40% of Americans-earth 10K years old

[Common Sense]

In Isreal they have found many artifacts that have been linked historically to the Bible. Christians rallied around this and and pointed to the validity of the Bible.
And guess what? NONE, NOBODY, NOT ANYONE challenged the validity of the carbon dating that linked these artifiacts to the Bible.
A few weeks ago the SAME archaeologists found teeth and dated them at tens of thousands of years old, possibly a few hundred thousand years old.
And the same folks that never questioned the carbon dating of the artifacts are questioning the carbon dating of the teeth.
Some religous folks are the worst kind of hypocrits.

Carbon dating doesn't work. Many of the artifacts that were found were adorned with inscriptions that allowed for them to be dated. The span of recorded history is roughly 5000 years beginning with Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing, from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.

30th century BC is still more than 10,000 years ago. doesnt that prove that the earth is older than what the bible claims?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In Isreal they have found many artifacts that have been linked historically to the Bible. Christians rallied around this and and pointed to the validity of the Bible.
And guess what? NONE, NOBODY, NOT ANYONE challenged the validity of the carbon dating that linked these artifiacts to the Bible.
A few weeks ago the SAME archaeologists found teeth and dated them at tens of thousands of years old, possibly a few hundred thousand years old.
And the same folks that never questioned the carbon dating of the artifacts are questioning the carbon dating of the teeth.
Some religous folks are the worst kind of hypocrits.

Carbon dating doesn't work. Many of the artifacts that were found were adorned with inscriptions that allowed for them to be dated. The span of recorded history is roughly 5000 years beginning with Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing, from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.

30th century BC is still more than 10,000 years ago. doesnt that prove that the earth is older than what the bible claims?

Math isn't your strong suit huh? 30th century lasted from 3000 BC to 2901 BC, 3000 BC to 1 AD is only 3000 years.

P.S. I don't care how old the earth is. I nor anyone else on this planet knows how old earth is and I don't see why it even matters.

 

[Common Sense]

Carbon dating doesn't work. Many of the artifacts that were found were adorned with inscriptions that allowed for them to be dated. The span of recorded history is roughly 5000 years beginning with Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing, from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.

30th century BC is still more than 10,000 years ago. doesnt that prove that the earth is older than what the bible claims?

Math isn't your strong suit huh? 30th century lasted from 3000 BC to 2901 BC, 3000 BC to 1 AD is only 3000 years.

my bad you are correct with this one, i was thinking millennia not century.

 

[logical4u]

you didnt exactly answer my question, but i will answer yours.

the oldest most complete skeleton found has been dated to 3.2 million years.

Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago. (Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found)

Still, you did not answer the question on the consistancy of earth years. Why don't scientists consider the time frame of earth years in the formation of the earth could have been vastly different from the earth years, today?
Yes, they found a "partial" skeleton. The scientists (the ones that make the evidence fit their stories) are claiming the skeleton is .... They cannot prove that age, is is a guess, circumstancial evidence. It is no fact. The only fact they have is that they discovered a partial skeleton and it "appears" to be very old. If they found a "modern man" perfect skeleton that dated older than that, they would claim it was the missing link (who would know the difference) to keep the paychecks coming. Those that put their faith in men are fools (nothing personal). BTW, I believe that I am a fool (nothing personal), but I am trying real hard, to join the Lord in eternity.

The day length was less in the past. About 320 million years ago there were 400 days in the year.

This mechanism has been working for 4.5 billion years, since oceans first formed on the Earth. There is geological and paleontological evidence that the Earth rotated faster and that the Moon was closer to the Earth in the remote past. Tidal rhythmites are alternating layers of sand and silt laid down offshore from estuaries having great tidal flows. Daily, monthly and seasonal cycles can be found in the deposits. This geological record is consistent with these conditions 620 million years ago: the day was 21.9±0.4 hours, and there were 13.1±0.1 synodic months/year and 400±7 solar days/year. The length of the year has remained virtually unchanged during this period because no evidence exists that the constant of gravitation has changed. The average recession rate of the Moon between then and now has been 2.17±0.31 cm/year, which is about half the present rate.

Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears the length of years was different. The geological record of course would be very accurate....
What about before that?

