http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=33

More and more proof is being offered of a 6,000 year world. This comes from research from scientists.

Unfortunately there are Christians who want the world to think well of them who will call these scientists “whack jobs”. Fear of man is a sin.

I am still wrestling with the whole young/old earth debate. I think there are good arguments for both.

That was actually pretty funny, but I suspect it was not meant as humor.

quote:

---

I am still wrestling with the whole young/old earth debate. I think there are good arguments for both.

---

I was exactly there for a long time. The whole thing never really interested me. I did find myself shying away from the 6000 year old earth, but in me that was fear of man. I rebuked myself and have not looked back sense. It seems to match with the scriptures more, and I believe there is nothing beyond God. One big problem I have on the other side is that the consensus is that the earth is 4 billion years old. That would mean that Christ’s appearance is a tiny speck at the end of God’s creation of the world. I see the “deep time” theories are very problematic from a theological standpoint, as well as the stretching of 6000 years a little more to 10K or 50K years to be problematic because then people are in no mans land, totally out of line with either camp.

I believe there is a conspiracy here, and God is just the beginning.

I, and other Christians who have no trouble believing the earth is billions of years old, probably have very little scientific knowledge, or even scientific interest. Thats certainly the case with me.

This rests on two points -

1). The very heavy weight of professionals who study this sort of thing for a living. Can someone find an article anywhere where any professional scientist/geologist states the Earth is probably 6,000 or so years old? Just one? Talking to a Baylor geology major at the Baylor game, he told me not a single professor or grad student in the department, to his knowledge, believed in a 6,000 year old Earth. He was a "fundamentalist" who thought it was absurd (although he was an undergrad).

2). The notion that the Earth is billions of years old and the notion that Genesis is true and correct (Adam and Eve were actual people, the flood was not a myth, and so on) are hardly incompatible. Why couldn't there have been other creations, for example? Because ours survived, even though it was very nearly destroyed?

I didn't read the article but to say anything coming out of the ICR is coming from "scientists" is crazy. They have a stated agenda and would never publish ANY findings that did not agree with that agenda.

Science does not operate in that manner.

Nearly every field of science that we have will show that a 6,000 year old Earth simply is not possible.

Still havn't made up mind about this issue. Have heard Christian debates on both sides, and still havn't landed.

There aren't "sides" to this any more than there are "sides" to the idea of the Earth being flat.

I'll wait for the peer reviewed version.

If everything in scienc points to the earth being WAY more than 6000 years old, is God being deceitful, creating the Earth to look really old? Or are we just so far off the mark in our science?

You left out the 3rd option there : The Earth really is billions of years old.

It is significant that even the Christians in academic geology departments do not contest the notion that the earth is quite ancient.

Of course, it could always be that the true geological superstars just write for young earth websites.....

We have ice cores that date back more than 66 times what the YECs think the Earth dates back to.

Uhh... of course that was the third option. That's why I started with an "if".

Anyway, I really am curious as to what those that believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old think? Is science just ridiculously off in their estimates, or is God deceitful? Or is there another option I am missing?

quote:

---

That's why I started with an "if".

---

That doesn't make any sense.

Structure it like this :

If science points to the Earth being more than 6,000 years old then :
A.)God is being deceitful

OR

B.) Science is far off.

There's no mention of a third option the way you phrased it.

quote:

---

If everything in scienc points to the earth being WAY more than 6000 years old, is God being deceitful, creating the Earth to look really old? Or are we just so far off the mark in our science?,

---

All of the dating models are only as good as the numbers that you plug into them.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm





[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 10/13/2005 8:59p).]

doesnt all the evidence supporting the fact we came frommonkeys WAYYYYY over 6,000 years ago hold any water for you people???

quote:

---

doesnt all the evidence supporting the fact we came frommonkeys WAYYYYY over 6,000 years ago hold any water for you people???

---

What evidence? There is no physical evidence that we came from monkeys. There are just a bunch of drawings of the theory of the evolution of man, a few skulls that look near the shape of a guy I went to high school with and the jawbone of an ape or two. The long ago theory was just addressed. The carbon dating is only as good as the numbers you plug in, and are based on several assumptions.

quote:

---

All of the dating models are only as good as the numbers that you plug into them.

