How old is the earth

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mud:
My wife delivered our second child today, a healthy baby girl.

Mother and baby are doing well.

Praise God!

Congratulations!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
No Bob, the basis of the uranium "problem" was that the influx into the ocean waters was much too much. What this paper shows is that most of the U never gets into the ocean water to begin with. There is no influx problem because most of the uranium is being removed through flocculation. precipitation, and / or colloids. The paper is also clear that their results are consistent with other such studies. The material balance is in balance.

Actually the paper stated specifically that the results were inconclusive, they varied by location and also had possible seasonal dependencies. No wonder this is not accepted as an actual solution for the problem by the scientific community.

</font>[/QUOTE]Hey BobRyan, what is your source for the information that this is not accepted as an actual solution for the problem by the scientific community?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by frozencell:
Actually, I just did a bit of research on this topic, and I have found that the "Gap Theory" makes the most sense. Using the KJV version of the Bible, it has been shown that Gen. 1:1-2 are referring to a "Pre-Adamite" world. A world that was destroyed and then, after an indetermitable period of time (millions of years) God recreated the earth

No indication at all from the text of Genesis 1 that this world was "destroyed before Adam".

Rather the Genesis 1 text points to it as being "created before Adam".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From the article we note;

#1. Rivers represent the main source of dissovled uranium to the oceans...

#2. The supply of this element through a particular estuary depends on the geochemical reactions specific to that estuary.

"Indeed results from a number of studies suggests that uranium bahavior VARIES from estuary to estuary."


#3. The results are seasonal and are impacted by the turbidity currents and the huge variation in uranium behavior in a turbidity context.

#4. The study never stated as a goal "to discover that overal oceanic Uranium influx was in equilibrium with outflux" and in fact - never reports that as "a finding" or even "a speculation".

The study stated

• Our results to date indicate that dissolved uranium in the Gironde
estuary behaves non-conservatively. This may be a seasonal feature
and may depend on the discharge regime prevailing at the time of
sampling, as conservative behaviour has previously been reported by
other authors (Martin et al., 1978).

I.e. Results are "inconclusive".

The study never addresses overall accumulation rates NOR does it claim that accumulation is NOT happening NOR does it claim that accumulation rates are consistent with the prospect of 3 billion years of accumulation.

Yet - our evolutionist "hoepfulls" latch on to this study "as if" something here is has deleted the currently measured rates of accumulation showing 100 x more influx than outflux.

Such as are the "hopeful dreams" of evolutionists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by mud:
My wife delivered our second child today, a healthy baby girl.

Mother and baby are doing well.

Praise God!

May she live a long and happy life refuting Darwinism.

I just got married again yesterday.

 

[Frank]

The word of God teaches us this world was created in six literal 24 hour days. I posted this information on another thread. One either accepts God's word on this or he does not. The idea that one must have science to prove time is fallacious. Time and the origin of life may be proven through prima fascia evidence.
The evolutionist espouses science as his proof for his ideas. However, true science betrays his thought. The scientific method requires the following:
1. Observation of data by the senses of man.
2. Accurate recording of observable data.
3. Testing of data.
4. Repeatable test to establish validity.
5. Conclusion based on the validate results from the process.
It is evident to the rational mind one cannot observe that which he has not witnessed. One cannot record accurately that which he has not observed. One cannot test data that does not exist. One cannot validate the reliability of that which is a mere product of human thinking.

God created all things in a literal twenty four hour period. The evidence is overwhelming to the rational mind. Consider the following:
1. The Hebrew word (yom) is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. This word is used 1,284 times and on a few occasions it does not mean a literal 24 hour day. However, the context clearly defines such usage ( Gen. 26:8;4:3,2:4, Jer. 46:10, Psalms 95:8,9). In Gen. 2:4, the total number of days of creation ( 6) is in view. In Psalms 95, the wandering in the wilderness of Israel is being chronicled. In Jeremiah 46:10, the punishment for the sins of Israel is being recorded.
2. The word phrase evening and morning as it relates to yom is used some 100 times in the Old Testament. It always refers to non-prophetic literal time. Furthermore, when the word yom is preceded by a numeral in a non-prophetic passage it is always a reference to literal time ( Gen. 8:3, Numbers 18:25, Exodus 20:11).
3. The plural form yamin appears 700 times in the Old Testament. In each of these 700 cases, it refers to literal days. Thus, in Exodus 20:11 God created the earth in six literal days.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

I have personally observed the great galaxy in Andromeda with my own two eyes. It is about 3.8 million light years away. This means the light that I saw it by took that long to get here.

