The actual age is closer to 7500 years.
Well, appealing to incredulity isn't going to get you anywhere.
Try looking at the evidence.
Here's a good place to start:
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Young Earth or Old?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
The actual age is closer to 7500 years.
Well, appealing to incredulity isn't going to get you anywhere.
Try looking at the evidence.
Here's a good place to start:
So answer this - do you believe like MacArthur and Hamn that Noah put Dino on the ark? They also believe the UNIVERSE is 6,000 years old. Do you think the universe is about 7,500 years old?
The earth and the universe are both 7500 years old. Was that not clear in my previous post?
As far as I can tell, yes, dinosaurs were on the Ark.
Also, Ken's last name is "Ham" not "Hamn".
And after you have read Walt brown investigate the RATE Project. For
A summary Google American Scientific Affiliation analysis of the RATE project.
The Bible says "for in six days He made the heavens and the earth" and "from the beginning of the creation He made man."
"Millions/billions of years" just doesn't fit.
The Bible gives genealogies that give us dates for when certain things happen, going back all the way to Adam. Adam was created on Day 6, not day 6 billion. (Jesus' words specifically: "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’")
Yes, that is what the Bible says.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Yes, that is my understanding of it.
Quite possibly. Humans have developed dating methods that cannot be irrefutably verified to be accurate.
Those two people do not matter. What matters is what the Bible says. And it says all the air breathing kinds went on board the ark. No need to take a full grown sauropod, called a dragon in mythology, and Behemoth and Levianthan in scripture. As for dating, there is carbon in diamonds. Making it impossible for them to be millions of years old. on an extreme fringe it could only be 80k with the half life.
MattTheCricketBat
New member
I mean the science is clear, the earth is hundreds of billions of years old. There isn't any serious debate happening about this within the scientific community.
The Torah? Much less clear whether its meant to be taken literally or not. Based on their lack of scientific understanding and the point of the story not to be an accurate historical or scientific book but a story of God's love, I'd say I believe the science.
The Torah? Much less clear whether its meant to be taken literally or not. Based on their lack of scientific understanding and the point of the story not to be an accurate historical or scientific book but a story of God's love, I'd say I believe the science.
Science is just the process of falsifying bad ideas.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and the evidence shows otherwise.
Indeed. Because when you go against billions of years and the Big Bang, et al, your funding, position, and even tenure, is taken away.
The "Torah" is just the first five books of the Bible, also known as the penteteuch.
No one here says you have to take the Bible woodenly literally.
But you SHOULD read it and take what it says at face value to be true.
The Bible was written as a historical narrative, not a scientific textbook.
That said, where it touches on the scientific, it is extremely accurate.
Except it is.
Supra.
Is telling falsehoods "loving"? No?
Then why would you assert that the Bible isn't accurate, especially when it comes to the history of the nation it is about, let alone the world?
Right Divider
Body part
That is a statement of faith and not science.
Science is not about who or how many agree. You are using a fallacy called appeal to popularity (which in this case is also closely related to the appeal to authority fallacy).
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What possesses people nowadays to start a sentence out of nowhere, with no previous involvement in a conversation, by saying "I mean..."? What next? Are you going to say "bruh"?
Who, besides you, says the earth is hundreds of billions of years old?
What "scientific community" claims the earth is hundreds of billions of years old? Even your fellow Bible-despisers, the professional Darwin cheerleaders, don't go as far as you go in venting and dramatizing their irrational hatred of the Truth of God's Word, The Holy Bible.
Are you asking a question?
Do you not believe that, originally, Earth's human population was 0? Even though Genesis says Earth's human population was 0, you reject that fact because, to accept it is to take Genesis literally?
To whom are you referring by your word "their"?
So, you disagree with the fact stated in Genesis, that in the beginning, Earth's human population was 0 individuals? What's your alternative, then? What, according to your "science", was the number of Earth's earliest human population? Is it a positive number? A negative number? A fraction? Let's hear your number.
What story do you mean? That God so loved the world that He tried the best He could, yet failed to communicate to mankind the truth about His creation; that the best He could do is write an inaccurate historical or scientific book?
Like you, any other parrot could be trained to chant "I believe the science." Go to some public gathering full of people whom you'd choose to call "the scientific community" -- some symposium or something -- and stand in a conspicuous place, holding up a picket sign onto which you've Sharpied the words "I mean the science is clear, the earth is hundreds of billions of years old!" in big, bold letters!
Derf
Well-known member
Is science meant to be taken literally or not? After all if Anthony Fauci IS science...
Derf
Well-known member
Else his books would be called "Hamnals".
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Believe it or not, that actually, really made me laugh!
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Choir director: "Please turn with me now in your hamnals to page ken."
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's fair to inquire about the uniform testimony of an entire discipline devoted to the study of the topic in question.
Once you've determined a whole entire discipline is uniformly agreed on something within their purview, OK.
But now in order to be responsible you have to entertain the notion of organizational or as Wikipedia calls it regulatory capture, which means, that a whole entire organization is intellectually, spiritually, mentally, corrupted by some interest, party, or political ideology.
Regulatory capture - Wikipedia
It means truth is compromised within that organization. It means the whole entire organization is not to be trusted.
It sounds like, prima facie, a bizarre, skeptical and even cynical view, even nihilistic. Like plugging up your ears, but, if there is evidence which substantiates, sustains, promotes, proves, demonstrates, corroborates the idea that an organization has been ideologically captured, then it is reasonable to hold such a view, that we just can't trust them to tell the truth.
In this case, for this topic, it's not even true that the whole entire geological discipline is in agreement, as there are young Earthers among geologists. So our first test has failed anyway. It's not uniformity. It's majority, sure, but if an entire discipline cannot even come to uniform agreement on a question, then we don't even have prima facie justification to just assume the majority view is right. And in a case where a discipline is even more fractured than a majority view and minority view, such as there is only plurality but not true overwhelming super-majority, then we have even less reason to appeal to their authority.
But with regard to the age of the Earth, it's not like that—it's majority view versus minority view. But still, this means you cannot validly appeal to authority here to establish your point. The point's in contention, even among geologists.