Age of the earth

Salty, appreciate the sense of humor. Most people do not understand that the passage of time is not now, and never has been constant. We know, that is, it has been "verified" that the variable nature of the rate of time passage is tied to at least two known variables. One, the rate of time passage is inversely proportional to velocity (abs. value), that is, as velocity increases, the rate of time passage slows. The second known variable which affects the rate of time passage is gravity (mass). I have seen, but not calculated myself, some work of a well respected phycist which demonstrated some complex relativisitc time and time dilation equations which showed that the "six days" of creation and the 13.8 billion estimate for the age of the universe were equivalent. Just some thoughts. No claim here that this is "absolute truth" .

 

You wish! :laugh:

So Calvinists can be right on some things! :smilewinkgrin::wavey:

 

Did you get that Salty? I read it three times and still didn't get it.....

 

LOL, Kyredneck! I get it!

What he said was that time passes at different rates depending on the forces that are applied to it.

We understand that a minute=60 seconds. From our view point we even understand how long it takes for a second to pass. (simply put one tick of the second hand) But what happens if in the midst of the second hand clicking something affects the length of time it takes for the hand to move? We'd say that the watch was broken!

But there have been physical experiments that show a difference between the time passage recorded by an observer in an object traveling at a very high veliocity and the passage of time recorded by an observer on the earth looking at the same object. One would expect that the two observations of time would be equal, but they weren't. That has led to research which somewhat points to the passage of time being unstable. In other words what may take God a second to observe, might take us a 1000 years.

Clear as mud?

 

Fossilization can occur in a very short period of time: it has been demonstrated that it can happen in less than 100 years, in fact. Moreover, slow fossilization has huge problems, and has not been demonstrably shown to be possible.

All of the coal deposits that we know of, show evidence of rapid deposition, which does not fit the old earth model. Likewise, coal has also been shown to take a very short period of time to form (a 'Science' article about 3 years ago, featured an article on experiments where coal was formed in just a few weeks, under conditions possible in nature).

A much better question, is how is it possible for a global flood to occur, but leave all of the layers, coal, fossils, etc., in tact. This would seem very deceptive on God's part, if the earth were in fact millions of years old.

However, if one is a young earther, none of the evidence contradicts what the Bible says. God made fully formed trees, which would show the appearance of age, but would be young, and He made fully formed light beams, which likewise show the appearance of age. None of this is deceptive: He told us exactly what He did, and it fits the facts. If someone chooses to not trust what God has said, that does not mean God is being deceptive: that means His people are being unfaithful!

Now: I voted 10,000-25,000 years. Why? Because the genealogy in scripture has known gaps in it, which would seem to point to a bit older than 10,000 years, IMHO.

 

Scripture notwithstanding, it's always important to distinguish between whether something can occur in said manner, and whether something is consistenly occurring in said manner. A good example is the fact that homo sapien remains are typically found to be relatively young. You never find old (millions of years) homo sapiens. On the flip side, you typically don't find young dinosaur bones, you only find fully mineralized fossils of dinosaurs. If homo sapeins and dinosaurs lived at the same time (regardless of when that time was), then you would expect to find remains that are similarly fossilized, but you don't see that in the record.

 

Simply not true. Human fossils have been found many times.



And though rare, dinosaurs have been found that are not fossilized. There have been soft tissues recovered, and even some reports of DNA recovered. DNA breaks down very quickly, it would be incredible for it to survive for a few thousand years, and impossible if dinos died out over 65 million years ago.
Here is a photo of soft tissue taken from dinosaur bone.



At first many in the scientific community tried to discredit this claim that soft dino tissue had been recovered, but no longer. I saw a report on 60 Minutes maybe a month ago that featured Dr. Mary Schweitzer who first extracted this soft tissue. They are making attempts to extract DNA and clone a dinosaur.

 

I put the same thing. At the time of my vote I'm surprised that only 3 people voted this way. It's a fact that nobody knows...every vote should have been this way.

 

Carbon dating is highly inaccurate. They carbon dated a live moth once, and the results showed it was over 30k years old

The Bible also says that a day is LIKE a thousand years to God, not that it is.

 

Wow, it's been a while since I've seen that. The claim comes from Carl Baugh (yep, the Paluxy Man Track guy who got his "doctorate" from a diploma mill), who alleged that the rock formation above is a "fossilized" finger. The problem is that Baugh isn't even able to provide proof that it's a fossil, let alone a fossilized finger. Baugh's claims are so poor that Answers In Genisis advises people to not cite Baugh's claims as evidence.

The amusing thing is that Dr Schweitzer is a Bible believing Christian, and she has categorically condemned Young Earth interpretation of her work. BTW, the soft tissue in question is collagen, and it has long before been theorized by Schweitzer and others that this type of protein could survive a fossilization process, but that it would be incredibly rare. Again, however, the protien was found in an old fossil, not in a young bone. As I said earlier, if homo sapiens and dinosaurs lived at the same time, then one would expect to see remains of both in similar fossilized states, and you just don't find that.

