S
SemperReformada
Guest
I’m not a creationist but it’s a fact that the RCC gives its faithful leeway to believe as they wish in regards to creationism.
Do Christians really believe the earth is really 6,000 yrs old?
- Status
M
mchale
Guest
For most of the Universe, the distances are estimates based on what are known as standard candles (i.e., if you have an object of known intrinsic brightness, you can estimate how distant it is based off of how bright it appears to you). However, for stars relatively close by (Say 1000 light years), their distance can be calculated by a geometric calculation. Essentially stars relatively close to us appear to move with respect to stars further away from us as the Earth orbits the Sun (The effect is very small and wasn’t successfully measured until the 19th century). This shift in apparent position is similar to what happens when you look at a relatively near object with one eye and then close that eye and use the other. Knowing that the orbit of the Earth is roughly 300 million kilometers in diameter, it is a relatively straight forward mathematical calculation to determine the actual distance to the star in question.
Now getting back to the standard candles I mentioned above. One type of these standard candles is a type of star called a Cephid variable. It is possible with these stars to know how intrinsically bright they are based on the period of their variability. There are enough of these Cephids close to Earth that we are able to calibrate this standard candle to a high degree of accuracy. Then by finding these stars in the nearer galaxies (say 10-40 million light years away) we can establish the distance to those galaxies and use those distances to establish the brightness of other standard candles.
Anyway, I hope that helps.
Bill
N
NDfan
Guest
Wrong wrong wrong. Obviously your original post comes from
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Almost word for word.
Do you believe that before the flood people lived literally say 500 years, 900 years etc. etc. We have no reason to believe that the time frame described for life spans of humans should be different than the description of the creation account. After the flood we see the life span of humans declining. Why? Because most experts that have done the research admit that the vapor canopy was part of the flood thus taking away protection from the suns cosmic rays. Which in turn affects the aging process. So prior to the flood we see people living 700 years 800 years etc. yet after the flood we suddenly see people living maybe 100 years max. If Moses wrote the book of genesis then why would he use a different measure of time for people before the flood vs. after?? The same can be said for the creation account. Moses writes that creation happened in 6 days.
Regarding your explanation of aging the earth you need more education on this as what you stated is questionable at best. The earth by all scientific measures lies directly at the center of the entire universe on a direct line in comparison with several stars measured at random distances as far out as science will allow. It’s been shown that the universe is moving in a circular motion with the earth at the very center of this movement. Objects at the greatest distance from the earth are obviously moving the fastest which would cause their age to be much greater than that of the earth. In many cases millions and millions of years, potentially billions. This is what causes scientists to mistakenly age the earth greater than what it really is. Point of fact the best scientists, Christian, non-Christian are now believing the earth is much younger than previously thought.
One place scientists use to age our existence is the geological shelf. This was used over and over again to age the dinosaurs and because of the depth of their fossils it was always believed it took millions of years for the layers of the geological shelf to develop. Scientific proof now shows that the geological shelf can no longer be as old as originally thought. Why?? Because it has been shown that a major catastrophe can quickly bury these fossils making it seem they have been around for oh say 10 millions years when in reality it may have been only a few thousand years. Now let’s see, what type of catastrophe can you think of that could have caused this to happen? Does the great flood ring a bell??
Other dating techniques like carbon dating once thought to be so accurate is now being shown to be very inconsistent. Unfortunately I don’t have enough space to give explanations but the point is your post holds no water. Science and Christianity go together but, nothing starts without GOD. GOD is the creator of everything. If HE decides to use evolution in some cases than so be it. Unfortunately evolution can never be used to describe the human race as the theory has gaping holes in it. Again not enough space.
N
NDfan
Guest
Again Manny you are so wrong. The meteorite itself may have been old but that does not mean the earth is. If the meteorite was far enough away from the earth then traveling in a circular motion would cause it to age much faster.
Point of fact the earth’s age cannot be determined by material solely from the earth. But you would know this already because your web site states that.
Now here is an interesting fact. Scientists cannot find a way to determine the exact age of the Earth. Why? Because plate tectonics has destroyed and recycled the oldest rocks Earth has. If any of the Earth’s first created rocks are in their original state, they haven’t been found. So scientists are left with using aging techniques that make the assumption the solar system was created all at the same time.
More and more evidence is surfacing to prove the occurrence of the great flood we read about in scripture. This monumental event would cause the sedimentary layers of the earth to be laid down all at one time and in a short period of time. This alone trumps the notion of evolution.
S
survive
Guest
I believe that the universe is simultaneously 6,000 years old and around a week old and around 13.7 billion years old, and the earth is a baby planet of a few billion years, or almost a week. Furthermore, the solar system revolves around the sun, and also around the earth, and also around Mars and the moons of Jupiter. The universe revolves around the earth, and Andromeda and everything else.
