Christian's views on the age of the Earth

[Lcash]

You are correct! The age of man has no bearing on the age of the earth! So if you want to get into specifics about the age of the earth here goes.

If you are familiar with radio-isotopes you will know that there are several such as neptunium that have very short lived half lives. Neptunium is an isotope of Uranium with a half life of 2 million years. It takes 10 half lives for an element to completly disapear. so if the earth were less than 20 million years there should be abundant amounts of neptunium in the earths crust as there is Uranium. However, there is only trace amounts found only in places that produce uranium meaning that the earth is at least 20 million years old. When you combine that with other short lived isotopes you can extrapolate the age of the earth to about 4.5 billion years old.

My field of expertise is in Petroleum geology and engineering. I have studied this for a long time. I have found mulosk fossils called foramformas at 17,000' deep in the earth in a water depth of 2,000' in the Gulf of Mexico. This amount of sedimentation takes millions and millions of years to happen not 6,000 years as some want us to think.

This however does not negate the scripture but only our interpretation. If science discovers something that contradicts what we believe scripture says, it is our interpretation that needs adjusting not scripture being wrong nor science being wrong.

Lcash

 

[Josh]

Well, Josh, that depends on your denomination/sect.

Hi feisty mouse, but that's not God's intention. for those who do believe and Trust Jesus is the Son of God, Died for our Sins, Rose From the Dead, we are to be ONE. Hehe, and it's so funny, sometimes, people will be like "oh, well that's just a cult", what?!?!? Just believe, it's so simple, so easy. God will PROVE HIMSELF TO YOU. Step out in what we call FAITH.



:asian:

 

[hippy]

i am a devote catholic, but science should never be used to prove faith/god/or religion. and religion / the bible (of which there are many versions) should never be used to disprove science.

the earth (as a lump of rock) has been around for 4.5 billion years, as a ball of hot gas, it has been around for 6 billion years, when our sun formed and spewed out lumps into orbit.

a bi-pedal humanoid species (descending from the ape) have been proven to exist 100,000 yrs ago.

various dinosaur bones and fossils have been found all over the world dating millions of yrs back.

i have come across various christian sects that believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago (approx), despite stone temples still in existance which date back 10,000 yrs, built by humans, for humans to worship various deities.

the old testament was a collection of stories, collectively used to announce the coming of the son of god (son of man), they were not written as historical fact. the gospel then deals with the life and times of jesus. finally, the rest of the new testament deals with after jesus' assention to heaven, the start of the christian faith, and the coming of the kingdom of heaven (or appocolypse, depending on which version u read. because in the 1970's, the vatican 2 paper from the pope, dismisses the use of the fear of god in church, to bring in the congregation. such as priest shouting about everyone going to hellfire and damnation because of impure thoughts.)

all parts of the bible were written by people who could read and write, but none were scientists or mathematicians. there ability to deal with large numers was strictly limited.
hence the difference in the gospels, jesus feed the 5,000, or jesus feeds the 3,000. the appostles, who were there at the time, both saw the same number of people, they were simply crap at counting.
the book of genosis even records people living beyond 200 years, one even longer than 400 yrs (i forget who - look it up, its near the beginning), we have proven in the last 800 years that our length of the year has altered.
the roman emporers simply added another month in, just to remember their name (july = julius, august = augustus). deci (from december) refers to the number 10, as in 10 months in a year.
the authers of the bible couldn't count !!

again, to prove that science and religion should never mixed.
3 yrs ago a christian priest made it into the darwinian awards (for stupid deaths). he tried to use science to prove how people lived longer during biblical times. as there was no industry, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air would be a lot less (its currently 0.9% of what u breathe). so he deduced that if people were exposed to more oxygen, they would live longer. now for all the scientists among u, u will know that oxygen (on its own) is considered unstable, but 'stable' oxygen is made up of loads of pairs of oxygen molecules.
(o2).
so he built himself a large sealed iron room, and filled it with oxygen. he'd completely forgotten about nitrogen (which makes up about 78% of air).
however, he'd heard of something called o3. which he assumed correctly to be richer oxygen, so filled the chamber with this instead. another name for this is o-zone (deadly to humans).
within 1 minute of him sealing himself in this iron chamber, he died, suffocating himself.

this, again shows why science should not be used by religion to prove anything from the bible.

faith comes in because u dont need to prove what the bible says, u simply believe. just dont try to argue a point, when science has proved something to be otherwise. the bible is just a large set of metaphores used so the human mind can comprehend GOD in a simple way. if we understood all the complexities of GOD, we would already be GOD.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Hey Josh

I honestly don't mean to get into a religious debate (we're already dealing with enough of those issues in this thread pretty well), but it does matter depending on which denomination and/or sect of Christianity you believe in. Some sects treat salvation as an all-or-nothing thing - you're in, you believe, and you've got your ticket, or your passport stamped. For others, your belief, your faith, is important, but it's not the final point - your actions and your journey through life is also important, how you treat others and act out your faith.

