# Part One: How old do you say the earth is



## j_seph (Dec 25, 2005)

I once thought in the millions but now know around 6000 yrs old


----------



## Gator1679 (Dec 25, 2005)

Biblically, the 6000 mark makes more sense if we are talking about a 24 hour day and 365 day year. But that is a subject that could be debated for a while.


----------



## Ga-Spur (Dec 25, 2005)

Science teaches us multi-millions.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 25, 2005)

I've never really cared much about how old the earth is.   To me, it's insignificant.   

I will say this....there is alot of evidence on the young earth side of the debate that can't be ignored.    (moon's rate of moving away from the earth, ocean salinity rate, etc)

Hard to imagine the moon dragging along with this earth for billions of years.

Bandy


----------



## Flash (Dec 25, 2005)

This year they are adding a second (they do it every few years) to the clock because the earth's rotation is slowing down.

 Back up millions of years, earth would be faster, time you pulled the covers up it'd be time to get up wouldn't it. 

 Young earth makes more sense IMO


----------



## Jim Thompson (Dec 26, 2005)

old very old young grasshopper....if we are speaking in human counting years it is in the millions


----------



## sgsjr (Dec 26, 2005)

About 5 billion is its true age.


----------



## HT2 (Dec 26, 2005)

*I believe..........*

More around the 6,000 year guess.........

I don't believe that the earth has been here millions and millions of years.......

Just don't buy it.......


----------



## reylamb (Dec 26, 2005)

6 - 10k years most definitely.

God created Adam as a mature man, not as a child.  Logically it would follow that He created a mature earth, one that man would date as millions of years old.  God exists outside of physics and the "laws of nature."


----------



## HuntinTom (Dec 26, 2005)

reylamb said:
			
		

> 6 - 10k years most definitely.
> 
> God created Adam as a mature man, not as a child.  Logically it would follow that He created a mature earth, one that man would date as millions of years old.  God exists outside of physics and the "laws of nature."


Now that's one of the best ways I've ever heard it described --


----------



## reylamb (Dec 26, 2005)

Woodswalker said:
			
		

> Not to be overly argumentative, since we all express ourselves in English fairly well,
> but,
> we keep banging up against God, and his plan.  Nothing wrong with that in my limited understanding, or desire to know.
> 
> ...


I am not sure what kind of throne God is sitting on, nor do I really think it is important in the grand scheme of things.  However, God has the physical appearance of a man and also does many of the same physical things man does.  We know Has a humanlike appearance since He said He created man in His own image.  We also know from the Old Testament teachings that He walks and talks.


----------



## Jarvis Anderson (Dec 26, 2005)

*Earth's age*

It's a fact that the earth is around 4.5 to 5.0 billion years old. But Woody's World is OLDER!!!!!!

Maybe the guy writing the Bible forgot to add a few more zeros's????????


----------



## reylamb (Dec 26, 2005)

Woodswalker said:
			
		

> Otay, just got to get another set of English words into the fray.
> 
> for me, the type, kind, and specifics of the throne that God sits on is Just as important, even more so, than how he gets around and about on the Earth, walking and talking.
> 
> ...


It would have to be a White Oak obviously since deer prefer em.


----------



## reylamb (Dec 26, 2005)

Jarvis Anderson said:
			
		

> It's a fact that the earth is around 4.5 to 5.0 billion years old. But Woody's World is OLDER!!!!!!
> 
> Maybe the guy writing the Bible forgot to add a few more zeros's????????


God forgets nothing.  On a side note, you can make a fortune if you can prove the earth is billions of years old.....or if you can prove the theory of evolution to in fact be law and not theory.


----------



## Hawg (Dec 26, 2005)

*4.4 billion*

I watch a show yesterday morning on the Discovery Channel and they said it was around 4.4billion years old. It started when 2 planets collided.


----------



## Spotlite (Dec 29, 2005)

Hawg said:
			
		

> I watch a show yesterday morning on the Discovery Channel and they said it was around 4.4billion years old. It started when 2 planets collided.




It started in Genesis when God created it. The scientific facts behind the millions of years age theory cuts its own throat. The scientist say the earth corrodes so much each year, if it does and we are millions of years old, we would have corroded away 100 thousand times by now.


----------



## Randy (Dec 29, 2005)

reylamb said:
			
		

> you can make a fortune if you can prove the earth is billions of years old.....or if you can prove the theory of evolution to in fact be law and not theory.



Yea, look how many millions have been made on a book about the theory of it only being 6000 years old.  It is the number one selling book of all time.


