toldailytopic: How old is the earth?

[Selaphiel]

Because your eyes don't work?

You forgot to add the qualifier in your quotation: No creationist fallacies that have been refuted a million times over like your moon recession example...

That's not hypocritical, you moron!

Thank you for proving my first point by calling me a moron. So using a method when it suits you and deny the method when it does not suit you is not hypocrisy?

Those are two option. Fortunately we're not stupid. We can count past two. I, personally, can count to at least 81

Then present it. Either you accept science or you do not. You can not take what you like and leave what you do not like when it is conceived by the exact same method.

It's not. It's a valid scientific assumption.

No it is not. Scientific assumptions must be based on some kind of evidence. Where is your evidence for a 6000 year old earth? Assuming that a 2500 year old text has scientific authority is about as invalid as it gets.

Hypocritical is claiming to be a Christian and denying the simple teaching of the bible in favour of human understanding.

Last time I checked, deception is not a Christian virtue. This argument is so old, and is the worst case of creationist escapism there is.

Which is all evidence against six days, how?

Where do I claim that it is? I simply presented another way of reading it. The evidence against six days are scientific, not theological or biblical. Here is how I started that segment, which you of course cut out of the quote:

I agree that Genesis says 6 literal days

How about you presenting some real evidence now for a change? You are notoriously avoiding to present any evidence in pretty much any thread that deals with science that does not agree with YEC.

 

[Stripe]

You forgot to add the qualifier in your quotation: No creationist fallacies that have been refuted a million times over like your moon recession example...

:rotfl:

Yeah, I did forget that.

Thank you for proving my first point by calling me a moron. So using a method when it suits you and deny the method when it does not suit you is not hypocrisy?

What on earth are you talking about? You've completely lost it.

Then present it. Either you accept science or you do not. You can not take what you like and leave what you do not like when it is conceived by the exact same method.

Your offer is a black hole to nowhere. Why not just ask sensible, useful and rational questions. :up:

No it is not. Scientific assumptions must be based on some kind of evidence. Where is your evidence for a 6000 year old earth? Assuming that a 2500 year old text has scientific authority is about as invalid as it gets.

Assumptions can be based on anything you want. Scientific assumptions must be testable, falsifiable and hopefully they make predictions. :up:

Last time I checked, deception is not a Christian virtue. This argument is so old, and is the worst case of creationist escapism there is.

It's deceptive to say that the bible teaches six days of creation? That's what you claim it says! :kook:

Where do I claim that it is? I simply presented another way of reading it. The evidence against six days are scientific, not theological or biblical. Here is how I started that segment, which you of course cut out of the quote:

Uh, OK. Well I can read it your way and continue to believe in six days of creation. So .. umm .. :idunno:

:wave2:

How about you presenting some real evidence now for a change? You are notoriously avoiding to present any evidence in pretty much any thread that deals with science that does not agree with YEC.

You start speaking English and I might understand what I have to ignore from you next. :up:

 

[chrysostom]

why is this even an issue?
because
some only have the Bible
and
nothing else

 

[Selaphiel]

Yeah, I did forget that.

Just laugh it away. How about giving some real evidence instead of the deception offered from charlatan sites like AiG?

Your offer is a black hole to nowhere. Why not just ask sensible, useful and rational questions

Why is it a black hole to nowhere? Why do creationists accept atomic theory but deny the theory of evolution and old earth when all those theories were conceived using the same methodological standard? That is my question.

It's deceptive to say that the bible teaches six days of creation? That's what you claim it says!

No. God would be deceptive if he would give us such lousy capabilities to understand the world around us that it would appear that it was much older than it is described in the Bible.

Assumptions can be based on anything you want. Scientific assumptions must be testable, falsifiable and hopefully they make predictions

And creationism fails these tests since every dating method we have disproves a 6000 years old earth, making it a false unsubstantiated scientific assumption.

Uh, OK. Well I can read it your way and continue to believe in six days of creation. So .. umm ..

You really are dense aren't you? You could if the text was all you had, but we have science as well and science is not even close to agreeing with a 6000 years old earth created in 6x24 hours.

You start speaking English and I might understand what I have to ignore from you next

The quality of my English really is the issue here. Present some scientific evidence that supports your YEC position. Put up or shut up.

 

[tetelestai]

The following verses were the reason why Galileo was sentenced to house arrest by Christians who read the Bible the same YEC Christians do, and ignore science.