This is an observation I and many others have repeated. The methods of measuring the distance have been repeated many times. The methods of measuring the speed of light have been repeated many times.

Where is the failure for your rather inappropriatly restrictive view of what it is to make a scientific observation and conclusion?

 

[Frank]

Paul:
If light has always traveled at a constant rate, perhaps your correct. If time could be measurred accurately in , as you say millions of light years, perhaps you are correct. The only failure here is the assumptions many scientist make about evolution. But, as you so aptly stated," it is ABOUT 3.8 million years away."

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by jcrawford:

Originally posted by mud:
[qb].....

I just got married again yesterday.

Congratulations!!
But your new wife is going to have to train you better than posting on the BB on your honeymoon!

Karen

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Frank:
Paul:
If light has always traveled at a constant rate, perhaps your correct. If time could be measurred accurately in , as you say millions of light years, perhaps you are correct. The only failure here is the assumptions many scientist make about evolution. But, as you so aptly stated," it is ABOUT 3.8 million years away."

These "assumptions" are constantly tested by astronomers and any hint of the slightest variation makes headlines around the world. Light cannot have changed its speed; we can tell because things would look different by light of different speed; different in ways that are clearly defined and predictable and just aren't there. The measurement of the distance to the Andromeda galaxy is known to be accurate within one or two percent.

Your comment - "as you so aptly stated, it is about 3.8 million years away" - leads me to think you question the distance determination.

Bearing in mind that it is a galaxy, after all, and just by how much room it takes up in the sky (tho really very dim, it appears bigger than the moon) we can make a rough determination that it is at least a million light years away!

Therefore, stars have been around for at least the amount of time it took the light to arrive from the Andromeda Galaxy - that is, over 3 million years. The galaxy is, after all, mostly made of stars.

There is nothing that is questionable in any way in any of this.

The earth is of course far older than just 3 million years!

 

[mud]

[Thank you all for your kind sentiments regarding my new baby.
To jcrawford: CONGRATULATIONS!! on your marriage.]

Dr. Russ Humphreys has developed a model of cosmology based on Einstein's theory of General Relativity (the same theory that the Big Bang model is based on) that is able to explain how distant starlight was able to get to earth within the time frame indicated in the biblical record.

Humphreys' shows that by using 2 or 3 different starting assumptions about the nature of the physical universe and our relative position in it, the math of general relativity produces a conclusion that the universe has emerged from a "white hole" which is the opposite of a black hole (i.e., matter expands out of it rather than being drawn into it). In this scenario the well established phenomenon of gravitational time dilation has a strong effect in that time stands still at the approaching event horizon until the horizon reaches the centre of the universe (the assumed approximate location of the earth). In this way millions or billions of years can pass on the far side of the event horizon while only days pass on the inside of the event horizon (i.e., on the earth).

This model is able to explain how distant starlight can reach the earth in a few earth days. It also expains Cosmic Background Radiation and the phenomenon of redshifting. The model (and its math) is described in detail in Humphreys' book "Starlight and Time" (available from the AiG online bookstore. AiG Homepage http://www.answersingenesis.org)

To read more online see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

and
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

 

[UTEOTW]

Regarding Humphreys' claims, I am just going to quote few things rather than put it in my own words. I ahte to, but it is the easiest way here.

from

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

A Christian sourse, BTW.

The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.
...
To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory12. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. Unfortunately, most of the major young-earth organizations13 are continuing to follow Humphreys and are ignoring the demonstrations of the falsity of his theory which have arisen from both inside and outside the young-earth movement.
...
In his latest attempt to defend Starlight and Time11, Humphreys actually quietly abandons it. The three central arguments of the original Starlight and Time proposal were:

The alleged physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinate of the Klein metric. This is so important in the original Starlight and Time argument that Humphreys called it "the essence" of his new cosmological model19.
The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.
The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.
It has been shown in a number of articles10 17 that all three of these claims are manifestly false. In particular,
1) the Schwarzschild time coordinate has no physical significance at all for the behavior of physical clocks in a bounded universe, 2) the pattern of gravitational field and potential differences is manifestly identical for bounded and unbounded universes (this is sufficiently important and sufficiently simple that we will revisit it below) and physical clock behaviors are manifestly identical for both cases, and 3) the event horizon of a bounded universe has absolutely no effect on the passage of time on physical clocks in such a universe.

