Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Still Alive

I've changed my mind. I now believe the "earth" is 6k years old

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The only one speculating is you.  

One side is speculating that the time from genesis 1:1 to today is 6,000 years. The bible doesn't say that. I'm speculating on what could have happened before genesis 1:3, but I'm basing it on observation of the world in which we live, while the other side is quite literally ignoring that evidence. Some are even saying those bones were put in the ground by Satan. And I guess they believe that the full length of the string of photons stretching millions of light years between us and some stars were just set a quivering the moment the stars were created. 

I'm suggesting a more rational explanation (based on the observable universe) that is in harmony with what the bible DOES say. And no, I'm not an evolutionist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shiloh357
40 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

One side is speculating that the time from genesis 1:1 to today is 6,000 years. The bible doesn't say that. 

The Bible gives us enough data to know that the earth is 6,000 years old.  That is not speculation. 

Quote

I'm speculating on what could have happened before genesis 1:3, but I'm basing it on observation of the world in which we live, while the other side is quite literally ignoring that evidence.

Not ignoring the evidence at all.  All of the available evidence supports a young earth.

Quote

Some are even saying those bones were put in the ground by Satan.

I have never heard anyone say that.  Modern science dates the bones by rocks and the rocks by the bones.  It is completely circular.  Modern science is atheistic in its worldview and interprets evidence in a manner that accommodates that worldview.

Quote

And I guess they believe that the full length of the string of photons stretching millions of light years between us and some stars were just set a quivering the moment the stars were created. 

Nope.  No one is saying that, either.

Quote

I'm suggesting a more rational explanation (based on the observable universe) that is in harmony with what the bible DOES say. And no, I'm not an evolutionist. 

Your "explanation"  doesn't fit with the biblical data and the biblical data is the plumline for judging and interpreting physical data.  There is nothing irrational about the earth being 6,000 years old.

  Even if you're not an evolutionist, the notion that the earth is billions of years old only exists to accommodate Evolution.  It's now a case where Christians have to compromise with the world and subjugate the Bible to the atheistic worldview of modern science.

Edited by shiloh357

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

The Bible gives us enough data to know that the earth is 6,000 years old.  That is not speculation. 

Not ignoring the evidence at all.  All of the available evidence supports a young earth.

Once we talk about physical evidence for the age of the earth, we enter the realm of what we call "science". This is where we make observations and do experiments to come up with hypotheses and theories regarding that on which we are experimenting. What does science say about the age of the earth? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Your "explanation"  doesn't fit with the biblical data and the biblical data is the plumline for judging and interpreting physical data.   The notion that the earth is billions of years old only exists to accommodate Evolution.

It is used to explain evolution, but that is not why it exists. FWIW, I  don't buy evolution theory. The whole thing is just a way to deny creation. But I don't believe that for Creation to be true we must have an entire planet that is only 6,000 years old. For me, the planet is the canvas and the surface of this planet is where God created this 6,000 year old painting, though the canvas itself is much older. And if you chip away at the painting, you find multiple layers of paintings before it. But all of that is nothing but an hypothesis on my part. It is not a belief, since I wasn't there. But I think it holds more water than the hypothesis that the earth and moon and sun and stars are all only 6,000 years old. 

 

BTW, what is the "biblical data" other than Genesis 1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shiloh357
2 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Once we talk about physical evidence for the age of the earth, we enter the realm of what we call "science". This is where we make observations and do experiments to come up with hypotheses and theories regarding that on which we are experimenting. What does science say about the age of the earth? 

Scientific methods for determining the age of the earth have been found to be wildly unreliable, dating objects known to be less than 100 years old as being millions of years old.  Both C14 and Radiometric dating have been found to be flawed.  

What science says about the age of the earth cannot be trusted to be accurate, not by a long shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shiloh357
4 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

It is used to explain evolution, but that is not why it exists. FWIW, I  don't buy evolution theory. The whole thing is just a way to deny creation. But I don't believe that for Creation to be true we must have an entire planet that is only 6,000 years old. 

