Right Divider
Body part
Then it's useless since the earth in only thousands of years old.
Vague and ambiguous statement.
-
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.
How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Swat that Skeeter!
The way Darwinist secularists verify a specimen is 2 million years old is to unilaterally declare some other related thing to be two million years old and then compare them for age.
Dale McClenning
New member
It is unverifiable because we don't have anything that we know is 2 million years old without using the dating method since written history is not nearly that old.
It is the height of foolishness to accept the calculations of a flawed dating method as proof that the Bible is in error about the age of humanity.
Right Divider
Body part
The "written history" called the Bible covers the time since Creation.
Why would written history be the only standard by which a dating method could be verified?
I understand that written history could be used as evidence in an attempt to verify some dating method but written history is hardly objective and so I don't see how it could be used as any sort of gold standard.
All dating methods require the use of assumptions, even if you use written history. There are no exceptions. Even first-person eye witness testimony requires some assumptions to be made. The question is whether those assumptions are reasonable. In most cases, in modern science, the answer to that question is definitely, "No". They are almost completely arbitrary. ANY scientist that gives an age of something in the millions of years is guaranteed to be using a dating system that is predicated on arbitrary assumptions.
Be that as it may, the verification of a dating method would come by way of other dating methods (i.e. like written history). Each method would need its own set of reasonable assumptions. The more diverse those assumptions are from one method to another then the more substantial the confirmation would be. Also, the more methods used that agree, the more substantial the verification.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
I agree with everything except the last... Methods that agree based upon their mutual false assumptions are meaningless.
I said just the opposite of "mutual false assumptions"!
The whole premise is reasonable assumptions for all methods and various methods that have diverse (i.e. different) assumptions.
However, separate methods wouldn't be required to have different assumptions so long as the assumptions are reasonable. So long as it is kept in mind that "reasonable" and "true" aren't synonymous then actual science can still happen but the evidence isn't as strong as it would be if the methods did NOT share the same assumptions.
Having differing assumptions is effectively the same as adding an additional witness, the less directly related one witness is to another, the better.
Clete
iouae
Well-known member
Getting back on topic...
...When we look at the moon we see it as it was 1.3 seconds ago. Likewise the sun, as it was 8 minutes ago. The closest star, as it was a year ago, the faintest star visible to the naked eye, as it was 6000 years ago. The moment we point a telescope at a black portion of sky and see distant galaxies, eg. through Hubble or James Webb, then we can see back into the past, 13.5 billion year old stars and galaxies, proving by old light that the universe is old.
Thus the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. Examining the firmament we see different eras of biomes, from the Cambrian to the Holocene, and each biome is complete with different producers, primary and secondary consumers and top predators. Thus a T Rex would be out of place in the African savanna as it would just eat all the animals including elephants destroying todays biome. A T Rex needs a hearty meal like a Triceratops. The strata, each with their specific fossils proves there have been many creations and many mass extinctions.
In Genesis 1 there has clearly been a mass extinction leaving earth without form and void and God REceates a new biome 6000 years ago which includes Adam and Eve, to whom God, for the first time in earths long history, offers salvation through the Tree of Life. Thus God tells them and all to be fruitful and multiply and REplenish the earth, not plenish the earth for the first time.
iouae
Well-known member
On day 1 of the recreation week described in Genesis 1 God creates light. But if we look at Genesis 1:1-2 an earth exists even before day 1 and the creation of light. Thus by sheer logic there has to have been an earth that predates the 7 days described in Genesis 1. True, the earth is without form and void at the start of Genesis, but there is an earth nevertheless and there is water and darkness covering it. Thus something (including earth and water and darkness) exist before Day 1 of REcreation. By logic we can conclude that some form of creation predated Genesis 1, and this prior creation left us with an earth, covered in water and darkness. I say it was due to a mass extinction that earth was covered in water and darkness, and that this mass extinction event had just destroyed most life that existed prior to Adam, as mass extinctions do.
Okay, first of all the nearest star is about 4.22 light years away and the farthest thing visible with the naked eye is the Andromeda Galaxy (i.e. billions of very distant stars) which is something like 2.5 million light years away.Getting back on topic...
When we look at the moon we see it as it was 1.3 seconds ago. Likewise the sun, as it was 8 minutes ago. The closest star, as it was a year ago, the faintest star visible to the naked eye, as it was 6000 years ago. The moment we point a telescope at a black portion of sky and see distant galaxies, eg. through Hubble or James Webb, then we can see back into the past, 13.5 billion year old stars and galaxies, proving by old light that the universe is old.
