ok, I can see the logic in that. Science, then, is useless for dating things before the flood.
getting dates about a young earth
- Thread starter Dan_473
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
ok, I can see the logic in that. Science, then, is useless for dating things before the flood.
Alpha has to be a constant for the universe to exist.... one scientist found that billions of years ago alpha was smaller.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
which only leaves us with scripture.
which is why many today are changing their view to a young earth..
I used to believe in a Gap theory between gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, it explained why science sees the world old. and explains why. We went to interpret the bible to fit science which I believe was a mistake..
Today many christian scientists are reverting to a Young Earth.. and the literal interpretation of Gods words, without trying to read somethign which is not there into it.
yes, so two different possibilities I see.
one is that science is unreliable for dating the early stuff, the other that science correctly says the earth appears to be billions of years old (because God made it that way)
I really doesn't know of a site, but here's video of someone that knows a lot about and the method that they uses to come up with these speculations.
[video]https://youtu.be/bMZbpDnYZ2Y[/video]
maybe I was reading the young earth sites with the wrong idea, then... maybe they're not saying science points to a young earth, maybe they're saying science can't be trusted for the age of the earth.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Not sure which ones you went to.. But yeah, Maybe your right, I am going to the creation museum in Cincinatti Ohio this saturday, It was there where I went about 5 years ago, and questioned alot of my views, and started my way to where I am now.
Trying to make sense out of everything with what little we actually know to be true only causes division. Given the information that I have studied, my guess is that "humans" predated Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created special to tend Eden. Then they were cast out into the wilderness when they disobeyed. My question is who was Cain afraid of? Who did he build a city for, a city? Whats with all of the megalithic structures built with science we are just discovering, or haven't yet discovered. There's too many blanks to be filled. All I will say is history is probably not even close to what we think it is.
D
Depleted
Guest
Yes, I can assume that. I can assume that from your questions, (since all the answers you ask are easy enough to find with a simple online search) and the fact that you can't define a day even after reading the first chapter in the book. It's defined right in it. So, sure I can assume, and back up my assumptions.
This scientist explain all of the dating methods that is out there and how incorrect they are. He proves that in this video that the earth is about the age that the Bible says it is. His name is Bruce Malone, and maybe you can searched the web that speak of his evidences of how old the earth is..
I'm not sure which ones, either... I think answersingenesis was one...
thanks... so the scientist is in the "science is unreliable for dating the earth" group.
He has explains about how old things are and why they came up with their analyst about the age of things and know that these methods that they has been using only can go back so far, they just add their own belief into it, their own assumptions. But the method are good, but they has stretched the tlie a little bit by over 200 millions of years.
Last edited:
He has explains about how old things are and why they came up with their analyst about the age of things and know that these methods that they has been using only can go back so far, they just add their own belief into it, their own assumptions. But the method are good, but they has stretched the lie a little bit by over 200 millions of years.
Alpha defines how elements interact, so the whole periodic table would be messed up. Protons and electrons would interact differently and even light would have been affected. Physics relies on constants remaining constant, so it would affect that too.
A change in alpha apparently would mean the earth wouldn't have existed.
T
Tintin
Guest
Yes, observable science is valid, origins science isn't. It's a humanistic philosophy steeped in evolutionism.