The earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justin_Mee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Jon,

I think I’d be more concerned about the splitting of the word into Protest and ants with a hyphen than the quotation marks…though both seem to have a subtle message present :rolleyes:

I agree with what you say about science and scripture
JonNC said:
Who said? Why do I have to prove old-earth from the Bible? It is 100% true for its intention

Who is doubting or reinterpreting the Bible? And why must one doubt or reinterpret the Bible to understand that the ancient writers were not offering a scientific explanation, using the scientific method, on the age of the Earth? Now, if I doubt that God created the universe, then I’m redefining scripture. But I certainly don’t view the Bible as the sole-authority on science.

And I’m filled with curiosity: why the improper use of the “-” in the word Protestant?

Jon
Click to expand...
 
I dont see how this a religious question.

This is a scientific question. Whether the earth is 6000 years old or billions and billions of years old I can’t possibly see how it can have any impact in the belief in God. This same struggle took placw when geocentrism and heliocentrism butted heads. But look! Heliocentrism is true and the Church is still here! That debate proved that the Church is only infallible in matters of faith and morals and NOT in the relm of science and empicism, which is exactly the way Jesus intended it to be.
 
Peter_Burke said:
I dont see how this a religious question.

This is a scientific question. Whether the earth is 6000 years old or billions and billions of years old I can’t possibly see how it can have any impact in the belief in God. This same struggle took placw when geocentrism and heliocentrism butted heads. But look! Heliocentrism is true and the Church is still here! That debate proved that the Church is only infallible in matters of faith and morals and NOT in the relm of science and empicism, which is exactly the way Jesus intended it to be.
Click to expand...
It is a question of history.

So any area that Scripture (which by definition is true) intersects with non-empirical science we are to discard Scripture? This is scientism and is to be avoided.
 
Peter_Burke said:
I dont see how this a religious question.

This is a scientific question. Whether the earth is 6000 years old or billions and billions of years old I can’t possibly see how it can have any impact in the belief in God. This same struggle took placw when geocentrism and heliocentrism butted heads. But look! Heliocentrism is true and the Church is still here! That debate proved that the Church is only infallible in matters of faith and morals and NOT in the relm of science and empicism, which is exactly the way Jesus intended it to be.
Click to expand...
This is not a scientific question. Frequently, people post here to quote this or that Pope regarding a scientific-political belief system they want to promote. If this were only about science they wouldn’t need to do that. Obviously, there are people like myself who are skeptical of some scientific claims. The scientific-political believers will continue to insist it’s only science but it’s obvious it is not.

Jesus performed many miracles that left no eidence and used no technology. He changed water to wine, again, with no evidence to show how it was done. A scientist standing next to Him could not explain it.

Peace,
Ed
 
I think we humans try too hard to reconcile science with the Bible. Since the BIble didn’t address specific scientific matters such as how the universe was created, I guess we have to wait until we get up to heaven to have those answered, right? 🙂
 
I think you’re right; and I think some people use science and biblical discrepencies or unsolved issues as an excuse to drop their faith and walk away from Christ as well. For me God is the author of science, works through science, and they aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t buy into the 6000 year old business for one second and am fine with several scientific ideas of how men emerged on the earth. I still believe in the Fall and our concupiscent nature, and the need for Christ. 🙂
jessep28 said:
I think we humans try too hard to reconcile science with the Bible. Since the BIble didn’t address specific scientific matters such as how the universe was created, I guess we have to wait until we get up to heaven to have those answered, right? 🙂
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Respectfully, I’d ask how it could be 10,000 years old when radio-carbon dating is a reliable and long-standing method used that can date things as old as 60,000 years old?
Click to expand...
To play the devil’s advocate, one good way in which can try to be answered is through metaphysics rather than science.
 
I’ll buy that. Metaphysics is God’s way of manipulating science any ole way He wants 🙂
Young_Thinker said:
To play the devil’s advocate, one good way in which can try to be answered is through metaphysics rather than science.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Yep. Are you a Catholic, Young Thinker, or just one at heart? I don’t understand your religious description on the profile there?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am a Catholic. As for this discussion, sometimes I wonder if I have merely taken “too many” science classes. I used to be an adherent of Old Earth Creationism but then rejected intelligent design and accepted evolution in its entirely after having taken a few courses in biology and geology(I am still in college).
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Respectfully, I’d ask how it could be 10,000 years old when radio-carbon dating is a reliable and long-standing method used that can date things as old as 60,000 years old?
Click to expand...
The following link is a creationist link, but it does a fair job of explaining discrepancies in Carbon Dating.

