How Old is the Earth?

[senerhu]

Excuse me for butting it here, I read most of this thread and I must say it is very interesting. I bookmarked the PBS site to review later, but I have a question concerning the 11 (?) dimensions of the universe.

Do any of these 11 dimensions deal with the fulfilling of the prophecies?

[Guest LCPGUY]

Excuse me for butting it here, I read most of this thread and I must say it is very interesting. I bookmarked the PBS site to review later, but I have a question concerning the 11 (?) dimensions of the universe.

Do any of these 11 dimensions deal with the fulfilling of the prophecies?

Brother Senerhu,

They are real. Even the Jewish Rabbi's agree on this.

It is Biblical.

John

[senerhu]

Dear Brother John,

I KNOW they are real. What an absolute blessing God's Word is!

Your brother in Christ,

senerhu

[Rerun]

Radiometric Dating is perhaps considered the most reliable sorce for telling the age of the earth...Yet you cannot....Cannot actually test for the age of the earth itself. Still a few of the methods are assumed to be very accurate.

Excuse me for taking the thread back on topic.

To tell the complete age of the earth is impossible for man, many believe that someday they will, but the fact of the matter is radiometric dating cannot and will not date as far back as physists believe the earth to be. The closest they ever will get is by testing the products from the earth...and even to do that you have a lot of flimsy assumptions.

Creation: creation Is also flawed in telling the exact age of the earth but I have a theory it's the closest...mind you God did not intend for Moses' account to give us the exact month day hour minute... it was only supposed to tell you That God created everything, History is infact HIS-story, why focus on vain janglings, and endless geaneologies.

Appolegetics is defending the Faith in Christ not, faith in the Bible

David

typos

[senerhu]

Excuse me for taking the thread back on topic.

I think it is on topic, rerun...

Man is naturally an inquisitive individual. He seeks to understand and explain. Evolution and the age of the earth is a prime example of questions man has attempted to answer through science.

The question is, how valid is one's understanding of evolution or the age of the earth in light of certain phenonema that can't be explained, such as the fulfillment of phropecies or the miracles Jesus performed. These events should force one to backtrack to re-consider the basic foundation of the principles of science itself...it has me...

which is:

Laws of Nature (physics, mathematics, etc) exist but God may do His works using these laws as is or He may override them and perform His will His way. Thus a combination so to speak...

[Bread_of_Life]

Nebula

I am thinking that the guys who can explain this best aren't delving into this thread, but when Jesus spoke of being "the truth" He wasn't saying, "If it is a way, it is Me; you want it is Me; if it true, it is Me; if it is life, it is Me." He was saying, "I AM." That is, He is the focus of pursuit, not the other stuff to find Him.

Am I making any sense?

Yes, you are making sense, and I do understand - Jesus was pointing to himself as the direct focus of the spiritual search and journey. Prophecy is fulfilled through him, and sin is dissolved through him - rather than spirituality and God being accessible indirectly through the worship of nature or idols.

However, can we not yet agree that through researching and understanding nature, we can nonetheless get to know God better through his creation - and become the more grateful and adoring of his works and love through his creation for us? Whereas we turn to Jesus directly for spiritual truth, can we not learn about his creation and seek inspiration in his works?

His Son

And so man just keeps eating from the tree of the knowledge of, and insisting that his way is the right way.

This is a bad way to start a post if you wish to go onto prove that your way is right, since predicating your argument with a statement that nullifies human knowledge will necessarily nullify your argument.

In other words, you criticise my knowledge and interpretation of nature on the a priori basis that human knowledge is flawed compared to divine knowledge - and yet you then go onto tout your human interpretation of Genesis, and the human endeavours of Creation Scientists as being more valid or truthful than my scientific hypotheses. Unfortunately, you're going to have to make up your mind. If we cannot trust human knowledge, then we cannot trust your interpretation of scripture or the results of creation science any more than we can trust my scientific results. On the other hand, if we can trust human knowledge, then why should you hold out a special distrust for my scientific results as opposed to those of (provably dishonest) creation scientists?

Christian scientists have proven in the lab instant creation, but man refuses to accept that fact because after all it insults their intelligence.

Can you name a single laboratory experiment that proves instant and seperate creation?

Yod

I think the guy has some good questions....some reasonable disagreements based on inconsistancies of science and the biblical account. It also seems like it is an honest debate instead of a hidden agenda.

I just wish we had a biologist on the boards that could hang with him.

Of course even if I had a hidden agenda, it would not nullify or weaken my arguments one iota. My inspiration or motivation for posting on these boards, and making the arguments I am making is materially irrelevant to the arguments themselves.

As for having a biologist to companion me - it's a nice thought, but I do have a good (abeit amateur) working knowledge of biology and evolution. In fact, it has been my area of interest besides physics for quite some time. In other words, don't wait for a biologist to appear on the boards to ask questions about evolution - I may well be able to answer them myself, and when I cannot, I will tell you where to start searching for an answer.

senerhu

Do any of these 11 dimensions deal with the fulfilling of the prophecies?

I have no idea! sorry!

Rerun

To tell the complete age of the earth is impossible for man, many believe that someday they will, but the fact of the matter is radiometric dating cannot and will not date as far back as physists believe the earth to be.

You're half right. Radiometric dating can go a long long way back, as far back as any rock could possibly challenge us to go. The only problem is - we rely on find old rocks. The oldest we've so far found is 4.2 billion years old - but we believe the earth to be older than that (by about a billion years). So the problem with finding the actual total age of the earth is that we'd have to find a rock from a time when the earth was molten, which is of course impossible by definition.

