Christians: How could Earth only be 6000 years old?

[outhouse]

That exact fact has been cited multiple times in this thread alone. Settlements have been found dating back over 5000 years before Genesis.

we have found them going back 11,000 - 12,500 years ago in the levant when agriculture first appeared on the scene.

nomadic sites go back millions of years

 

[Looncall]

What lies?

Your remarks about dating techniques are untrue. You can very easily inform yourself about them.

How is it that creationists disregard the fact that scientists truly desire accurate results?

 

[Looncall]

I agree with your statement %100

There is still over %60 in the usa that follow the genesis creation myth and some that still fight to bring myths into the classroom again.

in my opinion, its not to be taken lightly less you want our children having their educations ruined

I very much agree with you. Creationism is rather like water leaking into a boat. You have to keep throwing it out to keep your society from sinking into an ocean of mindless ignorance.

 

[james2ko]

Are you saying that God can't see in the dark? I don't know why religious people think so, but they assume that God is THE light. And if he is the light, then he doesn't need the sun to see his reflection on the water, would he? I am just brainstorming here, so yes it is speculation.

What does God seeing in the dark have to do with the fact that the earth would be too cold to maintain liquid water without the sun??

It would seem that other source of light, other than the sun. But we know that the Earth is spinning in an (wobbly) axis, so we get our day and night because of our position on the earth surface. Don't understand why the Genesis can have day and night without the sun. But your own assumption is that the sun exist prior to day 4, but the sky is blanket with gases and smoke, which to me is a baseless assumption (because the Genesis mention no such thing, so I don't know where you getting this from).

Here are the definitions for the Hebrew word "owr" or "light": 1) light a) light of day b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) c) day-break, dawn, morning light d) daylight e) lightning f) light of lamp g) light of life h) light of prosperity i) light of instruction j) light of face (fig.) k) Jehovah as Israel's light

The definition used would obviously depend on the context. In our scenario, the same Hebrew term for "light", describing yours and waitasec's mysterious light source in verses 3-5, is used to describe the sunlight in verse 18. Either God created the sun twice or both verses refer to the same light source--the sun. Any logically thinking human being would choose the latter, wouldn't you?

Even if you assume that there are gaps of thousands or millions or billion of years instead of literal days (as given in Genesis), your ideas are flawed, because can plants or trees be grown (3rd day) with millions of years without direct sunlight (4th day)?

They only gap of time which exists is the one between verse 1 and 2. The rest of the account is made up of consecutive 24 hour periods.

The only answer to the Genesis 1 is that it is only an allegory or a myth. Trying to match religious concept with science is always bound to fail. And I am afraid you're failing badly.

Am I really Notice how the creation week followed the laws of science. At dawn the first day, light penetrated the dense clouds. As it grew warmer the clouds rose the second day and an expanse or heaven was formed, the one in which the birds fly. Thus the waters on the earth were separated from the water-laden clouds above. The ocean receded, dry land appeared and grass and herbs were planted the third day. A mist watered them and as the fourth day progressed the sun became visible through the thinning clouds. Toward the evening the moon and stars appeared. Birds and sea life were created the fifth day, the land animals with Adam and Eve the sixth, and a day of rest and worship for the man the seventh.

 

[james2ko]

but you didn't answer the question,

As soon as you answer mine. How is it scientifically possible for water--and not ice-- to exist on the earth in verse 2, 7-8 without the sun?

if the sun was there, why would god need to separate the water? there is no water in the sky, unless condensation occurs..chapter 2 mentions something very interesting 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground...here is a very clear indication of superstition...that god sends the rain

You are either ignoring the obvious or attempting to dodge the issue to prevent from eating crow. The fact there was even liquid water on the earth prior to the sun's creation, as you purport, is a scientific impossibility. This simple fact makes your sidetracking ploy about rain and condensation moot.

and you never got back to me about the "lesser light" dilemma. the moon is not a source of light...you know that, right

It would be to a bronze age author and observer.

and plant life was able to sustain with all this debris...for how long...?

Plant life was created in day 3. By this time, the atmosphere was translucent [cloudy]. On day 4 it was made transparent. Surely plant life can survive one day of cloudy weather..

and it's all about the observers point of view right... heard of tunnel vision? if god hadn't created the vaults how can you conjure up this notion lets read what happened on day 1 again shall we... 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. it was day 2 god made the vaults in order for the water to separate... day 3 plants and day 4 sun moon and stars... it doesn't make sense!!! it is so obvious...

As I mentioned several times, Most Hebrew scholars concur, the Genesis account was narrated from the perspective of the surface of the earth. As far as the issue of light. Here are the definitions for the Hebrew word "owr" or "light":

1) light a) light of day b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) c) day-break, dawn, morning light d) daylight e) lightning f) light of lamp g) light of life h) light of prosperity i) light of instruction j) light of face (fig.) k) Jehovah as Israel's light

The definition would obviously depend on the context. In our scenario, the same Hebrew term for "light", describing your mysterious light source in verses 3-5, is used to describe the sunlight in verse 18. Either God created the sun twice or both verses refer to the same light source--the sun. Any logically thinking human being would choose the latter.

are you serious?

