The earth is only 6000 years old.

[itinerant1]

it seems that radio-carbon dating is not at all as reliable as some would have us accept and that most other dating methods report a young earth and the ones that do not it seems are flawed - twinc

The problem with your post is that there is no truth whatever to your assertion.

The various methods of dating, of which you apparently know nothing about, are increasingly reliable. There is no useful and reliable dating method that indicates a young earth.

 

[itinerant1]

I was asked about death. Humans could not die before sin. Animals, on the other hand, could die. Their souls are not by nature immortal.

You are very correct.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What has led you to believe this?

it seems that radio-carbon dating is not at all as reliable as some would have us accept and that most other dating methods report a young earth and the ones that do not it seems are flawed - twinc

 

[itinerant1]

Hmm! “Creation-science” again. “Creationism is not bad science”, as the Vatican’s Astronomer, Brother Guy Consolmagno says, “It’s not science at all.” Brother Consolmagno also says creationism is bad religion. He explained in a lecture I attended about a week ago, why creationism is bad religion. I won’t discuss the “bad religion” aspect here.

So, who says the earth is only 6, 000 years old? The most noted advocate of this idea was James Ussher, an Anglo-Irish prelate of the Anglican church. The Bible, not being a textbook of science, gives no age for the earth. Nonetheless, three centuries ago, Ussher summed the lifespans of the patriarchs listed in the Book of Genesis, refined that sum by making some theological assumptions, and deduced that God had created Earth on 23 October in the year 4004 BC.

Ussher promulgated his idea in the year 1650. Ussher also used the Bible to calculate when the world would end. The predicted date has since come and gone, and so fundamentalists are only sticking with the Ussher’s young earth calculation.

This literalist approach to Scripture is a selective literalism that selects only certain texts for literal reading, such as the 7-day creation account. However, to be consistent one must then accept the pre-scientific cosmology of the O.T. as accurate science. The O.T. portrays the earth as flat, a disk floating on water, with pillars underneath (though they are unsupported), and the earth does not move whatsoever. The sky is firmament. That is, the sky is a hard metal bowl. This is what is meant by the Hebrew word “rakia”, which is translated as “firmament”.

[Biblical Hebrew Lexicon: Raqiya` extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament expanse (flat as base, support) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above.]

Above the bowl are waters and clouds, which God lets down through gateways. It’s no surprise that the astronauts have not crashed into the firmament or encountered waters being held up above the earth by the firmament because the Babylonian cosmology in the OT is not science. This puts a major dent in the YEC illusion, yet the illusion persists contrary to sound reason, sound biblical exegesis, and sound science. Here is a reasonably accurate representation of the Hebrew cosmology found in the O.T.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=5403

 

[itinerant1]

Not sure what you are referring to here, but truth is truth wherever it is found.

Here is some truth…and never mind where it was found.

Age of earth:
Claire Patterson, Age of meteorites and the earth, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta *10, 230 - 237

Wilde et al, Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago, *Nature *409, 175 - 178

Wyche et al, 4350–3130 Ma detrital zircons in the Southern Cross Granite–Greenstone Terrane, Western Australia: implications for the early evolution of the Yilgarn Craton, Australian J Earth Sci 51, 31 - 45

Baker et al, Early planetesimal melting from an age of 4.5662 Gyr for differentiated meteorites, *Nature *436, 1127 - 1131

Manhes et al, U—Th—Pb systematics of the eucrite “Juvinas”: Precise age determination and evidence for exotic lead, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta *48, 2247 - 2264

Bowringand Williams, Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134, 3-16

Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, which includes references to many more that concur on a date of 4.54 billion years.

Age of universe since Big Bang:
Bennett et al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe(WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results

Spergel et al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
Here

Tegmark et al, Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP

Spergel et al, *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology
*Here

 

[itinerant1]

And now one of the greatest mysteries of all time:

Upper-Paleolithic cave art that was painted 10,000 years before the creation of the world.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=5580

 

[John21652]

If you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, you have to completely disregard science, geology, and astronomy.