----------



## DCHunter (Dec 29, 2005)

reylamb said:
			
		

> I am not sure what kind of throne God is sitting on, nor do I really think it is important in the grand scheme of things.  However, God has the physical appearance of a man and also does many of the same physical things man does.  We know Has a humanlike appearance since He said He created man in His own image.  We also know from the Old Testament teachings that He walks and talks.



I tend to believe that when he says we were created in his image, that he is referring to the fact that we have a spirit. Unlike animals who are only carbon based life forms. The spirit is what seperates us from animals and that was what God was trying to portray. Just my very humble opinion.


----------



## sgsjr (Jan 6, 2006)

We have no more spirit than the aminals.

The universe sure is a vast expance only to be 6000 years old.  The tsunami and hurrican katrina were disasters of biblical perportions, if they had happed 5000 years agoe, i'm pretty sure there would be a god theory on them.


----------



## BIGGUS (Jan 6, 2006)

sgsjr said:
			
		

> We have no more spirit than the aminals.
> 
> The universe sure is a vast expance only to be 6000 years old.  The tsunami and hurrican katrina were disasters of biblical perportions, if they had happed 5000 years agoe, i'm pretty sure there would be a god theory on them.


That's a fairly astute observation.  Dang wish I was smart as you! Although, IMHO Katrina was a kiddie party compared to the 12/04 Tsunami and it came with at least a weeks warning.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 6, 2006)

*here goes that Creation scientist again...  !!*

Randy, don't shoot me for bringing up 'evolution' again  , but this is a good article...

*From: Institute for Creation Research   *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=215

There is nothing more devastating to the doctrine of evolution than the scientific evidence of a young earth age. That evidence is provided by the rapid depletion of the energy in the earth's main magnet, its electromagnetic dipole magnet in the conductive core of the earth. Its electric current is using up the magnet's energy. The rate of energy consumption is now known. From that information and a reasonable limit on the maximum plausible initial energy one can show that the earth's magnetic age is limited to thousands of years, not the billions claimed by evolutionary scientists.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 6, 2006)

Hang on, this article's better... 

Evidence for a Young World:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842


----------



## Hawg (Jan 6, 2006)

*ChrisW.*

Sorry my friend, Your wrong and their right, I think.


----------



## dawglover73 (Jan 7, 2006)

Chrisw said:
			
		

> It started in Genesis when God created it. The scientific facts behind the millions of years age theory cuts its own throat. The scientist say the earth corrodes so much each year, if it does and we are millions of years old, we would have corroded away 100 thousand times by now.


=====================================
Effects of change are often exponential, or proportional to current events, populations, pollutants, etc.  So, to say that the earth would be gone at the current disappearance/delta  rate is not a good measure.  I would bet a kidney and my entire 2006-2007 deer season that the earth is WAY older than 6,000 years old.


----------



## RThomas (Jan 9, 2006)

If you believe ANYTHING that the IRC or AIG promotes, then I have a swamp land investment you may be interested in.
Those young earth arguments have been debunked long ago. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

"Evidence 2.
Direct measurements of the earths magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years. a) Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973). 

Response:
The argument in general is very weak. The argument as made by Barnes is directly false. I have already written an extensive critique of Barnes' work, which is found in the talk.origins archive. Barnes' argument is tightly circular and illogical, since it directly assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved. Barnes makes the simplistic mistake of extraplating an empirical fit to a 150 year data set over a 10,000 year range and claims the extrapolation is valid! Barnes wrongly insists that dynamo action is forbidden by Cowling's theorem, ignoring the fact that Cowling himself had already proven that this could not be true, 15 years before Barnes published his book! A very poor argument."
From: http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
And more indepth: 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
If you want to learn real science, then get your info from real scientists.


----------



## Branchminnow (Jan 9, 2006)

Im like Bandy its sort of insignificant(sp)


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 9, 2006)

About 4.6 billion years....give or take a few 

I don't necessarily believe God's days are determined by our rotation around the sun.......his time table deals with the whole cosmos...IMO


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

Hawg said:
			
		

> Sorry my friend, Your wrong and their right, I think.




Who are they? The scientist, I said it before, scientist are athiest, they take evrything God created and try to find a scientific reasoning for it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

dawglover73 said:
			
		

> =====================================
> Effects of change are often exponential, or proportional to current events, populations, pollutants, etc.  So, to say that the earth would be gone at the current disappearance/delta  rate is not a good measure.  I would bet a kidney and my entire 2006-2007 deer season that the earth is WAY older than 6,000 years old.




You might loose a kidney and wont get to hunt, but thats your lose. Either believe science or God. Look at the time of creation to mankind and other events in the Bible, it gives you time frames, you either belive or you dont.