(Luke 4:40) Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.

(Joshua 10:13) And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

The modern day YEC is no different than the Christians of the early 1600’s were who accused Galileo of heresy.


Maybe a YEC can tell us how the sun stood still for a whole day?

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

The following verses were the reason why Galileo was sentenced to house arrest by Christians who read the Bible the same YEC Christians do, and ignore science.


(Luke 4:40) Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.

(Joshua 10:13) And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

The modern day YEC is no different than the Christians of the early 1600’s were who accused Galileo of heresy.


Maybe a YEC can tell us how the sun stood still for a whole day?

God said it did, so maybe you can tell us how it did not.

Are the terms sunrise and sunset unreasonable to you?

Is it your view that the sun did not appear still in the sky, or that your problem is with the fact that the sun never moves?

Or is it that you do not believe God inspired the writer because God knew the sun does not move, and the writer stated it incorrectly?

 

[Stripe]

The following verses were the reason why Galileo was sentenced to house arrest by Christians who read the Bible the same YEC Christians do, and ignore science.

Eric might disagree with that analysis...

[I[COLOR=Navy"](Luke 4:40) Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.

Anyone who uses this as scientific evidence for geocentrism must have some serious technical baggage aiding their misunderstanding. Personally, I blame the Greeks and would consider this reference from Luke an extremely flimsy appeal to authority. The bible contains very little that might describe one way or the other the scientific nature of the solar system (other than it was made in six days).

The modern day YEC is no different than the Christians of the early 1600’s were who accused Galileo of heresy.

:squint: What?

Seriously, dude. You need to think through your thoughts before you commit them to electrons. :kook:

(Joshua 10:13) And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.[/COLOR][/I]
Maybe a YEC can tell us how the sun stood still for a whole day?

It might have been the passage of a large rock past the Earth.

 

[tetelestai]

Eric might disagree with that analysis...

Um....this is from Eric's site:

He first found himself “in the papal doghouse” when he published his “Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” (1632), a work supporting the Copernican notion that the earth is not the center of the universe

Anyone who uses this as scientific evidence for geocentrism must have some serious technical baggage aiding their misunderstanding. Personally, I blame the Greeks and would consider this reference from Luke an extremely flimsy appeal to authority. The bible contains very little that might describe one way or the other the scientific nature of the solar system (other than it was made in six days).

You’re missing the point.

The point is that YEC’s base everything on one verse that they take literally. If that’s how you want to base your YEC beliefs, then we find when we apply this same system to other verses pertaining to the sun, then we would have to conclude that geocentrism is Biblical, which is what Christians did before science showed them they were wrong.

For some reason YEC’s think that if they embrace OEC, advocating for evolution has to follow. This is not true.

:squint: What?

I'll try again; the mindset of the YEC today is the same as the geocentric mindset of the early 1600's.

It might have been the passage of a large rock past the Earth.

Or it could have been that God stopped the earth from rotating around the sun. What we do know is that the sun was already standing still.

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

Um....this is from Eric's site:

He first found himself “in the papal doghouse” when he published his “Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” (1632), a work supporting the Copernican notion that the earth is not the center of the universe





You’re missing the point.

The point is that YEC’s base everything on one verse that they take literally. If that’s how you want to base your YEC beliefs, then we find when we apply this same system to other verses pertaining to the sun, then we would have to conclude that geocentrism is Biblical, which is what Christians did before science showed them they were wrong.

For some reason YEC’s think that if they embrace OEC, advocating for evolution has to follow. This is not true.



I'll try again; the mindset of the YEC today is the same as the geocentric mindset of the early 1600's.

It might have been the passage of a large rock past the Earth.[/QUOTE]

Or it could have been that God stopped the earth from rotating around the sun. What we do know is that the sun was already standing still.[/QUOTE]

Apparently, everything is moving. The earth is at least as old as dirt! (Sorry, couldn't help myself) bybee :rotfl:

 

[tetelestai]

God said it did, so maybe you can tell us how it did not.

If it was already not moving, how did God make it stand still?

Did it ever occur to you that if God told the men who wrote the OT that He made the earth stand still, it might have confused them?

Are the terms sunrise and sunset unreasonable to you?

Technically they are incorrect, but since they probably originated when man thought the sun revolved around the earth, God spoke to man in a way that man would understand what He was talking about.