Dead serious. If you need help finding your way, I'll be more than happy to assist.

moses thought it was possible...so i still do not understand why there was the cycle of day and night if the sun hadn't been made until day 4.... it's no problem for me, i presented the argument against this myth... extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to support it and thus far it's been very entertaining ...

What argument? That liquid water can magically exist on earth without the sun? When backed into a corner, you ditch the obvious scientific evidence which you staunchly preach and hypocritically try and hide behind the very God you denounce by implying He made a mysterious light source on day one, yet in the same breath dismiss the fact He created Adam 6,000 years ago? Now that, my friend, is entertaining!

As far as I'm concerned, and anyone else who is honest with themselves, you have been totally refuted. I see no need to continue since you are basically repeating bible verses and dancing around the irrefutable premise which is usually a sign of someone who has been backed into a corner....Until next time...

 

[waitasec]

It would be to a bronze age author and observer.

just as i suspected...

 

[rusra02]

Your remarks about dating techniques are untrue. You can very easily inform yourself about them.

How is it that creationists disregard the fact that scientists truly desire accurate results?

I do not disregard the fact that scientists are trying to be accurate in dating. I disagree that the dating techniques are accurate. RadioCarbon and other dating methods are based on assumptions that simply are not true. Just 2 of many examples of this follow, showing it is unwise to take as infallible the ages placed by scientists on artifacts, people, and places:
g90 2/22 p. 28 -Many laboratories that carry out radiocarbon dating of human artifacts are considerably less accurate than they claim to be, according to a study commissioned by Britain’s Science and Engineering Research Council. Samples of known age were sent to 38 labs around the world to be dated. Only seven of the labs produced results that were deemed “satisfactory.” Reports Britain’s magazine New Scientist: “The margin of error . . . may be two to three times as great as practitioners of the technique have claimed.” Such wide variance undercuts the dogmatic assertions often made about the age of ancient artifacts, especially when these contradict Bible chronology.
g91 9/22 p. 29-An artistic South African grandmother, Joan Ahrens, produced some fine paintings using rocks as her canvases, imitating traditional Bushman art. Later, one of her painted rocks was picked up in the veld near her former home in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Eventually it got into the hands of the curator of the city’s museum. Unaware of the origin of this rock art, the curator had it dated in England by the Oxford University radio carbon accelerator unit. Experts estimated that the painting was 1,200 years old! Why such an embarrassing error? “It has since been established,” according to a report in South Africa’s Sunday Times, “that the oil paint used by Mrs Ahrens contained natural oils which contained carbon—the only substance dated by Oxford.”

 

[AfterGlow]

I'm not arguing for a literal interpretation of Genesis, but... Light did exist before there were any stars. When matter first formed after the big bang it gave off photons, a hell of a lot of them, today we call it the universal microwave background radiation.

 

[PolyHedral]

That's only technically "light", though. At any time within the last 100 million years, it would be low-energy microwaves.

 

[Looncall]

I do not disregard the fact that scientists are trying to be accurate in dating. I disagree that the dating techniques are accurate. RadioCarbon and other dating methods are based on assumptions that simply are not true. Just 2 of many examples of this follow, showing it is unwise to take as infallible the ages placed by scientists on artifacts, people, and places:
g90 2/22 p. 28 -Many laboratories that carry out radiocarbon dating of human artifacts are considerably less accurate than they claim to be, according to a study commissioned by Britain’s Science and Engineering Research Council. Samples of known age were sent to 38 labs around the world to be dated. Only seven of the labs produced results that were deemed “satisfactory.” Reports Britain’s magazine New Scientist: “The margin of error . . . may be two to three times as great as practitioners of the technique have claimed.” Such wide variance undercuts the dogmatic assertions often made about the age of ancient artifacts, especially when these contradict Bible chronology.
g91 9/22 p. 29-An artistic South African grandmother, Joan Ahrens, produced some fine paintings using rocks as her canvases, imitating traditional Bushman art. Later, one of her painted rocks was picked up in the veld near her former home in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Eventually it got into the hands of the curator of the city’s museum. Unaware of the origin of this rock art, the curator had it dated in England by the Oxford University radio carbon accelerator unit. Experts estimated that the painting was 1,200 years old! Why such an embarrassing error? “It has since been established,” according to a report in South Africa’s Sunday Times, “that the oil paint used by Mrs Ahrens contained natural oils which contained carbon—the only substance dated by Oxford.”

Your point about assumptions is nonsense. By the way, I work as a professional radiochemist, so you cannot bamboozle me on this. Of course, one would have to be barking mad to take anything as infallible.

