E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
proofs by Who's standard?
And what standard to we go by? SInce no one was around 1 million years ago to tell us what it was like, so we had proof our scientific calculations were not flawed..
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.
proofs by Who's standard?
And what standard to we go by? SInce no one was around 1 million years ago to tell us what it was like, so we had proof our scientific calculations were not flawed..
Not true. Genealogies in bible dont need to be complete (main persons in somebody's lineage is enough) and they are not even as accurate as you think, compare Luke and Matthew. The purpose is to proof only the messianiv lineage, not to count the age of humanity, Earth or even Universe.
Perhaps better stated as thousands and millions of speculations not proofs. As we say correlation is not causation.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
It is the nature of God which makes science possible. God is rational and ordered, and has created a rational, ordered universe which may be investigated directly. If there were no God, there would be no reason to assume the universe is not completely random. Randomness would make investigation silly; one could not be certain from one day to the next whether gravity had fundamentally changed, or there was suddenly a new atomic structure, or whatever.
"If it is provable, it is truth". Nice idea. The trouble is, "proof" exists only in logic and mathematics. In every other realm, the best we have is evidence. The evidence may be compelling or convincing, or it may not. The counter to this idea is that if something is not "provable" then it is not truth. That is, in a strictly logical sense, invalid. To illustrate this, try to "prove" the existence of your own mind.
So while much recent scientific investigation has been carried out without reference to God, it actually builds and relies on the truth of God's nature and the orderliness of His creation to do that investigation. Many scientists prior to the 20th century were believers in the Christian God. Isaac Newton, for example (co-discoverer of calculus, the first to document the theory of gravitational attraction, etc.) wrote more about the Bible than about any other subject. "Science" leans heavily on God, whether or not scientists acknowledge it.
Astronomy works, medicine based on human genom works, physics works... so these theories are working. If it would not work, we would have to find another one, that is working.
But the 6000 years old (well, young), universe does not fit so many working scientific fields, that it would really had to be some kind of massive conspiration, if it would be proved to be right.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I know many believe this, Yet I know many well known and just as reputable scientists who would say otherwise.
They would tell you the flood changed everything, and the difference in beliefs is caused by how catastrophic you think the flood really was. and what it did to the "earth that was"
It may be that you have only considered evidence which has been interpreted through an evolutionary or old-earth perspective. Evidence is just evidence; the lenses through which we view those pieces of evidence significantly affect what conclusions we draw.
May I suggest you check out videos on YouTube featuring either Jason Lisle and Spike Psarris for astronomy. I don't know of any resources regarding human genetics, but I suspect there are some good ones. At the least I would mention the research surrounding "mitochondrial Eve" which points to a single female ancestor within fairly recent history. If memory serves correctly, there is parallel research which points to an even more recent single male ancestor (which would be the biblical Noah).
I would also note that much of the scientific community is hamstrung by popular belief. If a scientist tries to publish something which is contrary to evolution, it may not even make it to peer review. This says nothing about the validity of research or the truth of the conclusions, only about the biases of the editors. I'd suggest checking out the YouTube movie "Expelled" with Ben Stein.
Well if you want to do some calculations since math is unaffected by age take a look at the moon. At the rate with which it is moving farther away from the earth if you move the clock backwards even 100,000 years you can see that the math proves the earth cannot be that old. Same thing goes with the earth's electromagnetic field. Reversing the rate of decay proves that in 100,000 years everything would have been crushed and the magnetic field collapsed.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Not true.
Its established that moon moves in a rate of about 4cm a year from Eearth.
In 1963 physicist Louis Slichter came with the idea, that moon could not move in this rate from Earth more than 2 billions years. Which contradicts the assumed age of Earth to be about 4.7 billion years.
But he also pointed out, that this conflict can be solved, if the tidal torque the Moon exerts on Earth was much less in the past than it is now.
In 1982 physicist Kirk Hansen proved this is the case and so this possible conflict was solved more than 30 years ago.
Sure if the ifs are certain but they remain ifs.
Did you do the math?
For the cause of Christ
Roger
What math exactly? Its not about counting numbers like apples in store. You must understand what historically happened and it was proved in 1982.
Do you have something that is really a proof of a young earth?
Last edited:
Want to speculate what effect the moon being 4 kilometers closer to earth would cause?
If you slow things down or speed things up are you not simply adjusting your theory to create a truth you can justify?
Why are you set on proving the bible to be in error?
For the cause of Christ
Roger
No, I dont want to speculate. But if you want to prove something, it must be really a proof, not something that was refuted 30 years ago. Thats not the cause of Christ.
I am not proving Bible is in error.
I am simply not believing in young earth creationism and I dont believe in some global massive conspiration in science with the purpose to cover the existence of God or something. Thats all.
In my opinion (and it is the opinion of the vast majority of christians today), modern science and Bible do not contradict each other.
Last edited:
Refuting error with more error is hardly logical.
Young earth is simple. God using the simple things of the earth to confound the wise that's biblical. God said it and that settles it.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
G
Gr8grace
Guest
I believe science, when it comes to the age of the earth..............is catching up with the bible.
At satans fall, God took away light(angels apparently need light to function)and froze the earth and the heavens(second heaven/our universe). Everything STOPPED. who knows if it was 10 years or a million years or a billion years before God said ," let there be light." And restored the earth and created mankind to be a witness for Gods kingdom and satans "appeal trial".
4
49
Guest
Came across an article this morning that was interesting. Could not link (computer illiterate here), but google 'caveman's best friends? Ice Age puppies awe scientists'.
very true, that bible genealogies are often compressed.
though, one thing I wonder is whether there are examples either in the bible or other ancient literatures where they do the "X was n years old when he begat Y".
the reason I talked about "plain reading" is that I think it's best to first decide what the scriptures say, then see if they match up with mainstream science.
if they don't, and if one must embrace mainstream science, then one can look for hidden meanings or consider them myths.
"Refuting error with more error is hardly logical." - where do you see an error in what Kirk Hansen proved? But I am glad you accept your argument was an error.
"Young earth is simple." - Young or old, I dont know why young would be more simple or why does it matter.
"God said it..." No, God did not say that Earth is young. In fact, Bible says Earth is old:
Hear O mountains…you everlasting foundations of the earth (Micah 6:2).
The ancient mountains crumbled, and the age-old hills collapsed (Habakkuk 3:6).
If you meant that to believe in a young earth is more simple for you, I cannot agree even in this. Because if you believe in a young earth, you must live in a huge tension with the outside world, similar to if you believe in a flat Earth or geocentrism.
my experience with putting mainstream science and the genesis stories together is that one ends up with something not really scientific and also not a quality reading of the stories.
imo
one thing that a lot of people disagree with me on, but makes a lot of sense to me, is that
God created the universe "already in motion", such that we may rightly observe the universe to be old, but it is actually much younger.