How Old Is The Earth

[Todd]

Quite possible, but I'm not sure that makes a difference to some things - like the fossil record, and if dinosaurs and people lived together. ie I could quite happily agree that the earth itself is way old, but I don't see the Bible teaching that death happened until after Adam and Eve. So, I can't find it in myself to believe evolution, because the fossil record would still be only 6000 years old. Does that make sense?

I don't know....I was simply refuting the OP's statement that the Bible says the earth is only a few thousand years old. Simply not true!
What conclusions you take from that are on you

 

[a son of God]

Well, the gap theory would allow for an old creation, one thing that seems puzzling is we see star systems that are billions of light years away. That would seem to indicate that those stars are billions of years old or else we would not see their light yet. When we look up into the sky, we are looking into the past. If one of those stars blew up today, we would not know anything about it for billions of years.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

An interesting problem has emerged for Big-Bang cosmology from an unexpected quarter - it appears to require impossible variance to physical laws to make it work!

Some scientists now recognise this others can't handle the cognitive dissonance and try to patch up the theory. This article digs a bit deeper...

http://www.creationastronomy.com/inflation-a-failed-solution/

 

[Violette]

I believe the earth is young but made with age. I don't think Adam and Eve were infants, so I believe the earth was created with similar maturity.

 

[Kung Fu]

According to scientific consensus the Earth is 4.543 billion years old.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

According to scientific consensus the Earth is 4.543 billion years old.

...and life evolved from inorganic compounds in a cellular version of Frankenstein some time later. Do you believe in this second 'consensus' view?

 

[a son of God]

...and life evolved from inorganic compounds in a cellular version of Frankenstein some time later. Do you believe in this second 'consensus' view?

Well Red .... I have talked to some people who swear up and down that they are descended from a monkey ...... and after talking to them for a while ...... they just about got me convinced

 

[Kung Fu]

...and life evolved from inorganic compounds in a cellular version of Frankenstein some time later. Do you believe in this second 'consensus' view?

The second isn't a consensus view among scientists.

https://www.discovery.org/f/660

The Bible didn't even know that prior to 13th Egyptian dynasty their sovereign leaders were regarded as kings and not Pharaohs and if they got that simple fact wrong what makes you think any rational and logical person is going to believe the age of the Earth through the Bible?

 

[grateful servant]

I believe the earth is young but made with age. I don't think Adam and Eve were infants, so I believe the earth was created with similar maturity.

interesting.

 

[Beloved]

Around 6,000 years old or so.

It's interesting to me that on this board, people believe what "modern science" tells us lol

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

According to scientific consensus the Earth is 4.543 billion years old.

"Appeal to authority" is a common debating fallacy as it dodges the facts at hand and cites others who supposedly know better... Examples of widely held views in North Korea, or the consensus around the value of blood-letting in the Middle Ages illustrate the fact that a view that might be widely held is not automatically correct ;-)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The second isn't a consensus view among scientists.

https://www.discovery.org/f/660

The Bible didn't even know that prior to 13th Egyptian dynasty their sovereign leaders were regarded as kings and not Pharaohs and if they got that simple fact wrong what makes you think any rational and logical person is going to believe the age of the Earth through the Bible?

"Pharaoh is the title for the chief ruler of Egypt and comes from two Egyptian words that mean “great house.” To the pharaoh’s name was added other titles of honor, such as “Son of Re” (the Egyptian sun god) or “King of Upper and Lower Egypt.” About the time of Abraham, “pharaoh” meant “king,” so the Bible uses both these terms to refer to the ruler of Egypt."

Source

 

[Mr.Grieves]

we also have a moon (artificial or not)

 

[Kung Fu]

"Pharaoh is the title for the chief ruler of Egypt and comes from two Egyptian words that mean “great house.” To the pharaoh’s name was added other titles of honor, such as “Son of Re” (the Egyptian sun god) or “King of Upper and Lower Egypt.” About the time of Abraham, “pharaoh” meant “king,” so the Bible uses both these terms to refer to the ruler of Egypt."

Source

Absolute rubbish. The Bible uses the word "Pharaoh" both times when Egyption history tell us otherwise but since those academics and historians are not Christians it can't be true according to you. I repeat, the Bible uses the word "pharaoh" and not king. If the Bible is the word of God it certainly isn't doing a good job when it comes to the scientific and or historical front.

 

[Kung Fu]

Around 6,000 years old or so.

It's interesting to me that on this board, people believe what "modern science" tells us lol

You also probably believe that humans lived with the dinosaurs lol. Modern science has its faults but modern science also has its positives. You wouldn't be able to post on an internet forum if it wasn't for "modern science". Don't be so quick to bite the hand that feeds you buddy.

 

[Kung Fu]

"Appeal to authority" is a common debating fallacy as it dodges the facts at hand and cites others who supposedly know better... Examples of widely held views in North Korea, or the consensus around the value of blood-letting in the Middle Ages illustrate the fact that a view that might be widely held is not automatically correct ;-)

The only one dodging facts and providing none thus far would be you and other Christians.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

Absolute rubbish. The Bible uses the word "Pharaoh" both times when Egyption history tell us otherwise but since those academics and historians are not Christians it can't be true according to you. I repeat, the Bible uses the word "pharaoh" and not king. If the Bible is the word of God it certainly isn't doing a good job when it comes to the scientific and or historical front.

Whereas the Quran is a font of scientific and historical accuracy...?

 

[Kung Fu]

Whereas the Quran is a font of scientific and historical accuracy...?

I didn't know the Quran was a picture book. Instead of being a goof and never knowing anything perhaps you could actually provide some kind of content rather than posting a lot but never really saying anything.

Also, you should be the last person posting and talking about the Quran when you can't even tell the difference between a corrupted/forged hadith and an authentic one. The last time you posted something on the Quran you ended up looking like a fool when it came to the topic of alcohol and how the Quran was reveled. My advice to you would be to go and read the Quran and actually study how it came to be buddy boy.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Absolute rubbish. The Bible uses the word "Pharaoh" both times when Egyption history tell us otherwise but since those academics and historians are not Christians it can't be true according to you. I repeat, the Bible uses the word "pharaoh" and not king. If the Bible is the word of God it certainly isn't doing a good job when it comes to the scientific and or historical front.

The Qur'an and science?! Do you really want to go there?

History is not necessarily a strong card either...

Both really quite off topic but as you bring the subject up ;-)

 

[Kung Fu]

The Qur'an and science?! Do you really want to go there?

History is not necessarily a strong card either...

Both really quite off topic but as you bring the subject up ;-)

Answering-Islam and Wikiislam are not legitimate Islamic websites and literally make up and forge hadiths in order to confuse their readers so I'm not even going to bother watching them. If you want to have a real debate and not a laughable one then please bring real academic work and not some cross-dressing proven liar otherwise you might also be posting forgeries and corruptions like Mr. Grieves did the last time he used Answering-Islam/Wikiislam.