Hey hippy

Yikes - that "darwin award" priest sounds...well, it's a sad way to go, proving yourself wrong!

 

[Kane]

i am a devote catholic, but science should never be used to prove faith/god/or religion. and religion / the bible (of which there are many versions) should never be used to disprove science.

the earth (as a lump of rock) has been around for 4.5 billion years, as a ball of hot gas, it has been around for 6 billion years, when our sun formed and spewed out lumps into orbit.

a bi-pedal humanoid species (descending from the ape) have been proven to exist 100,000 yrs ago.

various dinosaur bones and fossils have been found all over the world dating millions of yrs back.

i have come across various christian sects that believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago (approx), despite stone temples still in existance which date back 10,000 yrs, built by humans, for humans to worship various deities.

the old testament was a collection of stories, collectively used to announce the coming of the son of god (son of man), they were not written as historical fact. the gospel then deals with the life and times of jesus. finally, the rest of the new testament deals with after jesus' assention to heaven, the start of the christian faith, and the coming of the kingdom of heaven (or appocolypse, depending on which version u read. because in the 1970's, the vatican 2 paper from the pope, dismisses the use of the fear of god in church, to bring in the congregation. such as priest shouting about everyone going to hellfire and damnation because of impure thoughts.)

all parts of the bible were written by people who could read and write, but none were scientists or mathematicians. there ability to deal with large numers was strictly limited.
hence the difference in the gospels, jesus feed the 5,000, or jesus feeds the 3,000. the appostles, who were there at the time, both saw the same number of people, they were simply crap at counting.
the book of genosis even records people living beyond 200 years, one even longer than 400 yrs (i forget who - look it up, its near the beginning), we have proven in the last 800 years that our length of the year has altered.
the roman emporers simply added another month in, just to remember their name (july = julius, august = augustus). deci (from december) refers to the number 10, as in 10 months in a year.
the authers of the bible couldn't count !!

again, to prove that science and religion should never mixed.
3 yrs ago a christian priest made it into the darwinian awards (for stupid deaths). he tried to use science to prove how people lived longer during biblical times. as there was no industry, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air would be a lot less (its currently 0.9% of what u breathe). so he deduced that if people were exposed to more oxygen, they would live longer. now for all the scientists among u, u will know that oxygen (on its own) is considered unstable, but 'stable' oxygen is made up of loads of pairs of oxygen molecules.
(o2).
so he built himself a large sealed iron room, and filled it with oxygen. he'd completely forgotten about nitrogen (which makes up about 78% of air).
however, he'd heard of something called o3. which he assumed correctly to be richer oxygen, so filled the chamber with this instead. another name for this is o-zone (deadly to humans).
within 1 minute of him sealing himself in this iron chamber, he died, suffocating himself.

this, again shows why science should not be used by religion to prove anything from the bible.

faith comes in because u dont need to prove what the bible says, u simply believe. just dont try to argue a point, when science has proved something to be otherwise. the bible is just a large set of metaphores used so the human mind can comprehend GOD in a simple way. if we understood all the complexities of GOD, we would already be GOD.

That is true faith plays an important role in believing in God. Probably the most important thing in believing in God is faith. However, saying that there is scientific or historical proof is just all wrong all together. The reason why is because THERE IS PROOF. It might no be enough proof, but it doesn’t mean there is no proof.

It is however true that it all comes down to faith. I know that from experience. I can never convince EVER that there is no God. But at the same time I’m not sure whether there is one either. Also I hope God will see that there those who need the extra proof to know whether He does exist and not throw them into to hell because of lack of faith.

Oh and Hippy, it does sound like you are proving yourself wrong as Feisty Mouse said. It sounds like you are saying that you are a devote catholic and yet you are trying to prove how much your religion doesn't make sense :wink1:.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I was just referring to the priest in his Darwin Award story, not to hippy.

 

[heretic888]

Hi feisty mouse, but that's not God's intention. for those who do believe and Trust Jesus is the Son of God, Died for our Sins, Rose From the Dead, we are to be ONE. Hehe, and it's so funny, sometimes, people will be like "oh, well that's just a cult", what?!?!? Just believe, it's so simple, so easy. God will PROVE HIMSELF TO YOU. Step out in what we call FAITH.

Been there. Done that. Never got the t-shirt.

I do find it interesting, however, that people who at one moment proclaim God is completely ineffable and beyond human understanding or comprehension whatsoever. But, then, the next moment you hear them telling the rest of us what his "intentions" supposedly are --- which assumes that "He" has "intentions" like human beings do.

Very interesting, indeed.

 

[hippy]

i'm not trying to prove my faith to be wrong, i'm saying that no matter how much of the scientific world i understand, it would be foolish to use it to prove GOD's existance, and even worse to try to use religion to back up science.

once GOD's existance has been proved, no-one will have any need for faith. hundreds of years ago, people had faith that monsters roamed the earth before mankind. now that we have undeniable proof with the dinosaur bones, no-one needs faith to believe it, they can just go down to any history museum, to have their knowledge confirmed.

i can happily be content that the earth was created billions of years ago, but i can also picture gods intervention in the creation. maybe how it took 6 stages of development, with GOD leaving (resting) us to our own devices on the seventh stage (now).

