How Old is the Earth ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
This seems fundamental to many creationist's objections to the
theory of evolution, but there doesn't appear to be a single
thread devoted to the question at the moment.

​

Creationists argue that the Earth is only about 6000 years old.
The original basis for this appears to be tracing back
genealogies from Jesus of Nazereth back to Adam. Some
other evidences have been put forward, none of which stand too
much investigation (in my opinion ... and said in the hope of
sparking some 'Well what about this then').

​

Evolutionists site many evidences, from many different fields
which suggest a much older earth (4.5 billion years or there
abouts).

​

Perhaps, as it is fundamental to the debate it should be addressed
specifically.

---

Well,lets consider the diverging points of view here...one one side,you have creationist establishing the age of the earth at 6152 years old based entirely on the reading of a book writen God know when and God know by whom(the creationists themselves dont even know who the autor(s) is),that may very well be just a collection of recycled mythologies from earlier times,stating that from jesus,who lived about 2000 years ago(some people often forget that there is a 5-10% tolerence to our calendar...meaning that today we might be in the year somewhere between 1802 and 2202),they could go back 4150 years counting the genealogy of men who supposadly lived to by 900+ year all the way to Adam,the alledged human on earth after the 6 day creation thereof. And on the other extreme,you have people who studied the question for years,decades and even centuries(not the same guys,since we dont live 900 like the patriarch of christianity alledgedly did),and in many fields of study,have converged toward the ball park conclusion(aside from math,nothing is ever 100% precise in science) that our world is ABOUT 4 billion years old. Based on these facts,who would you say sounds like the more plausible alternative?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Well,lets consider the diverging points of view here...one one side,you have creationist establishing the age of the earth at 6152 years old based entirely on the reading of a book writen God know when and God know by whom(the creationists themselves dont even know who the autor(s) is)"
--Who said it was 6152 years old?

​

LUD:some creationist do give this precise date...others are content to say 6000-ish

​

"that may very well be just a collection of recycled mythologies from earlier times,stating that from jesus,who lived about 2000 years ago"
--Just remember ludvanB, this argument is not at all valid untill you can figure some support.

​

LUD:It is valid. Its not iron clad but it is valid. I've given you the explanation in another thread.

​

"(some people often forget that there is a 5-10% tolerence to our calendar...meaning that today we might be in the year somewhere between 1802 and 2202)"
--Cool, but where did you get the 5-10% tolerance assertion, never heard of it?

​

LUD:talk to some historians....very few people outside historian circle are aware that our caledar is an aproximation....once you get more than 500 years into the past,they cant say for sure if its another 1500 to the birth of christ...so they give a tolerence that varies from 5 to 10%,depending on who you talk to but they are quite correct to do this...there is very little writen record that is consistant with one another when you get that far back. And as i told you,serious historians and anthropologists say they can usually spot a fraud when it tries to be unrealisticaly precise.

​

"they could go back 4150 years counting the genealogy of men who supposadly lived to by 900+ year all the way to Adam,the alledged human on earth after the 6 day creation thereof. And on the other extreme,you have people who studied the question for years,decades and even centuries(not the same guys,since we dont live 900 like the patriarch of christianity alledgedly did),and in many fields of study,have converged toward the ball park conclusion(aside from math,nothing is ever 100% precise in science) that our world is ABOUT 4 billion years old. Based on these facts,who would you say sounds like the more plausible alternative?"
--I don't at all argue, and I should hope no other creatinist does unless they have a very, and I mean very good reason for it, that the earth is young by geneological records. Also what are these facts that say that the world is in the billions of years (4.5 at estimate), that the young earth cannot deal with.

​

LUD:several carbon dating methods on moon rocks i believe have give this number...personally,i wouldn't think they give it absolute trust but they do uniformely(geologist) believe that based on the evidence at hand,they earth is WAY older than allowed by the Bible.

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:
"You still really haven’t explained why this would be deceiving on Gods part. God created the heavens and the earth not only for His glory but also for a home for man."

​

LUD:Excuse me but HUH??!!. Why would God need to glorify himself exactly? In who's eyes? Are there some other gods that the christian God is trying to impress with his creation feats? Why is it that christians always portray God as this ego centric,vain and shallow jerk who does everything he does to "look good". And why would anyone in their right mind believe that such a vain and self centered God would create an entire universe just for mankind?

​

"If God chose to create a mature earth to sustain life for man why is this deceiving?"

​

LUD:why would man's survival be dependent on how old or young the universe looks?