In his most recent defense of this theory, "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics11", Humphreys gives up so much ground on each of these three central arguments that one can fairly say that he has abandoned the original formulation of his hypothesis.
...
Four years after the original publication of Starlight and Time, Humphreys has abandoned all the central arguments of that hypothesis. All that remains is a skeleton, consisting of the idea of a bounded universe and a phrase, "gravitational time dilation." The disproof of the original central arguments of Starlight and Time is not difficult. Dr. Humphreys' recent abandonment of the central physical arguments of his original proposal shows that these physical arguments were not well-thought out and were not adequately reviewed by experts in relativity theory and cosmology prior to their dissemination in the church.
...
One of the errors of the original Starlight and Time proposal which remains in Humphreys' reconstruction of his argument, is the claim that gravity is radically different in a bounded and an unbounded universe. The falsity of this claim is obvious to people familiar with relativity theory and cosmology and is easily explainable to non-specialists.
...
the only significant physical claim which Humphreys preserves from the original version of Starlight and Time is the assertion that there are no gravitational fields in an unbounded universe. This assertion has been repeatedly disproven7,10,17, but Humphreys persists in affirming it. It is easy to see that there must be gravitational fields in an unbounded universe. We present a brief demonstration here, and an elaborate demonstration in supplementary materials which are in preparation.

If Humphreys' claim that there are no gravitational fields in an unbounded universe were valid, then it would be impossible for the expansion of such universes to decelerate: no unbounded universe model could decelerate as it expanded25. This is inescapable, for gravity is the only force which acts in such models; in the absence of any gravitational field, there can be no relative acceleration of different parts of the universe. Thus, Humphreys' reasoning requires that, while bounded universes can decelerate, so that their expansion slows with time, unbounded universes cannot. If Humphreys' reasoning were correct, general relativity would predict that unbounded universes do not decelerate. However, general relativity in fact, predicts that unbounded universes do decelerate, and in exactly the same way as bounded universes with the same interior properties. Since gravity is the only operative force in these models, the identical deceleration of bounded and unbounded universes means that the gravitational field of such universes must be identical.
...
A pattern which has become evident over the past few years is that each attempt by Humphreys to defend Starlight and Time from competent analysis leads to the unveiling of new, and usually more serious, misunderstandings of relativity physics as well as the repeating of old ones.
...
For example, Humphreys:

