In your opinion do you believe world is about 6000 years old

  • 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.

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
780
203
43
Scientific theories can be destroyed by a single piece of evidence.

That is the interesting point about any scientific theory, it can only exist
as long as no contrary evidence arises.

The singularity is an infinite amount of energy contained within zero dimensional
space. The energy contained in the singularity is more than enough to generate
two trillion galaxies. I do not accept the idea of the singularity. That is not a scientific
entity by any means, it is beyond science.

Focus on the observable, focus on the mile high Colorado Plateau that the Grand Canyon
sits in. Look at the layers, strata, beds, that constitute the Grand Canyon. There is a layer
laid down by lava in there. There are two limestone layers and limestone is formed by
dead sea life in a shallow sea. One of these limestone layers is 100 feet thick.

The limestone layers are not at the top of the strata.

The upper strata have shell fossils not limestone.

They say the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood and that's not correct.
You m
Scientific theories can be destroyed by a single piece of evidence.

That is the interesting point about any scientific theory, it can only exist
as long as no contrary evidence arises.

The singularity is an infinite amount of energy contained within zero dimensional
space. The energy contained in the singularity is more than enough to generate
two trillion galaxies. I do not accept the idea of the singularity. That is not a scientific
entity by any means, it is beyond science.

Focus on the observable, focus on the mile high Colorado Plateau that the Grand Canyon
sits in. Look at the layers, strata, beds, that constitute the Grand Canyon. There is a layer
laid down by lava in there. There are two limestone layers and limestone is formed by
dead sea life in a shallow sea. One of these limestone layers is 100 feet thick.

The limestone layers are not at the top of the strata.

The upper strata have shell fossils not limestone.

They say the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood and that's not correct.
Whether or not you or I accept the idea of the singularity, Current scientific theory states that the universe began with a “bang”, when a singularity of energy suddenly exploded, and that it will end with a “whimper” when the stars eventually fade to darkness. This unique universe theory is compatible or consistent with belief in a God who created the universe “ex nihilo”, who sustains it by His power, and who will judge its moral agents at the end of time.
Our finite minds cannot comprehend how God does this (IS 40:28). However, neither are we able to understand why the universe exists without God (JN 3:8). Theistic and atheistic cosmologies are both mind-boggling! Just as atheists believe that somehow the world always existed and somewhat intelligent beings evolved, so theists believe that for some reason the eternal Intelligence or Spirit of God created and pervades the physical universe, including the brains of those who freely will to spit in His face (RM 5:6-8, MT 27:30)!
 
Oct 21, 2024
80
20
18
I believe it's older. How old no clue. When was Satan bad? Great topic to study
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,792
1,069
113
Oregon
cfbac.org
.
1Tim 6:20 . . Avoid impious and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called:

Not all science is false. The kind we need to be wary of typically shows up in
informal group discussions, i.e. forums, bull sessions, and brain storming;
wherein people shoot from the lip without really knowing what they're
talking about.

For example: one day at work a man in the break room said he believes it's
arrogant to assume there is no other intelligent life in the universe but that
found on earth. You know why he said that? Because he heard it said first by
someone he admires, ergo: he was perpetuating a logical fallacy in the form
of a credible opinion.

BTW: On June 28, 2024, The US Supreme Court overturned a long held
opinion, so-called the Chevron Deference Doctrine, which was basically an
argument from authority, i.e. a logical fallacy which supposes that
someone's position, or their credentials, makes their views more important
and/or more likely to be correct than the views of lesser folks.

In a nutshell; just because someone is high up on the "expert" totem pole
does not eo ipso make them right.
_
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
673
322
63
Any Christian that studies Paleontology, Archaeology, Astronomy, or Geology. Will
given some time accept the old earth evidence.
Any Christian that studies the Bible is being given enough evidence to rule out an old earth.
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
780
203
43
Any Christian that studies the Bible is being given enough evidence to rule out an old earth.
JohnRH & Inquisitor, Again, God created both the physical world that science seeks to describe and Scripture that focuses on why God made mankind and how we should live, so the better answer is BOTH/AND rather than EITHER/OR.
 