----------



## RThomas (Jan 9, 2006)

Chrisw said:
			
		

> Who are they? The scientist, I said it before, scientist are athiest, they take evrything God created and try to find a scientific reasoning for it.


This is an absolutely absurd and untrue statement.  Please provide resources and evidence to support this statement.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

RThomas said:
			
		

> This is an absolutely absurd and untrue statement.  Please provide resources and evidence to support this statement.



Gensis 1 and 1, in the beginning GOD CREATED, and then along came scientist with,

1. Evolution
2. No virgin birth of Jesus by Mary
3. Big bang theory

Need I go further? My resources are the King James Version of Gods word and it is without debate. It supports itself.


----------



## RThomas (Jan 9, 2006)

Chrisw said:
			
		

> Gensis 1 and 1, in the beginning GOD CREATED, and then along came scientist with,
> 
> 1. Evolution
> 2. No virgin birth of Jesus by Mary
> ...


You don't need to go further.  You've proven that you can't back up your statement that all scientists are atheists, and that you have an extremely warped understanding of science.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

RThomas said:
			
		

> You don't need to go further.  You've proven that you can't back up your statement that all scientists are atheists, and that you have an extremely warped understanding of science.




Jesus said you cant serve two masters, either you be for me or against me. No scientist in the world will give God credit for creation. Its always "we studied the possibilities of it we came to the conclusion that this must be what happened".

You gave a typical scientific response, although an expected one.


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 9, 2006)

As a Christian and scientist.....you're dead wrong period! (not to mention more than a wee bit judgemental) If I cared enough to expend the time and energy to rebut you in detail, as a scientist I know every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, so you would cut and paste some oposing view and basically waste both our times....so why bother asking that if God Created...how did he create?  Who am I to say he didn't create with a big bang?  Who are you to say he didn't?  ....





			
				Chrisw said:
			
		

> Gensis 1 and 1, in the beginning GOD CREATED, and then along came scientist with,
> 
> 1. Evolution
> 2. No virgin birth of Jesus by Mary
> ...


 W.[/QUOTE] ho are they? The scientist, I said it before, scientist are athiest, they take evrything God created and try to find a scientific reasoning for it..[/QUOTE]


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

slightly grayling said:
			
		

> As a Christian and scientist.....so why bother asking that if God Created...how did he create?  Who am I to say he didn't create with a big bang?  Who are you to say he didn't?  .... W.


 ho are they? The scientist, I said it before, scientist are athiest, they take evrything God created and try to find a scientific reasoning for it..[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


My point exactly, get the word IF out. Do you believe or not? But then again, typical scientific response. Come on you scientist can do better than that. You mean to tell me you claim to be a Christian and still wonder if God created? Sad soul there.


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 9, 2006)

Absoultely not (read carefully and try not to condem me to bigtoe from your high horse)  it is a matter of how God created...NOT IF he created....That is all I will say on the issue...you may want to consider reading posts carefully before exposing your miopic judgemental opinions.  Fortunately I do not need your validation to know I am a Christian...   



			
				Chrisw said:
			
		

> ho are they? The scientist, I said it before, scientist are athiest, they take evrything God created and try to find a scientific reasoning for it..


[/QUOTE]


My point exactly, get the word IF out. Do you believe or not? But then again, typical scientific response. Come on you scientist can do better than that. You mean to tell me you claim to be a Christian and still wonder if God created? Sad soul there.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

slightly grayling said:
			
		

> Absoultely not (read carefully and try not to condem me to bigtoe from your high horse)  it is a matter of how God created...NOT IF he created....That is all I will say on the issue...you may want to consider reading posts carefully before exposing your miopic judgemental opinions.  Fortunately I do not need your validation to know I am a Christian...




My point exactly, get the word IF out. Do you believe or not? But then again, typical scientific response. Come on you scientist can do better than that. You mean to tell me you claim to be a Christian and still wonder if God created? Sad soul there.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

For the record, I dont ride horses, after you remove all the big technical words from your response, you havent even made a statement. Your still questioning Gods ability and it aint none of science business how he does what he does and when he done it. He removed Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden because they partook of the tree of knowledge, there are some things you dont need to know or wonder about. How can you build your faith if you just happen to know all the answers? Scientist still cant comprehend that. I think God created scientist to show the stupidity of mankind.
Or maybe they evolved from Donkey.


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 9, 2006)

Ok..I    will    make   it   simple (that means easy)   for you and will try to use little words...I am a Christian, I believe in Christ as the Savior.  I do not believe science or You have all the answers....including how God created..    I do not believe you comprehend (that means understand) in Matthew 7.1 says judge not lest ye be judged....





