How Old is the Earth? Really??

[freeatlast]

I was watching a show on fossils, and turned it off after they continued to tell the audience that some fossils were hundreds of millions of years old. I find these theories hard to wrap my head around, because I believe the earth to be a lot younger than these old fossil hunters, and archeologists love to affix to their finds! Perhaps in the range of 7,000 years.

So, how do you, as a believer in Creationism, neutralize [offset, thwart, compensate for the huge age discrepancies] point the theories of the age of fossils?

Paul first there are no discrepancies, just miss information and I am able to hold to a young earth by believing God's word to be correct, faith, as there is absolutely no reason to believe from reading the bible in long periods of time.

 

[freeatlast]

Exodus 20:11 (KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Open and shut case if you ask me. The Earth is young. The fossils, sedimentary layers, etc., cannot be older than the Earth itself.

Man was created on the sixth day. And we have a description of births and ages in the Bible that identify the Earth to be young.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[freeatlast]

I too believe in a young earth. You bring up a good point though. If a star is one million light years away, and we see it, it is kind of hard to explain the young earth. I believe it because the Bible says six days.

No it is not hard to explain. I think we try and make things too complicated and miss the obvious and thus explain things away. The creation was a miracle over a literal 6 day span with there suddenly being planet, a full live man along with animals, and all we see in a moment of time being created, so it would be no problem for God to make it part of the miracle for the light to immediately appear from light years away the moment He created the star.

 

[freeatlast]

One day with the LORD is as a thousand years. How can we definitively know the human, physical age of the earth, as we know it??

For many years, man didn't even know the earth was round. It only existed where that man was.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim, It is called faith in what the Lord has said.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I believe that, not only the earth, but the entire universe, is aproxmetly 6000-10,000 years old.

 

[saturneptune]

No it is not hard to explain. I think we try and make things too complicated and miss the obvious and thus explain things away. The creation was a miracle over a literal 6 day span with there suddenly being planet, a full live man along with animals, and all we see in a moment of time being created, so it would be no problem for God to make it part of the miracle for the light to immediately appear from light years away the moment He created the star.

Well, lets just say what is easy for you to understand is not so easy for me, although I do follow your posts. Hank had some verses about stretching out the heavens. Using known principles as they now exist, if the earth is 7000 years old, we can only see stars up to 7000 light years away, and we know we see many more than that.

The point is there is no need to explain it. God did it, and I really do not care how. The Bible is a book of faith, not a book of facts and figures.

 

[blackbird]

The earth, and all creation, appear to be billions of years old.

Bear down on the word "appear" please!!!

As in "It appears as if . . . "

Just because it appears to be so-----doesn't mean it IS so

What is so is------YOUNG EARTH!!!!---that appears to be . . . as Padre says "Old as dirt!!"

 

[saturneptune]

There seems to be a running theme of making things appear old, like the distance to stars greater than 7000 years and the fossils. Again, we will never know, but one has to wonder why the Lord did it that way. The bottom line is what the Bible says, regardless of how we interpret the evidence.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

There seems to be a running theme of making things appear old, like the distance to stars greater than 7000 years and the fossils. Again, we will never know, but one has to wonder why the Lord did it that way. The bottom line is what the Bible says, regardless of how we interpret the evidence.

Actually, we do know why the Lord did it that way...

Revelation 4:11 (KJV) Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

The Earth is young, despite its "old" appearance to some. How do we know it is young? Again, God's Word lets us know.

 

[Winman]

There seems to be a running theme of making things appear old, like the distance to stars greater than 7000 years and the fossils. Again, we will never know, but one has to wonder why the Lord did it that way. The bottom line is what the Bible says, regardless of how we interpret the evidence.

There is some real evidence that the speed of light has slowed down over the past several thousand years. This theory was first put forward by Barry Setterfield, although the evidence had been noted decades before by many physicists and cosmologists.

At the creation, the speed of light was millions of times faster than today, so that starlight from the most distant galaxies could arrive at Earth almost instantly.