You see, everything is actually moving relative to everything else. Given enough time, everything revolves around everything else. Any place can be the center of the universe. It’s a matter of perspective. Seen from earth, the universe revolves around the earth, and that’s a valid viewpoint.
The universe is expanding at the speed of light. To an observer not joining this expansion, say, an observer who doesn’t change, such as God, the universe’s first 7 billion years would appear to pass in 24 earth hours; the next 3.5 billion, in another 24 hours, the next 1.7 billion, in another day and the next 850 million the next day. Another 425 million years are Day Five, and then 213 million years are Day Six. Day Seven is potentially another 106 million years, but instead, another observer stood to keep track of time: Man. Day Seven is one earth day. But if we had chosen to, we could have counted ourselves even now at breakfast time on Day Seven, the first Saturday.
You see, everything is actually moving relative to everything else. Given enough time, everything revolves around everything else. Any place can be the center of the universe. It’s a matter of perspective. Seen from earth, the universe revolves around the earth, and that’s a valid viewpoint.
The universe is expanding at the speed of light. To an observer not joining this expansion, say, an observer who doesn’t change, such as God, the universe’s first 7 billion years would appear to pass in 24 earth hours; the next 3.5 billion, in another 24 hours, the next 1.7 billion, in another day and the next 850 million the next day. Another 425 million years are Day Five, and then 213 million years are Day Six. Day Seven is potentially another 106 million years, but instead, another observer stood to keep track of time: Man. Day Seven is one earth day. But if we had chosen to, we could have counted ourselves even now at breakfast time on Day Seven, the first Saturday.
M
mchale
Guest
Ok, I am not going to get into an extended debate on this, I had enough of it in the Galileo was wrong thread. I am however going to post these first replies to clear out some perceptions about what the majority of scientists currently believe based off of their research.
I will point out that St. Augustine 1600 years ago argued that Catholics should not insist on an overly literal interpretation of the Bible (particularly Genesis) when evidence clearly contradicts the Bible (Not that the Bible is wrong, rather our interpretation is).
–
Bill
I will point out that St. Augustine 1600 years ago argued that Catholics should not insist on an overly literal interpretation of the Bible (particularly Genesis) when evidence clearly contradicts the Bible (Not that the Bible is wrong, rather our interpretation is).
The majority of research does not support the notion of a Global flood (this does not mean the story of Noah is false, but the notion that the flood was global is not supported by research). The “experts” you refer to do not admit anything about the “vapor canopy” but rather invented the notion of the “vapor canopy” to try to save a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis.
- You can treat the Earth as the center of the Universe and set up equations to explain all of the movements we see of the stars and the planets but you have to ignore gravity and relativity to do it. Your statement that objects moving fast would make their age greater than the Earth makes no sense; relativity suggests if anything they should age more slowly.
- Rocks on the Earth have been dated radiometrically to well over 3 billion years of age and rocks on the Moon have been dated to 4.5 billion yearfs.
There are two problems here.
- The fossils are dated from the level of sediment they are in, but the sediment is dated not by assumptions about how long it took to put down, but rather the rocks are dated radiometrically.
- Showing that a catastrophe could cause the sediment is not the same as demonstrating the catastrophe actually occurred.
Radiometric Dating has only been found inconsistent by those who are hoping to find it inconsistent. Evolution can be used to explain the physical development of man (The Church has said so), rather only that the human soul must be seen as a special creation.
–
Bill
M
michaelcollins
Guest
Thank you, I nad neither the time nor inclination do post what you did, a literal interpretation of the bible seems to make some people happy, so be it, but it drives a lot of intellectual people away from christianity if that is a requirement to believe. Thankfully the church does not present that as a teaching and allows for scientific thought.
N
NDfan
Guest
Bill as you say not to get into an extended debate but the rocks on this earth cannot be dated accurately by radiometric dating methods. It’s not inconsistent because folks want it to be. It’s been shown to be inconsistent because of the baseline assumptions that have to be made.
If we study other factors such as the measurements of helium in the atmosphere, or the receding moon it can be easily shown that the earth is no where near 4 billion years old. Then we could start talking about the aging of DNA and the discoveries of elements that are supposed to be millions of years old with DNA still intact. Given DNA does not stay intact much past say 10-12 thousand years something is very wrong with the dating game.
I’m not a proponent of the earth being exactly 6 thousand years old but I also don’t believe the earth is as old as some scientists believe. Evolution theorists need the earth to be that old so they can prove their theories. I’m a firm believer that everything starts with a creator that can only be 1 supreme GOD. To try and make statements that some evolutionists make is the same as me saying a tornado hit a metal factory in Kansas and a Boeing 747 appeared fully assembled.
