Age of the Earth.

[darkendless]

Ah haa! sacasim and insults, the lowest form of wit and the last resort of the ignorant. I agree, If you are wrong it would be proof positive that you're not very good at your Job, wouln't it?

Last resort? Ignorant?

Yes. I havn't been wrong yet however. Being wrong = lawsuit, i have not had a lawsuit so i have not been wrong.

Perhaps if i used your line of logic i'd be getting sued left right and centre?

 

[S-word]

Last resort? Ignorant?

Yes. I havn't been wrong yet however. Being wrong = lawsuit, i have not had a lawsuit so i have not been wrong.

Perhaps if i used your line of logic i'd be getting sued left right and centre?

Night, night kiddo, don't lose too much sleep just because you were wrong and never had a clue as to what you had read in post #88.

 

[darkendless]

Night, night kiddo, don't lose too much sleep just because you were wrong and never had a clue as to what you had read in post #88.

Who's into the insults now?

Enjoy dreaming up new ways to make Genesis make sense

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A day is divided into a period of Darkness followed by an equal period of light. How long those periods last depends on where you are; on the equator, 12 hours of darkness 12 hours of light, or the North pole, 6 months of darkness, six onths of light, Mars, Jupiter, where ever, the periods of time are different. There are thousand year periods which are referred to as one day and there is the religious creative day, which is a period of universal invisibility and rest, followed be a period of visible universal activity.

Actually, a day is normally defined as the time for one rotation of the planet: think of it as the time from when the Sun is highest in the sky (or at its highest point below the horizon, if you're north of the Arctic Circle in the middle of winter... which is a specific point in time even if you're not in a position to see it from where you're standing) until the next time this happens. This length of time is the same everywhere on Earth. It is different on other planets, but this is because the rotational speeds of the planets are all different.

However, to get back to the topic of the OP, it's not about interpretation of scripture or anything like that. It's about scientific methods for determining the age of the Earth. Some people claim that the age of the Earth is much, much less than scientific dating techniques tell us it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're telling us that your interpretation of whatever scriptures you believe in allows for them to be reconciled with an old Earth. Is that right?

If that's the case, then are we safe in concluding that you don't have an issue with any of the dating techniques given in the OP, or those talked about later on in the thread?

I mean, it seems like your post was a drawn-out way of saying that you're okay with the notion of a 4.56 billion-year-old Earth... well, once that's established, why you're okay with it and how you work it into your own theology is secondary to the conversation here. Just so we're clear: you don't have any problem with any of the dating methods mentioned here that you'd like to discuss, correct?

 

[S-word]

Who's into the insults now?

Enjoy dreaming up new ways to make Genesis make sense

If it were an insult, it could be considered as no more that reciprocating kiddo, just reciprocating, but it was not meant as an insult, I just wanted you to rest easy and not lose any sleep, just because your error was pointed out.

Genesis does make sense young fellow, as does the entire bible. Undoubtedly it is senseless to people such as yourself, but to those who use their God given senses, it is that which makes sense of this life on earth. Sweet dreams buddy.

 

[S-word]

Actually, a day is normally defined as the time for one rotation of the planet: think of it as the time from when the Sun is highest in the sky (or at its highest point below the horizon, if you're north of the Arctic Circle in the middle of winter... which is a specific point in time even if you're not in a position to see it from where you're standing) until the next time this happens. This length of time is the same everywhere on Earth. It is different on other planets, but this is because the rotational speeds of the planets are all different.

However, to get back to the topic of the OP, it's not about interpretation of scripture or anything like that. It's about scientific methods for determining the age of the Earth. Some people claim that the age of the Earth is much, much less than scientific dating techniques tell us it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're telling us that your interpretation of whatever scriptures you believe in allows for them to be reconciled with an old Earth. Is that right?

If that's the case, then are we safe in concluding that you don't have an issue with any of the dating techniques given in the OP, or those talked about later on in the thread?

I mean, it seems like your post was a drawn-out way of saying that you're okay with the notion of a 4.56 billion-year-old Earth... well, once that's established, why you're okay with it and how you work it into your own theology is secondary to the conversation here. Just so we're clear: you don't have any problem with any of the dating methods mentioned here that you'd like to discuss, correct?

The fact that this universal body which is the seventh in the evolving generations from the first universe in which no physical planetary bodies were formed, but only the first generational stars, is somewhere around 4.56 billion years old, is more than OK with me. In fact I am not so naive as to believe that all that exists today, had evolved in one generation of the universe.

I hold to the same veiw that was held by Origen who belived in a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.


But it was necessary to point out that many periods of time can be classified as a day. As in the Day of the Lord, which is the Sabbath, the day when the Lord will sit in judgment and rule for the seventh period of one thousand years from the day in which Adam ate of the forbidden tree and died in that day at the age of 930.


From the Book of Jubilees 4: 30; "And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day ye eat thereof ye shall die.' For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it."


