Age of the earth

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Peter101, May 13, 2003.

  1. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a home schooler, will you teach that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or will you teach that it is approximately 4.5 billion years old, consistent with the view of mainstream science?
     
  2. Connie Richey

    Connie Richey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/ac2.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will not look at evidence of the earth being millions of years old, because I have seen over & over again that this has been proven wrong. If you would like to see more evidence of this go to www.drdino.com I you can listen to some streaming audio & see video that will support this.

    Connie [​IMG]
     
  3. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Connie, I wonder if you know that Kent Hovind, Dr. Dino, does not have a legitimate education in science. His degree is from a diploma mill and it is not in science.

    [ May 13, 2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]
     
  4. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    I don't think this is the forum to discuss old earth vs. young earth.

    So Pete, if a homeschool parent chooses to teach his or her children that mainstream science teaches the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but we know from the Bible that it's only about 6,000 years old, how do you classify that?

    Just curious.
     
  5. Connie Richey

    Connie Richey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/ac2.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    This does not mean that he doesn't know the truth. He taught High School Science for many years & I have seen all of his videos & talked to him in person. He uses the Bible to back up every claim he makes & I don't believe the Bible could be wrong. God makes no mistakes. There are others out there who also do what Kent Hovind does, but I don't know off of the top of my head the addresses of their websites. Ken Hamm would be another.
    You can also go to www.apologia.com to find more resorces sustaining the young earth idea. This is High School Science "curriculum" written by Kathleen & Dr. Jay Wile. This is the Science that I use for my High School students. His books are totally Bible based as well.

    Connie [​IMG]
     
  6. Connie Richey

    Connie Richey
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/ac2.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    P.S. A big college degree does not always equal intelligence.

    [ May 13, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Connie Richey ]
     
  7. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    I will present it as a young earth, but I will also introduce the "gap theory" later as a credible view. Evolution will only be introduced as a false view of creation.
    Gina
     
  8. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I will use material from Missionary Dr. Grady S. McMurtry

    Full-time International Creation Emissary
    Biblical Scientific Creationist
    Apologist

    Education

    B S, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture
    M S, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science
    D D, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
    Regent of the School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
    Adjunct Professor, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
    Florida Christian College, Guest Lecturer
    20 Years an Evolutionist
    1 1/2 Years a Theistic Evolutionist
    27 Years a Biblical Scientific Creationist
    Ordained Minister
    Church Elder
    Expert School Board Witness

    MEMBERSHIPS

    Creation Research Society - Life Member
    Mensa - Life Member
    Phi Kappa Phi - Life Member
    Creation Studies Institute
    Access Research Network
    Creation Science Association for Mid-America
    Citizens for Science Integrity
    Liberty Counsel (Past Chairman of the Board)

    PUBLICATIONS

    Creation Our Foundation
    Creation Our Worldview
    The World View
    The Rock Newspaper
    American Mensa Bulletin
    The Forerunner
    The Creationist
    Predvestnik (Ukraine and Russia)
    Today Magazine (South Africa)
    Christian News (Christians for Truth-South Africa)

    Articles

    Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?
    http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article%2034.htm

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Peter, again, why are you here? To dissuade? It won't happen! To corrupt my belief in God's power? Never. I think you're only here to cause problems and I wish they'd ban you. You serve no edifying purpose on this board.

    Diane
     
  9. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;but we know from the Bible that it's only about 6,000 years old, how do you classify that?&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    Show me where the bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old. Many christians believe that it is much older. But let's stop discussing it here. I intended for this thread only to be a poll, not for discussion.
     
  10. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Diane,

    If you use Dr. McMurtry's web site and his information, you will be using a great deal of erroneous information. Surely you would want me to point out any errors, wouldn't you? I looked at his site and found lots of errors. Most are difficult to demonstrate because to understand the errors, you must first have a specialized background in science. But I did find some that lend themselves to demonstration so that even someone without a specialized background can understand. Let me quote from the website of Dr. McMurtry:

    "Second, we found two radioactive elements on the surface of the Moon, part of original Moon rock and not added later by impact, which could not possibly be there if the Moon were old. We found abundant amounts of Thorium 230 (Half Life calculated at 75,400 years) and Uranium 236 (Half Life calculated at 23,400,000 years). After nine or ten Half Life decays there should not be enough material left to get a significant reading. The existence of these elements on the Moon demonstrates that the Moon is young."
    ...............................................
    Dr. McMurty seems to be getting his information from someone else because similar arguments are found elsewhere on the Internet. But he does not give credit to anyone else. Still, that is the least of his problems. He is mistaken when he claims that Th-230 could not possibly be on the moon if the moon is old. He is mistaken because Th-230 is in the decay chain of U-238, and U-238 is present on the moon as it is on earth. I personally have measured Th-230 in earthly materials, experience which I would be willing to bet Dr. McMurtry has not had. Also, there is no reason to expect that U-236, the other radionuclide he mentions, cannot be on the moon. It can be produced by neutron capture on U-235 which is known to be present on the moon. I am copying below, a restatement of what I am saying, that I found on the Internet. By the way, McMurtry seems to be using information originally from a Dr. Wysong, which he does not mention.
    .................................................

