Age of the Earth.

[DarkSun]

Radiometric dating....lets see. How many different methods are there?
C-14, Uranium-lead, Samarium-neodymium, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium,
Uranium-thorium, Fission track, Chlorine-36, Optically stimulated luminescence, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon , rhenium-osmium , uranium-lead-helium , uranium-uranium....


Now, each of these methods confirms the other. Then Varves also confirm the dating methods. Geological columns, ice core sampling, sedimentation, glaciation, erosion, geophysics, plate tectonics, cosmology, and astrophysics. All confirm each other as they all point to the same approximate age.

Now what could be the reason for doubting methods that cross confirm each other?

"what the conditions were like at time zero, there was no contamination, and a constant decay rate"

These are weak arguments at best. You see. That is why cross confirmation is so important. Yes, these things are "assumed", but then they are crossed checked with other known dating methods. And the results confirm the "assumptions".
This is how science works.
Falsifiability. Using multiple tests and observations to either verify or disprove the hypothesis.
Unless Young Earthers can present dating that not only confirms their 6,000-10,000 yr old date, but can also be replicated by any geophysicist, then they are just .....spitting in the wind.

I don't understand how a YEC could accept a God who put all of this evidence in place for an old Earth, when really it's much younger.

They could say it's a test of faith. :S

But that would imply some sort of pransker God, wouldn't it?

If any of us ever get to the gates of Heaven, I bet you anything that God's not going to burst through laughing His head off, saying:

"lol i trickd u bahahahaha! i put that fossil evidence there and changed the scientific results and you fell for it lolololz!"

 

[gnostic]

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?

A day is a day. Most of the world experience day and night in the usual hours. Only the arctic regions experience months of daylight or darkness.

Now unless you think Eden existed in the Arctic region, which is not, unless you're a complete moron, then the location of Eden is in the Middle East, given that the facts we know the locations of 2 of the rivers.

Each successive day, in a 6-day period, would only amount 10 minutes at the most, or minimum of 6 minutes, in most part of the world, particularly in the Middle East. That means a minute and some seconds a day. Just grab a newspaper, check when the sun rise or sun set, and compare how many minute to yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that. And then do the maths on how many minutes it varied on 6 successive days. Are you getting the picture? You can do it yourself.

One day don't vary much. Six days don't vary that much too.

If you think the Eden and the entire bible stories are set in the North Pole or within or near the Arctic Circle, then you're a moron.

And that you and s-word would argue about day or night can be longer than months, isn't thinking with there head or taking into consideration where and when the Genesis was written, nor the context.

You have to consider the geographical factors. Trees and other plants don't grow on cold solid ground. And God said he created plants and trees in the 3rd day. Do you think the arctic region to place these vegetation? God also said created all sort of wild animals on 5th and 6th day, but there are not as many different creature in the arctic regions than the warmer climates. Why? Because, closer you are to the arctic circle the more barren the land is, so there are lesser wild life.

And there's Eden, a Paradise. Do you seriously think God planted Eden in the North Pole?

Simply MORONIC.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In the apostles Paul's day he wrote at Hebrews chapter four that people could be part of of God's rest day or the seventh day? Is the 7th day a 24-hour day?_______

The fact that the 7th day was still on going in Paul's day indicates that this rest day or time period is thousand's of years in length.
Doesn't 2nd Peter 3:8 says a thousand years in God's eyes are as one day? __________ Doesn't a thousand years tie in with the good things to come during Jesus 1000-year day of ruling over the earth?_________
Rev 20:6 b.

Doesn't Genesis 2:4 say the generations (plural) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created 'in the day' that God made the earth and heavens?
Literally wouldn't that mean God made the heavens and earth in one 24-hour day?______

 

[DarkSun]

In the apostles Paul's day he wrote at Hebrews chapter four that people could be part of of God's rest day or the seventh day? Is the 7th day a 24-hour day?_______

The fact that the 7th day was still on going in Paul's day indicates that this rest day or time period is thousand's of years in length.
Doesn't 2nd Peter 3:8 says a thousand years in God's eyes are as one day? __________ Doesn't a thousand years tie in with the good things to come during Jesus 1000-year day of ruling over the earth?_________
Rev 20:6 b.

Doesn't Genesis 2:4 say the generations (plural) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created 'in the day' that God made the earth and heavens?
Literally wouldn't that mean God made the heavens and earth in one 24-hour day?______

1000 years =/= 4.5 billion years.

1000 years + 13,000 years =/= 4.5 billion years.

 

[gnostic]

In the apostles Paul's day he wrote at Hebrews chapter four that people could be part of of God's rest day or the seventh day? Is the 7th day a 24-hour day?_______

The fact that the 7th day was still on going in Paul's day indicates that this rest day or time period is thousand's of years in length.

Who know what bl#@dy Paul think? I don't really care.