			
				Chrisw said:
			
		

> My point exactly, get the word IF out. Do you believe or not? But then again, typical scientific response. Come on you scientist can do better than that. You mean to tell me you claim to be a Christian and still wonder if God created? Sad soul there.


[/QUOTE]

For the record, I dont ride horses, after you remove all the big technical words from your response, you havent even made a statement. Your still questioning Gods ability and it aint none of science business how he does what he does and when he done it. He removed Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden because they partook of the tree of knowledge, there are some things you dont need to know or wonder about. How can you build your faith if you just happen to know all the answers? Scientist still cant comprehend that. I think God created scientist to show the stupidity of mankind.
Or maybe they evolved from Donkey.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

Slightly grayling, re-read your own judgemental opinions you made about me before you turn into a preacher. Black is black, pink is pink, The Bible said know them that labor among you. You cant strattle the fence, God said be hot or cold, but if your luke warm I spew you out. Scientist belittle the God I serve and what does light have to do with darkness?


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 9, 2006)

I will turn the other cheek...I should have about 3 posts ago...but I am curious that if scientist and the understanding of our world is so evil....Do you use modern medicine?


----------



## GeauxLSU (Jan 9, 2006)

I BELIEVE it is millions of years old.
I KNOW it doesn't matter.
I UNDERSTAND some of you feel differently about both points.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

slightly grayling said:
			
		

> I will turn the other cheek...I should have about 3 posts ago...but I am curious that if scientist and the understanding of our world is so evil....Do you use modern medicine?




Yes I use it, what does that have to do with anything. The scientist that put the formula together still says he did it and does not give God credit for it. I havent heard one of them say " I thank God for using me to discover this " Do you know of one that has?


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 9, 2006)

And who is this unnamed scientists that discovered this formula?  Are you certain he did not give God credit?  As far as knowing one who gives credit..Yes. Myself for one (not that I have any pharmacutical background or have made any historically significantly discoveries)....and many I have known...I wonder just how many scientist you have known to take such a jaded view.   





			
				Chrisw said:
			
		

> Yes I use it, what does that have to do with anything. The scientist that put the formula together still says he did it and does not give God credit for it. I havent heard one of them say " I thank God for using me to discover this " Do you know of one that has?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

Never saw or heard a scientist give anyone credit except themselves. You here on TV what was discovered, dont here God mentioned, its all about Dr. SoSO.


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 9, 2006)

Do you realize the scientists you see on TV represent less than 0.0001% of the population of scientists?: 





			
				Chrisw said:
			
		

> Never saw or heard a scientist give anyone credit except themselves. You here on TV what was discovered, dont here God mentioned, its all about Dr. SoSO.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

slightly grayling said:
			
		

> Do you realize the scientists you see on TV represent less than 0.0001% of the population of scientists?:



Where did you come up with that number? Aint buying it, one main goal in scientific debates is trying to get someone else to believe a load of junk they sit around the lab all night thinking up. If they can sell their theory, they get rich. This must have happened, this might have happened, open the Bible to see what happened.


----------



## dawglover73 (Jan 9, 2006)

Chrisw said:
			
		

> You might loose a kidney and wont get to hunt, but thats your lose. Either believe science or God. Look at the time of creation to mankind and other events in the Bible, it gives you time frames, you either belive or you dont.




So you can't have BOTH opinions?  That's not serving two masters.  I believe Jesus is my Lord and I also believe chicken wings taste better dipped in Ranch dressing.  Is THAT serving two masters?  Completely unrelated.  Also, we know God is the creator of all...  agreed?  He created science also.  Anyway, my argument contained no science... it was math.  Exponential returns are a function of math, not science.  I do believe there is a heck of a lot of math in the bible.


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 9, 2006)

A conservative guess....of all the scientists, meterologist, geologists, physicists, medical Doctors, biologists, forresters, agronomists, astrologists, social and political scientists, engineers, chemists and numerous unnamed sciences, you've wrongly labeled a lot of folks as athiests.  Of all the scientists I know I have only met a few athiests...Also, very very few scientists get rich and fewer still get media play.  Your analogy is just as unfounded as if I took a cab ride and the driver didn't profess to me that thanks to God he was able to skillfully get me to my destination.....just because he may not have said it doesn't mean he was an athiest..nor does it mean he doesn't give God credit......now I will go home and argue with my wife's cat





			
				Chrisw said:
			
		

> Where did you come up with that number? Aint buying it, one main goal in scientific debates is trying to get someone else to believe a load of junk they sit around the lab all night thinking up. If they can sell their theory, they get rich. This must have happened, this might have happened, open the Bible to see what happened.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

dawglover73 said:
			
		

> So you can't have BOTH opinions?  That's not serving two masters.  I believe Jesus is my Lord and I also believe chicken wings taste better dipped in Ranch dressing.  Is THAT serving two masters?  Completely unrelated.  Also, we know God is the creator of all...  agreed?  He created science also.  Anyway, my argument contained no science... it was math.  Exponential returns are a function of math, not science.  I do believe there is a heck of a lot of math in the bible.