The Genesis account is not and was never meant to be a scientific explanation of the origins of the earth.

The earth is old. The argument that the earth was made “with an apearance of age” is so silly. Why would God want to fool us?

I think that the immense age of the universe puts me in even more awe of God.

Hear! Hear!

If you disregard geology and astronomy and whatever other science that studies the Earth, then you have debunked all science. That in turn debunks mankinds God given talents.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

And now one of the greatest mysteries of all time:

Upper-Paleolithic cave art that was painted 10,000 years before the creation of the world.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=5580

Depends on whether

a. The carbon dating used is absolutely accurate.

b. The markings managed to last for 16,000 years. I sometimes wonder just how long marks can last without damage when one considers all the factors such as weather, erosion, oxidation. For the same reason I also wonder how DNA can supposedly remain stable for millions of years, without hereditary defects having an accumulative negative effect.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Depends on whether

a. The carbon dating used is absolutely accurate. If Moshe Carmeli’s cosmological theory is correct, carbon dating would be a great deal younger than commonly acknowledged.

b. The markings managed to last for 16,000 years. I sometimes wonder just how long marks can last without damage when one considers all the factors such as weather, erosion, oxidation. For the same reason I also wonder how DNA can supposedly remain stable for millions of years, without hereditary defects having an accumulative negative effect.

And my other issue is where’s the dividing line between cave art, and the terrific art of early civilisation. We seemed to have jumped the gap pretty quickly, as though the ability was built in. The same thing applies to cuneiform writing of the Middle East and the advanced literature of the Greeks and Romans.

 

[itinerant1]

And my other issue is where’s the dividing line between cave art, and the terrific art of early civilisation. We seemed to have jumped the gap pretty quickly, as though the ability was built in. The same thing applies to cuneiform writing of the Middle East and the advanced literature of the Greeks and Romans.

I’m not sure what you are thinking. Dividing lines in cultural evolution do not mean much, though they are convenient ways of organizing historical data. There are for instance, specific characteristics of what is called the Paleolithic period. However, the paleolithic period exists at different times in different places. Also, it may exist for shorter or longer times in various regions.

There are identifiable reasons why some cultures advance quickly while others remain little changed. In the third century B.C. the Greek Erastothenes calculated with amazing accuracy the circumference of the earth, while American Indians in 18th century A.D. knew nothing of advanced mathematics or a round earth (except for those few Indians who were in extended contact with Europeans).

Erosion of cave paintings can occur rather quickly if the paintings become exposed such as in the case of too many visitors to a particular cave resulted in adverse effects from the carbon dioxide and the cave had to be closed for a period and traffic better controlled in the future.

What possible relation do you think obtains between Moshe Carmeli’s theory and carbon dating?

Regarding hereditary defects, I am not sure exactly what your concern is. If mutations are significant enough to adversely effect a species survival, then that organism is not long for this world.

 

[wwolverine]

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.

We all know through the Holy Bible that Our God is a perfect creator. What ever he has created has been on one word. Be and it was. He created perfect Adam, and and also Perfect Eve. He created perfect skies and everything that we see created was perfect.

So what does the Holy Bible say?
See Genesis 1:1 and 2

New American Standard Bible ©
The Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

In 1 it says God created the heavens and the earth. but see the second, the earth was formless and void. Why? Why would God create something formless and void? He is the perfect creator, and hence that sentence must mean something. Something must have happened before that second sentence.

Now this is my assumption.:

God must have created everything perfect, until that time when something dreadful must have happened, ie the casting of satan away. if not in Genesis where did that serpant come from to tempt Eve?

So that perfect world must have survived for how many centuries? Millions? Billions?

The above is just my assumption.

 

[itinerant1]

There are non-distance related red shift phenomena out there.

And what is this “non-distance related red shift phenomena”?
What significance does it have, if any, to the age of the universe?
What links can you provide to reputable scientific sources that discuss this phenomena?

 

[edwest2]

Hear! Hear!