2ndTimeIsTheCharm

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2023
1,924
1,105
113
JohnRH & Inquisitor, Again, God created both the physical world that science seeks to describe and Scripture that focuses on why God made mankind and how we should live, so the better answer is BOTH/AND rather than EITHER/OR.

The problem is that secular scientists don't want to acknowledge God and don't want to follow Him, so that reflects in their theories. In turn, they teach everyone else that everything runs without God. Is that a good thing? No. Just look at all the Christians such as Inquisitor who believe them over what God testifies of Himself and His creative work in the Bible. Such Christians can't recognize much of God's involvement in the world because of that.

These verses are a perfect description of the secular scientists that Inquisitor trusts more than God Himself:

Romans18:1 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

So sooner or later God will call them to account for teaching other people that everything works without Him. Why would I want to side with that or support it?

This is why I wouldn't put much faith in these secular scientists that Inquisitor does and I choose to believe what God says in the Bible (as do other Christians).


🦑
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
780
203
43
The problem is that secular scientists don't want to acknowledge God and don't want to follow Him, so that reflects in their theories. In turn, they teach everyone else that everything runs without God. Is that a good thing? No. Just look at all the Christians such as Inquisitor who believe them over what God testifies of Himself and His creative work in the Bible. Such Christians can't recognize much of God's involvement in the world because of that.

These verses are a perfect description of the secular scientists that Inquisitor trusts more than God Himself:

Romans18:1 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

So sooner or later God will call them to account for teaching other people that everything works without Him. Why would I want to side with that or support it?

This is why I wouldn't put much faith in these secular scientists that Inquisitor does and I choose to believe what God says in the Bible (as do other Christians).


🦑
Any secular scientist who denies that the universe is unique and thus might be created by God has moved from science to atheism, but we can believe what God says in Creation as well as in the Bible. Creation is the original divine miracle, and recreation or salvation to heaven foreshadowed by Christ is the final miracle.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,409
13,750
113
So we have 200 species of monkey by two. Following Noah and his wife
around?

What about the other species of animals are they all following Noah around?
It is more likely that there were two or three species of monkey (or other animals) that later diverged.
 

2ndTimeIsTheCharm

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2023
1,924
1,105
113
It is more likely that there were two or three species of monkey (or other animals) that later diverged.

Close! God told Noah to collect "kinds" of animals instead "species" which have more specific characteristics.

For more information on the matter: Created Kinds (Baraminology)

The above talks about how you can get a wide variety of species from just a few kinds of an animal, even in just a few thousand years.


💐
 

Ballaurena

Well-known member
May 27, 2024
416
276
63
In my studies I have found the world is about 6000 years old. Anyone else studied time from Adam?????
Prophetically, God has said the age of the earth is a "meaningless question" because time didn't exist when it was created.
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
780
203
43
The Bible describes the physical world.
Yes, but Scripture’s main focus is on why God made the world, especially mankind and how we should live--especially to qualify for tne next world, while the hard sciences do not deal with the moral questions but only seek to describe the physical world God has made in as much detail as possible so as to be able to make new things with the matter/energy in it.
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
673
322
63
Prophetically, God has said the age of the earth is a "meaningless question" because time didn't exist when it was created.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1 (KJV)
Oops, looks like time existed.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
Prophetically, God has said the age of the earth is a "meaningless question" because time didn't exist when it was created.
But Peter (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) said,

"But, beloved, BE NOT IGNORANT of THIS ONE THING..."





(which I believe points us back to the "after TWO DAYS" and "IN the THIRD DAY" of Hosea 5:14-6:3's CONTEXT ;) )
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,916
852
113
It is more likely that there were two or three species of monkey (or other animals) that later diverged.
Interesting that you would say that.

We know that there are are a minimum of 200 species of monkey in the world.

We also know that monkey species are different in size and appearance, I seriously doubt
that any divergence. In their size and appearance is impossible over a mere few thousand
years.

Think it through Dino246.

Your claiming that any divergence in a monkey species can happen within a few lifetimes.