First you are correct, they are unrelated. (chicken wings and Jesus) But scientist belittle Jesus. The math in the Bible yes, look at it and it will tell you the earths age, it gives time frames. God is the creator of all, but all do not obey. Exponential math is a scientific belief, it does contradict itself, if the earth erodes as much as scientist says, we would have been gone, but now scientist see it aint prooving itself, so theories as you suggested earlier are being brought out. Scientific theory is like listening to Bill Clinton, cant answer the same question with the same response more than once.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 9, 2006)

slightly grayling said:
			
		

> A conservative guess....of all the scientists, meterologist, geologists, physicists, medical Doctors, biologists, forresters, agronomists, astrologists, social and political scientists, engineers, chemists and numerous unnamed sciences, you've wrongly labeled a lot of folks as athiests.  Of all the scientists I know I have only met a few athiests...Also, very very few scientists get rich and fewer still get media play.  Your analogy is just as unfounded as if I took a cab ride and the driver didn't profess to me that thanks to God he was able to skillfully get me to my destination.....just because he may not have said it doesn't mean he was an athiest..nor does it mean he doesn't give God credit......now I will go home and argue with my wife's cat



He dont have to profess anything to me. Still aint heard of one giving God credit for anything, however every science class I took belittled Jesus and his creation. Its not called labeling, you know what a hair dryer does, you dont have to ask it if it dries hair or not. Its just in that group. We know what scientist teach.


----------



## dawglover73 (Jan 9, 2006)

ChrisW, if nothing else we agree on one thing... Clinton is not capable of telling the truth!  Nice to meet you.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 9, 2006)

*Science "can" be OK....*

Leave a thread 3 days and things go  'S !!

IMHO, not every scientist is an atheist, evidenced by those with PhD's who study Creation Science and work to put out info that refutes old earth and evolution myths.  Here's a cut about the age of the moon:

The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years or more for the moon. Here is as simple a proof as science can provide that the moon is not as old as claimed.


From:  http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204


----------



## morris (Jan 9, 2006)

I can attest to 38 years


----------



## discounthunter (Jan 9, 2006)

so carbon dating is a hoax?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 9, 2006)

*"Rate" (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) conference*



			
				discounthunter said:
			
		

> so carbon dating is a hoax?



This is from the "Rate" (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) conference just this last November:

"Perhaps one of the most amazing and surprising discoveries was presented by Dr. John Baumgardner, Professor of Geophysics, as he reported that *large amounts of carbon-14 found in coal and diamonds supports a young earth and the Biblical account of Noah's Flood*. Carbon-14 is a short-lived isotope used for dating organic materials like fossils and has a half-life of only 5,730 years, so finding C-14 in diamonds (as much as one hundred times the detection threshold) is very compelling evidence for a young earth. "

*More:*

Dr. Larry Vardiman, Professor of Atmospheric Science, recapped the results of the RATE research project with the following summary points and implications. 

*Main summary points: *

1. A large amount of radioactive decay has occurred. 
2. Conventional radioisotope dates differ radically. 
3. Nuclear processes were accelerated during certain periods of earth's history. 
4. Helium diffusion and carbon-14 in diamonds is strong evidence for a young earth. 
*Implications: *
1. Creation and the Flood are genuine historic events. 
2. The Bible is scientifically reliable—the Scriptures mean exactly what they say!


----------



## discounthunter (Jan 9, 2006)

not to stir the pot but why are fossils carbon dated at millions of years old then?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 9, 2006)

discounthunter said:
			
		

> not to stir the pot but why are fossils carbon dated at millions of years old then?



Good question...

Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating." Almost everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years. But, carbon dating can't be used to date either rocks or fossils. It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this scheme. 

Consider the dating of a piece of wood. As long as the tree lives, it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, both C-12 and C-14. Once the tree dies, it ceases to take in new carbon, and any C-14 present begins to decay. The changing ratio of C-12 to C-14 indicates the length of time since the tree stopped absorbing carbon, i.e., the time of its death. 

Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range.