Yet we all accepted the carbon dating findings of the Shroud of Turin belonging to the medieval era instead of the first century.

Now, before we get on a huge debate on the subject, which would in effect derail the thread, suffice it to day I'm not arguing for any particular age of the earth, I'm simply noting that the evidence we see suggest an earth that is older than what we expect to see if we adhere to a young earth view.

 

By whose standards? How are you "dating" said remains? The fact is, their is NO objective way to date them, so to say "this one is older than that one" is pure opinion.

Not at all. Human remains, according to the Biblical record, would be extremely rare, period. Only two humans were created, and the entire race grew from there.

By contrast, God, according to the Biblical record, created the rest of the animals on a massive scale. So, according to a young earth, Biblical model, you would find many, many fossilized remains of dinosaurs, insects, etc., which were killed in the flood, but you would find next to NO human remains, since humans were very small in number, and localized.
This is exactly what we find in the sedimentary layers. It is perfectly what we would expect to find, from a massive worldwide flood.

 

This is true. Now the question is, did God create the earth millions of billions of years ago...or did He create it much sooner than that with age already built in. I believe Scriptural proof supports the latter. When Adam was 1 day old he was a man with age built in. When trees (with rings inside giving it's "true" age) were created, they were created with age built in. Same with animals, mountains, etc. There is biblical proof that God's creation had age already built in and the "old earth" view cannot support this, in fact it contradicts it and claims to have a better understanding of God's creation than God does.

 

heheh, thanks. Naw, it's better than it was; I'd say it's opaque at least!

 

So be it! Or translated Amen.

 

That's certainly within the realm of possibility, webdog. God could likely have created the earth, say, 6k years ago, giving the appearance of the earth being 4.5 billion years old. God can create whatever He wants however he wants. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that God created us all yesterday with all of our memories to make us believe we're all the age we are. Anything is possible. But God also gave is the ability to scientifically reason. He expects us to look at evidence. If He created an earth that evidently appears to be 4.5 billions years old, it is not wrong, therefore, to take that evidence and conclude that the earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old. A Young Earth proponent should not have a problem with this. Yet we find YEC proponents wanting to find evidence of a young earth, under the assumption that God created young earth with no age built in. There is nothing in scripture or in science to suggest that this is so. Since there is evidence in science to suggest a 4.5MY earth, and since you noted that scripture support the idea of "age built in", then a YEC, in order to be consistent, must accept an earth that was created with the appearance of being 4.5BY old.

A YEC proponent should, therefore, have no problem with science and scripture coexisting as is.

 

Oh, I agree that the earth appears much older than it really is, but if we are going to take the Bible literally in the creation account using modern scientific understanding, God created a newborn child who grew into a man, He created all saplings for trees, etc. I don't think either of us believe that.
It is also not in the realm of possibility that we were created yesterday...this isn't the Matrix The creation was the beginning of creation, and the rest of the creation order has taken place the way God has decreed from that point on. We cannot use this information by working backwards and come to the conclusion this is how God did it. We have to take how God started it and work our way to the present.

You edited your response while typing mine. I do not have a problem per se with science and Scripture coexisting, I do have a problem with using science (finite) to interpret Scripture (infinite) as the OE'ers must do to come to their conclusion.

 

That's simply not what you find. For example, you don't find any modern mammal remains fossilized in the same manner as dinosaurs either.

 

Good point. I, for one, don't rely on science to interpret scripture, and don't rely on scripture to interpret science. My faith is solid, and doesn't require such. If the two appear to not coincide, it doesn't affect my faith at all. Yet, in holding this position, some nutcacse will accuse me of not believing the Bible. Hey, if making such an accusation is what they need to do to strengthen their faith, whatever floats their boat.

 

Why do you state what is false again? Human and modern animal fossils have been found many times, I showed you a photo of a fossilized human finger.

Fossils can form quickly. A fosslilzed ship's bell was discovered for the Isabella Watson, a ship that sank in 1852.

Trees have been found extending through many different layers of strata, called polystrate fossils.



Whole forrests of trees like this have been found which argues for a catastrophic flood that buried these trees quickly. There is much evidence for the scriptural accounts.

 

That's not a tree. Even to the naked eye, you can see the geologic layers in the shape. A fossilized tree won't consist of multiple geologic layers.

However, "polystrate" trees (I use the term loosely, since it's not a standard geological term) are typically found to be instances of tree root systems which have penetreated preexisting layers. This is normal and expected, and has never been an issue in the study of geology. They're usually found in coal seam layers.

It's not a finger. The guy who produced it can't even provide evidence that it's a fossil, let alone a fossilized finger.

This obviously shows that you don't know what a fossil is. The bell in question was not fossilized. Fossilization is the replacing of material in an by minerals. The material of the bell casting wasn't replaced with minerals.