BTW, I was just in Corolla, North Carolina last week, and one morning I got up really early and took the dogs for a walk on the beach, and I stood and watched the sun “come up”. It’s really something that words cannot describe, and everyone should do it at least once. After watching the sun “come up” last week, I know for sure that if I lived in the dark ages, and read Joshua 10:13 I would have believed the sun revolved around the earth, and probably would have considered Galileo a heretic.

Is it your view that the sun did not appear still in the sky, or that your problem is with the fact that the sun never moves?

The sun never moves.

Or is it that you do not believe God inspired the writer because God knew the sun does not move, and the writer stated it incorrectly?

I believe God spoke to man in a way that man would understand what he was talking about. If God would have told them he stopped the earth, then God would have had to include a science lesson.

Have you ever noticed that all end times prophecy has armies with horses and swords only? Do you really think there is going to be wars in the future with horses and swords only and no guns, planes, tanks, bullets, missiles, rockets, helicopters, etc?

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

If it was already not moving, how did God make it stand still?

Did it ever occur to you that if God told the men who wrote the OT that He made the earth stand still, it might have confused them?

Is it your view that God told man that the earth was created in 6 days, because man did not know what a year is?

 

[tetelestai]

Is it your view that God told man that the earth was created in 6 days, because man did not know what a year is?

No, it is my view that the 6 days was a re-creation.

We know that all the angels (this would include Lucifer) shouted for joy when God created earth (Job 38:7).

We also know that Lucifer rebelled against God and convinced a third of the angels to side with him.

Then Lucifer shows up in the Garden of Eden.

It’s hard for me to imagine that during the six days God was creating the earth that coincidently Lucifer and one third of the angels rebelled against God in the same six days.

In all likelihood earth was created and was probably like a paradise that the angels could visit, and probably did so for millions or billions of years.

Then after Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled, God pretty much put an ice pack over planet earth killing everything. We have no idea how long this lasted, but then at some time afterwards God took planet earth that was formless and void and recreated it for man.

Here’s something to ponder. Lucifer and the fallen angels were sentenced to hell, but there sentencing was postponed. Then man was created, and Lucifer was allowed to tempt man. Then on judgment day Lucifer, the fallen angels, and all human unbelievers will be thrown into hell.

Ever wonder why unbelievers and fallen angels get sent to hell on the same day, but angels existed many many years before humans?

 

[Stripe]

Um....this is from Eric's site:

[COLR="Purple"]He first found himself “in the papal doghouse” when he published his “Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” (1632), a work supporting the Copernican notion that the earth is not the center of the universe[/COLOR]

I know.

I bet he still disagrees with you...

You’re missing the point. The point is that YEC’s base everything on one verse that they take literally.

Which verse is that?

If that’s how you want to base your YEC beliefs, then we find when we apply this same system to other verses pertaining to the sun, then we would have to conclude that geocentrism is Biblical, which is what Christians did before science showed them they were wrong.

I think you have no idea what this YEC believes or why he believes it. You've got a very warped idea about just how a YECs brain is different from yours.

For some reason YEC’s think that if they embrace OEC, advocating for evolution has to follow. This is not true.

:squint: Who cares?

I'll try again; the mindset of the YEC today is the same as the geocentric mindset of the early 1600's.

The geocentric mindset of the 1600s was based on Greek philosophy. Nothing in the bible goes anywhere near defining the scientific nature of the solar system past making it undeniably clear that it was made in six days.

Or it could have been that God stopped the earth from rotating around the sun. What we do know is that the sun was already standing still.

Uh .. no. I think you need to think through the physics a bit better. The Earth rotates around its axis and orbits the sun. Were the earth to stop orbiting the sun temporarily we would still see sunrise and sunset. If it stopped rotating the rocks would all crush each other and all the oceans would sweep over the continents.

 

[tetelestai]

Which verse is that?

(Gen 2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

I think you have no idea what this YEC believes or why he believes it. You've got a very warped idea about just how a YECs brain is different from yours.

Ok, tell me what I don't understand about a YEC.

The geocentric mindset of the 1600s was based on Greek philosophy. Nothing in the bible goes anywhere near defining the scientific nature of the solar system

If the Bible says "God made the sun stand still", which it does, then I wouldn't claim that the Bible says nothing about defining the solar system.

past making it undeniably clear that it was made in six days.

Where were the angels during these six days?

