]

Theology is the study of faith not merely God or gods. Not all religeons in theology have to do with a God or gods. I do understand the theory of evelution. Science is often used to try and confirm evolution but ultimately falls short in as much the same way it fails to confirm the existance of God. Many scientific discoveries are utilized to convince us of a particular faith. (Macro) Evolution is a faith that has never been proven and many people firmly believe in it to the point of making it a religeon of its own accord. Baseing that faith upon ones desire to explain life without the existance of God. When confronted with questions they cannot answer they much like any other religeon rely on a dismisive response, stateing that given time that we through science will know the answer. This displays a faith in our own human reasoning and abilities. Essentially meaning we are God. This is the essential goal of man, to become God. Science does not definitively prove either (macro) evolution or creation. (Micro) evolution does not in any way prove anything. One can reason either way that theoretically (micro) evolution proves (macro) evolution or the existance of a creator. The debate is mute. It all boils down to What do you believe and What do you put your faith in, God or Man. I choose God.

 

[oldhermit]

I can name Bible characters who owned no Bible. They include Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. Yet, I believe that there was salvation among them. Many, including Charles Spurgeon in the nineteenth century have taught that infants who die before an age of accountability have salvation. Moses and David and Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar in the OT were likely saved but the name of Jesus was unknown to them and their Bibles were incomplete.

In John 1:9, there is a declaration that Jesus has given light to every man.

I assert that salvation did exist in the OT and that at least some infants like Jeremiah and John the Baptist were saved as infants.

John 1:12 and Acts 4:12 might be quoted but greater understanding and discernment came come from consideration of additional texts.

Was there salvation before Jesus? I say yes. What are your views?

I never suggested that there was no salvation for those on the OT. In fact, the Hebrew writer confirms this.

 

[nl]

I never suggested that there was no salvation for those on the OT. In fact, the Hebrew writer confirms this.

I am glad to see that. I agree. .

Romans 10:17 was quoted earlier and it is relevant but OT saints came to saving faith by other means than someone reading the Bible out loud. This may happen for others even today. Can natural revelation in nature and astronomy be salvific? Certainly, special revelation is better but I lean towards yes on the question.

 

[oldhermit]

I am glad to see that. I agree. .

Romans 10:17 was quoted earlier and it is relevant but OT saints came to saving faith by other means than someone reading the Bible out loud. This may happen for others even today. Can natural revelation in nature and astronomy be salvific? Certainly, special revelation is better but I lean towards yes on the question.

Their faith came the same way as ours, through the hearing of the word of God either directly of through the prophets.

 

[nl]

Their faith came the same way as ours, through the hearing of the word of God either directly of through the prophets.

What about infants such as in 2 Sa 12:23, Jeremiah 1:5 and Luke 1:15? Were some or all of these saved? Will not God save others similarly even if they are older? May grace and peace be with you.

 

[oldhermit]

What about infants such as in 2 Sa 12:23, Jeremiah 1:5 and Luke 1:15? Were some or all of these saved? Will not God save others similarly even if they are older? May grace and peace be with you.

I believe children belong to the Lord.

 

[kennethcadwell]

I never suggested that there was no salvation for those on the OT. In fact, the Hebrew writer confirms this.

I believe that is why the scriptures talks about Jesus descending before ascending. I believe it was for the purpose to tell the good news to those that have already passed, so they to had the option to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

 

[Cycel]

It is not surprising that you do not understand. When one divorces God from reality as the causative agent it is impossible for the Bible to make sense to them.

Would this be true of the Koran as well? Once one divorces Allah as the causative agent does it become impossible to believe Mohammed flew to Heaven on a winged horse? Would a Muslim be justified in proclaiming that it is not surprising that neither of us understands? Would this reasoning hold true with the Bhagavad Gita or any other number of holy texts? Is this analogy fair?

We have a tendency to confine reality to only those things that can be observed, measured, and studied. Scripture shows us however, that reality extends beyond the simple fragile limitations of the physical dimension.

In what way can you demonstrate the fragility of the physical dimension? I suppose it is much more fragile than the spiritual dimension which we cannot detect? How can you show me that this other reality is not just a component of wishful thinking?

Reality is a union of two parts. There is the temporal part of reality that is available to human empirical observation and the eternal, unobservable part of reality that exists beyond the realm of human accessibility.

I once believed in ghosts. Up to the time I was 25 years old I might have accepted this claim without requiring evidence. I might have taken my belief in ghosts as confirmation of this other realm that you speak of. The only limitation that I personally suffer from that prevents my acceptance of your claim is a current lack of belief in the same thing that you believe.