 

[Common Sense]

although radiocarbon dating has been proven to accurate to a certain degree with accuracy then falling at a calculated rate after.

"To present a date with a realistic standard error, Pearson (1980; 1983) and Pearson et al. (1986:929) have identified the factors which contributed significantly to errors in beta counting using Liquid Scintillation spectrometry. Ostensibly, this research was a precursor to high precision dating of Irish bog oak samples for the calibration of the radiocarbon timescale (Pearson, 1980, 1983; Pearson and Stuiver, 1993). He investigated each principal factor contributing to errors and considered their effect on overall laboratory precision and concluded that a standard error of ±25 radiocarbon years was possible in the Belfast laboratory. Standard errors quoted by the Belfast laboratory, then, are based upon this analysis. Many laboratories today calculate a laboratory error multiplier to account for all errors account for routine variation in reproducibility in radiocarbon dating. Stuiver (Stuiver and Pearson, 1993), for instance, has reported that the standard errors reported in the University of Washington laboratory results are based a lab multiplier. According to Stuiver and Pearson (1993), the error multiplier (or 'K') is a measure of the laboratory reproducibility, incorporating the errors resulting from the preparation of gas, its loading, memory effects and counting statistics. 'K' is defined as the actual standard error divided by the quoted standard error and is usually generated through repeat dating of a standard of known age or consensus age." Radiocarbon Date calculation

 

[Common Sense]

Still, you did not answer the question on the consistancy of earth years. Why don't scientists consider the time frame of earth years in the formation of the earth could have been vastly different from the earth years, today?
Yes, they found a "partial" skeleton. The scientists (the ones that make the evidence fit their stories) are claiming the skeleton is .... They cannot prove that age, is is a guess, circumstancial evidence. It is no fact. The only fact they have is that they discovered a partial skeleton and it "appears" to be very old. If they found a "modern man" perfect skeleton that dated older than that, they would claim it was the missing link (who would know the difference) to keep the paychecks coming. Those that put their faith in men are fools (nothing personal). BTW, I believe that I am a fool (nothing personal), but I am trying real hard, to join the Lord in eternity.

The day length was less in the past. About 320 million years ago there were 400 days in the year.

This mechanism has been working for 4.5 billion years, since oceans first formed on the Earth. There is geological and paleontological evidence that the Earth rotated faster and that the Moon was closer to the Earth in the remote past. Tidal rhythmites are alternating layers of sand and silt laid down offshore from estuaries having great tidal flows. Daily, monthly and seasonal cycles can be found in the deposits. This geological record is consistent with these conditions 620 million years ago: the day was 21.9±0.4 hours, and there were 13.1±0.1 synodic months/year and 400±7 solar days/year. The length of the year has remained virtually unchanged during this period because no evidence exists that the constant of gravitation has changed. The average recession rate of the Moon between then and now has been 2.17±0.31 cm/year, which is about half the present rate.

Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears the length of years was different. The geological record of course would be very accurate....
What about before that?

what do you mean the length of years was different? it say that a year was approx 400 days based upon a 21.4 hour day (using todays terms)

and before what? before 620 million years ago?

 

[hboats]

In Isreal they have found many artifacts that have been linked historically to the Bible. Christians rallied around this and and pointed to the validity of the Bible.
And guess what? NONE, NOBODY, NOT ANYONE challenged the validity of the carbon dating that linked these artifiacts to the Bible.
A few weeks ago the SAME archaeologists found teeth and dated them at tens of thousands of years old, possibly a few hundred thousand years old.
And the same folks that never questioned the carbon dating of the artifacts are questioning the carbon dating of the teeth.
Some religous folks are the worst kind of hypocrits.

Carbon dating doesn't work. Many of the artifacts that were found were adorned with inscriptions that allowed for them to be dated. The span of recorded history is roughly 5000 years beginning with Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing, from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.

30th century BC is still more than 10,000 years ago. doesnt that prove that the earth is older than what the bible claims?

The bible claims that the earth is 10,000 years old or less? Please show me where that claim is made in the bible. As far as I know the bible makes absolutely no claim on the age of the earth.