    Young-earth "proof" #6: The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are shortlived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old.

    Thorium-230 is an intermediate decay product of uranium-238 which has a half-life of about 4.468 billion years (Strahler, 1987, p.131). Thus, it will be continually generated as long as the supply of U-238 lasts. Funny, that Wysong, whose argument Hovind is using, should have overlooked the intermediate decay products of longlived isotopes!

    According to the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 7th edition (1992), the naturally existing uranium isotopes are: U-234 (0.00054%); U-235 (0.7%); U-238 (99.275%). However, trace amounts of U-236 also exist in nature. Dalrymple (1991, p.376) informs us that "U-236 is rare but is produced by nuclear reactions in some uranium ores where sufficient slow neutrons are available."

    Thus, Th-230 and U-236 are currently being generated and their existence in nature proves nothing.
    ..............................................

    Diane, if you or anyone else wants to reply to this, please post your remarks on the Evolution/Creation forum, since it is the most appropriate place. Dr. McMurty's web site is extremely vulnerable to exposure because he makes so many mistakes. I will be happy to point out additional mistakes if you want, but I suspect that you are not interested in learning about any additional problems with his creationist views.

    [ May 13, 2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]
     
  11. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not just trust the Bible, Peter101? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
     
  12. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    As you've indicated you wanted replies to this in the cve forum, it's now moved to there.
    Gina
     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's a little problem with that plan, HL . . .

    Gen 1:25-26
    25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    KJV

    Gen 2:18-19
    18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    KJV

    Doing that leads me to believe that in the first instance, the animals were created before man; in the second instance, man was created before the animals.

    I find myself unable to believe these can both be literally true and this frees me up to accept the actual evidence from science.

    [ May 14, 2003, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]
     
  14. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carefully reading of the two chapters will show the solution for each of the supposed contradictions. Allow the Holy Sprit, not science, to guide you.

    Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it occurred.
    Chapter 2:4-6, reviews to first 5 days of Gods creation.
    Chapters 2:7-25, describes only the events that took place within the Garden of Eden. The purpose of this second creation was so Adam could name these animals, which were only in the Garden, not the whole world. This second creation was to show Adam that He (God) had the power to create, which is why the trees where “pleasant to the sight and good for food.”

    There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day 6.
     
  15. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,655
    Likes Received:
    189
    So there were two women created?

    Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    and

    Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
    21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
     
  16. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pay close attention now. The two narratives have a different ORDER for the creation of man and animals. Regardless of the purpose of the narrative, regardless of one making summaries compared to the other, they have a different ORDER of creation between man and the animals.
     
  17. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh no BB, it’s called reading and comprehending.

    You got chapter 1 right BB, it’s an outline of the creation story in the order that it occurred. The stumbling block for you is the following chapters. My associate pastor has told our Sunday school class that if we are having trouble understanding a verse or chapter. We should read it a few times and take notes, and then it should start to make a little more sense.

    I was taught that the first 2 chapters in Genesis as an “outline of the creation”, review of the creation” and a “focus of events within the Garden” at a liberal Methodist church of all places.

    How can my post confuse or better yet the Bible, lead someone to believe there where 2 women created when as I posted above Eve was created in the Garden of Eden, which is what Chapter 2:7-25 is focusing on. Again repeat after me “a focus of events within the Garden.” Eve was created in the garden. Right?
     
  18. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    What reason do you have to assume that it's an outline?
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    He [Dr Dino] uses the Bible to back up every claim he makes

    Huh? I thought he was a scientist. Shouldn't he be backing up his claims with evidence?

    Tha man's a charlatain. His site is a mass of "this and that theory is wrong, because the Bible says..." That's not science.

    Dr Dino's name is Kent Hovind, who on May 7th, 1999, in a packed room in Philadelphia, urged his audience to study convincing new evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. Hovind's evidence, a web site at www.darwindisproved.com, turned out to be the annual NMSR April Fool's prank.
     
  20. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hovind is indeed a bad man. He believes in conspiracy theories and a whole host of other things:
    An Analysis Of Kent Hovind

     

Share This Page

Loading...