I think the general problem is we try to dis-associate the dinosaurs from mankind when if we read the book of Job we get some insight that creatures we now call dinosaurs may have existed alongside of man. Did they come before? Probably. How long? I don’t think we will ever know for sure until GOD tells us.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
So michael I have a question for you. Did the folks from Genesis live for several hundred years or not?
If not then why does the writer use the number say 400 years to record the age of someone, but then in some later chapters the number 120 years is used and still later the number say 90 years is used. What makes the number 400 not be a true measurement or literal measurement of a persons life yet the number 90 we have no problem with??
As far as requiring a believer to see a literal interpretation of the bible to be part of Christianity, I don’t know of one church that preaches this. We always preach science and religion go together and should not be at odds with one another. But we have to be careful and mindful of those that try to use science to disprove Christianity or the existence of GOD for that matter to drive people away from the church. I know people this has happened to and that is very sad.
What I find most amazing is that you will say we can’t interpret the Bible literally, yet when we look at a teaching on say transubstantiation which requires a literal interpretation of John 6 among others, all the sudden the RCC says no that is literal. Not trying to derail the thread but it’s utterly amazing to see the double-talk that Roman Catholics will make.
PEACE
M
michaelcollins
Guest
I see the opposite, I see people who believe in the exact literal translation of the bible and by that the kjv, of course there are then translation problems etc I will not even try to address, who then do not believe in the literal interpretation of John 6. The church has other writings and teachings that support its position on the ecuharist, not just John 6. We believe in the literal translation of this verse not JUST based upon the verse.
Yes, there are those who try and use science to drive christians away from God, but there are also beliefs that do not fit into scientific theory or more importantly into scientific fact. We cannot say something is discredited because it doesnt fit our believe system and make that a valid criticism.
As for which date to use I am sorry but I do not follow what you are saying. Are you saying, never mind you are going to have to explain, I dont follow you on the different numbers and I would ber guessing at what you are trying to say. Maybe I stated it improperly but the Baptist church I grew up in believed and I believe the Southern Baptist convention their governing body teaches that the Bible is to be literally interpretated, that it means as they say what it says it means-7 days is 7 days as we use the term. If this has changed I will stand corrected I have only been to one service not a wedding in the last 25 yrs. Now I do have a Baptist minister and a couple of Sunday school teachers in my family who do seem to be up on their church’s teachings but maybe to say it is required may be too strong it should be that is what is taught and believed.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
But that is what I believe and the chronology is very detailed. Frankly if you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years or 6000 years so be it. I believe it is 6000 years and I am sticking to it.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Um, which experts would that be?
Um, which non-Christian scientists would that be?
What is “the geological shelf”?
No, not quite. Remember, dinosaur fossils are most commonly found on or very near the surface. And never with mammoth fossils. Or camel fossils. Or bison fossils. Or human fossils.
Could you do me a favor and post some support for that claim?
Actually, C14 dating is getting better all the time and it is pretty darn accurate.
How about, since you don’t have enough space, you post say the 3 biggest holes.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
You know, tobinatorstark, I admire you for sticking to your beliefs AND admitting that they are based on your faith. Good for you!!
Peace
Tim
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Thank you. I try to let others know what I believe and how I believe it based on faith. I also have learned to accept others for what they believe on the same subject. While not everyone agrees with me, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I admire you for sticking to your beliefs as well
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
Yep…C14 dating is not accurate. Once I read a comment on youtube how C14 dated a 60 year old human fossil to be 60000 (or something like that )years old. The evolutionist defended himself by saying C14 can only only meassure something that is 60000 years old. Sounds fishy to me.
He is talking about Dinasour fossils that had DNA in them. Another proof that refutes evolution.
There is a lot of evidence that proves Dinasours lived with humans.
also…no transitional fossil, no evolution. Simple as that.
PEACE:thumbsup:
N
NDfan
Guest
Well we all know the KJV has textual errors in it. But then again the Douay Rheims is worse. As far as John 6 I mentioned that the church interpreted John 6 along with other verses literally to arrive at transubstantiation. So you can throw in Matthew 26, Mark etc.
What I also find literally amazing is that references will be made to the ECFs for support of a position, but then when the same ECF states something that’s counter to an RCC teaching the ultimate response is we don’t consider the ECFs to be infallible.
Augustine as mentioned in another post made cautionary statements with respect to interpreting the Bible literally. One classic example Augustine gave was in his sermon on John 6. Augustine stated that if Christ ever spoke of committing a crime in one of HIS teachings then HE must be speaking figuratively. Commenting on John 6 Augustine clearly preaches that Christ would never teach literally eating flesh and blood to a Jewish community. Not to derail the thread but this is a case where Augustine will get cited for support of an RC belief, then thrown under the bus when he doesn’t.