Was 7th day a rest day? Or 24 hours?

Most likely, but it would seem that you are reading more into it, then Paul's exposition on the Sabbath day. And just about the Sabbath day; the seventh day. He wasn't speaking of years, or thousands of years or million of years.

Where is this period of thousand years that you speak of? Where is this 1000 years?

You're once again, speaking rubbish, taking what Paul written out of context.

The fact that the 7th day was still on going in Paul's day indicates that this rest day or time period is thousand's of years in length.
Doesn't 2nd Peter 3:8 says a thousand years in God's eyes are as one day? __________

More rubbish.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Simile is being used in this verse.

You do know what a simile, don't you?

Here is an example:

The Olympian sprinter ran like the wind.
​

This mean that the sprinter was a very quick runner. It doesn't mean he match the speed of the wind. Nor is he the "wind".

Another example:

David is a fearless as a lion.
​

This mean that David have courage. It doesn't mean that he is literally or physically a "lion".

The problem here is that you reading literally what shouldn't be taken literally. This is one of the reasons why I could never take the New Testament writings or any Christian (who interpret the writing) seriously. Interpretations varied, and some, like you like to take what is written and twisted into something else to suit your agenda.

 

[darkendless]

Why is scripture being posted in this thread? I would assume that there would be a factual discussion concerning the age of the earth and not pure, undisguised speculation?

 

[S-word]

And just about the Sabbath day; the seventh day. He wasn't speaking of years, or thousands of years or million of years.

Where is this period of thousand years that you speak of? Where is this 1000 years?

You're once again, speaking rubbish, taking what Paul written out of context.


More rubbish.

/quote]

The Book of Jubilees 4: 30; "And he (Adam) 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."

Adam died on the first day at the age of 930, we are now at the close of the sixth day from that first day and will soon enter into the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, the Lords Day, when he, with his elect and chosen, will rule the world with justice, for a thousand years, after which fire will descend from heaven and destroy all that is left on this earth. See Revelation 20: 7-10.

Satan and his new earthly body that he will gather to himself, will surround the city of God's people who will have lived in peace, evolving their technology to ever greater heights, for one thousand years, knowing and believing the word of God that everything on the surface of this earth is going to be destroyed by a cataclysmic fire ball, and will not be able to sustain physical life forms for many, many years after the disaster, but will Satan and his faithful followers find anyone there in the city of Gods chosen and elect?

Zephaniah 1: 2: The Lord said,"I am going to destroy everything on earth, all human beings, animals, birds and fish. I will bring about the downfall of the wicked. I will destroy all mankind, and no survivor will be left. I, the Lord have spoken. 18: On the day when the Lord shows his fury, not even all their silver and gold will save them. The whole earth will be destroyed by the fire of his anger. He will put an end---a sudden end---to everyone who lives on earth.

The world being melted and re-entered into the bosom of Jupiter, this god continues for sometime totally concentered in himself;... afterwards we see a new world spring from him, perfect in all its parts; animals are produced anew; and an innoceent race of men is formed under more favourable auspices, in order to people this earth," Seneca, Epist. 9, and quest. Nat. L. 3, c, ult.

 

[S-word]

day is a day. Most of the world experience day and night in the usual hours. Only the arctic regions experience months of daylight or darkness.

It all depends on how the term “DAY” is used. When I say, “In the day of the dinosaurs,” surely you don’t believe that I am speaking of a twenty four hour day?

Now unless you think Eden existed in the Arctic region, which is not, unless you're a complete moron, then the location of Eden is in the Middle East, given that the facts we know the locations of 2 of the rivers.

No! The Garden of Eden which was in paradise from which Adam and Eve were cast out and returned to the earth from which the animal spirits of which spiritual enclosures they were the compilations, had been gathered. And they who were once clothed in spiritual bodies, where then clothed with animal skin, hair, nerves, muscles etc.

If we are true to who we are, we become one with our ancestral spirit who is the compilation of all our human parents, but Adam the first human who evolved from the animal world was the heavenly being that was formed in paradise (Which is the invisible dimension that co-exists in this physical world, for the kingdom of God is within you) by the chosen earthly animal spirits of which he was their spiritual compilation, before he was cast out of paradise and returned to the earth from which he had been formed by those animal spirits.

Each successive day, in a 6-day period, would only amount 10 minutes at the most, or minimum of 6 minutes, in most part of the world, particularly in the Middle East. That means a minute and some seconds a day. Just grab a newspaper, check when the sun rise or sun set, and compare how many minute to yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that. And then do the maths on how many minutes it varied on 6 successive days. Are you getting the picture? You can do it yourself.

Surly you understand that a creative day is a period of universal activity, from when the invisible singularity of origin is spatially separated to begin its evolution that culminates in a living universal body in which a Supreme personality of godhead to that universal body, has evolved as the Most High intellect, which is the compilation of all the earthy intellects which, dwell within his living body, which living universal body, will one day descend into the great abyss, from which it will later be resurrected with the next Big Bang.