Now if you'd said that some Christians/preachers claim the earth is 10,000 years old or less you'd be correct. But let me make something clear here, just because some people make claims on things that they think they understand from the bible doesn't make it true. It also doesn't mean that ALL Christians believe those claims. Just because someone tries to take things from the bible and make claims on the age of earth from certain things that are written in it doesn't mean that the bible says it. It doesn't even mean that the bible backs up their claim. It really just means that someone is trying to take something out of a book and make it substantiate what they believe.

Now, I have no idea how old the earth is, and for that matter, neither do scientists. We can all just guess at the earth's age and claim that our guess is as good as the next person's guess, but that doesn't make it true any more than the preacher who is taking what he wants out of the bible to support his claims.

Do I believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old? Personally, yes I do. Do I know how much older than 10,000 years it is? Hell no. But I'd say considerably older than 10,000 years. Do I believe any scientist can tell me with certainty how old the earth is? Hell no.

Rick

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Carbon dating doesn't work. Many of the artifacts that were found were adorned with inscriptions that allowed for them to be dated. The span of recorded history is roughly 5000 years beginning with Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing, from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.

30th century BC is still more than 10,000 years ago. doesnt that prove that the earth is older than what the bible claims?

The bible claims that the earth is 10,000 years old or less? Please show me where that claim is made in the bible. As far as I know the bible makes absolutely no claim on the age of the earth.

Now if you'd said that some Christians/preachers claim the earth is 10,000 years old or less you'd be correct. But let me make something clear here, just because some people make claims on things that they think they understand from the bible doesn't make it true. It also doesn't mean that ALL Christians believe those claims. Just because someone tries to take things from the bible and make claims on the age of earth from certain things that are written in it doesn't mean that the bible says it. It doesn't even mean that the bible backs up their claim. It really just means that someone is trying to take something out of a book and make it substantiate what they believe.

Now, I have no idea how old the earth is, and for that matter, neither do scientists. We can all just guess at the earth's age and claim that our guess is as good as the next person's guess, but that doesn't make it true any more than the preacher who is taking what he wants out of the bible to support his claims.

Do I believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old? Personally, yes I do. Do I know how much older than 10,000 years it is? Hell no. But I'd say considerably older than 10,000 years. Do I believe any scientist can tell me with certainty how old the earth is? Hell no.

Rick

The Bible makes no such claim.

 

[hboats]

30th century BC is still more than 10,000 years ago. doesnt that prove that the earth is older than what the bible claims?

The bible claims that the earth is 10,000 years old or less? Please show me where that claim is made in the bible. As far as I know the bible makes absolutely no claim on the age of the earth.

Now if you'd said that some Christians/preachers claim the earth is 10,000 years old or less you'd be correct. But let me make something clear here, just because some people make claims on things that they think they understand from the bible doesn't make it true. It also doesn't mean that ALL Christians believe those claims. Just because someone tries to take things from the bible and make claims on the age of earth from certain things that are written in it doesn't mean that the bible says it. It doesn't even mean that the bible backs up their claim. It really just means that someone is trying to take something out of a book and make it substantiate what they believe.

Now, I have no idea how old the earth is, and for that matter, neither do scientists. We can all just guess at the earth's age and claim that our guess is as good as the next person's guess, but that doesn't make it true any more than the preacher who is taking what he wants out of the bible to support his claims.

Do I believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old? Personally, yes I do. Do I know how much older than 10,000 years it is? Hell no. But I'd say considerably older than 10,000 years. Do I believe any scientist can tell me with certainty how old the earth is? Hell no.

Rick

The Bible makes no such claim.

Yeah, I knew that. I was making a point that Common Sense was trying to imply that the Bible in fact did claim that the earth was less than 10,000 years old.

Rick

 

[Vanquish]

While I don't respect what you actually believe, I do acknowledge you should be able to believe it without insult.

Faith, by its nature, has no proof. If you've decided that you don't want proof for what you believe in, that's your decision. I personally think it's a faulty one, but I wont characterize it in any way worse than that.

We can go round and round on what can and can't be proven...but at the end of the day...there science has certain repeatable processes that are based on theories that are at least repeatable.

Religion on the other hand is totally unsubstantiated. People say "thank god!" when someone survives a car crash...but then say we shouldn't curse god when someone doesn't. If you can prove to me that prayer works, I'd love to listen.