From: "Doesn't Carbon Dating Prove The Earth Is Old?"
  http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1182


----------



## wildcats (Jan 10, 2006)

i think God sometimes looks down here on us shaking his head.......

i have always thought that the bible is dated and speaks of a time relevant to us....what happened on this planet before that time i do not know nor is it important to my walk with God.  Do i believe it existed before the recorded life of Adam, yes. No scietific data to back that up just my limited mind to wonder and think.  Were the dinosaurs after or before the time of Adam? They were here sometime doesn't take science or the belief in my God to see a bone the size of my car.  They were his creation too but when did they walk the earth? just my $.02


----------



## RThomas (Jan 10, 2006)

> Dr. Larry Vardiman, Professor of Atmospheric Science, recapped the results of the RATE research project with the following summary points and implications.


Bad science, distortions, and outright lies.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html
Just because something supports what you already believe, doesn't make it true.


----------



## RThomas (Jan 10, 2006)

discounthunter said:
			
		

> not to stir the pot but why are fossils carbon dated at millions of years old then?


See here: 
http://paleo.cc/kpaleo/fossdate.htm


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 10, 2006)

How about reading the Old Test. starting at Genesis, read vs to vs and dont skip around. You want the truth, go the Bible, you want theory, ask the scientist.


----------



## Hawg (Jan 10, 2006)

morris said:
			
		

> I can attest to 38 years



Yeah, Me too


----------



## Madsnooker (Jan 10, 2006)

RThomas said:
			
		

> Bad science, distortions, and outright lies.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html
> Just because something supports what you already believe, doesn't make it true.



Why do you think an athiest site like talkorigins is fact? Just becuase that site lines up with your thinking doesn't make it fact. I can go to trueorigins site and find all kind of info debunking talkorigins.

I will say that I think talkorigins leaves alot of facts out and just uses what will benifit them. But that's just my opinion.

Let there be no mistake, there will be a day, no matter what one's views are, that all will know the truth.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jan 11, 2006)

This all comes down to your own interpertation of the Bible. 

I for one would rather believe the Bible word for word, and not loose anything. Than to try to reason the Bible with a Science and loose everything.

DB BB


----------



## sgsjr (Jan 12, 2006)

Dont ya'll know there is no argueing with a bible thumper!  They can't listen to reason.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 12, 2006)

sgsjr said:
			
		

> Dont ya'll know there is no argueing with a bible thumper!  They can't listen to reason.




No offense, but thats because the Bible and science dont agree, you have to believe one of them. I choose to believe the Bible.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jan 12, 2006)

Man as a whole is flesh, the flesh is constently looking for a way to get further away from God. The theory of evolution is just another way to rebell against God. I am sure there are many other theories, but the whole point is they all rebell against God.

Just my humble opinion,
DB BB


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 12, 2006)

*...all things relative?  ...bunk!*



			
				Double Barrel BB said:
			
		

> The theory of evolution is just another way to rebell against God. I am sure there are many other theories, but the whole point is they all rebell against God.


Well said.

Remember in the garden Satan offered Adam & Eve a counterfeit to faith in the Lord.  They/"we" took it.  *We are prone, without HIS intervention, to take counterfeits to His truth. * Evolution may not necessarly be a "Heaven or helll" issue, but it is one that seriously de-values scripture and must de-value true faith.  *What this means is if you push aside what God teaches about creation you may start pushing aside what God says on critical points in your faith.*  I don't know too many who have wholeheartedly embraced evolution that have put thier whole trust in God and His word.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 12, 2006)

The word Helll is misspelt cause the normal way gets ya the "big toebig toebig toebig toe" message


----------



## j_seph (Jan 12, 2006)

*Bible Thumper*

Reading and thumping to me seems like 2 different things
B-Basic
I-Instructions
B-Before
L-Leaving
E-Earth

That is one problem w/ the world today, they want the truth but yet
are afraid to sit down and read or listen to the truth.

One thing for sure we will all learn the truth from one side or the other
Heaven or HEdoubleL


----------



## sgsjr (Jan 15, 2006)

A NASA probe just returned from space with comet dust billions of years old, not contaminated with earth pollution.  Aint that neat!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jan 16, 2006)

sgsjr said:
			
		

> A NASA probe just returned from space with comet dust billions of years old, not contaminated with earth pollution.  Aint that neat!



How do we know it was billions of years old? Just because someone comes on the news and spouts off that this is such and such years old, we are supposed to believe them? personally I would like to know what test they did on the dust to know that it is billions of years old?

When you come down to it, if you weren't there to observe it then you are basing your understanding on a Belief/Theory of some sort, whether it be Christianity, Athieism, Buddism, etc...

God is not going to perform a miricle to let you know he exists, you have to have FAITH that he does.....

Just my 2 cents...or is that 6 cents now on this topic... 