The OP is in relation to the age of the earth and all the varying ways of determining it's age, and I believe that the correct interpretation of scripture shows not only that there is a vast time period between the Big Bang from which this current universal body arose and the day when it will roll up and burn, to fall as massive columns of fire into the Great abyss where all that will then exist, will be condensed back into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, or Cosmic egg as some like to call it, from which the next generation of the universe will be born.

 

[darkendless]

If it were an insult, it could be considered as no more that reciprocating kiddo, just reciprocating, but it was not meant as an insult, I just wanted you to rest easy and not lose any sleep, just because your error was pointed out.

Genesis does make sense young fellow, as does the entire bible. Undoubtedly it is senseless to people such as yourself, but to those who use their God given senses, it is that which makes sense of this life on earth. Sweet dreams buddy.

It makes sense, but only if you want it to. I understood it just fine, but underlying messages are very open to interpretation.

When it comes to arguing reality vs. biblical interpretations there is no wrong. Just other views.

If you would like to have a serious discussion and we'll talk some science and cold hard facts let me know. I'd like to debate the age of the earth without getting caught up with interpretive stuff.

 

[S-word]

It makes sense, but only if you want it to. I understood it just fine, but underlying messages are very open to interpretation.

When it comes to arguing reality vs. biblical interpretations there is no wrong. Just other views.

If you would like to have a serious discussion and we'll talk some science and cold hard facts let me know. I'd like to debate the age of the earth without getting caught up with interpretive stuff.

I totally agree, but I believe that only one of the myriad of contradicting veiws of religion and science, as to the age of the earth can be corret, and lead to the inheritance that is promised by the author of the Bible who I believe, used the scribes that were under his controll to record his words. By all means, you stick with your veiw, and ignore anything that I have to say. Goodbye my friend.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Because of the accuracy of microwaves the age of the earth can be determined.
There is nothing in Genesis that states how long each creative day was, or even if each of the creative days were of the same length. All of the creative days are summed up at Genesis 2:4 as a 'day'. So 'day' in Scripture is not always a literal 24-hour day.
Genesis 1:5 even refers to 'daylight hours' as a day and daylight also varies in length.

 

[gnostic]

Because of the accuracy of microwaves the age of the earth can be determined.
There is nothing in Genesis that states how long each creative day was, or even if each of the creative days were of the same length. All of the creative days are summed up at Genesis 2:4 as a 'day'. So 'day' in Scripture is not always a literal 24-hour day.

Again, "evening" and "morning" is enough to indicate a measure of a day. It is mention on all 6 occasions at the end of each creative day, Genesis 1.

And why would even mention "light" being "day" and "darkness" as "night", if day is not a day?

Not to mention this day-night, morning-evening without the sun for the 1st 3 days.

And Genesis 1:5 make no mention of this daylight "hours", which you speak of, so how would you know that the day varies?

 

[S-word]

Again, "evening" and "morning" is enough to indicate a measure of a day. It is mention on all 6 occasions at the end of each creative day, Genesis 1.

And why would even mention "light" being "day" and "darkness" as "night", if day is not a day?

Not to mention this day-night, morning-evening without the sun for the 1st 3 days.

And Genesis 1:5 make no mention of this daylight "hours", which you speak of, so how would you know that the day varies?

In the first generation of the universe there were no Galaxies, solar systems of planets, but only light. Light that exploded out of the seemingly eternal darkness that preceeded that first period of light, or the first creative day. The Massive first generation stars, in which were being created the basic elements from which the cloud of elements(Waters) of the second day would be divided in the creation of dry land or rather solar systems of Planets, as the elements that were divided from the Nebula cloud, condensed to become our solar system, of which the last body that the condensing cloud became, was our sun.

When the first generational stars had all imploded in upon themselves, surrendering to the massive gravitational forces, it was then that the second period of darkness which preceeded the second creative day, descended on the face of the bottomless pit.

How many first generation stars were born and died in that first day, determines the length of the first creative day. I believe that each of those Black Holes, into which those massive first generation stars collapsed after expelling a percentage of their Mass, are the great Gatherers out there in the boundless cosmos, to which the many galactic clusters which were created from the massive Nebular that was the residue of the death of those first generation stars, are being gathered. And I beleive that it was the fourth dimensional being who Is the "Son of Man, who evolves from the body of mankindin our future, who descends through time to be the observer who said, "Let there be Light."

 

[tumbleweed41]

In the first generation of the universe there were no Galaxies, solar systems of planets, but only light. Light that exploded out of the seemingly eternal darkness that preceeded that first period of light, or the first creative day. The Massive first generation stars, in which were being created the basic elements from which the cloud of elements(Waters) of the second day would be divided in the creation of dry land or rather solar systems of Planets, as the elements that were divided from the Nebula cloud, condensed to become our solar system, of which the last body that the condensing cloud became, was our sun.

When the first generational stars had all imploded in upon themselves, surrendering to the massive gravitational forces, it was then that the second period of darkness which preceeded the second creative day, descended on the face of the bottomless pit.

