How old is the earth?

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:


And as for your comment about observations needing to be interpreted, it would appear you are trying to say we can never be postitive about anything in the past. Carried to its logical extreme, you would be asserting we can never convict a killer and send him to prison, since we have no way to know if he did it except interpreting things. I prefer to convict killers based on left behind fingerprints and dna evidence;

Click to expand...

This is not analogous. DNA points to one person as do fingerprints. Often crimes have eyewitnesses. The evidence within nature doesn't point to a single conclusion concerning prehistoric natural history even within the scope of evolutionists. They have various competing theories for a number of past events such as how the earth got its magnetic field.

The only eyewitness left us record that He created the universe in six days. Since He is also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, I choose to believe the record He left.

So why does the ordinary inferences we all make about the past suddenly become illegal when extended to the universe?

Click to expand...

Because evolution doesn't make ordinary inferences. It makes huge leaps of logic both from a scientific and philosophical point of view.

Any particular reason come to mind?

Click to expand...

Because what we can observe and measure, I tend to trust. However, the dating methods used by evolutionists require a great number of unobserved assumptions... the first and primary one being that no supernatural creator had anything to do with the formation of what is being tested. In fact, most of what is truly critical to evolution cannot be tested, observed, nor repeated.

Your points don't seem to add up for me.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is a case of starting points. You most likely assume that evolution scientists start with little or no bias. I recognize that their philosophy dictates what they can accept as reasonable. Certain things must be true for them otherwise they have to look outside of the purely naturalistic realm for answers. The underlying philosophy of evolution is that everything that is real/true must be measurable.

I start outside of the purely naturalistic realm when seeking answers. The primary Truth is spiritual, not physical.

This is not analogous. DNA points to one person as do fingerprints. Often crimes have eyewitnesses. The evidence within nature doesn't point to a single conclusion concerning prehistoric natural history even within the scope of evolutionists. They have various competing theories for a number of past events such as how the earth got its magnetic field.

Click to expand...

Surely you don't quit using electronic appliances because quantum mechanics has some mysteries about the nature of electrons. Don't confuse the cutting edge with the solid established results.

The only eyewitness left us record that He created the universe in six days. Since He is also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, I choose to believe the record He left.

Click to expand...

But He also graciously accomodates Himself to our limitations. The evidence would seem to suggest that is what He actually did with regard to the Genesis narratives.

Because evolution doesn't make ordinary inferences. It makes huge leaps of logic both from a scientific and philosophical point of view.

Click to expand...

The hugeness of the leaps is in the eye of the beholder. Most observers think the findings of science are sound and reasonable in this area.

Because what we can observe and measure, I tend to trust. However, the dating methods used by evolutionists require a great number of unobserved assumptions...

Click to expand...

When scientists actually count the annual layers of ice in the Greenland ice cap and come up with a number greater than 100,000 they are observing and measuring, the very things you claim you tend to trust. When Endocrinologists line up tree cores and count annual layers and come up with securely counted annual layers of 15000 or more, they are observing and measuring, the very things you claim to trust. When naturalists count annual lake bottom sediments and observe seasonal variations going back 40,000 years or more, they are observing and measuring, the very things you claim you tend to trust. When geologists measure continental drift rates and compare with how far they have traveled since dividing, they are observing and measuring, the very things you claim you tend to trust.

the first and primary one being that no supernatural creator had anything to do with the formation of what is being tested. In fact, most of what is truly critical to evolution cannot be tested, observed, nor repeated.

Click to expand...

Most of what is truly critical to evolution has been tested and observed. But this thread is not about evolution, its about the age of the earth.

You most likely assume that evolution scientists start with little or no bias. I recognize that their philosophy dictates what they can accept as reasonable. Certain things must be true for them otherwise they have to look outside of the purely naturalistic realm for answers.

Click to expand...

