Age of the earth

You hit the nail on the head. If God wanted us to know, he'd have told us.

Interesting indeed, but the problem lies in how some young earthers use it to claim that all layers of sediment everywhere must therefore have formed quickly. But what it demonstrates is that they don't know much about vulcanology. How MSH deposited its layers is consistent with what was already known prior about other volcanoes and they layers (it wasnt' exactly the first volcano to ever be recorded or studied). That said, MSH neither bolsters a young earth view, nor does it refute it.

Well, we might all be hellbound godless iberals, but at least we've going to have a peaceful home

 

weeeell..

one point- radiocarbon dating assumes the old theory of the same rate of growth we see now or decay now.. is the same all through history. So.. you get a mountain growing at a rate of half an inch a year.. and then multiply it back wards to reach the total height of the mountain and you get tons and tons of time.

This assumption does not acknowledge catastrophe, with rapid burials induced by things like earthquakes, tsunamis, floods etc..

There are many areas of coal in hillsides with fossilised trees running through there layers, in a state that has to be quick burial. The same goes for tons and tons of fossilised fish around the world, where they were caught in a state of movement.. quickly buried. Now I do not know exaclty which areas have these characteristics.. but I do know their are areas that people have just looked and assumed are millions or billions of years old.. with these fossilised trees going thru their layers.

Also have a look at the fossils in the Smithsonian museum on display.. it has complete skeletons preserved .. how is that so? You really only get this with quick burial.

So you may say.. okay they were buried quick but then the layers that fell on them after were slow. Well this doesn't hurt young earth theory at all! If they get buried quick.. they still get thousands of years to be buried with more sediment!

The right assumption with ages of things.. is to factor in catastrophic occurences.. which I am sure up to date evolutionists do now.. but what I have heard they are now finding is that there own updated theory is getting closer and closer now to creationist young earth explanations.

Anyhoo.. after all that.. 6,000-10,000 years for me..

 

I believe in "ROSE" view of earth

R- Round
O- Old Looking
S- Sold Real Estate to God
E- Early earth

 

I marked "Other Answer" because I don't think we can know.

The dating of the earth as millions or billions is based on assumptions. There is no scientific way to date something that far back - only if you start with certain assumptions.

I also think that God could have created the earth/universe with age on it, just as he created Adam and Eve not as babies but as adults.

 

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Why should Gof have to follow what we want to think? Why should He have to start with a seed, or a perfect sphere? God loves variety. He created the Garden in the modst of four rivers... not four trickles that would eventually erode the land and become rivers. Noah landed on Ararat a few centuries after the earth was created... not countless eons.

 

If God says He created, i don't know why people don't believe He created everything, like oil and coal. How many more created things did He not really create, even though He claims to have done.

 

Well, we're told about a world wide deluge which would be very capable of burying forests and jungles under many layers of sediment. In the midwest, the Arabia Steamboat sank in the Missouri River, and was covered with over 40 feet sediment in a very short time.

Besides, coal doesn't require millions of years. It merely requires the right conditions.

Again. Little time. Right conditions.

What are the assumptions in carbon dating science? Knowing that sheds a lot of light on that inconclusive, widely varying "science."

So is night and day, but He doesn't call them the same thing.

Pretty weak reasoning to reject the Genesis account.

BTW, I said 10,000 years.

 

Seems like you question everyone's salvation except your own.

BTW, I voted several million years old.

 

It's easy not to worry about my own salvation when I take the Bible literally and believe that everything God said is true. Folks like you that question whether God is capable of doing the things He said he did are the ones with the problem.

 

this is exactly what it is, rejecting scripture, rejecting what God has said He did, in actuality it is calling God a liar.

 

God's Word doesn't lie, but our understanding of it, interpretation of it, and application of it is frequently mistaken.

I can't forget the guy who used to post here, accusing us of calling God a liar by believing the earth goes around the sun, noting that scripture says the earth is fixed, and that the sun moves around it. And that doesn't even address the prior post that calls all of us men liars when we assert that our wives are the most beautiful of all women (contrary to Song of Solomon, which says that Solomon's lover is the most beautiful of all women).

 

Well, if you'd be intellectually honest then you would be able to admit that Heliocentrism is a theory. Granted, it is a widely accepted theory, but a theory none the less.

As for the second part of your post, you are obviously referring to my post. I still have not studied the scripture in question (sorry, haven't had the time), but stand by my opinion. If God says in His Word that a particular woman is the most beautiful of all women, then yes, you are a liar if you say your wife is the most beautiful. Unless, of course, it is your wife that God said was the most beautiful (which I'm thinking it was not).

 

You got that one right Johnv. But it is predictable. IMO, it's why so many lurkers lurk and not post.

 

Just because someone doesn't agree with your view of a very difficult passage doesn't mean they reject Scripture and call God a liar.

That kind of charge is just a way to avoid engaging the facts and finer points of a debate. It is deeply anti-intellectual as well.

The whole idea of creation and the age of the earth is something we must realize has a lot of thoughts and views going into it and circulating around it. We have to remember that some of the most brilliant thinkers in the history of the Church have given pause to a dogmatic reading of this business.

God's splendor is evidenced in the complexity of the creation He uniquely engineered from nothing. The Bible is faithful in the teaching in it expresses about His direct action in creation...why is this not enough for some Christians?

How quickly we slide into comfortablitiy with biblio-idolatry is unsettling.

 

Why is what the Bible simply states not enough for some Christians? Why do those Christians feel like they need to make the Bible fit into their scientific world view? Why can't those Christians just take God at His Word?

 

So, is it your position that, if a person holds to heliocentrism, that such a person is calling God a liar?

Not just me, but so far, every married man on this board is, according to you, a liar, a liberal, is calling God a liar, doesn't believe scripture, and is possibly unsaved.

 

A man after my own heart:

 

I haven't said that. I was just pointing out that heliocentrism is not proven true. It is a theory. We should be able to agree on that, right?

No, I didn't say they were a liberal or unsaved. I also don't think that it applied to every married man on this board. I for one am I married man and I believe what God said. Again, I haven't even investigated the scripture you reference. I'm basing my opinion on the assumption that God did indeed state that one woman in particular was the most beautiful.

 

Show me where I haven't taken God at His word. Please show me.

Show me where God says the earth is 8,000 years old. Show me where I have said that creation couldn't/didn't happen in 6 literal days. Show me where I have ever said that the Bible must conform to a "scientific worlview."

Otherwise you're trying to put words into my mouth and using a false pretense to build yourself up.

This is what I don't get. Never will I guess. How is it someone can say they "take God at His word" more than others? How can, on this board, some people walk around and throw around insults and libel people in the worst ways and that's okay? How can they do that and then have the belief that they are "super spiritual?"

I don't understand that.

 

Well, heliocentrism has been observed, and nothing has been observed that disputes helicentrism, but, for the sake of argument, yes, I can concur.

Yes, you did. You said "...you don't believe the Bible, you are a liberal, and I'd seriously wonder whether you have your faith in the proper place." (emphasis mine).

Several married men have chimed in, and concurred that they find their wives the most beautiful of all. In the very least, your judgement apples to them who have so asserted their wives' beauty.