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The word Yom in Hebrew has actually three meanings. One is a 24hr day one is a 12hr day and one is eons or large periods of time. Since the scripture uses the word for day before the separation of light and darkness it can literaly be the eons time frame that was used.

I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the account of Genesis is correct. One thing I am certain of is that the Bible was not written to be a scientific accounting of creation or any other facts other than mans relationship with God. It is the story of mans creation, fall, and redemption through grace and not a scientific text for us to argue over.

Just got back from a mini-vacation, so I apologize for not jumping in sooner.


Lcash...is the word usage of "Yom" in referring to "eons" a contemporary usage? Or is it an ancient one? If it is an ancient one could you provide me with a valid reference I can use? If I'm convinced that it is, indeed, a legitimate definition and one used in the ancient world, I'll never refer to it again. If it was a definition created to still the tongues of skeptics, however...


Regards,


Steve

 

[CanuckMA]

Just got back from a mini-vacation, so I apologize for not jumping in sooner.


Lcash...is the word usage of "Yom" in referring to "eons" a contemporary usage? Or is it an ancient one? If it is an ancient one could you provide me with a valid reference I can use? If I'm convinced that it is, indeed, a legitimate definition and one used in the ancient world, I'll never refer to it again. If it was a definition created to still the tongues of skeptics, however...


Regards,


Steve

In all my years of studying Torah, I have never seen 'yom' refered to as eons. Commentators will often explain the story of Creation with days not being 24 hours, but that is more to reconcile our secular knowledge with the text. Simple plain reading of Creation does indeed imply a period of 7 24 hours periods.

 

[Nightingale]

Roman Catholicism accepts evolution and believes that much of the old testament is metaphorical in nature.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Ditto for Eastern Orthodoxy, in general.

 

[Lcash]

Heretic, CanuckMA,

Here is Strongs definition taken from the Stongs Exhaustive dictionary of Hebrew words.

Strong's Number: 3117
Transliterated: yowm
Phonetic: yome
Text: from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adverb]: -age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

Lcash

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Heretic, CanuckMA,

Here is Strongs definition taken from the Stongs Exhaustive dictionary of Hebrew words.

Strong's Number: 3117
Transliterated: yowm


Lcash

Again...is this contemporary usage or ancient? That does indeed make a difference. One can think of several forms of English words that have taken on different connotations in just the last several hundred years.

Strong's also relies on 19th century scholarship.






Regards,


Steve

 

[Lcash]

It would be an ancient usage based on the fact that the early church fathers all the way into the reformation debated the term day as either literal or figurative. Westminster Seminary put out an entire treatise on this in 1999'.

http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

Lcash

 

[CanuckMA]

Well, first, Strongs' transliteration is wrong. It's yom. Second both current and Biblical usage of the word is taken as from sunset to sunset. Arguments on Creation in Classical Jewish studies of Genesis never revolves around the meaning of yom, but as to whether G-d perceives time like we do.

 

[Flatlander]

Arguments on Creation in Classical Jewish studies of Genesis never revolves around the meaning of yom, but as to whether G-d perceives time like we do.

Interestingly, perception of time by the observer is always the same. Perception of time differs between observers depending on their relative velocities through space-time. So for God, he/she/it will always percieve time as progressing at the same rate, regardless of his/her/it's reference frame, whereas our perception of the same time will vary if we are not in the same reference. This thereby moots the point, as we didn't exist to observe during creation.

However, in this line of argument there exists no evidence or fact as to the age of the Earth. The only credible ways of postulating on the topic exist within the scientific realm. In fact, it could be said that if you choose to consider the age of the Earth from a christian perspective exclusive to the findings of science, you must first verify the validity of every single biblical reference to the timelines from creation until Jesus. This is an arduous task, for which I think that there is no possible solution. Verification of Biblical references and claims is a science unto itself, and I don't believe that scholars have been able to unanimously agree on any large portion of the publication, let alone reveal any significantly credible timeline.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

It would be an ancient usage based on the fact that the early church fathers all the way into the reformation debated the term day as either literal or figurative. Westminster Seminary put out an entire treatise on this in 1999'.

http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

Lcash

You're using a different Strong's reference number than I get for the Yom used in Genesis. When I look it up, the number is 03117, and there is no figurative meaning for the word. It literally means "day" as in day and night...as described in Genesis.

For some reason, I can't cut and paste the page. Its in the Blue Letter Bible. Check it with the number I provided.

Regards,


Steve

 

[Lcash]

Same definition! The difference is in mine they leave off the 0 in front of the number!

Strong's Number: 3117
Transliterated: yowm
Phonetic: yome
Text: from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adverb]: -age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Interestingly, perception of time by the observer is always the same.

Speak for yourself, my good man... I've experienced many different perceptions of time, particularly during a younger experimentation with personal chemistry.