There's only one way to count ice layers. There's only one way to count tree rings. Measuring the rates of continental drift is not a matter of personal bias. Measuring the distance to the galaxies is not a matter of personal bias Counting the amount of radioactive decay isotopes in a material is not a matter of personal bias. These are objectively determined facts, and the philosophy of the scientist can hardly affect the results.

Surely, the spiritual is vitally important. I find great comfort in my faith that God is behind all things and I can trust in Him. I am eternally grateful for the redemption Christ has given us all.

But there are over a hundred thousand alternations between winter and summer recorded in the ice at the summit of Greenland.

"But there are over a hundred thousand alternations between winter and summer recorded in the ice at the summit of Greenland."

And how do they differentiate between early thaws? Early snowfalls? What we in the mid-west and south like to call "Indian summers"? And any of a number of other variations that could possibly give the impression of an "alternation between winter and summer"?

Originally posted by Don:
And how do they differentiate between early thaws?

Click to expand...

Please tell us your theory of what an early thaw layer will look like in ice laywers, and give links to the evidentiary findings that support your theory.

Without that, your speculative claim is unsupportable.

So what are you saying, John? That this question hasn't ever come up before? That you don't know?

I simply asked a question; do you have an answer or not?

Are you telling me this hasn't been considered before? To which I'd have to reply: What makes you think a layman like me would be able to find and explain evidence for something a trained scientist hasn't even thought to look for?

I would imagine the layers would be somewhat thinner than others; however, there would also be times that an abnormal amount of ice and/or snow would be deposited, followed by immediate melting, followed by another layer when the actual winter snowfall hit.

But since I can come up with an explanation, answer me this: Why isn't this a consideration when we start throwing out things like "over a hundred thousand alternations...recorded in the ice"?

Hi there Don! Your're wondering about verification of the layer counts in the ice layers.

Be aware that there are several teams that have done ice core drilling by different nations both at Greenland and Antarctica. While those involved with the drilling would laugh at the idea the earth was under 10000 years old, they were certainly very concerned that the layer counts be accurate, so they looked for ways to verify how they were doing.

Some years contain volcano ash traces. These they match up with known volcanic eruptions as recorded in history. This validates the date counting back to the days of Pompeii, for example.

Careful analysis of the contents of the air trapped in bubbles in the ice allows them to measure co2 concentrations - and by analysis of certain isotopes, even get a temperature record of the times the ice formed. They are able to track the coming and going of ice ages and that correlates well with the dating of the ice ages by other means.

It is even possible by using a lot of ice to use carbon 14 dating of the carbondioxide in the air bubbles. This also correlates with the annual counts.

Using such methods and others as well they think they've got the count accurate to within a maximum of 2% error.

Just checking what's going on here and thought I would mention that there is historical data -- actual measurements regarding the slowing the speed of light, starting with Roemer and going on through quite a few scientists right up until Birge simply declared it a constant in 1941. But declaration does not match fact, and the fact is that a small decay can still be measured.

As far as Paul's ice cores are concerned, going back to Pompeii is simply no big thing, Paul. We KNOW that the seasons have been steady back to that point and there is no argument regarding that! That is a red herring you are throwing across the trail, accidently or not. It is the waves of storms after world-wide catastrophes, including one or more changes in the tilt of the earth's axis in ancient history, which deposited thousands upon thousands of layers of ice which are being attributed, wrongly, to yearly cycles. No one is arguing with the modern time (back to Rome and back further to Greece, even...).

There is massive evidence even in the ancient buildings that even the earth's axis has changed its tilt in man's memory. The effect this alone would have had upon storm systems and the environment seems to be ignored by those who declare long ages.

The criticism regarding using gradualism and uniformitarianismm when desired and abandoning it when 'necessary' was right on target.

