How Old is the Earth?

[nebula]

The strong force is. . .

[Rick]

Before anyone becomes impressed with the intellect being displayed in this thread, and forms a belief based on the science being presented. I would suggest that you explore other scientific theories as well. One excellent source of information I have seen, can be found at:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...ginningTOC.html

This online book addresses the items concerning a young earth, radiometric dating, fossil record, and a host of other creation science information. The author of the book has advanced science degree's and is a fellow with the national science academy. The author was once an atheist who discovered that science had failed him its attempt to explain evolution. Im sure you will find it to be very interesting reading. For those that disagree with the facts presented by the creation science site, please refer to the written debate offer in the table of contents.

Rick

[Catsmeow]

Thanks, Rick.

As for me and my house...the Book of Genesis is all the convincing I'll EVER need.

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth........and there was morning and there was evening...and the (next) day.

God didn't have to "work up to it" as the evolutionists might claim..my God got it right the FIRST TIME!

No evolution.

The Bible...the Word of the Living God, WORD FOR WORD...from Genesis to Revelation, I believe it all. No alterations needed.

[Guest LCPGUY]

God didn't have to "work up to it" as the evolutionists might claim..my God got it right the FIRST TIME!

No evolution.

The Bible...the Word of the Living God, WORD FOR WORD...from Genesis to Revelation, I believe it all. No alterations needed.

I'm with you Cats!

Bro John

[Guest yod]

but it won't be science, it'll be blind faith - faith in a particular interpretation of a particular religion - an interpretation that has been proven wrong time and time again

I find that sentence to be rather funny.....

How many times has "science" changed it's story over the centuries?

How many times has God changed His story?

It seems to me that science once told us the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Science once told us to bleed as a cure for fever. Science told us a few years ago that a new ice age was coming...then they changed it global warming....which is it?

The evolutionary theory is just that....a theory. This "theory" was based on an opinion of Darwin. I've been to a museum extolling his theory in his hometown of Lewes England.

Darwin said that to prove his theory all that would be needed was to find the missing link between species. He was certain that once science had "evolved" we would begin seeing these missing links between all the different species. What was that.....150 years ago? Still not a single link between any species? Sounds like a discredited theory to me.

It has been 14 years since I read Hugh Ross' book. I don't remember all the details but I'd bet he covered your concerns....and I would guess that he's more of scientist than you.

At age seventeen he was the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver's Royal Astronomical Society. With the help of a provincial scholarship and a National Research Council (NRC) of Canada fellowship, he completed his undergraduate degree in physics (University of British Columbia) and graduate degrees in astronomy (University of Toronto). The NRC also sent him to the United States for postdoctoral studies. At Caltech he researched quasi-stellar objects, or "quasars," some of the most distant and ancient objects in the universe.

If you can top that it would help your credibility in attacking his credentials. Either way, he is just one scientist out of many who came to know God through studying the universe and science.

Galileo first heard that the earth was round in the Book of Isaiah. Jonah tells us of mountain ranges under the Meditteranean Sea. Genesis tells us that the Earth was one land mass before the flood. Leviticus gives us the perfect diet for healthy bodies.

Science has spent millennia trying to disprove the Bible. They come along with a theory and some time later their own studies prove the biblical account. It's all a matter of time.

[other one]

it'll be blind faith - faith in a particular interpretation of a particular religion - an

interpretation that has been proven wrong time and time again.

Tell you what I base my beliefs on are things like this:

There is a young lady that lives in the same town that we do that was very sick most of the first ten years of her life. She was always on some antibiotic or another. She finally ended up in the children

[nebula]

That's one thing that gets interesting to talk about - the unexplainable.

You know, I love scienc,e and I love trying to understand the natural world.

But I also know that the natural world is only one part of life.

Like the example I gave, science will never be able to convey things like beauty and hope and fear and love and anger and such the way a poem or a song or other art form could. Likewise, science will never bring comfort in affliction, peace amidst turmoil, joy in sorrow, hope amidst discouragement. Can science even tackle what makes us simply wonder or stand in awe of something?

And why is it that people who claim not to believe in God are always blaming Him when things go wrong? ("Why, God?!!!") Ever notice that? Or even still cry out to "the unknown" for help?

The human experience is so much more than what can be put through "a microscope" so to speak.

Just some more of my thoughts.

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

Thank you "Other One" for that testimony of miraculous healing. I have learned though, over the years, that I "must" walk by faith and not by "sight". The evidences of God's miraculous intervention into the affairs of men are all over the place and without first believing in THE God, and putting my faith in Him, I might attribute those miraculous events to "other" sources than God, just as our aetheist friend does.

Someone else wrote that he should debate those Christian scholars who are experts in the field. Why bother with us peons? I agree that he should go to them who are trained in the areas he is also trained in. The only reason I can see for someone of his obvious intelligence to visit us is to lead "some" astray. Not that everyone on this board is as ignorant as myself, for many I find are very intelligence Christians here.

My big problem with the secularist theory is determining the "first cause". After coming to know God, I realize that HE is the "FIRST CAUSE", and that He gave us His Word to reveal as much as we need to know about this creation we are in.