In other words, we'll find very old rocks, but we'll never find old enough to go back to the very beginning of earth's history.

The closest they ever will get is by testing the products from the earth...and even to do that you have a lot of flimsy assumptions.

If you want to find out more about these "flimsy assumptions", why don't you read my original post on this thread to find out how scientists deal with the assumptions they make.

btw. I will soon be making a thread about isochronic dating (a method used in the Rb-St method) - a method which deals with every assumption that we make.

senerhu (again)

These events should force one to backtrack to re-consider the basic foundation of the principles of science itself...it has me...

The question you have to ask yourself is - would God create the earth in such as way as to trick us into thinking that the Genesis account is incorrect. Essentially, since God created the earth and man, special revelation (in the bible, in miracles etc) should be in broad agreement with general revelation (the earth and universe, nature etc).

If it is not, then there is only one option. Change your interpretation of special revelation. Why is this the only option? Because you can't change the physical evidence. The physical evidence is there, it will always be there, even if we burn all the papers that refer to it, and forget the science that underlied it, it will be rediscovered. That is why many Christians now believe in a more figurative interpretation of Genesis - since this is more in keeping with the physical evidence that we discover through science.

[kevkeegsdad]

For me the date or age of the earth is only secondary information.

I, like, Neb have studied various sciences and kept coming back to the same conclusion...

Everything has a beginning.

Science wanted to explain the existence of every thing (or did at the time of my study) as having been produced by a point ( actually several points) of infinite mass...this mass for some reason became unstable and "blew" scattering the building blocks for everything.

What science couldn't do for me was explain the origin of these Infinite points of mass and how something of "infinite" proportions had available space to expand into...

The best explanation I got was that they didn't know, and someone even claimed that infinite mass came from nowhere. So everything in effect came from nothing?

This led into philosophy for me...yes science led me into philosophy because I felt once you reached a certain point in science it became abstract to the point of becoming more of a philosophy instead of an actual science.

That is to say that I felt that science had reached an explanatory impasse for me as nothing begets nothing. Nothing in my mind could not beget All.

The argument can be made that science has not yet progressed to the point of being able to explain the origin of all...and in this context I am talking about the building blocks for everything...the proteins the amino acids, the DNA, and RNA...the genetic coding...hydrogen...etc.

These had to have had a beginning point at least in my opinion.

God Bless,

Kevin

[Rerun]

Rerun

The closest they ever will get is by testing the products from the earth...and even to do that you have a lot of flimsy assumptions.

If you want to find out more about these "flimsy assumptions", why don't you read my original post on this thread to find out how scientists deal with the assumptions they make.

btw. I will soon be making a thread about isochronic dating (a method used in the Rb-St method) - a method which deals with every assumption that we make.

Please excuse me. By flimsy I mean the assumptions of the earths age not the age of the object being dated.

[Guest yod]

Of course even if I had a hidden agenda, it would not nullify or weaken my arguments one iota. My inspiration or motivation for posting on these boards, and making the arguments I am making is materially irrelevant to the arguments themselves.

As for having a biologist to companion me - it's a nice thought, but I do have a good (abeit amateur) working knowledge of biology and evolution. In fact, it has been my area of interest besides physics for quite some time. In other words, don't wait for a biologist to appear on the boards to ask questions about evolution - I may well be able to answer them myself, and when I cannot, I will tell you where to start searching for an answer.

the point is that we've had some weirdos coming just to start fights. I don't think that is your agenda. It seems like you have some honest objections. We have no reason to fear the truth so that is welcome.

I mention a biologist only because you have such good questions it would be nice if there was someone a bit more knowledgable about the topic. As it is you are talking about things most of us have never considered....

Again...welcome to the Worthy Boards.

[nebula]

Yes, you are making sense, and I do understand - Jesus was pointing to himself as the direct focus of the spiritual search and journey. Prophecy is fulfilled through him, and sin is dissolved through him - rather than spirituality and God being accessible indirectly through the worship of nature or idols.

WOW!

That's an awesome interpretation to come from a self-proclaimed atheist!

(Most I've conversed with would never acknowledge such.)

I'm going to say this again - you'd make an awesome teacher!!

However, can we not yet agree that through researching and understanding nature, we can nonetheless get to know God better through his creation - and become the more grateful and adoring of his works and love through his creation for us? Whereas we turn to Jesus directly for spiritual truth, can we not learn about his creation and seek inspiration in his works?

Well, I agree! But I happen to love the natural world. Other people just don't get that kind of thrill out of it - unfortunately.

Personally, and I've gotten flack for this, but I'm OK with the notion that Gen 1 was not written from a 20-21st century Western scientific standpoint, and thus should not be interpreted that way. So, if God created the Earth little by little, or if Gen 1 is actually a telling of the re-creation of the Earth after the last major global disaster (notice that "the Earth is formless and void" etc. before God said, "Let there be light," and there is no mention of the formation of the mountains and valleys, only that the water and land were separated). And what if the account is written as would be seen from a viewer on the Earth's surface (if one would have been there) - thus explaining how the sun and moon didn't exist until the fourth day (i.e. they were blocked by a cloud cover) - I can be OK with that. God is still orchestrating the whole process. But, hey, that's just me.

I still think if we were given the scientific account, even we would not understand it.