ignores the massive body of evidence from time-keeping phenomena throughout the universe (such as the periods of Cepheid variable stars, the eruption time spans of novae and supernovae, star formation time spans, stellar burning rates, galaxy rotation periods, etc.) and in the Solar System (such as the dynamical aging of the asteroid belt) that clocks everywhere in the universe run at the same rate and that long periods of time, far in excess of the brief span permitted by young-earth interpretation of the Bible, have elapsed not only in the distant universe but also in nearby regions of our Galaxy and even in the Solar System. Humphreys also ignores astronomers’ measurements of the expansion rate of the cosmos and the temperature of the cosmic background radiation at different look-back times in the history of the cosmos. That these two sets of undisputed observations made his cosmic models impossible was pointed out to Humphreys in three letters from one of us (HR) sent in 1992 and 1993, see appendices. These evidences, which will be expanded on in a subsequent article, shows that the whole objective of Starlight and Time/New Vistas, which is to make the distant universe "old" while claiming that the nearby universe is "young", is contradicted by the observed properties of the universe.
continues to overlook the evidence from the dynamics of the standard unbounded cosmological models (briefly discussed above) that these models have identical gravitational properties to his bounded models.
makes absurd claims that unbounded models cannot possess spherical symmetry. Such models in fact are spherically symmetric about each and every point, contrary to Humphreys' claim that they are spherically symmetric about no point. The physical and mathematical concept of spherical symmetry is an elementary concept, and Humphreys' claims that standard Big Bang models do not possess spherical symmetry are incomprehensible.29
claims that the Robertson-Walker metric cannot be applied to a bounded locally homogeneous and isotropic universe, reversing his own previous use of this metric30 and contradicting numerous textbooks and published research articles which deal with the question. The literature which Humphreys cites to justify his reversal does not support his claim.
seriously misinterprets the published literature on metric signature change.
ignores the extensive supplementary critique of Starlight and Time (ref. 17, which was furnished to him in 1997 as part of the CEN Tech. J. review process). This supplementary material demonstrates the mistaken character not only of the original Starlight and Time proposal, but also of the New Vistas proposal.
continues to avoid the central mathematical issue of how the time elapsed on physical clocks is computed in general relativity. This is the central, elementary mathematical issue which has been, and continues to be, at the heart of the errors of Starlight and Time/New Vistas. Humphreys has never followed the mathematical "rules" of general relativity which prescribe how the metric is used to compute the passage of time in the universe. This calculation is straightforward and is performed in the Supplement17, clearly demonstrating the falsity of both Starlight and Time and New Vistas, but Humphreys has ignored and continues to ignore this demonstration of the falsity of his proposals.
ignores the demonstration in Starlight and Time is the Big Bang that the Klein representation of the metric of locally homogeneous and isotropic spacetime can be applied to unbounded models. This demonstrates the falsity of Humphreys' claims that the Robertson-Walker is appropriate only to unbounded models, while the Klein metric is appropriate for bounded models. In fact, both representations of the metric can be applied to both classes of model. The distinction between the Klein and Robertson-Walker metrics is central to New Vistas, but Humphreys misses the fact that these two forms of the metric are simply different coordinate representations of the same underlying spacetime geometry, the geometry of locally homogeneous and isotropic spacetime.
continues to misinterpret the mathematical and physical meaning of the Schwarzschild time coordinate tSchwarzschild. In particular, Humphreys erroneously imagines that dtSchwarzschild along Earth's spacetime trajectory is an arbitrary real quantity, and that the Earth proper time dt Earth is imaginary in the "Euclidean region" of the Klein metric. This notion is mistaken. The Schwarzschild time interval along Earth's spacetime trajectory dtSchwarzschild, Earth is manifestly a derived quantity given by the transformation relation between comoving and Schwarzschild coordinates. There is no evidence that Humphreys has ever made the mathematical effort to calculate what dtSchwarzschild actually is for the Earth (such a calculation makes manifest the falsity of his most recent claims), and his New Vistas reply further obscures the issue by not even presenting the equation from which dtSchwarzschild could be derived. As is obvious from the discussion in the Supplement17 and as is pointed out in a letter to the Editor of CENTJ31 dtSchwarzschild, Earth is purely imaginary in the "Euclidean region", which has the consequence that dtEarth is real. This analysis applies to every other comoving trajectory which intersects the "Euclidean region", so that there is no "timeless region" at all in the Klein metric (just as there is no such region in the Robertson-Walker metric, from which the Klein metric is derived). This observation overthrows the entire "New Vistas" argument, and shows that this latest version in the theory is at root, like the earlier version, founded on misunderstandings about the meaning of the Klein coordinate system and about the general relativity mathematical rules for how to compute the passage of physical time on physical clocks.

That is enough. Too much. Read the full story at the above link.

 

[Bro Tony]

I guess I am a rather simple kind of guy. I believe what the Bible says. I believe God created the earth in six days, He could have done it quicker if He wanted, and some could say He could have taken longer if He wanted. But the Bible says He took 6 days. I believe in a young earth. Some would say what about what science has said about the age of certain rocks and things. Now, here I go with my simple way of thinking. I am not smart enough to refute their research and would not argue with them about the age of a rock or the distance of a star, or the vastness of the universe---the Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of the Lord". By I just look at it all this way, I ask myself, "how old was Adam when God created him?" One day he is not there and the next he is a full grown, mature man. How about the trees in the garden, if you cut them in half the day after creation how old would they be? The day before they were not there, the next they are there fully grown and mature. How about a rock? One day not there the next a rock that if measured for age would show it to be many millions of years old. The stars, when did man see the first light from these distant stars? One day they were not there the next they could be seen, even though they are millions maybe billions of light years away.

Nope, I have no problem with the age of the earth controversy, or the age of things found on the earth or the distance of things in space. You see my God made it all. One day it was not and the next it was, just by the word of His mouth. And when it was it was already perfect, complete and mature.

Think about it--Isn't God awesome!!!!!