The secularist OTOH, must come to the conclusion that the "first cause" is NOTHING! That is, that from NOTHING, came EVERYTHING. I don't even think my three year old granddaughter could fall for that line.

Science, from the perspective of a Christian, is a most beautiful and remarkable revelator of many of God's wondrous mysteries. But when men start competing with God, all they wind up with is a bunch of changing hypothesis that no one completely agrees upon and that only confuses the issue.

Isn't that what Satan wants?

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[Bread_of_Life]

nebula

Do they have an incling of what makes the strong force - or is it just as much a mystery as gravity?

It's just as much of a mystery as all the forces. The current theory is that "exchange particles" called "gluons" (I kid you not) - are exchanged between protons and neutrons, essentially exchanging momentum with each other, and preventing the other from getting away. I promise you, that really is the current working hypothesis.

Exchange particles are quite a common hypothesis now in physics - for example we believe that virtual photons are responsible for the electro-weak interaction.

Hey! He's agreeing with you on the older Earth - what's the punch for? Are you attempting to prove an old Earth or to disprove the Bible? C'mon!

Hey, I was just asking, I'm yet to see a full account from a biblical literalist on this score, that's all.

Do you understand this?

yes, I do, and I'm glad you're not a biblical literalist, but many people are. I'm really trying to have a dialogue with them, and find out what their interpretations are.

Yod

How many times has "science" changed it's story over the centuries?

It rather depends on what you mean by "story". The *method* of gaining reliable knowledge remains the same (basic baconianism - find data, make theory to fit, make predictions, test predictions, modify or reject theory based on new data, go round the cycle again). This, as you will notice, is an iterative process. That is, as new data emerges, the theory is modified or changed completely, and then retested. This method will not arrive at the whole truth first time (because of lack of data) - but it will iterate towards the truth through a series of intermediate stages of knowledge.

So in one sense, the important sense, science hasn't changed its story at all. It's still empirical, it's still predictive, it's still flexible to change as new data arises. But as you point out, theories have changed. Some have been rejected outright, and some have been modified to accept new data, some remain to this day basically unchanged. The real question is, is this a weakness or a strength of science? The obvious answer is, it's a strength. Whereas the bible is unable to change to accomodate the order of the fossil record, the scientific theory of the origin of life can change, thus becoming more correct. No scientist pretends that science will be right first time, nor that any scientific theory is complete or unchangeable - but what we do know is that, through following the scientific method of testing, prediction and modification/rejection, we will come closer and closer to the truth.

Whatsmore, we don't have to fear new evidence. Whereas a creationist, being dogmatic about his theory, will fear evidence against it - a scientist follows the evidence, not the theory. Theories come and theories go and theories modify - what a scientist is interested in is the evidence, because the evidence will point to the truth. That is the great strength of science - and it's proven by its many good theories. Look at the theory of gravity for example - it has changed several times, and it will change again in the years to come - but every time we get closer to the whole truth, and learn more about the universe, its origins, and how to manipulate physical laws on a day to day basis.

So lets not dwell on the changeability of science, but rather celebrate this flexibility that allows scientists to follow the new evidence, whilst leaving creationists struggling to reject it.

It seems to me that science once told us the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.

Actually, no, these were both doctrines of the Church of Rome - until they were disproved by science. Scientific theories are those that have evidence, that are testable, and that make predictions. Neither of these theories was ever based on evidence, but rather biblical interpretation and Catholic dogma.

Science told us a few years ago that a new ice age was coming...then they changed it global warming....which is it?

Probably both - we are in a period climatic shift and of ice ages (the last one receding 10,000 years ago).

The evolutionary theory is just that....a theory. This "theory" was based on an opinion of Darwin.

Firstly, I'd like you to define what you think a theory is - because by the way you're talking about theories, I suspect that you don't know how the word is defined in the scientific community. There is quite a strict set of criteria that a hypothesis needs to meet to become a theory, and indeed there is no gradation above theory for a theory to move onto, such is the prestige of the position.

Secondly, the theory of evolution was not based on the opinion of Darwin at all, but rather on evidence. Scientists do not believe things on the veracity or forcefulness of the advocate, but on the levels and quality of the evidence available. The evidence that Darwin presented in his Origin of Species was good - and now 150 years later, we have solved many of the outstanding issues raised in that book, as well as developing whole new strands of evidence for the theory and finding more traditional evidence than Darwin could ever have dreamed possible.

It has been 14 years since I read Hugh Ross' book. I don't remember all the details but I'd bet he covered your concerns....and I would guess that he's more of scientist than you.

Firstly, you don't know me - I could be Steven Hawkins secretary writing at his computer for him, or just some joker on the internet having a laugh and pretending to be a physicist. Given this level of knowledge about me, I think it is rather early to be making such a presumption.

Secondly, it is likely that Mr Ross has done more lab work than I ever have, since he is a practicing astrophysicist, and I am a Sales Manager with a graduate degree, who never went onto actual research. However, I would doubt that his book centred on biological evolution, or the framework set out in genesis 1 for the order of biological creation. This is no more his field of expertise than mine, after all, both of us being physicists.

Thirdly, and lastly, one cannot judge the arguments by the arguer. Essentially, it doesn't matter if I'm some joker on the internet, or an award winning scientist, my argument is either right or wrong. The simplicity of my argument should make it easy for you to look up the references in your bible, and the in any high school biology or paleontology text book, to see if I am correct. The fossil record is also on public display at many excellent museums. If you're ever round London way, I'd be happy to give you directions to our very own Natural History museum, for example. Therefore criticising my qualifications or scientific credentials will get you nowhere. My argument is simple, concise, and should be easily refuted if wrong whether or not I have scientific experience.

If you can top that it would help your credibility in attacking his credentials.

I have never attacked Mr Ross' credentials, I am merely pointing out that if, as you say, he said that the fossil record matches the order of creation in Genesis - he was wrong, whatever credentials he may have. Of course, I have never read Mr Ross' book, and it would surprise me if he did make such a claim. But if you did, whether he's Albert Einstein or Elmur Fudd, he was wrong.

Galileo first heard that the earth was round in the Book of Isaiah.

Actually, I believe that the earth is described as a circle, which is two dimensional. This is where the religious doctrine of a flat earth came from, the doctrine you wrongly blamed science for earlier in this discourse.

Science has spent millennia trying to disprove the Bible.

Again this is incorrect. Science is essentially silent on religion - it is purely secular. That doesn't mean atheist - it means it doesn't comment either way on whether there is a God or not. That's because science is about natural phenomenon, and how the natural world works.

Science is therefore incapable of disproving the idea of a God, or proving it, for that matter. However, if a text (any text, religious or otherwise) makes scientific claims, then it can disprove these. Unfortunately, you are interpretting Genesis as making scientific claims, whereas many modern theologians believe that it is allegorical, not scientific. Because you interpret it thus, it is possible for science to comment on these scientific claims. Unfortunately for you, these scientific claims are incorrect.

other one

Tell you what I base my beliefs on are things like this:

The story you go onto recount has nothing whatever to do with the fossil record, the age of the earth, evolution, or any scientific topic. Even if it is true, and that there is no natural explanation for it, it does not disprove or prove evolution, it doesn't change the order of the fossil record, and it doesn't show radiometric dating to be flawed.

Whether or not there is a higher power is besides the point in this discussion, because we are discussing the evidence that we find in nature for the age of the earth, and the age of life, and how it came about. I will interpret your references g to modern day miracles as a failure on your part to either understand the scientific dialogue, or to be able to refute my arguments.

You say God has been proven wrong over and over

I said nothing of the sort, other than in your overactive imagination. This is more than twisting my language, this is simply putting words in my mouth and ideas in my brain that are not there.

Hang around the world for a few years and if we are in the times I think, you'll get introduced to Him in person. He might just answer all your questions.

Every generation has believed that the endtimes are coming, but good luck to this one

Dad Ernie

The only reason I can see for someone of his obvious intelligence to visit us is to lead "some" astray.

Firstly, thankyou for your kindly and open-minded welcome.

Secondly, it is sad that you cannot think of a single other reason why someone of my ability would post on such a board as this, other than to lead the faithful astray. It is also sad that you think that the theory of an old earth is equivalent to leading the faithful astray. If you want to know my real purpose for being here, it is a purpose of education - and most specifically scientific education. I am passionate about science, and passionate about truth - and I hate to see either distorted for the sake of faith and religion.

Religious faith and scripture (special revelation) should correlate with general revelation (the world around us). It is my sad experience that in cases where it does not appear to, adherents are equally as likely to attempt to distort the evidence in general revelation as they are to re-interpret their religious scriptures and doctrines. Unfortunately, some of these people are also willing to lie, decieve, misquote, mis-educate and spread black propaganda in order to propagate their religiously inspired but deeply misled ignorance of reality. As an atheist, with no religious doctrine to push, and no demoninational badge to live up to, I will perhaps be able to inject some reality, evidence and scientific method into the lives of those who have been misled by creationism.

Thirdly, and lastly, if you wish to know about me or my credentials or my character, may I refer you to www.planetwisdom.com/cafe - a bulletin board for Christian Students at which I am a regular, and have been posting for some years. If you still doubt my veracity after what I have said here, perhaps you would rather trust the testimony of the Christians there as to my good intentions.

The secularist OTOH, must come to the conclusion that the "first cause" is NOTHING! That is, that from NOTHING, came EVERYTHING. I don't even think my three year old granddaughter could fall for that line.

If you are serious in dicussing the cosmological argument, then I suggest that you start up another thread, and I will happily share my thoughts. However, a thread concerning the age of the earth is hardly the time nor the place, don't you agree?

[Guest yod]

Please tell Steve Hawkins I said "hello"

and welcome to the boards. I appreciate that you aren't a 'hit & run' troublemaker (which I thought you were since we've been getting a lot of that lately)

You have obviously got a head start on the discrepancies you've posed. I'll have to look into it and get back with you later.

thanks for the challenge....but don't hold you breath. This might take a while.