Age of the Earth?

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Trying... :hithere:

willieH: Hi Trying...  :happygrin:

So are you saying you believe the BIBLE?

What is CHRIST to you?  And HOW do you determine what HIS WORDS are, brother T?

Are you saying that anything IN the BIBLE which is not a "quotation" of CHRIST's SPOKEN WORDS... is NOT His WORD?  :JCThink:  (i.e. the letters, the torah, the prophets, etc.)

I believe "the bible" is a collection of historical documentation written by men inspired by God to keep account of happenings... I highly doubt each author knew at the time they penned it that they were writing "the bible"...

You really didn't answer my question Trying... what is CHRIST to you?  And what do YOU regard as HIS WORD?

You already previously stated that the BIBLE is NOT the WORD of God... so WHAT IS?  :Chinscratch:

and,

You define the BIBLE as historical documentation written BY MEN which was INSPIRED by GOD...  this appears to be an admission that the WORDS of the BIBLE are INSPIRED? no?  :dontknow:

And if they ARE INSPIRED, then the words which these men penned, whether they knew it or not, were not their own, but GOD'S... NO?

We now use the bible as our "playbook" and "rule book" much in the fashion a Football team has a playbook and on-field referee's to help make sure they play by the rules...

So you in effect, reduce what you admit are, INSPIRED writings as a mere "playbook" or "rulebook"?  No more than a "football team" might use?  :dontknow:

This is dangerous ground upon which you tread my friend, and you are welcome to tiptoe upon it with such wreckless words...

But I see you both crediting and discrediting the same entity... which is a divided observation...

(You say the BIBLE is INSPIRED and a "rule book" to guide us, ...but that it is NOT the WORDS of GOD)...

Please note what actually you believe ...IS... the WORD of GOD...  Or even if there is such an entity in which we might find direction from Him...

(CHRIST is that entity, but in what do you say, other than the BIBLE [which you say is NOT the WORD, BUT is INSPIRED], ...that may we find the WORDS by which we might gain His guidance?)

pEace...
...willieH  :cloud9:

[trying]

willieH: Hi Trying... :hithere:

willieH: Hi Trying...  :happygrin:

So are you saying you believe the BIBLE?

What is CHRIST to you?  And HOW do you determine what HIS WORDS are, brother T?

Are you saying that anything IN the BIBLE which is not a "quotation" of CHRIST's SPOKEN WORDS... is NOT His WORD?  :JCThink:  (i.e. the letters, the torah, the prophets, etc.)

I believe "the bible" is a collection of historical documentation written by men inspired by God to keep account of happenings... I highly doubt each author knew at the time they penned it that they were writing "the bible"...

You really didn't answer my question Trying... what is CHRIST to you?  And what do YOU regard as HIS WORD?

You already previously stated that the BIBLE is NOT the WORD of God... so WHAT IS?  :Chinscratch:

and,

You define the BIBLE as historical documentation written BY MEN which was INSPIRED by GOD...  this appears to be an admission that the WORDS of the BIBLE are INSPIRED? no?  :dontknow:

And if they ARE INSPIRED, then the words which these men penned, whether they knew it or not, were not their own, but GOD'S... NO?

We now use the bible as our "playbook" and "rule book" much in the fashion a Football team has a playbook and on-field referee's to help make sure they play by the rules...

So you in effect, reduce what you admit are, INSPIRED writings as a mere "playbook" or "rulebook"?  No more than a "football team" might use?  :dontknow:

This is dangerous ground upon which you tread my friend, and you are welcome to tiptoe upon it with such wreckless words...

But I see you both crediting and discrediting the same entity... which is a divided observation...

(You say the BIBLE is INSPIRED and a "rule book" to guide us, ...but that it is NOT the WORDS of GOD)...

Please note what actually you believe ...IS... the WORD of GOD...  Or even if there is such an entity in which we might find direction from Him...

(CHRIST is that entity, but in what do you say, other than the BIBLE [which you say is NOT the WORD, BUT is INSPIRED], ...that may we find the WORDS by which we might gain His guidance?)

pEace...
...willieH  :cloud9:

Why not start a new thread for this eh? I'd love to have this discourse, however, don't want to derail the OP...

[Sarah]

the Bible clearly states the world and universe was created in 6-days..