And no, it isn't proof that the universe is old. The distances are calculated in various ways most all of which are based on reasonable but still unproven assumptions, any one of which, if proven incorrect, would mean that the distance to any object farther away than can be measured with parallax shift cannot be measured at all.
Saying it doesn't make it so. This makes for a good open statement but, by itself, is entirely unconvincing.
Genesis isn't the only book of the bible and there isn't ANY reasonable argument that could begin to suggest that either of the verses below are allegorical, poetic or anything else other than explicit.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”
iouae
Well-known member
Precisely my point that as Ex 20:11 says that in 6 days the Lord made the heavens (our sky and atmosphere), the sea (our earth's sea) and the earth (our earth). Genesis 1 is describing how God made this iteration and biome science calls the Holocene. It says nothing about anything outside earth. Even Day 4 of creation was God simply saying that the already present heavenly bodies are for signs and seasons just as resting on the Sabbath forever set in place the 7 day week.
If Genesis 1 is chronological (which it is) then earth exists in Genesis 1:1, meaning it is described as existing long before God says "let there be light" or long before day 1.
And if Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, as you said, then that is how long light has taken to get here. God has lived forever. Big time spans do not phase Him.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
False claim.
False.
Gen 1:16-19 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. (1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (1:18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good. (1:19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
No, it doesn't.
The Bible says (many times) that God stretched out the heavens.
All interpretations based on your doctrine. That's backward. We don't conform the bible to our doctrine but our doctrine to the plain reading of scripture.
The point being made, not only in Genesis but also in the Exodus passages, is that God created everything that exists in six days.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Speculation
Not necessarily. God didn't have to wait for the trees and grass to grow because He created them fully mature. The same is true of the rest of creation.
Psalm 104:2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.
Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out,...
Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, And created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.
Isaiah 48:13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together.
Isaiah 51:13 And you forget the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens...
Jeremiah 10:12 He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
Jeremiah 51:15 He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, And stretched out the heaven by His understanding.
Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:
Last edited:
iouae
Well-known member
Science has a lot to say to verify that God stretches out the heavens. It is seen in the red shift or Doppler effect and is a well known phenomenon that the more distant a galaxy, the more red shifted its light. Light which has travelled longer has more time to be stretched out or made redder. Again, this proves that the universe is very old, since light even from Andromeda 2.5 million light years away is hardly red shifted, but light from Hubble's Deep Field which peers right back 13.5 billion years is very red shifted. This is very well known science and I don't think any serious astronomers can explain this with a universe 6000 years old.
Again, science and the Bible sing from the same hymn sheet id we accept that Gen 1:1 is chronological. In the beginning God did create the heaven and the earth. Then earth became without form and void due to a mass extinction 6000 years ago. Then God renewed the earth in 6 days. This is all still chronological in Genesis 1. God clears the atmosphere of earth and light from the sun penetrates through to where the spirit of God is hovering, over the face (surface) of the deep (sea). So sunlight penetrates through to the surface of earth. I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of what this light is which God created on Day 1, or what purpose it served. But if one takes it that God is thinning the "nuclear winter" like atmosphere so that sunlight can appear, then this makes perfect sense scientifically and theologically.
iouae
Well-known member
iouae said:
Even Day 4 of creation was God simply saying that the already present heavenly bodies are for signs and seasons just as resting on the Sabbath forever set in place the 7 day week.
If one accepts that Gen 1 is chronological then that is exactly what God says since in Gen 1:1 God created the heaven meaning stars, sun, earth etc. It is clear that day 2 comes after day 1 and day 3 after day 2 so all the rest of Gen 1 IS chronological. Thus in Day 4 God is only assigning the sun and moon and stars for seasons, just as after the flood God ASSIGNS the rainbow to be a sign of His covenant not to flood earth again. It is not as if there was no rainbow before God appoints the rainbow as a sign.
iouae
Well-known member
Right Divider, I want to commend you on both your science and your theology. You took modern science (Edwin Hubble 1920) which shows the universe is expanding and you melded it with scriptures showing that God stretches out the heavens. I.e. you let scientific truth add to Biblical truth. Sometimes biblical truth adds to scientific truth. But I bet not a single church father before the modern era suggested the universe was expanding based on the Bible. True science is a source of truth just as true theology is a source of truth. When these two witness together as with the heavens expanding, then in the mouth of two witnesses truth is established.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yes, it is.
The explicitly Biblical evidence for the Flood: Rainbows
We are told in Scripture that rainbows first appeared after the Flood. We are not told in Scripture that it ever rained before the Flood. Flood deniers teach that in order for there not to have been rainbows, there could not have been rain: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Rainbow
theologyonline.com