In the meantime, the data on the speed of light measurements can be found here:
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

Treatment of the data is defended by a professional statistician here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkalan.html

and relevant discussion of the data and its treatment can be found here:
http://www.setterfield.org/data.htm

The matter of a changing light speed is coming to the forefront in physics journals right now. The preferred model has light speed dropping from something like 10^60 times its current value within seconds of the Big Bang and then remaining steady ever since. The fact, however, declare otherwise. Light probably did not start off that fast, first of all, as data indicate it was probably 'no more' than 10^11 times its current speed initially, with a very rapid drop but one which continued ever more slowly through time until it is experiencing VERY little change now.

This is important for two reasons. First of all, it indicates that there was no problem with light from the far distant reaches of the universe reaching us initially and ever since. Secondly, the speed of light is in the numerator of EVERY reduced decay rate equation. This means that the rate of radioactive decay is directly tied to the speed of light, and therefore radiodecay dates must be corrected to orbital dates for understanding and significance.

Lastly, I asked my husband if the earth's orbit about the sun was decaying. He said that if it was, it is so slight as to be almost immeasureable. In Genesis 1:14, the Lord gave us this movement of the earth about the sun and the moon about the earth as our timekeepers. They are steady.

Helen said:

Just checking what's going on here and thought I would mention that there is historical data -- actual measurements regarding the slowing the speed of light, starting with Roemer and going on through quite a few scientists right up until Birge simply declared it a constant in 1941.

This is mistaken. Since Roemer the means of measuring the speed of light has become more precise. It is the accuracy of the measurement, not the speed of light itself, that has changed.

In fact, Roemer's measurement of the speed of light - 200,000,000 metres per second - was about 100,000,000 m/s too slow. It was James Bradley about 50 years later who made a basically accurate calculation of 301,000,000 m/s by studying stellar aberrations.

The first person to calculate the speed of light on Earth was Louis Fizeau in the mid-19th century, who used an arrangement of rotating mirrors to deflect light beams. His calculation of 314,000,000 m/s is again an upward refinement. (Incidentally it was Fizeau who demonstrated that the speed of light was a constant; from that point onward it was a matter of figuring out precisely what that constant was.)

It was Louis Foucault, a contemporary of Fizeau's who used basically the same methods and continued to refine his experiments, who finally established the speed of light to be 299,796,000 m/s.

Since then the measurement of the speed of light has been refined only by tiny amounts - both upward and downward. Today the speed of light is defined as 299,794,458 m/s; in fact the standard metre was defined as the distance light travelled in 1/299,794,458 seconds because it got to the point where the distance light travelled in a second was better known than the exact measurement of a metre.

So there is no reason at all to believe light is slowing down.

Ok here I go again


The Earth is about 5 billion years old
Validated by the Earths energy will be used up in about another 5 billion years. Therefore the Earth is middle aged.

You must remember God's time is not our own, we have no idea exactly how long the first few days were. I'm sure that the might have been 24 hours but then again God might have put everything into slow motion to allow things to deveop. Fossils have show us that a dog today is not how a dog was in the past. Things and people adapt to thier envireonment. And while the Bible shows that Adam and Eve could talk, It didn't tell if they could write. There wasn't a need to write then. Moses wrote most of the Bible, inspired by God this is true, But the Bible shows no years for anything in the early times. Se we are left to wonder.

Me i'm going to put it on my list of things to ask him when i get to heaven. Then we will all know. Now we can only agree to disagree


God bless !!!

Actually, the Bible's very specific about some of the early years; for example, it says that Adam lived for 930 years from the time that he was created.

So if you're going to say the Bible doesn't show any years for anything in the early times, then you'd need to qualify that with "before the sixth day, when Adam was created."

Except that the Bible's very specific about qualifying the "day" with the terms "evening" and "morning," something that's not done anywhere else in the Bible.

Paul and Helen, thank you for attempting to answer the question I brought up.

Sure, Don, no problem, we're always only to glad to get up on our soap boxes and pontificate.

Helen, I'm glad to see you posting again, I hope that means you're feeling better, and its just to bad you have to be wrong.