If you disregard geology and astronomy and whatever other science that studies the Earth, then you have debunked all science. That in turn debunks mankinds God given talents.

Unfortunately, there is a constant repetition here. It does not concern research but an ideology. Anomolous dates are discarded. Things that don’t fit are discarded. The worship of the mind of man regarding an ideology is never a wise thing. God, it appears to me, is only mentioned to bolster a purely naturalistic argument. There are non-distance related red shift phenomena. But I’m constantly reminded that science is provisional and subject to change. “all science” covers a lot of ground, not just dating, which is required for a political-scientific belief system.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

And what is this “non-distance related red shift phenomena”?
What significance does it have, if any, to the age of the universe?
What links can you provide to reputable scientific sources that discuss this phenomena?

How is the age of the universe currently determined? By red shift or redshift. The theory says that the farther away an object is, the more it is shifted into the red end of the light spectrum. The degree of red shift is calculated and that gives its distance. In some cases, objects are traveling at superluminal (faster than the speed of light) speeds. This also indicates objects moving away from the observer on earth.

arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171v2

Peace,
Ed

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

However, the Protest-ants have to be able to prove the old earth and evolutionary theory from the bible. Once they begin to discredit it and state “that might not be 100% true,” they have way to stop citicizing it and their entire faith falls apart. For the Protest-ant, the bible is either 100% true or nothing.

Many will try to argue that-that isn’t true, but, when asked to prove from the bible that they’re allowed to doubt and re-interpret the bible, they can never do it and their “inerrent, infallible, sole-source of authority” argument crumbles as the only way to justify old earth or acceptance of evolution IS to doubt and/or re-interpret.

Such is the folly of Protestantism.

You apparently know very little about Protestantism. Your statements in your first paragraph betray a woeful lack of understanding.

By the way, a Roman Catholic is allowed to believe in the 6-day creation account. The RC church does not actually teach one version of creation over another. The key is that man was always man. Man did not evolve from slime. (Some might say that man can evolve into slime, but that’s another topic )

 

[Philena]

The Bible does not mention how long Adam and Eve walked with God in Eden before their fall. It could have been thousands of years for all we know. They could have had children that were untainted by sin. The Bible just doesn’t say. Their children before the fall could have been the “sons of God, men of renown” mentioned in Gen. 6:2 and 6:4. Since they are all dead it stands to reason that if these were pre-Fall children of Adam and Eve, eventually they fell into sin and died just like all the other sons of Adam.

We just read the Bible in such a linear way that we assume that on one day God created Eve, and the next day Adam and Eve sinned. That seems to be a rather simplistic way of looking at things.

Just trying to think outside the box here.

 

[edwest2]

The Bible does not mention how long Adam and Eve walked with God in Eden before their fall. It could have been thousands of years for all we know. They could have had children that were untainted by sin. The Bible just doesn’t say. Their children before the fall could have been the “sons of God, men of renown” mentioned in Gen. 6:2 and 6:4. Since they are all dead it stands to reason that if these were pre-Fall children of Adam and Eve, eventually they fell into sin and died just like all the other sons of Adam.

We just read the Bible in such a linear way that we assume that on one day God created Eve, and the next day Adam and Eve sinned. That seems to be a rather simplistic way of looking at things.

Just trying to think outside the box here.

It is against Catholic teaching to say Adam and Eve had children without Original Sin. The Bible does say how long Adam lived after the Fall.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

There are serious observational problems about current cosmology that were addressed in this conference:

hiltonratcliffe.com/article008.htm

Among them: “In the last three years, observational evidence has accumulated challenging two of the most fundamental stanchions of BBT (Big Bang Theory): That cosmological redshift indicates universal expansion; and that the microwave background (CMBR) originates promordially, beyond all visible structure.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Young_Thinker]

Sons of God refer to Seth’s offspring. Sons of man refer to Cain’s.

Thank you, but I do not think that that would really address the problem of the Nephilim, whom were giants.

 

[aspirant]

Humans coming from slime is one of the few things the polar extremes of young-earth creationism and atheistic evolutionism actually agree on!