Agree 100%. But then again you have to be careful about what you state is absolute scientific fact. What some claim to be fact are derived from just theories. Theories are not fact.
I don’t believe I mentioned a date. What I was referring to was the numbers used in the book of Genesis. We are told the following regarding Adam:
When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
This type of account is given for several people prior to the flood. Then after the flood we suddenly see the life span of say Shem’s descendants to be in a constant decline from over 500 years down to Nahor who lived we are told 119 years.
In all places of Genesis and subsequent books that we ascribe authorship to Moses we see the use of days and years to be literal days and years. There’s no reason to think Moses suddenly changed how he calculated a year or what he considered to be a year. Otherwise we have no way of knowing if when Moses said 1 year that it was in fact a true 1 year, or 1 day was a true 1 day etc. etc.
As far as what Baptists teach yes saying it’s required is too strong. My neighbor is a Baptist minister and he readily admits that they teach the numbers to be literal numbers. But that is also because Baptists hold that scripture is infallible and inerrant. So if moses said 600 years he meant 600 years. If he said 1 day then it was 1 day.
So in Genesis 1:
“And there was evening and there was morning, the first day”
This after the creation of light. Now you and I both would agree that if we read this anywhere in literature we would interpret that to be 1 day. Yet for some reason because it’s tied to the creation account we suddenly dismiss it because some scientific theories suggest it may not be.
The Baptists preach literal interpretations because there’s no reason to believe they’re not. Yet according to my neighbor they are open to the fact that science may eventually prove out what the actual time frame is. But he also stated that as the science progresses more and more it seems to be the thinking that the earth is much younger than originally thought. I had a professor that was an expert in Geology and flat out admitted years ago that the earth was not billions of years old.
I think what’s frustrating is that the OP seems to take a cheap shot at Protestants because some Protestants teach literal interpretations of the numbers used in the creation account. Yet when it comes to transubstantiation the church takes an absolute literal interpretation of Christ’s words even though many ECFs would not agree. Seems like a 1 one street.
PEACE
M
michaelcollins
Guest
These both to the extint they have any proof are based on I heard and someone on youtube did something. both of these post do not use scientific method to make their pts.
If you believe evolution and the bible cannot coexisits that is your right, however, because you therefore need something to not be so does not make it so and unfortunately the ones on the creatioism side of the debate have not supported their ideas scientifically.
they have also not accurately depicted the theory of evolution which has always made me question their education level. For example, the argument made simplistically, there are monkeys evolution teaches man evolved from monkeys not all monkeys evolved therefore the theory is invalid.
there is nothing in the assumption that is correct so the proponent loses by default.
when exactly in human history, and I take it that those of you here defending creationism take the position that dinos and humans coexisted - then when did they coexist? Why are they not mentioned in the bible or is it your position they are?
O
Orogeny
Guest
C14 dating is very accurate.
Wow. Well if it was on youtube, it must be true.
You mean the protein that was sequenced at Harvard that shows a link between dinosaurs, birds and alligators just like the theory of evolution predicted? Yep, sounds like a thorough thrashing to me!
upi.com/Science_News/2008/04/26/Dinosaur_DNA_linked_to_chickens_ostriches/UPI-68371209184694/
Oh, please do provide that. Every challenge I have made to posters on this forum to do so has failed to produce any evidence, so maybe you can be the first!
Yep, simple as that.
toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#syn2mamm
toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html
toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html
toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html
And those are just vertebrates.
And, of course, since that was last updated in 1997, there have been others found, specifically Tiktaalik.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Peace
Tim
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
Amen Amen I say to you, my flesh is REAL food my blood is REAL drink.
Jesus HIMself said He was talking literly. Amen, Amen or truly truly means in a literal sense.
Saints can make mistakes, they are not sinless.
I agree
N
NDfan
Guest
Tim C14 dating is not getting better all the time. They may be getting a better understanding but that doesn’t mean it’s getting better. Let’s look at 2 classic examples. The 1800 and 1801 eruptions from 2 volcanoes in Hawaii. Although the eruptions were less than 200 years old C14 dates that were obtained showed one to be anywhere from 140 million to 2.96 billion years and the other from 0 to 29 million years. Hardly accurate nor even in the ballpark for that matter.
As far as man’s evolution theory:
Hole number 1 - the evolutionary chart is not accurate
Hole number 2 - fossils found that represent what scientists believe to be humans as they progressed in development over time have been debunked. i.e. The skull of what was thought to be a man was actually the skull of just a monkey.
Hole number 3 - The claim that we have 90% commonality in DNA with apes proves absolutely nothing. No one ever studied the remaining 10%. Clouds and Jelly Fish are 95% water yet no one would ever argue that a jelly fish evolved from a cloud or vice versa.
- Status