One day don't vary much. Six days don't vary that much too.

If you think the Eden and the entire bible stories are set in the North Pole or within or near the Arctic Circle, then you're a moron.

And that you and s-word would argue about day or night can be longer than months, isn't thinking with there head or taking into consideration where and when the Genesis was written, nor the context.

Ohh rubbish matey, wake up to yourself.

You have to consider the geographical factors. Trees and other plants don't grow on cold solid ground. And God said he created plants and trees in the 3rd day. Do you think the arctic region to place these vegetation?


The first generation, of the universe that we know today, or the first cycle of universal activity, which in Genesis is called “Day,” was a period in which only first generation stars were being formed and dying. When all the quantum of electromagnetic energy that had been spewed out of the Great Abyss with the Big bang had been used in the formation of all those first generation stars, there was a period of Darkness in which all the black holes that were formed by the death of all those first generations that had been forming and imploding over a vast period of time, devoured each other, leaving many massive Black hole, from which the galaxies of the second generation of the universe were formed.

By a division of the water/elements of one cloud /Nebula, that division of elements began to condense in the creation of our solar system with the dry land/ planets being formed, before the last of the condensing cloud formed into our sun on the fourth day or fourth generation of the universe.

In the third generation, when the planets were being formed, the earth was a bubbling hot planet spewing out an atmosphere of sulphur and other noxious gases in which no oxygen breathing animal could ever survive. In the hot pools of liquid inorganic material, organic molecules began to evolve, and over millions of years and interaction with each other, innumerable different combinations of organic molecules were formed, which were the basic building blocks of all the 10 to 100 million species of life which are thought to exist on earth today, had evolved.

The organic structures of the third creative day, cannot be classified as animal, but there were Lichen, which are any of numerous plants that had no need of sunlight for their growth kick, then in the fourth period of universal activity, which was the fourth generation of the universe in which all that had occurred in the previous three generations had been repeated, within the glowing condensing cloud from which all the planets of our solar system had been formed, nuclear fission began and our sun burst into life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is scripture being posted in this thread? I would assume that there would be a factual discussion concerning the age of the earth and not pure, undisguised speculation?

I don't know, and it was something I was wondering about myself. This is a thread about calculating the age of the Earth, and we've got a bunch of people posting stuff that basically amounts to saying "my religion is compatible with an old Earth"... well, good for them, but it's really irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... we've got a bunch of people posting stuff that basically amounts to saying "my religion is compatible with an old Earth"...

Not to brag, but my religion is compatible with an old earth as well.


That is, if I had a religion ...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not to brag, but my religion is compatible with an old earth as well.


That is, if I had a religion ...

In the same vein, my religion is compatible with accepting a gift of a bottle of Talisker from anyone who feels like giving me one.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

In the same vein, my religion is compatible with accepting a gift of a bottle of Talisker from anyone who feels like giving me one.

Yea, but can you quote me some scripture on that?

 

[JustWondering2]

Ok folks. All you out there who cling to the young Earth side of things and say that sciences use of radiometric dating and such are flawed.....etc, etc. Oh and to lesser extent those that deny glodal climate change (note I didn't say that dirty "warming" word). You need to check out some science that hopfully anyone with a high school education and a normal amount of gray matter between their ears and the ability to use said gray matter can understand. To understand what they say you don't need a degree in physics or an understanding of the atom. It's only takes plain common sense. It's a readable visual record (ice cores) from Antartica and other sites. The oldest of which is said to go back 800,000 years! Forget about what their data says about what the ice contains or a least take it with a grain of salt since some of the data is a bit subjective. They don't claim precision down to the a few years or even 10's of years. But clearly what they do show is a history of ice existing on Earth for several HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years! Not 6 or 8 or even 10 thousand. Oh and a side note the cores do not show ANY evidence of a WWF, period! Oh and note the altitude of the station where the cores were taken about 3000 meters above sea level. For those metric chalange folks, that's about 9,000 feet or about 1/3 of Mount Everest at 29,000.
This is a very interesting read for anyone who is interested in the history of the Earth. Oh sure I know what your saying "they could be off in their dating", but by a factor of 100,000? Come on, open your eyes and your mind to the facts.