I just lost a case where the forces of evil lined up in a manner so Machiavellian that even the Devil himself would think our opposition was despicable. The judge threw it out on summary judgment and the case is over. My client was a school teacher for over 30+ years who was fired for proving there was corruption in our state education system...cheating children out of millions of dollars...and then fired for it...with no protection. Where was God? (this is where we devolve into why is there evil in the world...we can table that for now)

I've studied apologetics...and comparative religion...and a myriad of other theological subjects at seminary. I eventually left

I wish you well on your journey of understanding, but it's not one that I can share. It's unfortunate to me that literal interpretation interpretation of a historical document is still taught. There's no ancient text in history, written by humans, that doesn't bear contextual reading.

Thank you for your post. However... you did not answer the questions about the consistancy of "years" from the formation of the earth. As far as I know, this is not mentioned or considered by "science" (that is 'supposed' to look at all possibilities).

As far as "where is G*d" when people have problems, He is there. Each person is given the ability to reason (free will). If the Lord was the safety net for every bad or evil decision, when would we learn. If we refuse to learn, the ones we love can show us the way. The Lord never promised that we would like it. He just promised the possiblity of everlasting love in His glory. There is no requirement for you to choose Him. Peace.

Of course it's been considered by science, as a previous poster has explained.

What YOU haven't explained is what the mystical hole in the scientific method is. Not a particular theory...but the PROCESS.

The scientific method (the process of hypothetical >observable phenomena> conclusion based on repetition of the phenomena) works. It works and allows us to record what is and what isnt. what happens and what doesnt. Over time, the theories get more concrete and reliable.

And you know what you do when you insult the scientific method? You prove there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE TRUTH. The sun rises and sets every day. Science taught us there's a sun...we've taken pictures of it. Science defined the star we call the sun...hell science helped us create the camera required to take the picture. Science works. It's based on reliable, repeatable phenomena.

You haven't given ONE SINGLE explanation as to why your faith is more worthy of belief than millions of scientists over the course of history using the scientific method. And the sad thing is...you can't. You can try and poke holes in any particular theory you like...but you can't prove that Christianity is more worthy than the scientific method. If you can, please do so.

Your religion is one of many around the world. The fact that you believe in it is pure accident of birth.

 

[Common Sense]

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

Although many people don't accept the Bible's timeline of history, they have difficulty deciding exactly when to start disagreeing with it.

Was Jesus Christ real? The Bible says he was, and no serious historian doubts it.
Was King David real? The Bible says he was. Again, there is no reason to doubt it.
Was Abraham real? The Bible says he was. There seems no reason to doubt this either.
Was Enoch real? The Bible says he was. There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction when the other people were genuine historical figures.
Was Adam real? Well, Enoch was a son of Cain, who was a son of Adam. So if Enoch was real there is no reason to think that his father Cain wasn't, or that his grandfather Adam wasn't. They were only two generations away.
And Adam was the first man, created in the first week of the earth's existence.
According to the Bible, he lived about 6000 years ago. So according to the Bible, the world also is about 6000 years old.
Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.
In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.
Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.


How old is the earth according to the Bible?

 

[Vanquish]

Biblical Age of Earth

by David V. Bassett, M.S.

Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.

From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.

From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.

From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.

Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.

From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].

The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.

Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !! Mankind did not evolve 4 million years ago on an Earth which is 4.5 billion years old in a universe which was "big-banged" into existence 18-20 billion years in the distant past. Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate, said He made mankind male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6), and that when the heavens and the earth were commanded into being (Gen 1:1), they "stood up together" (Isa 48:13) not billions of years apart !!

Creation Evidence Museum Online - General Information

 

[Lonestar_logic]

although radiocarbon dating has been proven to accurate to a certain degree with accuracy then falling at a calculated rate after.