This would also give different ages for dating, Earth years and Atomic years, as Radiometric dating is based on the speed of light.

Here is an article by Barry that explains this.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/timeline.htm

It should be noted that several other secular physicists have also said there is evidence light has slowed down.

See the chart at the very bottom of this page.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm#toadam

 

[preachinjesus]

Come on guys we've been over Setterfield and why he isn't legit to cite in this conversation. If you're gonna defend your position don't use Setterfield. He's not credible and his theories aren't legit.

 

[Winman]

Come on guys we've been over Setterfield and why he isn't legit to cite in this conversation. If you're gonna defend your position don't use Setterfield. He's not credible and his theories aren't legit.

Now who are you to say his theory is not credible? How in the world do you know that? What do you know about the subject?

 

[Winman]

There have been several physicists that have theorized the speed of light has slowed in the last several thousand years.

Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light.

Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in the early stages of the “Big Bang” than it is today. (It’s important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)

This theory may not be correct, but it is not true that it is not credible, there is in fact real evidence that supports it.

 

[preachinjesus]

Now who are you to say his theory is not credible? How in the world do you know that? What do you know about the subject?

For starters, I can critically read scientific studies and understand their English words. When I get confused, such as when one encounters technical equations, I ask a person in our church who has credentials in this area. He helps me understand.

Also, I've read what other (qualified) people are saying about the work. They are deeply troubled by it and think it will cause more harm than good if creationists keep using it because there is better data and arguments out there.

 

[freeatlast]

Well, lets just say what is easy for you to understand is not so easy for me, although I do follow your posts. Hank had some verses about stretching out the heavens. Using known principles as they now exist, if the earth is 7000 years old, we can only see stars up to 7000 light years away, and we know we see many more than that.

The point is there is no need to explain it. God did it, and I really do not care how. The Bible is a book of faith, not a book of facts and figures.

If things did not matter God would not have given us any information at all. My faith is based on facts/evidence Hebrews 11:1.

 

[freeatlast]

There seems to be a running theme of making things appear old, like the distance to stars greater than 7000 years and the fossils. Again, we will never know, but one has to wonder why the Lord did it that way. The bottom line is what the Bible says, regardless of how we interpret the evidence.

God didn't make things look old. Man is misrepresenting what God has done because of willful ignorance 2Peter 2:5.

 

[Winman]

For starters, I can critically read scientific studies and understand their English words. When I get confused, such as when one encounters technical equations, I ask a person in our church who has credentials in this area. He helps me understand.

Also, I've read what other (qualified) people are saying about the work. They are deeply troubled by it and think it will cause more harm than good if creationists keep using it because there is better data and arguments out there.

It is a theory. There are critics as there have always been of new theories. But it explains many of the problems associated with the Big Bang. The Big Bang is actually scriptural, when it was originally proposed there was great objection to it because many felt it supported the biblical story of the heavens being stretched out.

This new theory is being studied by many. You cannot say it is not credible, physicists and cosmologists knew decades before Setterfield that there was real evidence that light was slowing down. Setterfield relied on the measurements made by others over several hundred years to develop his theory. Many scoffed at Setterfield, but now many secular scientists are saying the same thing.

It is no doubt you can find critics to this theory, that does not mean it does not have real merit and credibility. Science objected to the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun, but in time it came to be accepted as truth.

I personally don't care if this theory is proven false, I believe what the Bible says and believe the world is only about 6000 years old. That said, I believe true and accurate science will agree with this.

 

[glazer1972]

About 6,000 years old.

 

[OldRegular]

Come on guys we've been over Setterfield and why he isn't legit to cite in this conversation. If you're gonna defend your position don't use Setterfield. He's not credible and his theories aren't legit.

Why? Why, Oh Why.

 

[OldRegular]

The Big Bang is actually scriptural, when it was originally proposed there was great objection to it because many felt it supported the biblical story of the heavens being stretched out.

NO! Winman the Big Bang is not Scriptural. It assume the existence of matter/energy absent God!