No need to reprise the arguments back and forth, its all down there in the archived evolution forum if anybody wants to dig it out.

At this stage in the history of the church I think we all realize we're in for the long haul in having this disagreement over the facts and we might as well pay close attention to how we all get along with each other in spite of these disagreements.

Wow I decide to check up on the old stomping grounds and find that something has gone terribly wrong. Concerning all the discussion back and forth concerning the earth's age let me remind us all that this is the Fundamental forum. Please reread my opening thread here if you have forgotten the guidelines. I appreciate the Squire leaving that thread which was written by myself and Pastor Bob. I read some of the posts and found such things as posters denying the truth of God's word by denying the time table laid out in Genesis. I read someone who called for a pre Adamic race and this is a lie strait out of hell, heck I even saw someone who claimed that Adam and Eve couldn't read and write so how could they keep up with the time. My mind is boggled by these things and I am begging everyone to adhere to the standards for this forum. One poster said that they would wait and ask God for the truth and that is a valid point but why not just trust His word and by doing so you will not have to wait for the knowledge that He has already given.

Murph

C.S. Murphy wrote:

Wow I decide to check up on the old stomping grounds and find that something has gone terribly wrong. Concerning all the discussion back and forth concerning the earth's age let me remind us all that this is the Fundamental forum. Please reread my opening thread here if you have forgotten the guidelines. I appreciate the Squire leaving that thread which was written by myself and Pastor Bob. I read some of the posts and found such things as posters denying the truth of God's word by denying the time table laid out in Genesis. I read someone who called for a pre Adamic race and this is a lie strait out of hell

Click to expand...

Sir, nothing has gone wrong, honest Christian people can have honest Christian differences in interpretations. Your guidelines read:

Welcome to the Fundamental Baptist Forum, we hope you enjoy posting here. This forum was born out of a cry from many who despaired that their conservative and traditional views were constantly being attacked. It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate. Those who see things more liberally than we do can still be found on other forums so if you feel led to battle them then please do so.

Click to expand...

I also hold fundamental, conservative and traditional views, and one of them is that the Bible does not say that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. The Bible tells me that the world of man is only about this old, but the actual time of "In the beginning (Genesis 1:1)" is not specified in Genesis.

I am not questioning the Word of God by doing so, but I most certainly interpret Genesis a little different than Young Earth Creationists. To say that your interpretation is right and mine is a "lie out of hell" is elevating your traditions and views to a place higher than the Word of God if, indeed, my interpretation is not in error. And if that was, indeed, the case then your interpretation would be a lie. But, of course, only the Word of God can interpret the Word of God and I would certainly not pass judgment on a Brother where we have honest differences. Each of us will stand or fall to the Master.

When you say the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation is a "lie out of hell" you are attacking my conservative and traditional views without due respect. So, how about being fair and balanced and not a hypocrite about the matter.

word_digger said:

"Sir, nothing has gone wrong, honest Christian people can have honest Christian differences in interpretations."

This is not true when Murphy has anything to do with it. You see, in forums where he used to be the moderator, a person must agree with his "fundamentals of the faith" or be labeled as a liberal or even worse a heretic.

Therefore, if Murphy decides that belief in a six-day literal creation is mandatory, it is mandatory for all.

Perhaps this forum should be run like the "Creation" forum. Let us send all our responses to Murphy and let him decide what should and should not be posted.

And then there is the very name of the topic. How can we have a discussion on the age of the earth if only one view is allowed to be input? "earth is only 6000 years" "right only 6000 years" end of conversation.

What would be the point?

Hi Murph -- they don't understand what you are talking about, I think. "Fundamental" is something several of these posters are ignoring so they can get their two cents' worth in.

But it sure is good to 'see' you again here!

Paul, I am not wrong. The data is there. Hundreds of measurements taken of various atomic constants, including the speed of light, indicate that there have been major changes and that some things have not been constant at all. This leads to some startling conclusions if one simply lets the evidence speak for itself. One of those conclusions is that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.