These two dimensions of reality are only separated from the standpoint of human limitations. While it is impossible for man to look into that part of reality, it is clear from scripture that the visible is always contingent upon the eternal. This veil of inaccessibility separates man from that world, not God from this world.

Unfortunately the reality of this other dimension is contingent upon the believer recognizing the source of this belief as authoritative. Is there any other rational for it?

Our bodies are so order by the Creator that we must depend upon our five senses to tell us certain truths about our world. This is well and good because these things allow us to function within the confines of our natural surroundings. Our senses allow us to protect ourselves from potential harm. For example, I do not stick my hand in the fire because I know that fire is painfully destructive to human tissue.

Earthworms similarly recoil from hot surfaces and mammals all do (and we are mammals ). Evolutionary theory accounts for this using the same explanation. Perhaps your understanding came from evolutionary theory?

We cannot however, trust our five senses to tell us all the truth about reality. My senses do not tell me that the power of God manipulates, overrules, and overturns natural processes. I can only know this from revelation.

This is the problem, isn’t it. I am hearing a lot about what you believe is true, based on your interpretation of scripture, but I am not seeing any confirmation.

I would have to insist that, apart from the existence of God there can be no law. Law can only exist as a means to establish order and organization for something that is concrete. Law requires the function of an administrator to enforce it.

Human law requires an enforcer, but do natural laws? Do you really believe God must watch over water molecules to ensure that they crystalize at a given temperature? I know that because you believe in God you think the deity must control the way inanimate matter behaves, but not having a belief in a deity I feel no compulsion to think physical interactions between molecules require a governing force, for then what are the rules that govern God, and how did they come into existence. It is much easier for me to imagine how the physical universe might come into being spontaneously than to think a divine force came into existence in that manner. In fact the very notion is so impossible to imagine that believers have decided to take the position that this divine being must always have existed. This for me is still too much to swallow and was in fact the very question that first raised doubts in my mind.

You want to believe that an all powerful, all knowing deity always existed, and perhaps even existed in nothingness before creating the world. I can’t fathom it. Can you imagine matter existing but not having laws governing interactions. Perhaps these interactions occur as they do because that is the only way they can behave. There doesn’t have to be intelligence behind it. The moment you create a thinking, intelligent Being, you need to account for its existence in some way that is less demanding than inanimate matter possessing inherent natural laws that allow water to freeze. Goodness knows that no intelligence is required to turn water into ice.

Since law has no power to create something beyond itself, there must be a power beyond law that is causative.

Why? As temperatures lower molecules become less active allowing them to align into crystals. This I know. It doesn’t require an enforcer to make it happen. Perhaps if I knew enough about gravity I would understand that matter and that force go hand in hand and that no enforcer or law giver is needed there either; but I don’t know enough about gravity to explain my presumption. Do you? Do you comprehend more about the physical nature of gravity than I? If so then please explains the mechanics to me. Armchair philosophy is not enough. If you are going to insist upon the need of a Law Giver then you need to explain why, based upon the physics of gravity that this is necessary, otherwise you are simply guessing.

What man generally considers as “laws of nature” exist not as laws but rather as a set of determined relations that allow man to function within the confines of the natural world.

It sounds as if you think these laws were created for us. That’s ego centric.

It is a mistake to think that man can come to an accurate understanding of the universe on his own terms through a rational observation of his experiences within it.

We have done a good job of understanding these laws so far. That is how NASA successfully placed several landers on Mars. Many more discoveries are yet come. Yet you argue that we can only come to correct understanding of the universe by reading scripture that is on the order of 2000 to 4000 years old? Everyone acknowledges that the ancients understood far less than we do, yet you want to make their understanding your guiding light? You want to declare that their words are infallible because their pens were guided by the spirit of deity? What did they know about gravity? Nothing. They didn’t even understand that the world is a planet. They did not know their place in the cosmos yet you make them into the men who inform your cosmology? Very strange indeed.

... scripture is replete with examples of the “irrational.” It is not rational to believe that three men can be thrown into a furnace of fire for an extended period and emerge unharmed and with not even so much as the smell of smoke on them, Daniel 3:24-27. It is patently absurd to believe that the earth can suddenly and instantaneously cease its rotational pattern for several hours without dramatically disturbing gravitational forces, Joshua 10:12-14. There is nothing in our experience within the field of human biology to suggest that a virgin can conceive a child or that someone who had been dead and entombed for four days can be raised simply by verbal command to rejoin the living.... These things cannot be rationalized based upon natural processes.