The entire platform for the earth being millions of years old in defiance of the Bible's claims that the earth was created in 6 literal days is an attack on the Bible's authority.   

Your argument that all of the millions of years being attributed to a pre-adamite earth doesn't have any biblical data to support it. So your only alternatives to are to say the days are really long epochs of time or believe the Bible the earth was created in 6 literal days and that the "beginning" in Gen. 1:1 is the beginning of that creation process as the Bible clearly indicates.

Quote

For me, the planet is the canvas and the surface of this planet is where God created this 6,000 year old painting, though the canvas itself is much older.

But again, there is biblical data to support that.   You're just imagining it to be so and that is pretty worthless as a platform for arriving at truth.

Quote

And if you chip away at the painting, you find multiple layers of paintings before it. But all of that is nothing but an hypothesis on my part. It is not a belief, since I wasn't there. But I think it holds more water than the hypothesis that the earth and moon and sun and stars are all only 6,000 years old. 

I think we would do better to take our chances and just believe what the Bible says instead of trying imagine a different scenario that we think is more rational than the Bible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shiloh357 said:

Scientific methods for determining the age of the earth have been found to be wildly unreliable, dating objects known to be less than 100 years old as being millions of years old.  Both C14 and Radiometric dating have been found to be flawed.  

What science says about the age of the earth cannot be trusted to be accurate, not by a long shot. 

I have to admit I find this a little comical. I'm always on the "anti-science" side of this thing, yet here I am defending science. I hate that you've put me there. ;)

Radiometric dating is not perfect, but it works well enough to let us know that the planet is more than 6,000 years old. A LOT older. 

We agree that dating is flawed, however, I believe that, if it was a stopwatch, It says it's been running for three hours, but it may be off by a few minutes. You are suggesting that it really has only been running one or two seconds. It's the scale of the inaccuracy argument that is hard for me to accept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The entire platform for the earth being millions of years old in defiance of the Bible's claims that the earth was created in 6 literal days is an attack on the Bible's authority.   

Your argument that all of the millions of years being attributed to a pre-adamite earth doesn't have any biblical data to support it. So your only alternatives to are to say the days are really long epochs of time or believe the Bible the earth was created in 6 literal days and that the "beginning" in Gen. 1:1 is the beginning of that creation process as the Bible clearly indicates.

I don't think that is what it indicates. I think that is what people infer, just as I'm inferring something else. Both of us are almost certainly wrong to one degree or another. I'm willing to admit that I probably am, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shiloh357
1 minute ago, Still Alive said:

I have to admit I find this a little comical. I'm always on the "anti-science" side of this thing, yet here I am defending science. I hate that you've put me there. ;)

Radiometric dating is not perfect, but it works well enough to let us know that the planet is more than 6,000 years old. A LOT older. 

We agree that dating is flawed, however, I believe that, if it was a stopwatch, It says it's been running for three hours, but it may be off by a few minutes. You are suggesting that it really has only been running one or two seconds. It's the scale of the inaccuracy argument that is hard for me to accept. 

Not true at all.  When modern dating methods return results that we know are wrong, then it is not something you trust.   When the dates of recently formed volcanic rock from a 20th century eruption is dated as being millions of years old it is a massive problem.  The problem is that you are getting the same dates for everything, even things are known to be less 100 years old. If a dinosaur bone and a chicken bone from KFC are both showing up to be millions of years old, you don't trust that dating method, be it C14 or radiometric, or whatever.  That is too unreliable to trust.   But when you have an agenda, it is easy to just ignore the data that you don't like and only present one side of the story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shiloh357
6 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I don't think that is what it indicates. 

That is exactly what it indicates IF you take it context, but that means taking the Bible literally, which means believing what it says, as written.

Quote

I think that is what people infer, just as I'm inferring something else. Both of us are almost certainly wrong to one degree or another. I'm willing to admit that I probably am, anyway.

I am not wrong.   I don't have to speculate or guess or infer anything. I can just take God at His word, because I actually believe Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...