Uh .. no. I think you need to think through the physics a bit better. The Earth rotates around its axis and orbits the sun. Were the earth to stop orbiting the sun temporarily we would still see sunrise and sunset. If it stopped rotating the rocks would all crush each other and all the oceans would sweep over the continents.

Ok, really good points.

On one hand the Bible says the the sun stood still, which we know doesn't move. On the other hand, as you pointed out above, if the earth stopped orbiting the sun, we would still have sunrises and sunsets, and if the earth stopped rotating, it would become a mess.

So, my only conclusion would be that God did something that we are unable to explain or understand that made it appear to the people back then that the sun stood still for one day.

 

[Stripe]

[COLR="Navy"](Gen 2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.[/COLOR]

:squint: There's more than just that verse that backs up a six day creation. And there are no verses that contradict a six day creation. I think your characterisation of a YECs adherence to a six day creation is based upon a great big mischaracterisation.

Ok, tell me what I don't understand about a YEC.

How about we just have a reasonable discussion?

If the Bible says "God made the sun stand still", which it does, then I wouldn't claim that the Bible says nothing about defining the solar system.

Depends. The bible says that while describing the events as related by men. Men are perfectly justified in describing the sun as if it is moving through the sky. There is absolutely no need to read any description of the solar system into such a description. The only reason to do so would be if you wanted to accuse the bible of describing a geocentric solar system.

Where were the angels during these six days?

What?

Ok, really good points.

On one hand the Bible says the the sun stood still, which we know doesn't move. On the other hand, as you pointed out above, if the earth stopped orbiting the sun, we would still have sunrises and sunsets, and if the earth stopped rotating, it would become a mess.

So, my only conclusion would be that God did something that we are unable to explain or understand that made it appear to the people back then that the sun stood still for one day.

Or the earth continued to rotate and orbit, but suffered a little bit of a gravity induced precession which kept one side of it pointing at the sun for an unusually long period of time.

 

[Sonrise]

I don't really understand why this topic is one that christians disagree on so adamantly.

I first heard this in school, in biology class. Science is the art of finding out what God already knows. That made a huge impression on me. And am not sure if that was the teachers own quote or someone elses.

If you don't want to believe in an old earth, it's really no big deal, but you can't explain what science is discovering, and it makes christians look like idiots then. To believe in the relatively age of 6000 years does adhere to scripture and this creation from Adam to the present.

Lots of holes then in understanding of what is seen in the orignal text of a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

To "fool"...I learned from a Messianic Jew who taught the first creation, which ended with the ice age and a recreation.

 

[WizardofOz]

Bump

Bump

And the earth is not older than 6000 years, it just looks that way.

What "looks that way"? Care to be specific?

 

[Psalmist]

toldailytopic: How old is the earth?​

Older than dirt.​

 

[The Barbarian]

Simple. The moon is receding from the Earth at a known rate.

Yes...
The tidal bulges on Earth are carried ahead of the Earth–Moon axis by a small amount as a result of the Earth's rotation. This is a direct consequence of friction and the dissipation of energy as water moves over the ocean bottom and into or out of bays and estuaries. Each bulge exerts a small amount of gravitational attraction on the Moon, with the bulge closest to the Moon pulling in a direction slightly forward along the Moon's orbit, because the Earth's rotation has carried the bulge forward. The opposing bulge has the opposite effect, but the closer bulge dominates due to its comparative closer distance to the Moon. As a result, some of the Earth's rotational momentum is gradually being transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum, and this causes the Moon to slowly recede from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 millimetres per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

A billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tides would have been 12km high.

It would have been just outside the Roche limit about a billion years ago, which is consistent with other evidence. The error is to assume that the rate has been constant. But since it's been driven by tidal forces that vary with the shape of the continents, that's not the case. A good discussion of the physics can be found here:

Hansen, Kirk S. 1982. "Secular effects of oceanic tidal dissipation on the moon's orbit and the earth's rotation" Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 20:457-480

 

[The Barbarian]

Simple. The moon is receding from the Earth at a known rate.

Yes...but assuming that the rate is constant, will get you in trouble.

A billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tides would have been 12km high.

It would have been just outside the Roche limit about a billion years ago, which is consistent with other evidence. The error is to assume that the rate has been constant. But since it's been driven by tidal forces that vary with the shape of the continents, that's not the case. A good discussion of the physics, with lots of documentation and sources, can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html