"To present a date with a realistic standard error, Pearson (1980; 1983) and Pearson et al. (1986:929) have identified the factors which contributed significantly to errors in beta counting using Liquid Scintillation spectrometry. Ostensibly, this research was a precursor to high precision dating of Irish bog oak samples for the calibration of the radiocarbon timescale (Pearson, 1980, 1983; Pearson and Stuiver, 1993). He investigated each principal factor contributing to errors and considered their effect on overall laboratory precision and concluded that a standard error of ±25 radiocarbon years was possible in the Belfast laboratory. Standard errors quoted by the Belfast laboratory, then, are based upon this analysis. Many laboratories today calculate a laboratory error multiplier to account for all errors account for routine variation in reproducibility in radiocarbon dating. Stuiver (Stuiver and Pearson, 1993), for instance, has reported that the standard errors reported in the University of Washington laboratory results are based a lab multiplier. According to Stuiver and Pearson (1993), the error multiplier (or 'K') is a measure of the laboratory reproducibility, incorporating the errors resulting from the preparation of gas, its loading, memory effects and counting statistics. 'K' is defined as the actual standard error divided by the quoted standard error and is usually generated through repeat dating of a standard of known age or consensus age." Radiocarbon Date calculation

Why do you put so much faith in science? Radiocarbon dating has its flaws and scientist tends to accept data which fit his/her expectations.

With all carbon dating methods assumptions are made that are no way guaranteed to be accurate. For example assumptions are made that the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant, that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant, that the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 have remained constant in the atmosphere for billions of years.

Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating

 

[Vanquish]

Lonestar, you still havent proven the superiority of FAITH in something you haven't seen...over the SCIENTIFIC METHOD which produces predictable results.

None of you pro-Christians have.

 

[hboats]

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

Although many people don't accept the Bible's timeline of history, they have difficulty deciding exactly when to start disagreeing with it.

Was Jesus Christ real? The Bible says he was, and no serious historian doubts it.
Was King David real? The Bible says he was. Again, there is no reason to doubt it.
Was Abraham real? The Bible says he was. There seems no reason to doubt this either.
Was Enoch real? The Bible says he was. There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction when the other people were genuine historical figures.
Was Adam real? Well, Enoch was a son of Cain, who was a son of Adam. So if Enoch was real there is no reason to think that his father Cain wasn't, or that his grandfather Adam wasn't. They were only two generations away.
And Adam was the first man, created in the first week of the earth's existence.
According to the Bible, he lived about 6000 years ago. So according to the Bible, the world also is about 6000 years old.
Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.
In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.
Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.


How old is the earth according to the Bible?

And you just proved what I said. There are people who will take things out of the Bible and make claims on the age of the earth. But there is not one place in the Bible that claims the earth is 10,000 years old or less. We have only "Bible historians and scholars" to go from. And I couldn't care less what some Bible historians and scholars think they know from taking bits and pieces out of the Bible.

Rick

 

[Lonestar_logic]

While I don't respect what you actually believe, I do acknowledge you should be able to believe it without insult.

Faith, by its nature, has no proof. If you've decided that you don't want proof for what you believe in, that's your decision. I personally think it's a faulty one, but I wont characterize it in any way worse than that.

We can go round and round on what can and can't be proven...but at the end of the day...there science has certain repeatable processes that are based on theories that are at least repeatable.

Religion on the other hand is totally unsubstantiated. People say "thank god!" when someone survives a car crash...but then say we shouldn't curse god when someone doesn't. If you can prove to me that prayer works, I'd love to listen.

I just lost a case where the forces of evil lined up in a manner so Machiavellian that even the Devil himself would think our opposition was despicable. The judge threw it out on summary judgment and the case is over. My client was a school teacher for over 30+ years who was fired for proving there was corruption in our state education system...cheating children out of millions of dollars...and then fired for it...with no protection. Where was God? (this is where we devolve into why is there evil in the world...we can table that for now)

I've studied apologetics...and comparative religion...and a myriad of other theological subjects at seminary. I eventually left

I wish you well on your journey of understanding, but it's not one that I can share. It's unfortunate to me that literal interpretation interpretation of a historical document is still taught. There's no ancient text in history, written by humans, that doesn't bear contextual reading.

Thank you for your post. However... you did not answer the questions about the consistancy of "years" from the formation of the earth. As far as I know, this is not mentioned or considered by "science" (that is 'supposed' to look at all possibilities).

As far as "where is G*d" when people have problems, He is there. Each person is given the ability to reason (free will). If the Lord was the safety net for every bad or evil decision, when would we learn. If we refuse to learn, the ones we love can show us the way. The Lord never promised that we would like it. He just promised the possiblity of everlasting love in His glory. There is no requirement for you to choose Him. Peace.