I don't interpert it this way.  It isn't clear to me.

To be honest, it is an inconsequential matter.  But by saying that a 'yom' is 24 hours because a 'yom' is used to describe Noah's 40 floating 'yoms' doesn't ring as solid reasoning.  If a yom is 24-hours, the measuring stick to create a 'yom' wasn't created until 'yom' 3 or 4.  Doesn't make sense. Yommit!

I know you all throw out the star light thing, but I don't understand your explanations to be honest.  I am not a scientist.  I have heard arguments for and against a young/old earth and I find that those fighting for the young earth are fighting for it because they are fighting to make the world conform to their image of the bible. Maybe the earth is young, ok.  But in my heart I don't think so.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across silly or blunt or both.  I'm really tired.

[SeekerSA]

H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

[Pierac]

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.  Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.  God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.  Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."  God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.  God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.  Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.   Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also]/b]. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

If the sun and moon were created on the third day (v.16), what reference to time is being used for the period called "one day," "a second day," and "a third day"?

Also did the reference change to a 24 hour period on the fourth day after the sun was created? Or was it always a 24 hour period, or never a 24 hour period?

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Again, Is he talking about a 24 hour day?  Also why do you think God waited so long to create the sun?


Paul

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Paul... :hithere:

One of my FAVORITE subjects... I've even written a novel about TIME...  :boogie:

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.  Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.  God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.  Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."  God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.  God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.  Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.   Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also]/b]. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

If the sun and moon were created on the third day (v.16), what reference to time is being used for the period called "one day," "a second day," and "a third day"?

Also did the reference change to a 24 hour period on the fourth day after the sun was created? Or was it always a 24 hour period, or never a 24 hour period?

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Again, Is he talking about a 24 hour day?  Also why do you think God waited so long to create the sun?


Paul

In GENESIS, the creation chronology indicates obviously that

(1) TIME does not need the SUN in order to BE...
(2) that MORNING and EVENING do not need the SUN in order to BE...
(3) that LIGHT and DARKNESS were available BEFORE the SUN was created...
(4) plants such as grass had no immediate need of the SUN...

TIME emerged from an ETERNAL scenario which does NOT CHANGE... which remains EVER within ITSELF (now), UNCHANGING yet in animation and/or observeable motion...

I believe the key to understanding WHY and HOW, the ANCIENT is,  is founded in the actual MOTION of TIME, which has manifested from being literally STILL, and has since become INCREASINGLY FASTER since that beginning... and shall continue to gain SPEED as it rushes to the LAST DAY... (in other words, ...you dont think YOU have enough "time", ...your poor great grandkids, will be really be huffin & puffin to get things done!  :pointlaugh:)

MAN has determined TIME today, to consist of seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, decades, centuries and millenia... but have those elements always "MOVED" along at the same rate of "speed" that we observe them to be "MOVING" today? 

A "second" at the "time" of creation might be equivalent to a YEAR or a CENTURY in duration by comparison to a "second" in our observance today ...who knows?  The apparent "age" of the Universe and Earth, must be explained somehow...  :dontknow:

I believe this way (change in the rate of motion/velocity of the movement made within the increments of time), the "unexplainable" ANCIENT things such as the AGE of the Earth and Universe, are easily explained, and yet the chronologically stated  record of GENESIS... to the present day, of approximately 6000 "years" remains in tact...

Just as a "muscle CAR" ...begins the race from a stand still, nevertheless, the point of STILLNESS remains as the "beginning" of the RACE, and it takes some of the MOTION of TIME, for the CAR to gain its MOTION...

I believe TIME and creation emerged from a STILL position... which means that it began STILL or moving very slowly, ...and in its procession from the beginning, like the CAR... it is ever gaining velocity in its motion, as it approaches the END of the RACE...

One of the interesting attributes of TIME, is that it is relative...  I gave the example earlier that ONE MINUTE is 60 seconds... but that 60 seconds to a person ON FIRE, as opposed to a person IN A RACE, ...are two entirely different perceptions of ONE MINUTE... and how fast or slow that ONE MINUTE is actually MOVING...  :dontknow:

pEace...
...willieH  :cloud9:

[trying]

the Bible clearly states the world and universe was created in 6-days..

