the creation story; 7 days or billions of years?

[Guest bible bashed]

Welcome to Worthy. Your name and first posts causes me to ask, are you a Christian?

Hi Again:

I think that your reply above was meant for "Bible Bashed" and not me. I am "Living for the Lord". Somehow, I was notified in my inbox that your above note was for me. However, upon rereading my mail - I found the post that you are talking about - and I do believe you want "Bible Bashed" and not me.

I don't agree whatsoever with what "Bible Bashed" wrote and I certainly don't want anyone to think that I wrote it.

God Bless!!!

Its easy to offer comments like this, but why not offer something to my post?

proven facts cannot manipulated by rallying political correct ideals or by pushing religious fundamentalism

[Guest bible bashed]

Welcome to Worthy. Your name and first posts causes me to ask, are you a Christian?

Why would my post cause you to ask if i were a christian?

Are you a christian? You cannot judge anothers heart, you can only judge your own....

[Guest HIS girl]

Does your "name" reflect your feelings?

Just curious...you seem a little angry.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

this does not disagree with the bible - the bible is a spiritual book of truth, not one of fundamental literatural correctness - this truth is revealed only to christian moderates and religious fundamentalists claiming to be christians remain blind.

Jesus was quite Fundamental when He stated that He was The Way, The Truth, and The Life, there was nothing at all Moderate about His tone.

Why do you feel that you are Bible Bashed?

Please explain Moderation to me as well.

Peace,

Dave

[ayin jade]

this is a false statement - carbon 14 dating does not prove the age of the earth to be young at all. in fact it has proven the age of the earth is much older, 100's millions of years -

we have dinosuar fossils aged at 100's millions of years old and it is the sedimentary rock the fossil is in that is dated also

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses C14 to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years old.

So your assertion that it proves the earth is millions of years old is a fallacy. It is also highly inaccurate. Ive taken samples many times. Samples that provide dates that fall outside of what is expected by researchers are discarded. Ive seen that many times too. It is quite routine in science work.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

ABSOLUTELY NOWEHERE in the bible, is the age of the earth revealed.

Careful now, that's a pretty fundamental position and there's nothing Moderate in your tone. Seriously though, there are careful Genealogies in the Bible up until the point of Christ's birth at which time we have a pretty accurate historical record of time.

Peace,

Dave

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Evolution is supported in the bible also; as there as 4 legged insects that have evolved two additional legs;

LEVITICUS 11: 20 There are however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat; Those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

There were also obviously other creatures that evolved to have two legs from four originally, as supported in leviticus

LEVITICUS 11: 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

So you will operate on the rule of exclusion to suggest we don't know the age of the earth because it is not specifically stated but then abandon your own logic when it comes to insects?

I'm not sure I follow you and The Chief answered your question. Simply because they aren't mentioned in a Law designed to keep oneself pure by exclusion does not mean that they did not exist. It merely means that they did not apply.

Care to explain?

Peace,

Dave

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

ABSOLUTELY NOWEHERE in the bible, is the age of the earth revealed.

Careful now, that's a pretty fundamental position and there's nothing Moderate in your tone. Seriously though, there are careful Genealogies in the Bible up until the point of Christ's birth at which time we have a pretty accurate historical record of time.

Peace,

Dave

Yes, careful Genealogies that start after the fall.

2Ti

[MorningGlory]

We sometimes infer tone from the type of text people use. You are correct that science and the Bible can work together. If it is good science. The idea that these scriptures somehow prove evolution seems lost to me. I can not see anything of evolution in this.Maybe you could explain.

Then you can answer me one question;

If carbon-14 dating proves the earth to be no more than 30,000 years old, (10,000 to be truthful) how does any of the science you speak of disagree with the Bible?

this is a false statement - carbon 14 dating does not prove the age of the earth to be young at all. in fact it has proven the age of the earth is much older, 100's millions of years -

we have dinosuar fossils aged at 100's millions of years old and it is the sedimentary rock the fossil is in that is dated also

this does not disagree with the bible - the bible is a spiritual book of truth, not one of fundamental literatural correctness - this truth is revealed only to christian moderates and religious fundamentalists claiming to be christians remain blind.

The other winged 4 legged creatures would be bats or perhaps extinct dinosaurs of the time.

suggestion - read leviticus as quoted - you will learn that their were four legged insects (crickets, grasshoppers and locusts with four legs) in those days, now we have six legged insects...

How could you prove the age of the earth to be billions of years with C-14 when it's only accurate to about 12,000 years? See here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KnynjL44p...9&ct=result

[MorningGlory]

How could you prove the age of the earth to be billions of years with C-14 when it's only accurate to about 12,000 years? See here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KnynjL44p...9&ct=result

I think someone's mixing up c-14 dating with radiometric dating.

"The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements."

Geologic Time: Age of the Earth

Such techniques give the consistent result of an earth roughly 4.5 billion years old

"As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples."

**********

Finally, it's important to note that virtually all scientists accept this age of the earth not out of anti-creationist prejudice, but because of the strength of the evidence.

"A fundamental reason why these ancient ages are so widely accepted by the scientific community is that they are derived from several independent lines of evidence accumulated by independent and often competing teams of researchers. Each method involves different measurements and the application of different physical principles to derive ages from those measurements. The physical principles include the same thoroughly-proven principles that underlie the technology that runs the modern world. Hence the fact that the independent methods all yield similar ages reinforces confidence that the methods are sound and accurate despite their complexity and do not contain major fundamental flaws.

A second reason why these ages are so widely accepted is that for scientific results to be published in research journals, they must be critically reviewed by other scientists who are experts in the same research area. This process is called peer review and is employed in nearly all research journals in the physical and biological sciences and in the humanities and social sciences. Often the reviewers are competitors of the author and thus are especially keen to find flaws in the proposed publications. As a consequence of such review, nearly every paper must be revised and improved before it is published, and some papers are rejected because the review exposes flaws in the measurements or in their analysis and interpretation.

A third reason why these ages, and other scientific paradigms such as Einstein's theory of relativity, are so widely accepted is that by the nature of its acquisition--through independent lines of evidence and always subject to scrutiny--scientific evidence is built up only very slowly, one step at a time. Only when a very large and diverse body of evidence has been accumulated is a broad conclusion accepted. Even then, a broad conclusion remains subject to inspection, as further evidence may reinforce or refine it, or in rare cases, overthrow it. "

IPS Official Statement on the Ancient Age of the Earth and Universe

It appears the OP did, indeed, mean radiometric dating.