Of course it's been considered by science, as a previous poster has explained.

What YOU haven't explained is what the mystical hole in the scientific method is. Not a particular theory...but the PROCESS.

The scientific method (the process of hypothetical >observable phenomena> conclusion based on repetition of the phenomena) works. It works and allows us to record what is and what isnt. what happens and what doesnt. Over time, the theories get more concrete and reliable.

And you know what you do when you insult the scientific method? You prove there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE TRUTH. The sun rises and sets every day. Science taught us there's a sun...we've taken pictures of it. Science defined the star we call the sun...hell science helped us create the camera required to take the picture. Science works. It's based on reliable, repeatable phenomena.

You haven't given ONE SINGLE explanation as to why your faith is more worthy of belief than millions of scientists over the course of history using the scientific method. And the sad thing is...you can't. You can try and poke holes in any particular theory you like...but you can't prove that Christianity is more worthy than the scientific method. If you can, please do so.

Your religion is one of many around the world. The fact that you believe in it is pure accident of birth.

The sun and the stars were taught to man from the Bible, long before science or scientist defined them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, you still havent proven the superiority of FAITH in something you haven't seen...over the SCIENTIFIC METHOD which produces predictable results.

None of you pro-Christians have.

I have nothing to prove, either you believe in God or you don't. Psalms 118:8 is all I need to know. It is better to trust in the Lord than trust in man.

 

[Common Sense]

And you just proved what I said. There are people who will take things out of the Bible and make claims on the age of the earth. But there is not one place in the Bible that claims the earth is 10,000 years old or less. We have only "Bible historians and scholars" to go from. And I couldn't care less what some Bible historians and scholars think they know from taking bits and pieces out of the Bible.

Rick

ok agreed that is doesnt say that exact words. can you agree then that the bible also make no mention of science, the other planets, comets and other galaxies? by your current logic, you are saying that if its not in the bible, then it is false. there is no room for study or interpretation. then there are many things that shouldnt exist because of the bible. we shouldnt have science, because no one should question how the bible describes the world. we also shouldnt have other religions, because the word of the bible should stand true to everyone everywhere. we also shouldnt have evidence of evolution, because we were just put here roughly 6,000 years ago.

see where this argument goes...... you are now taking bits and pieces of the bible and molding your story to fit them. when some type of evidence is found that refutes whats in the bible, it simply gets brushed off blindly as an act of god. the topic of the thread is that people claim the earth is less than 10,000 years old, if you dont believe that, then you disagree with religious scholars who state so. which by that reasoning then, you should question more than just that from the bible.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

Although many people don't accept the Bible's timeline of history, they have difficulty deciding exactly when to start disagreeing with it.

Was Jesus Christ real? The Bible says he was, and no serious historian doubts it.
Was King David real? The Bible says he was. Again, there is no reason to doubt it.
Was Abraham real? The Bible says he was. There seems no reason to doubt this either.
Was Enoch real? The Bible says he was. There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction when the other people were genuine historical figures.
Was Adam real? Well, Enoch was a son of Cain, who was a son of Adam. So if Enoch was real there is no reason to think that his father Cain wasn't, or that his grandfather Adam wasn't. They were only two generations away.
And Adam was the first man, created in the first week of the earth's existence.
According to the Bible, he lived about 6000 years ago. So according to the Bible, the world also is about 6000 years old.
Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.
In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.
Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.


How old is the earth according to the Bible?

The problem with your calculations is knowing the length of a day. We know from the Bible that God created Adam on the sixth day, what we don't know is how long a day is to God. In 2 Peter 3:8 it states that “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day".

 

[Common Sense]

Lonestar, you still havent proven the superiority of FAITH in something you haven't seen...over the SCIENTIFIC METHOD which produces predictable results.

None of you pro-Christians have.

I have nothing to prove, either you believe in God or you don't. Psalms 118:8 is all I need to know. It is better to trust in the Lord than trust in man.

yes you need to be able to provide evidence and reasoning to back up your claims, otherwise anything anyone says is truth. (otherwise these are called lies)
can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lord exists?
by the same toke, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man exists?

if you can not prove beyond a doubt that one exists, how can you trust him?