I don't interpert it this way.  It isn't clear to me.

To be honest, it is an inconsequential matter.  But by saying that a 'yom' is 24 hours because a 'yom' is used to describe Noah's 40 floating 'yoms' doesn't ring as solid reasoning.  If a yom is 24-hours, the measuring stick to create a 'yom' wasn't created until 'yom' 3 or 4.  Doesn't make sense. Yommit!

I know you all throw out the star light thing, but I don't understand your explanations to be honest.  I am not a scientist.  I have heard arguments for and against a young/old earth and I find that those fighting for the young earth are fighting for it because they are fighting to make the world conform to their image of the bible. Maybe the earth is young, ok.  But in my heart I don't think so.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across silly or blunt or both.  I'm really tired.

Everywhere else in the OT yom is used, it's obviously a 24-hr period...

Anyway... our Creation also points to a young Earth:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31


14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.31

[Craig]

Anyway... our Creation also points to a young Earth:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31


14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.31

I am a young earth believer, because of science, not because of Scripture. As you point out many things, I have a few other things that I have studied and read.

That recorded history is not at all accurate to archeology even in the last 4000 years. There are things that supposable happened, which do not fit our written timeliness, but fit the archaeological time lines.

There is also a thinking, that the dark ages did not exist for longer than a hundred years, but we are told it lasted over 1000. From some secular historians, I am reading that Jesus was actually on earth no less than 1000 years ago and not 2000 years ago, as written history wants us to believe.

I also found it odd, that cave men could have vast astrological maps, and advance math, but were too stupid to find agriculture, tools, and metal smithing. It was actually more difficult to build with stone, then any other material. There was far more difficult architecture and engineering needed to build the pyramids in both Egypt and Central America. We know that Egypt had the knowledge of limestone cement, which even today, we cannot duplicate.

[Michele]

I am a young earth believer, because of science, not because of Scripture. As you point out many things, I have a few other things that I have studied and read.

That recorded history is not at all accurate to archeology even in the last 4000 years. There are things that supposable happened, which do not fit our written timeliness, but fit the archaeological time lines.

There is also a thinking, that the dark ages did not exist for longer than a hundred years, but we are told it lasted over 1000. From some secular historians, I am reading that Jesus was actually on earth no less than 1000 years ago and not 2000 years ago, as written history wants us to believe.

I also found it odd, that cave men could have vast astrological maps, and advance math, but were too stupid to find agriculture, tools, and metal smithing. It was actually more difficult to build with stone, then any other material. There was far more difficult architecture and engineering needed to build the pyramids in both Egypt and Central America. We know that Egypt had the knowledge of limestone cement, which even today, we cannot duplicate.

Good post Craig! Perhaps mankind had lots of extra help making those pyramids...as we still do today....

I believe the earth is very old......and has been through countless changes.  The earth has seen mankind through all the ages......but just like each of us...it inevitably has to die in order to be made New....

[Molly]

Who says cavemen had astrological maps and advanced math, Craig? :msealed:

[Craig]

Meh, whatever you say Molly.

[WhiteWings]

I think the ~16 billion years can be matched with the 6 creation days.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

Also note that the Hebrew calendar starts after/at the creation of Adam.
Everything before Adam is days of old.
Or days of God so you wish.
The link explains Einsteins relativity theory.
Time elapses at a diffrent speed at every place; but when being at that place it looks ordinary time.
So God most likely was at a place where creating 'felt' like 24 hour days; but at that place far away (earth) the days took billions of years.

Also not that night and day can also be translated as 'chaos' and 'order'


The story of the family of Abram even matches with the Big Bang theory.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/GenesisStandardModel.html
A long but interesting read I think.
I've compiled and ordered the whole article into a word and pdf document.
With 1MB to large to post here but for those who like a copy... lemme know.

[Molly]

Meh, whatever you say Molly.

I'm just wondering where you read that?  I'm interested in any evidence of modern man being in existence before Adam was created 6000 years ago.  I haven't found any such evidence yet.  So if you have some evidence of language, culture, science, etc. before that time, I'd like to read about it--anything other than very primitive stuff.

[Craig]

Meh, whatever you say Molly.