I hope this makes more sense to you folks who cling to the YE thinking. To those who were taught as children to believe the Bible as 100% true (literally) and esspectially the fundamentalist Christian. I bet you thought (because of your parents) Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were real as well! All these were tools used to keep you in line and incourage you to mind your parents, just as the early church used OT stories (quilt) their partioners into keeping their pews full an the money and power coming in. As adults do you believe in Santa anymore? If you how these old myths to be true you might have seen the Flintsones as a documentary! Gee I thought it was true when I was a kid too, but I grew up and stopped believing in fairy tales and opened my mind to different points of view.
OK I'll step down off my soapbox now and give you the link. Sorry for the rant, but some things can be so obvious if you look at them with an open mind and with out prejudice!
Alan
OK looks like I need to post more because I'm not allowed to post links yet.
So go to Wikipedia and search for European Project for Ice Coring in Antartica

 

[RedOne77]

I hope this makes more sense to you folks who cling to the YE thinking. To those who were taught as children to believe the Bible as 100% true (literally) and esspectially the fundamentalist Christian. I bet you thought (because of your parents) Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were real as well! All these were tools used to keep you in line and incourage you to mind your parents, just as the early church used OT stories (quilt) their partioners into keeping their pews full an the money and power coming in. As adults do you believe in Santa anymore?

Even growing up in a Christian home/community I knew that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were not real when I was literally 4, I think I know the difference between real and imaginary.

Gee I thought it was true when I was a kid too, but I grew up and stopped believing in fairy tales and opened my mind to different points of view.

Maybe you still need to go back and review what is real and not, especially if you buy into the evolution fairytale.

 

[Autodidact]

Even growing up in a Christian home/community I knew that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus were not real when I was literally 4, I think I know the difference between real and imaginary.

If you believe that a virgin gave birth to a man/god who later rose from the dead, I would beg to differ.

Maybe you still need to go back and review what is real and not, especially if you buy into the evolution fairytale.

So basically, for you science is a fairy-tale?

 

[darkendless]

Maybe you still need to go back and review what is real and not, especially if you buy into the evolution fairytale.

a christian calling evolution a fairytale, oh dear what next.

 

[S-word]

I don't know, and it was something I was wondering about myself. This is a thread about calculating the age of the Earth, and we've got a bunch of people posting stuff that basically amounts to saying "my religion is compatible with an old Earth"... well, good for them, but it's really irrelevant to the discussion.

This is a thread in the Evolution V Creationism section, why would you wonder, why the creationist wouldn't have a right to their say also? If this was a thread about calculating the age of the Earth in the science section, I could understand you thinking that way. I believe that the creationists in this Evolution V Creationism thread, might think that your veiws are really irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe you still need to go back and review what is real and not, especially if you buy into the evolution fairytale.

Except we can see evolution take place right before our eyes. We can manipulate it and make it happen at our whim.

Why would you have us lie about things we know to be true?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a thread in the Evolution V Creationism section, why would you wonder, why the creationist wouldn't have a right to their say also?

Sure, they have a right to talk just like anyone else.

If this was a thread about calculating the age of the Earth in the science section, I could understand you thinking that way. I believe that the creationists in this Evolution V Creationism thread, might think that your veiws are really irrelevant to the discussion.

You do see my point, don't you? If the question is "how old is the Earth, and how do you know?", then it doesn't do anything to answer the question by pulling out Bible verses that can be interpreted for an old Earth or a young Earth.

I haven't seen anything in this thread yet where a creationist says anything like "I believe that the Earth is _____ years old because the Bible says ______." Instead, we've got a bunch of people agreeing with the scientific determination of the age of the Earth, and then pointing out that their scriptures allow for it. Not that these scriptures require it, just that they allow for it. Whoopty-doo. The proverbial price of tea in China allows for an old Earth as well, but nobody's bringing that up.

If you want to make a scriptural argument for the age of the Earth, go for it - I'd be interested to hear it. What I'm not really interested in are statements that basically amount to "I agree with what you guys say about the age of the Earth... and BTW: it doesn't make me feel conflicted about my religion!" Good for you, but like I said, the second part's not really relevant.

 

[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?

quote=9-10ths_Penguin; 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.

Then again I ask, why was it placed in the Evolution V creationism section and not put into the science section?

quote=9-10ths_Penguin; 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?

Correct, I am a creationist who believes that the world was created by the evolving intellect of the singularity of Origin, and that each creation reflects the heights to which the intellect had evolved at the time of each creation. Much the same as when Mankind, who is said to be created in the image and likeness of God, created the first wheel, he had no conception of the space shuttle which would evolve from the wheel, and the billions of creations over the tens of thousands of years that led to the creation of the Shuttle, were merely the heights to which the mind of mankind had evolved, with each of those independent creations, which were but an evolution of its predecessor.

Plus I believe that if mankind were to find himself in another world in which his space vehicle has been vaporised. The new ship that he will create will be created by design. You see, like the ancients, I believe in an eternal cyclic universe, in which the intellect that evolves in each physical universal body, continues to live on after the body in which it had developed, has descended into the seemingly bottomless pit, from which it will be resurrected.

I believe as do the Buddhists, that Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

I believe that the nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. ‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that precedes the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the generations of the universe.

I believe that the English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period of the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

I believe that Origen, was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD. Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to 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.