Bro Tony

 

[mud]

I hear you Tony

Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the
inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and
it stood fast.

- Psalm 33:8,9

---------------------------------------

If anyone is interested in Humphreys answers to his critics please see the links I previously posted. Here they are http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

no doubt there are others for those inclined to find them at AiG or ICR (www.icr.org).

 

[jcrawford]

Paul of E:

"Therefore, stars have been around for at least the amount of time it took the light to arrive from the Andromeda Galaxy - that is, over 3 million years."

Nonsense. According to your theory we can't even know for sure whether the "stars and galaxies" we see each night are even up there any more if it takes their light 3 million years to reach us.

Your living in long lost history, my friend, and your sense of real space-time is warped.

 

[UTEOTW]

Now you are understanding.

Light takes a finite time to reach the earth from space. M31 is about 3 million light years away, so the best we can do is to know what it looked like 3 million years ago. We do not know what is happening there now. The light will not get here for another 3 million years. 3 millions years is a lot longer than 6000. And M31 is merely the closest large galaxy to our own.

You call this "warped." In you view, can you see how M31 is right now? How can this be?

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Now you are understanding.

Light takes a finite time to reach the earth from space. M31 is about 3 million light years away, so the best we can do is to know what it looked like 3 million years ago. We do not know what is happening there now. The light will not get here for another 3 million years. 3 millions years is a lot longer than 6000. And M31 is merely the closest large galaxy to our own.

You call this "warped." In you view, can you see how M31 is right now? How can this be?

Job 9:8 - who alone stretched out the heavens, and trampled the waves of the sea;

Psalms 104:2 - who coverest thyself with light as with a garment, who hast stretched out the heavens like a tent,

Isaiah 51:16 - And I have put my words in your mouth, and hid you in the shadow of my hand, stretching out the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, 'You are my people.'"

Over and over it say in God's word he "stretched out the heavens" that could be the light also.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Paul of E:

"Therefore, stars have been around for at least the amount of time it took the light to arrive from the Andromeda Galaxy - that is, over 3 million years."

Nonsense. According to your theory we can't even know for sure whether the "stars and galaxies" we see each night are even up there any more if it takes their light 3 million years to reach us.

Your living in long lost history, my friend, and your sense of real space-time is warped.

It is a marvelous but true fact that we can look at the stars around us and say we aren't really sure they're there right now. The time varies according to the distance, of course.

Belteguese, 300 light years away, is a massive red giant in the final stages of stellar evolution. Astronomers know it is a good candidate for becoming a supernova. Maybe it has already done that, and we just don't know it. Maybe the light is on its way from that explosion right now! When that one blows, we will be flooded with neutrinos. I'm just not sure how bad the radiation will be for those of us on earth at the time.

But whole galaxies? They are more enduring. Sure a few stars will blow up every hundred years but the galaxies as a whole persist for billions of years.

You called this "your theory". I'm flattered, but people have known this for a couple of generations now. You didn't know this?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by John3v36:

Psalms 104:2 - who coverest thyself with light as with a garment, who hast stretched out the heavens like a tent,

Isaiah 51:16 - And I have put my words in your mouth, and hid you in the shadow of my hand, stretching out the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, 'You are my people.'"

Over and over it say in God's word he "stretched out the heavens" that could be the light also. [/QB]

Indeed, the original light from the dawn of creation of the universe has been stretched out. That is literally true. When first created, the light from the dawn of the universe was brilliant, hot, energetic. The light was everywhere at once. Today, that light remains everywhere at once, but it is . . . stretched.

The frequencies of that light have been stretched by so much that they now come to us as microwave frequency radiation. Yet the shape of the frequency curve still retains the exact shape made by a body radiating light due to glowing from its own heat.

It is called the thermal background radiation of the universe. You might have heard of it.

 

[Charles Meadows]

This one sounds like it could go on forever!

I personally do not have a problem with inspired scriptures AND and old earth. Science pretty well has demonstarted the old age of the earth - theories to the contrary generally pretty weak.

It always seemed strange to me that someone with an M Div or D Min could come up with a better scientific model that 500 years worth of researchers and scholars.

Anyway I don't think the Genesis account was intended to show a TIMETABLE of creation - rather it intends to show that it was God who did the creating - contrary to the mythic babylonian accounts which were floating around at the time (like enuma elish).


Any thoughts????????