How many first generation stars were born and died in that first day, determines the length of the first creative day. I believe that each of those Black Holes, into which those massive first generation stars collapsed after expelling a percentage of their Mass, are the great Gatherers out there in the boundless cosmos, to which the many galactic clusters which were created from the massive Nebular that was the residue of the death of those first generation stars, are being gathered. And I beleive that it was the fourth dimensional being who Is the "Son of Man, who evolves from the body of mankindin our future, who descends through time to be the observer who said, "Let there be Light."

Other than attempting to mold semi-science to fit into Genesis,
Do you have any scientific evidence for the above statements?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Other than attempting to mold semi-science to fit into Genesis,
Do you have any scientific evidence for the above statements?

Do you mean other than what can reasonably be extracted by rightly dividing the word of the Most High Wizard? Cause, if you're going to limit this conversation, I don't think that's fair.

 

[S-word]

Other than attempting to mold semi-science to fit into Genesis,
Do you have any scientific evidence for the above statements?

Yes, for evidence that some of our top astronomers propose that the first radiation emitted after the Big Bang was generated as the cores of the first generation stars collapsed into black holes and spewed out jets of charged particles that produced the detected radio emissions’ that they had been studying; Just Google up “First Generation Stars,” it’s as easy as that old matey, be careful though not to trip over any straw men, they seem to be everywhere.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes, for evidence that some of our top astronomers propose that the first radiation emitted after the Big Bang was generated as the cores of the first generation stars collapsed into black holes and spewed out jets of charged particles that produced the detected radio emissions’ that they had been studying; Just Google up “First Generation Stars,” it’s as easy as that old matey, be careful though not to trip over any straw men, they seem to be everywhere.

Actually, CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) is the result of the massive cooling of the universe and the resulting end of hydrogen plasma and the beginning of the formation of atoms. This was all well before the formation of the first generation stars.
First generation stars were formed of the only two elements in abundant existence at that time, hydrogen and helium. The "ash" that resulted from the burning of these elements resulted in the carbon and oxygen. When these massive "first" stars ran out of abundant fuel they exploded, spewing these new elements across the universe. These stars burned short and hot, only a few million years, and although it has been theorized that some may have formed black holes, computer models predict that these early black holes would have "starved to death" due to lack of surrounding material. Other theories speculate that these early black holes may be the gravitational "core" of galaxies, although this theory is still working through some statistical traps.
NASA is hoping to get a clearer view of these first generation stars once the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]James Webb Space Telescope[/FONT] is completed and placed in orbit.

As to your original statement, your mixing of astrophysics with theology is an oil and water mix that is rife with apologetics.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... your mixing of astrophysics with theology is an oil and water mix that is rife with apologetics.

Hey - it's his specialty.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And Genesis 1:5 make no mention of this daylight "hours", which you speak of, so how would you know that the day varies?

If all of the 1st seven days are of the same length, then how long is the seventh day?______________

Gen 1:5 says God called the light day, and the darkness night.
If the light was not daylight hours or daylight minutes, then what was it?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In the first generation of the universe there were no Galaxies, solar systems of planets, but only light.

According to Isaiah 40:26 God supplied the needed dynamic energy by the greatness of his might being strong in power to start material creation which would then include light coming from his energy.
God sent forth that spirit of his to create- Psalm 104:30; Jeremiah 10:12;32:17.

 

[S-word]

According to Isaiah 40:26 God supplied the needed dynamic energy by the greatness of his might being strong in power to start material creation which would then include light coming from his energy.
God sent forth that spirit of his to create- Psalm 104:30; Jeremiah 10:12;32:17.

Yea! righto.

 

[S-word]

Actually, CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) is the result of the massive cooling of the universe and the resulting end of hydrogen plasma and the beginning of the formation of atoms. This was all well before the formation of the first generation stars.
First generation stars were formed of the only two elements in abundant existence at that time, hydrogen and helium. The "ash" that resulted from the burning of these elements resulted in the carbon and oxygen. When these massive "first" stars ran out of abundant fuel they exploded, spewing these new elements across the universe. These stars burned short and hot, only a few million years, and although it has been theorized that some may have formed black holes, computer models predict that these early black holes would have "starved to death" due to lack of surrounding material. Other theories speculate that these early black holes may be the gravitational "core" of galaxies, although this theory is still working through some statistical traps.
NASA is hoping to get a clearer view of these first generation stars once the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]James Webb Space Telescope[/FONT] is completed and placed in orbit.

As to your original statement, your mixing of astrophysics with theology is an oil and water mix that is rife with apologetics.

There was masses of material around in that period when those short lived first generation stars were being born and dying over a vast period of time, which vast period of time is recorded in scripture as the first day in which there was only Light. In the survival of the fittest, with the greater black holes devouring lesser black holes, there evolved the super duper Black holes to which the galactic clusters are being gathered.

It is now believed that every Galaxy has at its centre a black hole around which those galaxies revolve. Do you realise just how many lesser galaxies, have been devoured by our ever growing Milky Way Galaxy? Do you realise just how many lesser black holes revolve around the super black hole at our centre.

The greater and lesser Magellanic clouds that are revolving around our Milky Way galaxy, are two minor galaxies with lesser black holes at their centre and will one day merge with us to become one with our greater galactic body.