What are the numbers from your interlab comparison? Were the results off by many orders of magnitude, as creationist ideas would require?

I note that the problem with the paintings was sorted out by scientists, not creationists. It is well known that insufficiently characterised samples can lead to errors. That's what one would expect. The "reservoir effect" is very well known.

 

[outhouse]

Your point about assumptions is nonsense. By the way, I work as a professional radiochemist, so you cannot bamboozle me on this. Of course, one would have to be barking mad to take anything as infallible.

What are the numbers from your interlab comparison? Were the results off by many orders of magnitude, as creationist ideas would require?

I note that the problem with the paintings was sorted out by scientists, not creationists. It is well known that insufficiently characterised samples can lead to errors. That's what one would expect. The "reservoir effect" is very well known.

true, and if you stage for a false date you very well may get it. Initial recordings under suspect are often rechecked to gain accuracy exactly how loon pointed out.

todays dating methods are very accurate and with millions of fossils that are all coming in at a known date, it is easy to see if your accuracy is in a acceptable level.

what creationist fail to realize is that there is plenty of know material out there to check dates against


what it comes down to is that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that is a fact like gravity, you cannot use a religious book as a science text book ever

 

[rusra02]

Your point about assumptions is nonsense. By the way, I work as a professional radiochemist, so you cannot bamboozle me on this. Of course, one would have to be barking mad to take anything as infallible.

What are the numbers from your interlab comparison? Were the results off by many orders of magnitude, as creationist ideas would require?

I note that the problem with the paintings was sorted out by scientists, not creationists. It is well known that insufficiently characterised samples can lead to errors. That's what one would expect. The "reservoir effect" is very well known.

These quotes show that dates posited by scientists or anyone else should not be glibly swallowed as accurate. Since you are a radiochemist, you should certainly be aware of the limitations and assumptions made in using dating methods. And your blithe dismissal of the examples given does not change facts. So who is being honest here?

 

[outhouse]

These quotes show that dates posited by scientists or anyone else should not be glibly swallowed as accurate. Since you are a radiochemist, you should certainly be aware of the limitations and assumptions made in using dating methods. And your blithe dismissal of the examples given does not change facts. So who is being honest here?

doesnt change the fact the earth IS 4.6 billion years old

 

[Looncall]

These quotes show that dates posited by scientists or anyone else should not be glibly swallowed as accurate. Since you are a radiochemist, you should certainly be aware of the limitations and assumptions made in using dating methods. And your blithe dismissal of the examples given does not change facts. So who is being honest here?

Nothing should be glibly swallowed by anyone, ever.

I don't think dates are as uncertain as you think. Radioactivity is one of the best-understood phenomena around. The uncertainties are well understood.

You should be aware that creationists are fond of submitting samples to labs under false pretences so as to obtain erroneous results. That is not honest.

 

[james2ko]

just as i suspected...

After exposing your mystery light fallacy, one would have to question the credibility and sincerity of anything you suspect.

 

[waitasec]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

so you think it make sense, according to moses, the sun, the moon and stars were created the 1st day too?

It would be to a bronze age author and observer.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

so you think it makes sense, according to moses, water was separated by god deliberately in liquid form?

It would be to a bronze age author and observer.

so you think it makes sense, according to moses, before day 2, there was a sky?

It would be to a bronze age author and observer.

yes i would have to agree...according to a bronze age author, this all makes perfect sense...


:beach:

 

[james2ko]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

so you think it make sense, according to moses, the sun, the moon and stars were created the 1st day too?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

so you think it makes sense, according to moses, water was separated by god deliberately in liquid form?


so you think it makes sense, according to moses, before day 2, there was a sky?



yes i would have to agree...according to a bronze age author, this all makes perfect sense...


:beach:

Unfortunately, you are starting to sound like a broken 45 (remember those). Repeating an undeniably refuted premise and regurgitating bible passages, which were proven to be misinterpreted, actually sinks your forum reputation deeper in the hole. It might be wise to quit while you're behind.

 

[Where Is God]

Unfortunately, you are starting to sound like a broken 45 (remember those). Repeating an undeniably refuted premise and regurgitating bible passages, which were proven to be misinterpreted, actually sinks your forum reputation deeper in the hole. It might be wise to quit while you're behind.

Actually, I was pretty sure he just pwned you in the mouth, so you should be wish and quite while you're behind.

*Auto correct fails me.....*

 

[james2ko]

Actually, I was pretty sure he just pwned you in the mouth, so you should be wish and quite while you're behind.

Yeah, ok...lol

 

[rusra02]

doesnt change the fact the earth IS 4.6 billion years old

The Bible doesn't give the age for the earth. So that estimate or others based on scientific research may be correct. The Bible simply says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) No where does it say or imply the earth is only 6,000 years old.