Just like the Bible says.

Word-digger wrote:

I also hold fundamental, conservative and traditional views, and one of them is that the Bible does not say that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. The Bible tells me that the world of man is only about this old, but the actual time of "In the beginning (Genesis 1:1)" is not specified in Genesis.

Click to expand...

Again, the Bible is very specific. If you take all the years mentioned in Genesis 5, and add them up with the times that we know since that lineage, we come up with 6,000 years. Of course, the argument can be made that that's from the time of Adam's creation.

And again I bring up: Genesis 1 is the ONLY place in the Bible where a "day" is modified by the words "evening" (ereb) and "morning" (boqer).

Please answer exactly why that distinction was made here, and no where else in the Bible.

When you say the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation is a "lie out of hell" you are attacking my conservative and traditional views without due respect. So, how about being fair and balanced and not a hypocrite about the matter.

Well, it may not be out of hell, but it is certainly out of the mind of men and not from God!

The ruin/reconstruction idea ignores the fact that Lucifer/Satan was guardian cherub in Eden at the beginning and therefore had not yet rebelled. See Ezekiel 28. It generally tries to say that the majority of the geological column is a result of that initial destruction and that the world reconstructed is what we have now. In that case, where is the Flood boundary from Noah? And why do the Chinese, and many other ancient civilizations all remember the dragons/dinosaurs?

Lastly the ruin/reconstruction idea is a desperate attempt to try to reconcile what secular science declares the age of the rocks to be with the Bible by a mistranslation of one word and the ignoring of the context of Genesis 1:1-2.

There is, in short, no geological or biblical support for the ruin/reconstruction idea. It is, again, man's attempt to cram secular ideas and interpretations into God's Word by twisting God's Word. I sure do wish some of these folk would start to mangle science the way they prefer to mangle the Bible! The howl that would be set up then would be terrific!

Originally posted by Don:
Word-digger wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I also hold fundamental, conservative and traditional views, and one of them is that the Bible does not say that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. The Bible tells me that the world of man is only about this old, but the actual time of "In the beginning (Genesis 1:1)" is not specified in Genesis.

Click to expand...

Again, the Bible is very specific. If you take all the years mentioned in Genesis 5, and add them up with the times that we know since that lineage, we come up with 6,000 years. Of course, the argument can be made that that's from the time of Adam's creation.

And again I bring up: Genesis 1 is the ONLY place in the Bible where a "day" is modified by the words "evening" (ereb) and "morning" (boqer).

Please answer exactly why that distinction was made here, and no where else in the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]As long as I'm here, I'll save him the trouble! The delineation of hours is of man and was not part of the initial creation. We define a day by hours for the layman. However, scientifically, a day is defined by one revolution of the earth on its axis, and this produces a morning and an evening. Thus, the Bible was being consistent by defining one day this way rather than by any idea of man's -- who wasn't even created until the sixth day...

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
word_digger said:

"Sir, nothing has gone wrong, honest Christian people can have honest Christian differences in interpretations."

This is not true when Murphy has anything to do with it. You see, in forums where he used to be the moderator, a person must agree with his "fundamentals of the faith" or be labeled as a liberal or even worse a heretic.

Therefore, if Murphy decides that belief in a six-day literal creation is mandatory, it is mandatory for all.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification Terry, some may not have had the pleasure of my company. Let me add that yes christians can have differences but I won't call them honest when the debate is over a clearly revealed truth. God spent alot of time discussing the creation in days so why go to the trouble of doubting Him. Except maybe to accomodate evolution. Also I must correct you when you imply that I label some as liberals and heretics, I am sure if one took the time to research my posts you may find that I have called someone such a name but for the most part liberals and herectics don't have to worry about me labeling them, their denial of the Word of God handles that task quite well. Finally Murph didn't decide on the 6 day creation God did. So argue with Him.

Murph