I'm just wondering where you read that?  I'm interested in any evidence of modern man being in existence before Adam was created 6000 years ago.  I haven't found any such evidence yet.  So if you have some evidence of language, culture, science, etc. before that time, I'd like to read about it--anything other than very primitive stuff.

The ancient cultures of Aztec, Mayan, Person, Assyrian, Mesopotamian, etc. all had very complex math systems which we can't figure out how they could have come up with their conclusions without some of the inventions such as the 'zero', etc. Honestly, it doesn't matter anyways. Thanks.

[Molly]

Meh, whatever you say Molly.

I'm just wondering where you read that?  I'm interested in any evidence of modern man being in existence before Adam was created 6000 years ago.  I haven't found any such evidence yet.  So if you have some evidence of language, culture, science, etc. before that time, I'd like to read about it--anything other than very primitive stuff.

The ancient cultures of Aztec, Mayan, Person, Assyrian, Mesopotamian, etc. all had very complex math systems which we can't figure out how they could have come up with their conclusions without some of the inventions such as the 'zero', etc. Honestly, it doesn't matter anyways. Thanks.

Yes, but they aren't 'cavemen.'  They are younger than 6000 years old.

I am convinced that Adam was the first homo sapiens sapiens.  After he is created, modern culture, agriculture, cities, and science start springing up all over Mesopotamia.   Before 6000 years ago, there is relative silence.  If we have been around as an 'evolved species' for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years before that, why the silence?  Where's Shakespeare, Abraham, Moses,  and Mozart?

Personally, I think that Adam is the first man to have language as we know it, the first man with the big brain of homo sapiens sapiens, the first modern man.

[Craig]

Meh, whatever you say Molly.

I'm just wondering where you read that?  I'm interested in any evidence of modern man being in existence before Adam was created 6000 years ago.  I haven't found any such evidence yet.  So if you have some evidence of language, culture, science, etc. before that time, I'd like to read about it--anything other than very primitive stuff.

The ancient cultures of Aztec, Mayan, Person, Assyrian, Mesopotamian, etc. all had very complex math systems which we can't figure out how they could have come up with their conclusions without some of the inventions such as the 'zero', etc. Honestly, it doesn't matter anyways. Thanks.

Yes, but they aren't 'cavemen.'  They are younger than 6000 years old.

You have too many presuppositions of what is true to even have a discussion. They are, according to our estimates of time, 6000 years old.

I am convinced that Adam was the first homo sapiens sapiens.  After he is created, modern culture, agriculture, cities, and science start springing up all over Mesopotamia.   Before 6000 years ago, there is relative silence.  If we have been around as an 'evolved species' for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years before that, why the silence?  Where's Shakespeare, Abraham, Moses,  and Mozart?

You do not understand how human behavior works, there has been many many many shakespears, abrahams, moses, and mozarts. They just did not get the attention or happened to be born in an era that did not celebrate their lives as did these four.

Personally, I think that Adam is the first man to have language as we know it, the first man with the big brain of homo sapiens sapiens, the first modern man.

[Molly]

I'm basing 6000 years ago on the work of Johannes Kepler, a scientist, James Ussher, a scientist and a bishop,  and others, who worked backwards through the Bible genealogies  and events  to Adam, placing his age of creation as 6000 years ago (around 4000 BC).

If you look at the known history of modern man, there is nothing before about 6000 years ago (that I can find).  The civilization in Mesopotamia springs out of nowhere about 500 years after Adam. This place where Adam is created (as described by Gen 2) is called 'the birthplace of civilization.'  There is no writing, true evidence of language, before 3500 BC.

The Bible tells us that Cain went off and built a city--at about the same time that cities started appearing.  Before that time, cities could not be supported or serviced.  It is the invention of modern agricultural techniques that made cities possible.

If homo sapiens sapiens had been around for 50,000 years or 100,000 years as some claim, where are the 50,000 year old pyramids?  Where are the artifacts of gold and bronze and brass?  Where are the paintings by a skilled artisan or the sculptures of a da Vinci?  Where are the buildings with greek columns and roman arches?

We have all this richness in art and culture and music and science to look at over the 6000 years since Adam was created, but, before that, nothing? 

Adam, the son of God, was no caveman.