DB BB


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 17, 2006)

Double Barrel BB said:
			
		

> How do we know it was billions of years old? Just because someone comes on the news and spouts off that this is such and such years old, we are supposed to believe them? personally I would like to know what test they did on the dust to know that it is billions of years old?
> 
> When you come down to it, if you weren't there to observe it then you are basing your understanding on a Belief/Theory of some sort, whether it be Christianity, Athieism, Buddism, etc...
> 
> ...




You cant argue with science, its amazing to find the number of all the responses to this post and people are guessing. Funny how no-one wants to pick up the Bible and study it. I posted a thread showing earths age according to the Bible and only 6 responses, three of those were mine.


----------



## wildcats (Jan 17, 2006)

when were the dinosaurs here?  is there a scripture that talks of them?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jan 17, 2006)

wildcats said:
			
		

> when were the dinosaurs here?  is there a scripture that talks of them?




The only part I can find in the Bible talking about really large animals is this:

The New American Standard Bible
Job 40

40:15 "Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. 

40:16 "Behold now, his strength in his loins And his power in the muscles of his belly. 

40:17 "He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. 

40:18 "His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron. 

40:19 "He is the first of the ways of God; Let his maker bring near his sword. 

40:20 "Surely the mountains bring him food, And all the beasts of the field play there. 

40:21 "Under the lotus plants he lies down, In the covert of the reeds and the marsh. 

40:22 "The lotus plants cover him with shade; The willows of the brook surround him. 

40:23 "If a river rages, he is not alarmed; He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth. 

40:24 "Can anyone capture him when he is on watch, With barbs can anyone pierce {his} nose?

I think there is another mentioned in the Bible called "leviathon" but I can't find those verses right now....

Hope this helps...
DB BB


----------



## wildcats (Jan 17, 2006)

*thanks*

thanks for the info...seems like I remember the leviathon reference..

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

this link gives a bit of info with scripture ...thanks again..


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 17, 2006)

wildcats said:
			
		

> thanks for the info...seems like I remember the leviathon reference..
> 
> http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml



Hey Wcats, the page you referred has a link to the Institute for Creation Research( http://www.icr.org/ ), they have a lot of articles on this.  If you use thier search window and type dinosaurs you'll have a bunch of articles and other references.


----------



## Win270Brown (Jan 18, 2006)

6000 years old....can't really PROVE it either way, but I believe the Bible completely and think there are a lot of flaws in scientific dating. ie...carbon dating, etc.


----------



## stumpshooter (Jan 18, 2006)

As the old saying goes, "The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

One thing a believer of the Bible has to understand is that half of the bible can't be true and the other half false. So therefore either God told us the truth or you call Him a liar. 

Personally I chose to believe God and His Word. I also chose Heaven over the Lake of Fire!

RM 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

If you have doubts to the earths age and questions towards the Bible I challenge you to read and find out for yourselves.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 18, 2006)

*Some more food for the soul*

*The present is not the key to the past*





We can not look at current rates of rock formation, erosion, etc to determine the age of the earth because there may have been factors in the past that are not happening in the present. In fact the Bible tells us just that. A flood covered the entire earth (read my commentary on Genesis 6) this would alter, shift and mix up the entire face of the earth. This flood also altered the rate of sediments laid down, the formation of sedimentary rock and also the rate of erosion. 
Something that may take many years to form today (the Grand Canyon for instance) could have formed quite quickly during the flood. 
The Bible even predicted that in the "last days" there would be those who scoff at the bible, and claim that _"all things continue as they were from the beginning" _(II Peter 3:3). This seems to say that there would be a predominance of uniformitarianism thinking. Mountains form slowly today, so they assume that they must have formed slowly in the past. The Creation model tells us that mountains formed quickly as the result of the flood. 

*No matter how old the earth is, Evolution is impossible*




Everything we know of Science (entropy etc..) tells us that even if the world was millions or even billions of years old, evolution would still be impossible (the chapter on mutations will explain this).(opens new window) 
In the popular press we are led to believe that the antiquity of the earth is a proven fact. We are told that all Scientists believe the world is old, and that all of our dating methods confirm this. 
The truth is, many well qualified Scientists, and lay people alike are well justified in their belief that the earth, and universe is quite young. 
A secret they have learned is one that you may never have been told. It is this: Though a few assorted dating methods give the age of the earth in millions of years, there are far more that limit the age of the earth to a mere few thousand years. - Why are we not told of these? 
It is because they go against the politically correct notion of Evolution.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html


----------



## Flash (Jan 18, 2006)

Thanks Seph, now if we can get your heart right on your choice of teams.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 18, 2006)

*God*

Pulls for them all even those who play against UT 
another great one
http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm


----------



## SBG (Jan 18, 2006)

> We have no more spirit than the aminals.