The hard truth.

What these things serve to demonstrate is that God is not constrained by natural process.

The other possibility, perhaps the most reasonable choice, is to recognize these things simply never happened. The reality is that these stories cannot be believed in the absence of belief in God. After all, you don’t believe the miracle stories of other religions. You don’t believe the story of Mohammed and his flying horse.

 

[TheAristocat]

What balls of ice? Are you talking about snowmen? You are not being clear.

No, no. There are these big balls of ice that form as natural phenomena in Lake Michigan during the Winter and then wash up onto shore.

What you describe above is another type of physics not addressed by Newton, so there is no defying going on.

Yep. I don't entirely understand it myself. But there is a Law of Conservation of Mass. And unless this law were defied from the beginning the universe wouldn't be here today (e.g. the Big Bang). At least that's my understanding. But what I understand these little particles to be is akin to miniature Big Bangs that don't last. Matter is added to the universe and then it is eliminated. It pops in and out of existence. So the Law of Conservation of Mass still stands at the moment, but for those fractions of time it is briefly defied. Very briefly. Or so that's how I've heard it explained.

As a former archbishop of Canterbury stated at the beginning of the 20th century, “God did something much more wonderful than make the world, he made the world make itself.”

I take issue with Mr. Archbishop here. I think his words stand with regard to weather systems and such. But the universe is moving toward entropy and will not last forever. So if it runs itself it does not do a very good job of it. Eventually it will cease to run itself, and this statement won't stand. Atheists may take lessons from nature and theists do as well. The lesson here I think is that the processes of nature, when left to themselves, are not self-sustainable. Much less able to make themselves.

I’d have to refresh my memory on this

That's alright. I'd have to refresh my memory on it, too. But I remember finding laws in the past that seemed to deal only with Israelite slaves in certain passages but also applied to all slaves when found in other passages.

What events occurred on a smaller scale? Are you sure about this?

Are you trying to win me over? For sake of argument, see my post #1082. In it I mentioned that light passing through the atmosphere causes it to bend at such an angle that we can see the sun above the horizon for about a half hour after it should already otherwise be hidden from view (i.e. if there were no atmosphere).

The problem for the theist is that in time all the gaps become filled with scientific explanations. Where then does that leave belief in God?

For the atheist to claim that the unexplained is purely naturalistic is to put his faith in this prediction, because by definition it is unexplained. Which is what I was saying. The atheist is predisposed to assume that all things unexplained ultimately have a non-interventionist naturalistic explanation. The atheist puts his faith in one thing. The theist puts his faith in another. Basically any claim one makes of evidence not found is a "of the Gaps" argument.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

How does one date the age of the Earth when all techniques are impossible currently at this age in the Earth lol?

I date it by Man Kind personally (maybe I am a Kindist against our animal companions on this plane.)

Why? because that be my secular theory if we wrap it in modern scientific theory. Good old Humanism meets Social studies class of course.

If that be the case Earth is quite young by some peoples standard. Though I admit there is still some room for Theory into just how young Young Earth might be. In using Man Kind its quite simple the Earth as we know it Post-Flood is about 7000-5000 years. So let's at least start there. Old Earth (meaning millions much less billions) makes no sense because you can't demonstrate it sceintifically after a certain point its Theories ironically and amusingly contradicts eachother and are unproven guesses based on an argument of silence.

However we gotta start somewhere into our guess for age of the Earth, best educated guess and Theory in my opinion be go with what you know all ready know and have proof for. If this is be the case Young Earther got a Model. Old Earthers do not. And I can show you and demonstrate this for you. Though again keep in mind though Eath is younger than ye think, even by a Biblical standard there's still some rough guessing on the order of centuries to perhaps a millenia to figure out with advances in science.

So we'll start at 3000 BC and knowing a good bit of history (yet never enoughl ol) I'll say that's at my minimum. I personally believe Earth is a bit older than that (now I am an old earther say what?) But let's keep it simple and start here and then try to work up to what we can learn and then know of course. Here's a demonstration observable to ya'll to start on guessing the age roughly. but we start simple with what we know. We start with 3000 BC leaving open room for you know that not being a set in stone First day of all days lol, simply a place marker to build off of which is verifiably proven by the most hard-hearted scrutinous of standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewd4l2rD2_U
[video=youtube;ewd4l2rD2_U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewd4l2rD2_U[/video]

 

[faroukfarouk]

I heard that by the carbon dating, used to calculate the age of earth and rocks, etc., a cockroach is several million years old...