[Craig]

I'm basing 6000 years ago on the work of Johannes Kepler, a scientist, James Ussher, a scientist and a bishop,  and others, who worked backwards through the Bible genealogies  and events  to Adam, placing his age of creation as 6000 years ago (around 4000 BC).

If you look at the known history of modern man, there is nothing before about 6000 years ago (that I can find).  The civilization in Mesopotamia springs out of nowhere about 500 years after Adam. This place where Adam is created (as described by Gen 2) is called 'the birthplace of civilization.'  There is no writing, true evidence of language, before 3500 BC.

The Bible tells us that Cain went off and built a city--at about the same time that cities started appearing.  Before that time, cities could not be supported or serviced.  It is the invention of modern agricultural techniques that made cities possible.

If homo sapiens sapiens had been around for 50,000 years or 100,000 years as some claim, where are the 50,000 year old pyramids?  Where are the artifacts of gold and bronze and brass?  Where are the paintings by a skilled artisan or the sculptures of a da Vinci?  Where are the buildings with greek columns and roman arches?

We have all this richness in art and culture and music and science to look at over the 6000 years since Adam was created, but, before that, nothing? 

Adam, the son of God, was no caveman.

Written History cannot be proved accurately. In fact, it never has. In the Renascence, people would hire bards and historians to write their family history. Those who were rich, could by the 'evidence' they needed to prove they were royalty, or other high positions. In fact, written history can only go back so far as 1300, and genealogies cannot be guaranteed to begin with. I will need to find the names of the Historians who have brought their proof that the traditional history method is flawed.

[Michele]

Adam, the son of God, was no caveman.

I do agree that when the earth was created in the beginning......it was perfect.  Perhaps timeless....

It seems as though there was a highly evolved intelligence and harmony...in the midst of mankind long.....long ago that gradually was forgotten over time.  It's as if humanity fell into some sort of pit of ignorance and darkness for many ages. 

.....but now...I see humanity beginning to be lifted out of this pit, and reaching for something greater......returning to its origin in Christ.

[Molly]

Written History cannot be proved accurately

Yes, that's for sure.  Just go back and study the real history of the last hundred years and your jaw will drop.

.....but now...I see humanity beginning to be lifted out of this pit, and reaching for something greater......returning to it's origin in Christ.

You are seeing that now?  That really pleases me, SG.  I am, too.

[Michele]

Just go back and study the real history of the last hundred years and your jaw will drop.

I'd be interested in doing that Molly, but how does one ever know that the history they are reading about is genuine, and unbiased??

Don't you think that to really know what went on....you have to live it?

.....and even then you'd only have your own personal perspective...

When you really get down to it......each of our lives come together to make this grand parable.......and only Jesus can explain to us the Truth behind it all.

[Molly]

I'd be interested in doing that Molly, but how does one ever know that the history they are reading about is genuine, and unbiased??

From the eye witness testimony that is suppressed while the thing is ongoing.

What are we called?  Witnesses to the truth.


Acts 26:16
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

[Michele]

I agree.......Jesus hand picks each of us to show us what is "Real".

[willieH]

I'd be interested in doing that Molly, but how does one ever know that the history they are reading about is genuine, and unbiased??

From the eye witness testimony that is suppressed while the thing is ongoing.

What are we called?  Witnesses to the truth.


Acts 26:16
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Concerning SECULAR history...

Variable "eye witness" accounts of the same incident happens all the time...

2 people can give EYE WITNESS accounts of the same car accident, and it may sound like 2 different accidents...

Word of mouth, traveling from one person through twenty others will bear an entirely different story than the original...

Concerning INSPIRED history...

Any witness other than the WORD of GOD, is faulty just because it is done BY MEN, ...TO MEN...

Where GOD is found, a valid witness shall exist...  :cloud9:   ...Where men and only men are involved, deception and misunderstanding will join the party...  :dontknow:

peAce...
willieH  :icon_jokercolor:

[Michele]

Where GOD is found, a valid witness shall exist.....Where men and only men are involved, deception and misunderstanding will join the party... 

Amen Willie! :thumbsup:

So...who do you believe is our valid witness for the "Age of the earth"?

.....and where does the idea of "We have always been" come to play in all this??

I know it's fun to speculate and wonder, but IMHO there is Truth to be found in all this discussion. :HeartThrob: