How Old is the Earth?

[Guest mscoville]

HA,

I agree, I always skip them when I read. But seriously, those people lived a long time, also Adam and Eve had a lot of kids and yeah even though it sounds gross to us Cain and Abel married their sisters. Remember how long these people lived and how small a city was in those days. Hundreds of years of procreation could produce a lot of kids, maybe he was building it for the kids that were yet to come as well. Ha. Man I love a moment of relaxation.

Cerran are you ever going to help me understand where you think sin came from if we evolved?

Love you Guys,

Martin

[Guest mscoville]

Scientific Atheist,

Howdy, look I know nothing at all about science, in fact I'm an artist, but I read Creationist literature a good deal (don't worry I know that gives me no qualifications to speak scientifically) and I've recently read a piece about rubidium strontium dating and seeing your topic here speaking directly to that I was wondering if you'd clarify something for me. I read an article about the Cardenas Basalts in the Grand Canyon and a comparison these basalts to basalts on the surface of the Canyon rim. Both plotted straight Isochron lines, however the newer or fresh basalts on the surface dated older than the precambrian area basalts located deep in the canyon walls. How could that be if Rb-Sr method is regarded as without error? Thanks so much for any info you can give me here.

~ Martin

[Guest mscoville]

Howdy,

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above.

I consider this to be the formation of the rain, thunderstorms, etc.

Isn't this just to much conjecture without knowing? Also if the water above isn't more massive I'm not sure you could have a Global flood. That could of course have just been God monkeying with the weather. But if that's so, then geez it seems weird he couldn't have monkeyed with everything and made the universe in 6 days. It's so circular sometimes. HA.

~ martin

[Guest mscoville]

Howdy Nebula,

I'd like to point out again that Genesis makes no reference to when the land masses (i.e. mountains, canyons) were created.

You'd think that would be an important part to a Creation story, wouldn't you?

I don't think that would be that important. The land masses are mentioned in general that those features are a part of in 1:9. I think the mountains etc are implied and the great canyons like The Grand Canyon were probably created at least in part by the Great Flood. God bless you sister!

In Love,

Martin

[Rick]

Interesting information. Thought I would pass it along.

Rick

" FIFTY REASONS WHY EVOLUTION WILL NOT FLY

CO-AUTHORED BY MIKE TOLER & ERIC SAMUELSON

FOR

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CREATION FELLOWSHIP

REVIEWED BY DR. ED HOLROYD FOR SCIENTIFIC CONTENT

There is ample evidence to believe that a God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis. Please read on and give each point careful thought as to which religious view sounds more reasonable -- special creation or evolution.

PARACONFORMITY: Evolutionary geologists contend that rocks were laid down in a uniform, predictable manner over billions of years. These scientists label and date these rock layers with familiar names such as Jurassic and Pre-Cambrian. The term Paraconformity describes those rock formations that are missing certain layers which are predicted by evolutionary geology. None of the typical gullying and weathering is visible in these examples, unlike what we see when the ground has been exposed for long periods. At several places in the Baltic region, clays of the so-called Pleistocene age rest directly on clays that contain Cambrian age fossils, creating an evolutionary gap of 400 million years. Yet in some places the break between layers can hardly be located, so similar are the two clays. Creationists say that the evidence from these anomalies indicates that the traditional, evolutionary dating methods for rocks are faulty. What do you say?

2. GEOLOGY REVERSED: Around the world, we see rock layers out of normal evolutionary sequence. Naturalist geologists believe the earth

[Guest Strservant]

Scientificaethiest,

Let me say right off that I do not pretend to be able to refute the questions you have raised. There are a couple of observations I would like to point out that may affect someone trying to determine the true age of the Earth.

First would be creation itself. Adam and Eve were created with age. God did not create them as infants. Looking at the age that people lived to at that time they may have been created at say 18 years old. If you take the total age the Earth will last (only God knows this) even if it was created with age it could make the Earth appear older than it actually is. This is not a trick on mankind rather a necessary thing. Just as Adam and Eve could not have taken care of themselves as infants, the Earth could not have sustained the life that God had created without some maturity to it. In addition to this one must consider the catastrophic event of the flood and the effects it would have on both the fossil record and the age factor of the Earth. Water being on the whole face of the Earth would cause massive changes in rock formations and even the fossil record. I have no doubt that you will be able to refute these points I have made and probably with little difficulty. For this reason I am also including my next remarks. Many things Christians believe cannot be proven. The very foundation of Christianity cannot be proven. That is that by Jesus dying on the cross we are able to gain forgiveness of our sins and spend eternity with Him. None of this can be proven either scientifically or in a court of law. This brings us to some very important words that Jesus spoke to His apostles. He said we must come with faith as a child. I cannot prove those things I have mentioned but I choose to believe them by faith.

Let me finish by saying that sometimes Christians are better at showing hatred than love. This happens mostly when an idea or opinion is brought out that seems to be in conflict with our beliefs. We have forgotten how to disagree with someone and still be able to show them the love that we should. In conclusion, I don't have all the answers you seek but I choose to believe and pray that at some point you will also.

Respectfully,

Strservant

[Bread_of_Life]

Firstly may I apologise for my absence - to all those people who have patiently awaited my reply - it has been a long working week for me, with several days away from home at various sales events.

Secondly, I cannot really contribute to the biblical debate here, as to whether or not an old earth is reconcilable with the bible for example, and therefore I can only apologise to those having that discussion that I cannot contribute more.

Thirdly, could I remind everyone that this is a thread about the age of the earth, not evolution. I'd love to take Rick on in an debate on most of his post (because most of it is good ol' fashioned lies, along with a few misunderstandings), but the majority of the post hasn't anything to do with the age of the earth at all.

Lastly, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop posting replies to "your stupid" or "you would say that, you're an atheist posts" - they get very old very quicky.

mscoville

I have a question here about something I don't understand very well. In all the dating methods we're dealing with degrading of materials right? Like the degrading of radiation etc.? Are we assuming that the degrading has been at a constant rate throughout all time?

Not exactly. What we're assuming is that, since rocks formed, the fundamental forces affecting the nuclei of matter have remained approximately constant. That doesn't mean a constant ammount of decay, but it does mean a constant probability of decay per atom.

Rick

I've already explained that I won't deal with most of your post and why, although I'd love to elsewhere, if you want to start a seperate thread. However, there were some relevant statements in there:

A. the rock contained no

[Bread_of_Life]

mscoville

I read an article about the Cardenas Basalts in the Grand Canyon and a comparison these basalts to basalts on the surface of the Canyon rim. Both plotted straight Isochron lines, however the newer or fresh basalts on the surface dated older than the precambrian area basalts located deep in the canyon walls. How could that be if Rb-Sr method is regarded as without error? Thanks so much for any info you can give me here.

Good question. Firstly, if you could link me into the peer reviewed paper that you found this in (as in, the actual scientific findings, not the creationists reprinting or cribbing of them, that's be great).

Secondly, although without seeing the peer reviewed literature I cannot be sure, there are such things as "overturned strata" - strata which have been completely turned upside down by certain geological forces. These are usually really obvious to spot, in that the order of rock types, fossils, and chronology of rocks is reversed. It could be one of these.

Thirdly, if you really want to, you can make a best fit straight line out of any data at all, whether or not it's a straight line. If the research was performed solely by creationists, I'd check out whether or not they've done this.

Anyway, fact of the matter is, I'd have to read the paper itself to find out, and short of that, i can't really comment further on this specific case. What I can say is that it is almost impossible statistically that an isochron would turn out straight if the rock was not really the age the isochron says. Any disturbance, addition, substraction and even melting will be recorded in the isochron and will be obvious and visible to any scientist examining the rock in this way.

[Cerran]

Actually Rick I can answer almost all of the questions you posed here with reasonable answers that are supported by science. My weakest area is biology and my stongest thermodynamics and structures. This article is obviously written by someone who has taken great pains to find all the little things they think can prove a young earth, assembled them and then tried to say, "See, it proves my conclusion". It's a typical Straw Man argument and they haven't done any looking into recent discoveries or didn't want to, to find answers to the questions they pose.

Let me take a crack at a couple.

13. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth

[Rick]

Scientific Atheist,

Im sure you are confident in your scientific knowledge, and trust highly in its exactness. I too am just as confident in God's ability to create just as He said He did. As for whether you accept as scientific fact the information that is presented here or even agree or disagree with it. That is your perogative. My postings were not to address you personally, but were for the benefit of all reading this thread. As for debating them, I have no reason to have to defend God. Nor His position. As for when He created, or what time frame He used, one theory is just as well as another. Neither can be proven or disproven based on scientific facts.

From a scientific point of view I have a limited understanding in the sciences. But there are others who are more capable of addressing the sciences that are involved in creation than I. If it is debate you seek, why not address Dr. Walt Brown who according to his website on creation science will freely debate anyone, in written debate? I provided the link on a previous post. His scientific credentials far exceed mine and yours as well. Maybe his intellectual view of science will impress you into a clearer understanding that exceeds your own. If it is truth you seek as a scientist, then rise to the challenge. There is no challenge here. If its an atheistic viewpoint that you seek to prove, I'm not interested in what you have to say.

I do know enough about science to know that many theories have passed through time. Some have failed miserably. Some are still intact. Other's will take a leap in technology to either prove or disprove. I choose to not hold to science and allow it to define myself, my world, or my life. You on the other hand hold to theories that were taught. I think it would be very interesting to know just how much of what you believe, because someone you esteemed as a scientist, told you it was the truth? You have placed much of your belief in science blindly, and with a faith that would equal any believers. Im sure you sound very impressive when you impart your learned scientific facts to those that esteem science as truth, and are impressed with your physics degree. But when I see you standing next to an Almighty God, The Creator, I see you as just another lost man in need of a saviour. Many have come before you , and many may well preceed you. But in the end of all things, God's word will still be true!

" God forbid, yea, Let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." Rom. 3:4.

Rick