----------



## RThomas (Jan 19, 2006)

The earth is also flat.......and square.  Proof here: http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/square_earth.html

The sun also revolves around the earth.  More proof: http://www.fixedearth.com/sixty-seven references.htm

The bible says so.  Just read it.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jan 19, 2006)

Just a thought, you guys that debate with those that believe in evolution are really debating something much more important. That is, belief in God(which gives accountability) and the Bible being proved right. 

Remember if science proves creation (which by the way, Is happening at great speed in the last few years thanks to DNA research and many other recently learned facts) than an evolutionists world comes crashing down. He is now accountable to the being that did the creating. Once realizing this, than the thought of Heaven/big toebig toebig toebig toe is more real. A thought that just not an option in their mind. That is why they will continue to ignore the facts concerning even the first living oranism. An organism that is now proven to be so complex it boggles the mind.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 19, 2006)

*life and death...*



			
				Madsnooker said:
			
		

> Just a thought, you guys that debate with those that believe in evolution are really debating something much more important. That is, belief in God(which gives accountability) and the Bible being proved right.
> 
> Remember if science proves creation (which by the way, Is happening at great speed in the last few years thanks to DNA research and many other recently learned facts) than an evolutionists world comes crashing down. He is now accountable to the being that did the creating. Once realizing this, than the thought of Heaven/is more real. A thought that just not an option in their mind. That is why they will continue to ignore the facts concerning even the first living oranism. An organism that is now proven to be so complex it boggles the mind.



Great points


----------



## pnome (Jan 19, 2006)

Billions

That doesn't mean the bible is wrong though.  Just not literal in it's meaning.   

God does not use a clock.  Years, days, these are human things, that God is not bound to. What does time matter to a God who is eternal?

That the bible says "7 days" is a purely human description of something beyond human understanding.

my $.02


----------



## jonfishmacon (Jan 19, 2006)

*7000 Or Less*

7000 or less about 6000


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 19, 2006)

Careful there buddy......you'll be labeled an athiest like me (totally false) with that kind of talk.


			
				pnome said:
			
		

> Billions
> 
> That doesn't mean the bible is wrong though.  Just not literal in it's meaning.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 19, 2006)

pnome said:
			
		

> Billions
> 
> That doesn't mean the bible is wrong though.  Just not literal in it's meaning.
> 
> ...




Your right, he doesnt need a clock, but he had some form a time measurement. He appointed man to live a certain amount of time didnt he? If he is a God that changes not, then he certainly will not change anything else.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 19, 2006)

slightly grayling said:
			
		

> Careful there buddy......you'll be labeled an athiest like me (totally false) with that kind of talk.




Sorry if you feel that way, I sent my apologies. But I took enough science to know, not speculate or wonder or determine but to know that science takes away every thing God did and tries to come up with a logical reason, they do not have the faith and confidence to accept that God did it and leave it alone. When you have to sit down with your child and tell them that they will have to put the big bang theory down as an answer to the test in order to pass but show them in the Bible that God created, and it mentions nothing about a big bang or process, you yourself should be able to realize that science contridicts the Bible, period. Do you want them to believe Bible facts or scientific theory?


----------



## Lthomas (Jan 19, 2006)

I believe it is around 5 billion years old. In the terms of man years. In the years of the spirit. It is but a vapor. Just as your and my life on this planet.


----------



## slightly grayling (Jan 19, 2006)

No, you didn't,and I wouldn't accept it if you had.  SO instead of wasting memory on this board on this subject, I'm elsewhere...
-SG


			
				Chrisw said:
			
		

> Sorry if you feel that way, I sent my apologies. But I took enough science to know, not speculate or wonder or determine but to know that science takes away every thing God did and tries to come up with a logical reason, they do not have the faith and confidence to accept that God did it and leave it alone. When you have to sit down with your child and tell them that they will have to put the big bang theory down as an answer to the test in order to pass but show them in the Bible that God created, and it mentions nothing about a big bang or process, you yourself should be able to realize that science contridicts the Bible, period. Do you want them to believe Bible facts or scientific theory?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 19, 2006)

slightly grayling said:
			
		

> No, you didn't,and I wouldn't accept it if you had.  SO instead of wasting memory on this board on this subject, I'm elsewhere...
> -SG




You should really read all the post. Sorry you feel that way, sorry you cant prove anything scientifically.


----------



## REMINGTON710 (Jan 19, 2006)

The days where shorter when the  earth was smller


----------

