The age of the world according to Protestants

[runandsew]

I like the John Martignoni program Catholics and the Bible.
He covers bible interpretation and focuses on the creation account.
He covers the senses of scipture, how to interpret scripture, (literal vs. literalist) and shows that it is teaches faith, morals and science.

 

[PaulDupre]

Yep, but then fundies have always been a weird bunch. Remember when they thought dark skin was the mark of Cain…

The Mormons still believe that!
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

You should all check out a book called “The Science of God” by Gerald Schroeder. Schroeder is a physicist. In his book he describes, among many other things, how the earth is billions of years old and also was created in six days! The key is a principle called “time dilation”, where, starting with the big bang, time has slowed down dramatically, so that the first “day” (when God said “let there be light”) was only a nano-second long, but each succeeding time period, because of time dilation, became dramatically longer than the time period before, so that there was plenty of time in each “day” for all of the things described in the bible to happen according to the natural scientific principles authored by God. It removes all conflict between religion and science. God is all in all, and with Him there is no contradiction. Check it out: here.

 

[Shy_Violet]

Manny Fit75:

I know there are some creationist out there that claim that dinosaurs and man live side by side, but fossil evidence so that is not true.

Dinosaurs died 65 millions ago. Man appear shortly there after (though I don’t know the exact date).

Then how do you explain fossilized footprints of dinosaurs and man together???

 

[Mannyfit75]

Then how do you explain fossilized footprints of dinosaurs and man together???

There was no footprints with both dinosaurs and man, and where did you get the info. Most Archeologist will tell you that the idea that man and dinosaurs lived side by side is ridicules.

I can also note that in Genesis 1:20, God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of the living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across firmaments of heaven. So God created Sea Monsters and every living creature that move…”

In this passage God create sea monsters first. This age, is the age of dinosaurs and sea monsters like the pleisaur. As you know, these dinosaurs became extinct 65 millions yrs ago, which open doors the mamimals to rule, and then the appearance of man some 130,000 yrs ago, which I believe is when Adam was created and then Eve…

 

[Evan]

No scientific evidence can prove that God did not create the world 6000 years ago (or 60 years ago). God could have place all things as we find them, including the dinosaur fossils (rocks) and the layers of dirt, and our memories (if we are more than 60 years old). If God is all powerful that could be done.

On the other hand, if it is God’s creation we are looking at, and God is all Truth. Then to place false data in the geologic record would go against our understanding of God. The geologic history would be a ‘lie’ placed there by God.

If the ‘lie’ were placed there by Satan to mislead, then we could be living in a young earth with lies in the geologic record placed there by the father of lies. Could Satan have done that? I know he is not all powerful so it would have to be with (at least) God’s tacit permission.

When one begins to consider creation from nothing, the things gets muddy

This can not be answered by the Bible (not at science text book) or by Science (can only study the natural) or by the Church (no authority in that area).

 

[Loginus]

No scientific evidence can prove that God did not create the world 6000 years ago (or 60 years ago). God could have place all things as we find them, including the dinosaur fossils (rocks) and the layers of dirt, and our memories (if we are more than 60 years old). If God is all powerful that could be done.

On the other hand, if it is God’s creation we are looking at, and God is all Truth. Then to place false data in the geologic record would go against our understanding of God. The geologic history would be a ‘lie’ placed there by God.

If the ‘lie’ were placed there by Satan to mislead, then we could be living in a young earth with lies in the geologic record placed there by the father of lies. Could Satan have done that? I know he is not all powerful so it would have to be with (at least) God’s tacit permission.

When one begins to consider creation from nothing, the things gets muddy

This can not be answered by the Bible (not at science text book) or by Science (can only study the natural) or by the Church (no authority in that area).

Yaa…but once you start to complicate things…you could also ask if the entire Christian movemnt was planned and led by Satan to lure us from the true religon (Scientology? Islam? Judaism? Satanism?lol).

Best to stick with what there

 

[runandsew]

Then how do you explain fossilized footprints of dinosaurs and man together???

Here is a web site explaining the issue of the so-called human footprints next to the dinosaur prints.

The explaination is that the prints are not human, but are from another dinosaur which had a narrow footprint, which after erosion can somewhat appear to be that of humans. and the ones that look exactly like a human footprint with toes and everthing were recently made by people trying to get tourists to visit the area.

 

[Evan]

Yaa…but once you start to complicate things…you could also ask if the entire Christian movemnt was planned and led by Satan to lure us from the true religon (Scientology? Islam? Judaism? Satanism?lol).

Best to stick with what there

That is what I go by. I accept the fossil record and hence the ancient age of the world. But on a type of faith in Reason, Science and God’s Honesty in giving us this world.

 

[catholic2]

I heard that the sun loses about 5 feet of surface each hour, or was it a day? (sorry I can’t document it, but maybe somebody who is on this forum knows).

At what ever rate it is, and if that rate is constant, extrapolating it backwards in time, the sun would have been large enough to reach earth given a few billion years. The young earth would make more sense.