You can't go from a pair of monkeys to over two hundred species of monkey, in such a short space of
time.
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,916
852
113
The Bible describes the physical world.
I would disagree.

Ultimately the physical world and the events within that physical world. Are prophetic
of the spiritual world and the kingdom to come.

Consider the exodus of the Jews from Egypt under Moses. That is an enormous event
with profound spiritual application for us. Remember the blood they wiped on their
doors to protect themselves from the angel of death. Then we have the fulfillment
by the blood of the lamb of God.

Same goes for the Genesis account of creation, the tree of life was in the middle
of the garden. Was the tree of life an oak tree or a pine tree?

The Bible is never merely describing a physical world.
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,916
852
113
Close! God told Noah to collect "kinds" of animals instead "species" which have more specific characteristics.

For more information on the matter: Created Kinds (Baraminology)

The above talks about how you can get a wide variety of species from just a few kinds of an animal, even in just a few thousand years.


💐
You can get a wide variety of size and appearance in any species of animal such as a monkey.
But that is selective breeding, forced breeding, look at the dog species for example.

In the natural world, the observed world, dogs are derived from wolves. There was a time
not long ago when only wolves existed. There are only three species of wolves I think.
We developed the array of dog species through selective breeding.

More than likely, the wolf species may never have diverged into any dog species. Because
the environment they live in is suitable for big wolves. Not small dogs that fit into
a woman's handbag.
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,916
852
113
The problem is that secular scientists don't want to acknowledge God and don't want to follow Him, so that reflects in their theories. In turn, they teach everyone else that everything runs without God. Is that a good thing? No. Just look at all the Christians such as Inquisitor who believe them over what God testifies of Himself and His creative work in the Bible. Such Christians can't recognize much of God's involvement in the world because of that.

These verses are a perfect description of the secular scientists that Inquisitor trusts more than God Himself:

Romans18:1 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

So sooner or later God will call them to account for teaching other people that everything works without Him. Why would I want to side with that or support it?

This is why I wouldn't put much faith in these secular scientists that Inquisitor does and I choose to believe what God says in the Bible (as do other Christians).


🦑
Science is based on the study of the physical world, the natural world.

Science is not concerned with any philosophical idea or religious beliefs.

A scientist can have a belief system and a scientist can be secular in their own
private belief system. A scientist can be a Christian also but the science itself
is not influenced by any person's belief system.

Science is based on physical world observations, repeatable experiments, developing
explanations (theories) that explain the observations. Not religious interpretations.

The Apollo missions to the moon is pure science, an astronauts personal belief has nothing
to do with the Apollo missions. Belief systems are a separate field in life.

Science is not religious, science is not secular.
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,916
852
113
JohnRH & Inquisitor, Again, God created both the physical world that science seeks to describe and Scripture that focuses on why God made mankind and how we should live, so the better answer is BOTH/AND rather than EITHER/OR.
The fundamental problem is that there is not just a physical, natural world at all.

There has always been a spiritual world hidden from our sight.

When we look at the sky there are angels ascending and descending on Jacob's ladder.

Mankind's observations are restricted to the physical world, mankind cannot see the
spiritual world. Both worlds exist at the same time.

So ultimately it is not both worlds but one multi-dimensional world.

We are blind to the true reality of the spiritual world that also has a visible physical
projection, that is, a temporary reflection.

One Father, one Son, and one Creation.
 

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
780
203
43
The fundamental problem is that there is not just a physical, natural world at all.

There has always been a spiritual world hidden from our sight.

When we look at the sky there are angels ascending and descending on Jacob's ladder.

Mankind's observations are restricted to the physical world, mankind cannot see the
spiritual world. Both worlds exist at the same time.

So ultimately it is not both worlds but one multi-dimensional world.

We are blind to the true reality of the spiritual world that also has a visible physical
projection, that is, a temporary reflection.

One Father, one Son, and one Creation.
Scripture reveals all we need to see regarding spiritual truth, so we who learn God’s Word are not blind although we know only partly.
Btw, we should not interpret descriptive passages from the Old Testament as being prescriptive without warrant from the New Testament.