How old is the earth

Congratulations!

 

Actually the paper stated specifically that the results were inconclusive, they varied by location and also had possible seasonal dependencies. No wonder this is not accepted as an actual solution for the problem by the scientific community.

</font>[/QUOTE]Hey BobRyan, what is your source for the information that this is not accepted as an actual solution for the problem by the scientific community?

 

No indication at all from the text of Genesis 1 that this world was "destroyed before Adam".

Rather the Genesis 1 text points to it as being "created before Adam".

In Christ,

Bob

 

From the article we note;

#1. Rivers represent the main source of dissovled uranium to the oceans...

#2. The supply of this element through a particular estuary depends on the geochemical reactions specific to that estuary.

"Indeed results from a number of studies suggests that uranium bahavior VARIES from estuary to estuary."


#3. The results are seasonal and are impacted by the turbidity currents and the huge variation in uranium behavior in a turbidity context.

#4. The study never stated as a goal "to discover that overal oceanic Uranium influx was in equilibrium with outflux" and in fact - never reports that as "a finding" or even "a speculation".

The study stated

I.e. Results are "inconclusive".

The study never addresses overall accumulation rates NOR does it claim that accumulation is NOT happening NOR does it claim that accumulation rates are consistent with the prospect of 3 billion years of accumulation.

Yet - our evolutionist "hoepfulls" latch on to this study "as if" something here is has deleted the currently measured rates of accumulation showing 100 x more influx than outflux.

Such as are the "hopeful dreams" of evolutionists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

May she live a long and happy life refuting Darwinism.

I just got married again yesterday.

 

The word of God teaches us this world was created in six literal 24 hour days. I posted this information on another thread. One either accepts God's word on this or he does not. The idea that one must have science to prove time is fallacious. Time and the origin of life may be proven through prima fascia evidence.
The evolutionist espouses science as his proof for his ideas. However, true science betrays his thought. The scientific method requires the following:
1. Observation of data by the senses of man.
2. Accurate recording of observable data.
3. Testing of data.
4. Repeatable test to establish validity.
5. Conclusion based on the validate results from the process.
It is evident to the rational mind one cannot observe that which he has not witnessed. One cannot record accurately that which he has not observed. One cannot test data that does not exist. One cannot validate the reliability of that which is a mere product of human thinking.

God created all things in a literal twenty four hour period. The evidence is overwhelming to the rational mind. Consider the following:
1. The Hebrew word (yom) is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. This word is used 1,284 times and on a few occasions it does not mean a literal 24 hour day. However, the context clearly defines such usage ( Gen. 26:8;4:3,2:4, Jer. 46:10, Psalms 95:8,9). In Gen. 2:4, the total number of days of creation ( 6) is in view. In Psalms 95, the wandering in the wilderness of Israel is being chronicled. In Jeremiah 46:10, the punishment for the sins of Israel is being recorded.
2. The word phrase evening and morning as it relates to yom is used some 100 times in the Old Testament. It always refers to non-prophetic literal time. Furthermore, when the word yom is preceded by a numeral in a non-prophetic passage it is always a reference to literal time ( Gen. 8:3, Numbers 18:25, Exodus 20:11).
3. The plural form yamin appears 700 times in the Old Testament. In each of these 700 cases, it refers to literal days. Thus, in Exodus 20:11 God created the earth in six literal days.

 

I have personally observed the great galaxy in Andromeda with my own two eyes. It is about 3.8 million light years away. This means the light that I saw it by took that long to get here.

This is an observation I and many others have repeated. The methods of measuring the distance have been repeated many times. The methods of measuring the speed of light have been repeated many times.

Where is the failure for your rather inappropriatly restrictive view of what it is to make a scientific observation and conclusion?

 

Paul:
If light has always traveled at a constant rate, perhaps your correct. If time could be measurred accurately in , as you say millions of light years, perhaps you are correct. The only failure here is the assumptions many scientist make about evolution. But, as you so aptly stated," it is ABOUT 3.8 million years away."

 

These "assumptions" are constantly tested by astronomers and any hint of the slightest variation makes headlines around the world. Light cannot have changed its speed; we can tell because things would look different by light of different speed; different in ways that are clearly defined and predictable and just aren't there. The measurement of the distance to the Andromeda galaxy is known to be accurate within one or two percent.

Your comment - "as you so aptly stated, it is about 3.8 million years away" - leads me to think you question the distance determination.

Bearing in mind that it is a galaxy, after all, and just by how much room it takes up in the sky (tho really very dim, it appears bigger than the moon) we can make a rough determination that it is at least a million light years away!

Therefore, stars have been around for at least the amount of time it took the light to arrive from the Andromeda Galaxy - that is, over 3 million years. The galaxy is, after all, mostly made of stars.

There is nothing that is questionable in any way in any of this.

The earth is of course far older than just 3 million years!

 

[Thank you all for your kind sentiments regarding my new baby.
To jcrawford: CONGRATULATIONS!! on your marriage.]

Dr. Russ Humphreys has developed a model of cosmology based on Einstein's theory of General Relativity (the same theory that the Big Bang model is based on) that is able to explain how distant starlight was able to get to earth within the time frame indicated in the biblical record.