 

[runandsew]

Has it been at that same rate of loss through out its life?
And with more mass, could it have been more compressed, due to the gravitational pressure on it?

 

[Loginus]

I heard that the sun loses about 5 feet of surface each hour, or was it a day? (sorry I can’t document it, but maybe somebody who is on this forum knows).

At what ever rate it is, and if that rate is constant, extrapolating it backwards in time, the sun would have been large enough to reach earth given a few billion years. The young earth would make more sense.

That would be assuming alot and I dont know how much I can trust a ha;f remembered psedo-theory

 

[Catholic_Dude]

How do protestants that believe that the world is just 6000 years old or so reconcile the moutains of physical evidence to the contrary?

If its true its true. I dont believe there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I heard that the sun loses about 5 feet of surface each hour, or was it a day? (sorry I can’t document it, but maybe somebody who is on this forum knows).

At what ever rate it is, and if that rate is constant, extrapolating it backwards in time, the sun would have been large enough to reach earth given a few billion years. The young earth would make more sense.

This is very interesting! Im not sure the details but you got me thinking, there needs to be a thread about this, do you want to make one or shoud I??

One question I have is that what is keeping the sun burning? If its burning that means energy is being used up and given that nothing can supply infinite power means either the sun is shrinking or the intensity is getting weaker.

 

[boppysbud]

As others have said, this is not a Catholic VS Protestant issue, It is a main line VS fundie issue.

There are definatly Catholic fundies as well as Protestant fundies, especally on this site where there are a lot of radical releigous right, ultra conservative, God is a registered Republican period type Catholics.

I remember maybe a couple of years ago that their were huge debates started by Catholic fundies who went through hundreds of posts advocating a “Geo centric” universe. These people were very serious that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun, moon, and the other planets and indeed the rest of the universe orbit the earth!

Whatever.

 

[Orogeny]

Then how do you explain fossilized footprints of dinosaurs and man together???

Nothing to explain. No such thing exists.

Dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago. Humans first appeared at most a couple of million years ago.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

If its true its true. I dont believe there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Your belief is not necessary for it to be true. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Here is a good start.

talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I heard that the sun loses about 5 feet of surface each hour, or was it a day? (sorry I can’t document it, but maybe somebody who is on this forum knows).

At what ever rate it is, and if that rate is constant, extrapolating it backwards in time, the sun would have been large enough to reach earth given a few billion years. The young earth would make more sense.

Please see proof #1.

talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof1

Peace

Tim

 

[callador]

While there may not be absolute facts that prove the age of the earth, it seems to me there are enough facts to prove that they earth is greater than 6000 years in age. This goes back to another thread where we talked about the differences between theory and fact. Theories speculate the age based off of facts that are found.

Human or its ancestral fossil records can show us facts about their age. E.G. This Neaderthal fossil is X age. We then have to create a theory based off the evidence (in conjunction with other known evidence as well). One can then either attack the credibility of the Theory or Fact. It seems to me that it is easier to attack the theory, since mankind’s rational is being added into the mix, but with this last example, usually attack the facts. Here are two examples of both that I have seen.

Attack the Theory: Most use the aged earth scenario. If God said let there be light, the light was there. It did not have to travel millions of light years to get there. If God said, let there be a tree. One could cut it down and count 40 rings (for instance), showing the ‘false’ age of the tree.

This is an interesting theory, but it kind of makes God out to be a liar. Why bury all these great ‘falsely aged’ fossils, create expansive galaxies when all of it is partially a lie. It is like God is creating false evidence and then letting us stumble through it with our free-will to determine our origins. If this is true, maybe we are all on Heaven’s Bloopers.

Attack the Facts: I have heard many creationists attack the measurements as well. They will say that Carbon dating is flawed (even though it is only good to about 60,000 years or so). In reality, other methods are used for the old stuff. Some others will say that our equipment is flawed or too primitive as well. In order to debate this properly, we need to move to the realm of science. Most people who debate these topics are not scientists. This is why I said it might be easier to attack the theory and just agree with the measurements.

I think a better question to discuss here is why does one have to accept a 21st century literal interpretation of Genesis? God Bless.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Your belief is not necessary for it to be true. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Peace
Tim

And what do you want me to see here? I looked at the “age of the earth” page and it didnt impress me at all. When people are talking about the age of the earth in terms of billions of years its no longer real science.
The age of the earth in billions of years is founded on a insane premise, it basically is taking verifyable data and graphing it and from that graph using it as a scale to date “unknown” samples which fall WAAAYYY out of the range of the verifyable data. The problem here is that you have left the world of science and gone into the world of speculation, whats worse this is pushed as solid fact.
Its these distortions of real science that have corrupted most peoples critical thinking skills to the point where as long as the “experts” say so it must be true.