---

Really? How about counting the annual layers in an ice core?

btw from the GRISDA site :

quote:

---

The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication.

---

Do you not understand how biased that is when it comes to science? Hell they flat out SAY they aren't limiting their findings to science. That site gives scientists a choice of Carbon decay model based on when they THINK the flood happened. How can you sit there and say this qualifies as science?

[This message has been edited by NoACDamnit (edited 10/13/2005 9:17p).]

Hey who wrote the Bible? How do they know when the Earth was created? Should I view Academy Sports & Outdoors' weekly ads on-line at academy.com?

[This message has been edited by Lothar34 (edited 10/13/2005 9:27p).]

quote:

---

Really? How about counting the annual layers in an ice core?

---

Not very accurate. Still subjective, based on numbers you plug in.

quote:

---

Do you not understand how biased that is when it comes to science? Hell they flat out SAY they aren't limiting their findings to science. That site gives scientists a choice of Carbon decay model based on when they THINK the flood happened. How can you sit there and say this qualifies as science?

---

Don’t the guys on the other side limit their findings to exclude the creation account in the scriptures, not considering them valid, because they are not a form of revelation based on empiricism? It seems the same kind of presumptiveness is made on the other side.

Please explain from your vast scientific knowledge how the annual layering found in ice cores is either inaccurate OR dependent on "numbers you plug in."

*pulls up a chair*

quote:

---

Hey who wrote the Bible? How do they know when the Earth was created?

---

Men under the inspiration and direction of God.

quote:

---

Please explain from your vast scientific knowledge how the annual layering found in ice cores is either inaccurate OR dependent on "numbers you plug in."

*pulls up a chair*

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

quote:

---

Don’t the guys on the other side limit their findings to exclude the creation account in the scriptures, not considering them valid, because they are not a form of revelation based on empiricism?

---

Scientists discount the idea of the Earth being 6,000 years old BECAUSE THE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT. And yes, a religious text SHOULD be excluded when we are dealing with matters of SCIENCE. It is NOT science to say "This book says the Earth is 6,000 years old. Let us find data to support this."

Do you think there is some sort of MASSIVE global conspiracy in the scientific community that includes people of ALL religions to hide the truth from people? What exactly would be gained?

But they didn't write it in English. How can you read it if it's not in English?

Oh no. You aren't answering with a link. Please explain in your own words why ice core dating methods are inaccurate and depend on "number you plug in."

Maybe a "year" isn't really 365 days like we always assume? Maybe in this context, a year is more like 279833333 days. That would make creation date around the same time no matter how you looked at it.

Notafraid - did you even read that link? Did you notice the part where every method used converged on one date? How about the part placing that core at 160,000 years old?

quote:

---

Scientists discount the idea of the Earth being 6,000 years old BECAUSE THE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT. And yes, a religious text SHOULD be excluded when we are dealing with matters of SCIENCE. It is NOT science to say "This book says the Earth is 6,000 years old. Let us find data to support this."

Do you think there is some sort of MASSIVE global conspiracy in the scientific community that includes people of ALL religions to hide the truth from people? What exactly would be gained?

---

What data? You mean the data they assumed all the numbers and theorys for?

Lothar

quote:

---

But they didn't write it in English. How can you read it if it's not in English?

---

Well, there are people who can translate ancient languages, and so they translated it into english…

Noac,

quote:

---

Oh no. You aren't answering with a link. Please explain in your own words why ice core dating methods are inaccurate and depend on "number you plug in."

---

IN the link the people arrived at the theory that the earth was between 50,000 and 160,000 years old. None of these match the 4 billion years, and 50,000 to 160,000 is so far apart based on the numbers they plugged in, and assumptions they made.

NOAC,

quote:

---

Notafraid - did you even read that link? Did you notice the part where every method used converged on one date? How about the part placing that core at 160,000 years old?

---

That was only one part of one range of one theory...The range was also huge +/- 15000 That proves my point... Innacurate, changes based on assumptions of the numbers...



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 10/13/2005 10:04p).]

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 10/13/2005 10:07p).]