Humphreys' shows that by using 2 or 3 different starting assumptions about the nature of the physical universe and our relative position in it, the math of general relativity produces a conclusion that the universe has emerged from a "white hole" which is the opposite of a black hole (i.e., matter expands out of it rather than being drawn into it). In this scenario the well established phenomenon of gravitational time dilation has a strong effect in that time stands still at the approaching event horizon until the horizon reaches the centre of the universe (the assumed approximate location of the earth). In this way millions or billions of years can pass on the far side of the event horizon while only days pass on the inside of the event horizon (i.e., on the earth).

This model is able to explain how distant starlight can reach the earth in a few earth days. It also expains Cosmic Background Radiation and the phenomenon of redshifting. The model (and its math) is described in detail in Humphreys' book "Starlight and Time" (available from the AiG online bookstore. AiG Homepage http://www.answersingenesis.org)

To read more online see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

and
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

 

Regarding Humphreys' claims, I am just going to quote few things rather than put it in my own words. I ahte to, but it is the easiest way here.

from

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

A Christian sourse, BTW.

That is enough. Too much. Read the full story at the above link.

 

I guess I am a rather simple kind of guy. I believe what the Bible says. I believe God created the earth in six days, He could have done it quicker if He wanted, and some could say He could have taken longer if He wanted. But the Bible says He took 6 days. I believe in a young earth. Some would say what about what science has said about the age of certain rocks and things. Now, here I go with my simple way of thinking. I am not smart enough to refute their research and would not argue with them about the age of a rock or the distance of a star, or the vastness of the universe---the Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of the Lord". By I just look at it all this way, I ask myself, "how old was Adam when God created him?" One day he is not there and the next he is a full grown, mature man. How about the trees in the garden, if you cut them in half the day after creation how old would they be? The day before they were not there, the next they are there fully grown and mature. How about a rock? One day not there the next a rock that if measured for age would show it to be many millions of years old. The stars, when did man see the first light from these distant stars? One day they were not there the next they could be seen, even though they are millions maybe billions of light years away.

Nope, I have no problem with the age of the earth controversy, or the age of things found on the earth or the distance of things in space. You see my God made it all. One day it was not and the next it was, just by the word of His mouth. And when it was it was already perfect, complete and mature.

Think about it--Isn't God awesome!!!!!

Bro Tony

 

I hear you Tony

Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the
inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and
it stood fast.

- Psalm 33:8,9

---------------------------------------

If anyone is interested in Humphreys answers to his critics please see the links I previously posted. Here they are http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

no doubt there are others for those inclined to find them at AiG or ICR (www.icr.org).

 

Paul of E:

"Therefore, stars have been around for at least the amount of time it took the light to arrive from the Andromeda Galaxy - that is, over 3 million years."

Nonsense. According to your theory we can't even know for sure whether the "stars and galaxies" we see each night are even up there any more if it takes their light 3 million years to reach us.

Your living in long lost history, my friend, and your sense of real space-time is warped.

 

Now you are understanding.

Light takes a finite time to reach the earth from space. M31 is about 3 million light years away, so the best we can do is to know what it looked like 3 million years ago. We do not know what is happening there now. The light will not get here for another 3 million years. 3 millions years is a lot longer than 6000. And M31 is merely the closest large galaxy to our own.

You call this "warped." In you view, can you see how M31 is right now? How can this be?

 

Job 9:8 - who alone stretched out the heavens, and trampled the waves of the sea;

Psalms 104:2 - who coverest thyself with light as with a garment, who hast stretched out the heavens like a tent,

Isaiah 51:16 - And I have put my words in your mouth, and hid you in the shadow of my hand, stretching out the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, 'You are my people.'"

Over and over it say in God's word he "stretched out the heavens" that could be the light also.

 

It is a marvelous but true fact that we can look at the stars around us and say we aren't really sure they're there right now. The time varies according to the distance, of course.

Belteguese, 300 light years away, is a massive red giant in the final stages of stellar evolution. Astronomers know it is a good candidate for becoming a supernova. Maybe it has already done that, and we just don't know it. Maybe the light is on its way from that explosion right now! When that one blows, we will be flooded with neutrinos. I'm just not sure how bad the radiation will be for those of us on earth at the time.

But whole galaxies? They are more enduring. Sure a few stars will blow up every hundred years but the galaxies as a whole persist for billions of years.

You called this "your theory". I'm flattered, but people have known this for a couple of generations now. You didn't know this?

 

Indeed, the original light from the dawn of creation of the universe has been stretched out. That is literally true. When first created, the light from the dawn of the universe was brilliant, hot, energetic. The light was everywhere at once. Today, that light remains everywhere at once, but it is . . . stretched.

The frequencies of that light have been stretched by so much that they now come to us as microwave frequency radiation. Yet the shape of the frequency curve still retains the exact shape made by a body radiating light due to glowing from its own heat.

It is called the thermal background radiation of the universe. You might have heard of it.

 

This one sounds like it could go on forever!

I personally do not have a problem with inspired scriptures AND and old earth. Science pretty well has demonstarted the old age of the earth - theories to the contrary generally pretty weak.

It always seemed strange to me that someone with an M Div or D Min could come up with a better scientific model that 500 years worth of researchers and scholars.

Anyway I don't think the Genesis account was intended to show a TIMETABLE of creation - rather it intends to show that it was God who did the creating - contrary to the mythic babylonian accounts which were floating around at the time (like enuma elish).


Any thoughts????????