While there may not be absolute facts that prove the age of the earth, it seems to me there are enough facts to prove that they earth is greater than 6000 years in age. This goes back to another thread where we talked about the differences between theory and fact. Theories speculate the age based off of facts that are found.

Theory and fact is where the real issue sits, the problem is the people pushing theory as fact, especially to the total exclusion of other theories.

Human or its ancestral fossil records can show us facts about their age. E.G. This Neaderthal fossil is X age. We then have to create a theory based off the evidence (in conjunction with other known evidence as well). One can then either attack the credibility of the Theory or Fact. It seems to me that it is easier to attack the theory, since mankind’s rational is being added into the mix, but with this last example, usually attack the facts. Here are two examples of both that I have seen.

How do you know the fossil is “X” age? Your theory is what determines it. If you calculate it to be 1B years old and yet you dont know what a 1B year old fossil looks like then its pure speculation. If you have a person who you know for sure died at date X and you find a fossil that matches its traits you can push it as a fact. The former is junk science the latter is real science.

To take known samples and work backwards to find the date unkown samples you have left the zone of real science, its even worse when the unknown samples result in dates far outside the range of the known samples.

As a similar example, lets say you wanted to calculate the average age of the humans living on earth right now…however you can only gather 100 humans to ask…can you honestly say you have calculated the average age of the humans living right now given there are 4 Billion people living? That the foundation of that billion year old earth junk science comes from, they take all the data they have available lets say 2000BC to 2006AD and start “proving” how old the earth is despite comming up with outrageous magnitudes like 1-4 Billion years old while the sample is limited to a insane interval of that 1-4 Billion years.

Attack the Theory: Most use the aged earth scenario. If God said let there be light, the light was there. It did not have to travel millions of light years to get there. If God said, let there be a tree. One could cut it down and count 40 rings (for instance), showing the ‘false’ age of the tree.

This is an interesting theory, but it kind of makes God out to be a liar. Why bury all these great ‘falsely aged’ fossils, create expansive galaxies when all of it is partially a lie. …

You answered your own question, you called them “falsely aged” fossils proving that your dating method is questionable and clearly conflicts with other sources.

Attack the Facts: I have heard many creationists attack the measurements as well. They will say that Carbon dating is flawed (even though it is only good to about 60,000 years or so). In reality, other methods are used for the old stuff. Some others will say that our equipment is flawed or too primitive as well. In order to debate this properly, we need to move to the realm of science. Most people who debate these topics are not scientists. This is why I said it might be easier to attack the theory and just agree with the measurements.

Thats just it, science isnt science when your calculating values outrageously outside your known data range. Your only hope if you want to use science as a vald means is to build a time machine and verify some of your “calculations”.

I think a better question to discuss here is why does one have to accept a 21st century literal interpretation of Genesis? God Bless.

Genesis could stay on the shelf and the junk science still wouldnt be let off the hook because the junk science would still be junk science.

 

[Loginus]

And what do you want me to see here? I looked at the “age of the earth” page and it didnt impress me at all. When people are talking about the age of the earth in terms of billions of years its no longer real science.
The age of the earth in billions of years is founded on a insane premise, it basically is taking verifyable data and graphing it and from that graph using it as a scale to date “unknown” samples which fall WAAAYYY out of the range of the verifyable data. The problem here is that you have left the world of science and gone into the world of speculation, whats worse this is pushed as solid fact.
Its these distortions of real science that have corrupted most peoples critical thinking skills to the point where as long as the “experts” say so it must be true.

Theory and fact is where the real issue sits, the problem is the people pushing theory as fact, especially to the total exclusion of other theories.

How do you know the fossil is “X” age? Your theory is what determines it. If you calculate it to be 1B years old and yet you dont know what a 1B year old fossil looks like then its pure speculation. If you have a person who you know for sure died at date X and you find a fossil that matches its traits you can push it as a fact. The former is junk science the latter is real science.

To take known samples and work backwards to find the date unkown samples you have left the zone of real science, its even worse when the unknown samples result in dates far outside the range of the known samples.

As a similar example, lets say you wanted to calculate the average age of the humans living on earth right now…however you can only gather 100 humans to ask…can you honestly say you have calculated the average age of the humans living right now given there are 4 Billion people living? That the foundation of that billion year old earth junk science comes from, they take all the data they have available lets say 2000BC to 2006AD and start “proving” how old the earth is despite comming up with outrageous magnitudes like 1-4 Billion years old while the sample is limited to a insane interval of that 1-4 Billion years.

You answered your own question, you called them “falsely aged” fossils proving that your dating method is questionable and clearly conflicts with other sources.

Thats just it, science isnt science when your calculating values outrageously outside your known data range. Your only hope if you want to use science as a vald means is to build a time machine and verify some of your “calculations”.

Genesis could stay on the shelf and the junk science still wouldnt be let off the hook because the junk science would still be junk science.

So are you mad because you dont understand the methods behind the dating or because noone is willing to accept the idea of a invisible being getting bored one day and poofing existance all the while hiding false evidence to mess with us?