Note that if the earth’s magnetic field is decaying, as I intimated above and as the current evidence appears to show, then the amount of C14 in the atmosphere would gradually increase, since it is formed by radiation passing through the atmosphere. A declining magnetic field would allow more radiation to pass into our atmosphere, and hence increase the C14 component.

answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
 
The 6000year old Earth is a THEORY by an Anglican? Bishop who made a great effort at examining and adding the Biblical chronology from Creation to now!

A great effort it is!..but is flawed and has been dismantled by ‘proper’ exegesis of the same chronology. For those interested, google, “The Toledoths of Genesis.”

The discrepancies between what we understand from Scriptures and what our scientific examinations tell us are due to two probabilities;
  1. Scripture is in error
  2. Our instruments may need improvement.
Since Scripture remains ‘constant’ and our technology keeps improving and advancing, the answer is obvious!

People keep saying Holy Writ is NOT a science book or a history book! ACTUALLY, it’s both! It is the history of everything humans will ever know throughout human existence! It is also the ‘conclusion’ of scientific endeavour and the ‘formula’ of scientific origin!

Remember, the sun was made on the fourth day! Impossible for any fauna to exist prior to that occurrence, yet, Scripture says so. Clearly, it means when science hits the final wall, it will have found It’s Maker. The difference is that those who ‘travel’ by faith, will have found Him sooner!..but will not appreciate the intricate workings of many of His works…sort like, “Yeah, yeah. Nice nebula but I know you’re God and that’s enough for me!”

‘What then have you done with the talents I gave you?,’ might be the comeback!

Only science can detail the magnificence of God’s work and avail us some tangible view of His Great Mind.

:cool:
 
This link contains a brief summary of the “fine tuning” of the universe to maintain life on earth. It’s a creationist link, and what it tells me is that the universe was designed to accommodate life.

godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html#vXJk4N9zn7sM

Now if it was “designed” to accommodate life, why would life then “Evolve”? What would be the point?
 
Bob_Crowley said:
This link contains a brief summary of the “fine tuning” of the universe to maintain life on earth. It’s a creationist link, and what it tells me is that the universe was designed to accommodate life.

godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html#vXJk4N9zn7sM

Now if it was “designed” to accommodate life, why would life then “Evolve”? What would be the point?
Click to expand...
Good questions. I have no good answer except to say there is no point to evolution (macro-evolution that is).
 
Justin_Mee said:
In my past life as a protestant, the preacher always said that the earth is only 6000 years old and only heathens believed otherwise. I just could not buy into that and my questions went unanswered. It is one in a long, long line of teachings that led me to the true Church. Can anyone explain how this can be taught with a straight face. The nearest answer I received was that when God made the earth, He made the triobites and cephalopods already formed in the rocks. So, such evidence means nothing.
Click to expand...
I guess your preacher didn’t realize this verse, GOD experiences time differently then we do.

2 Peter 3
8But 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
 
Dokimas said:

Not true.​

It’s a silly argument that I highlighted. If God is going to make a tree there must be earth (soil to) grow in. BTW, just because you think it looks old and gets fooled into believing the earth is millions of yrs (or billions) old, isn’t God’s fault nor was He deceiving. How many yrs have people thought the earth was millions of yrs old? Pretty recent in terms of how many yrs humans have been around.
Click to expand...
When you have stars that are millions of light years away, and you can see them, that means either the universe is millions of years old or God is trying to confuse people. Here is an article about the discovery of a galaxy that is over a billion light years away.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110181358.htm

If it takes the light of that galaxy over a billion years to reach us, that means that star is over a billion years old.
 
WIth the Hubble Telescope scientists have determined that the universe is around 12 billion years old. To suggest that the universe is on 6000 years old is to ignore the solid data that Hubble has given us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top