​

"If he decided to create the universe as expanding or non-expanding that is His choosing and for reasons we may not understand."

​

LUD:following this..."reasoning" (being awfully generous here BTW),then one might say "Well,since God created cancer,there must be a good reason why,so we should stop trying to fight this plague and simply let it devour anyone who suffers from it,since this must be God's will"...dont you think?

​

"Perhaps an expanding universe is necessary is sustain our solar systems etc."

​

LUD:Why would it be?

​

"There is also scripture to suggest that when man fell (sin) all of creation was also directly affected.Maybe the universe was created as non-expanding (perfect perpetual energy?) then when sin entered the world the universe immediately began to expand and lose energy."

​

LUD:You mean to tell me that the entire universe was thrown into chaos because of the actions of 2 people on a small planet spinning in it? Well golly gosh,forget God...i'll worship Adam and Eve from now on,the only people beside God who can affect the whole universe(sarcasm)

​

"Could this of been the point of where the universe is now governed by mathematics and physics rather than God himself. I don’t know these to be facts but are interesting theories at least to me."

​

LUD:I think you're being awfully generous with yourself calling those thoughts "theories"...seems more like impulses from an overactive imagination to me...

​

Rom 8:19-21
19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
20
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

​

LUD:Same with whoever wrote this. I find absolutely impossible to abandon all common sense to the point of believing that a being capable of creating an entire universe all by itself would make it so fragile as to be threatened with collapse as a result of acts so insignificant as the eating of a fruit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:
Again the Bible states that after man fell (sinned against God)God did curse the earth and that man will now eventually die and return to the dust from which he came. There is also Biblical evidence stating that all of creation was then spun into eventual decay. If we take this to be true then it also is suggesting that the earth and man were originally created not to die and not to decay. This then would suggest that the physical laws that govern them were also changed.

​

LUD:Unfortunatly,i see no evidence whatsoever on this world that should lead me to believe that any of this is true. The evidence we have simply shows that death and decay have always been part of the world. Everything that is alive has to die at some point...nothing that cant die can be considered alive. But as my estimes collegue mark told you,the US constitution entitles you to abandon all logic and believe in whatever fairie tale helps you sleep better at night...I would ask you however to refrain from clogging this SCIENTIFIC discussion with mythological nonsense.

​

Now if God didnt exist and there was nothing greater than ourselves this would be absurd and sound like foolishness even to me. But since I have chosen to believe in a miraculous God with infinite wisdom and power who has created everything I know these other beliefs are not a stretch. If you will give me the benefit of the doubt and understand this you can at least understand my views on these issues. I certainly understand your views because they are coming from someone that doesnt believe in God and I would agree with all of your conclusions if I also didnt believe in God. I choose to have faith in God but it is also not a blind faith.

​

LUD:then i'm sorry that i must destroy your delusions on evolutionists but many of us,myself included DO believe in God. But we see God as someone who works through the laws IT possibly established when the universe was first formed...slow processes. I dont see God working through miracles...whats the point of setting up laws of physics for the universe if you wont abide by them. Some of us may choose to believe that God violates It's own laws whenever its conveniant be IT God and It can do Anything it wants but thats just projecting our own lack of wisdom onto God. I believe that God fully realizes the inherant dangers of subjecting a natural universe to unnatural occurences(i.e. miracles). I believe that God has all the patience required to softly guide creation through the billions of years it took to reach the point where we are today and i dont see this as any reduction of God's awsome might.

​

I feel that there is plenty of proof in science to support my faith and I have yet to find any proof that does not support it. Again I think this is understandable since I have placed my faith in a supernatural being capable of things we as man can never explain.

​

LUD:Here's another exemple of nonsense...there is nothing in science that reasonable people can use to substanciate their faiths in the supernatural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:
I still dont understand how one can look at complex and structured organisms and infer that natural processes caused their origin. Give me one proven and known example of anything where structured complexity has not been designed. Not one of you can explain how DNA came into existence. Just because its origin cannot be known doesnt give natural processes a foundation for relevance. It is these natural processes that cause me to wonder at its origin. DNA, blood clotting and bacterial flagellum are all examples of complexity, order and structure that perform with purpose and precision. It is this purpose and precision that cry out "design". Nothing can explain how these came into existence. Just because natural processes can be seen within molecular phenomenon gives you no right to jump to it being the reason it exists in the first place.

​

---

And i still cant understand how people in this day and age can still believe that some invisible creator made the entire universe in 6 24 h period some 6000 years ago when there isen't even the slightest begining of a shred of proof to back this up.