^^^^^ I agree. I believe that the Bible is true, but I don't believe that God simply dictated words to the Prophets and they just wrote them down. Rather, God revealed His truth and the Prophets did their best to describe them with the words and concepts at their disposal. The essectials are there but the details are sketchy.

Fundamentalist Christians who are deeply wedded to the "inerrancy of Scripture" insist that every word in the Bible should be taken at face value and exactly as written. I cannot myself subscribe to this view because to do so would mean the Bible would have to be rewritten every time God revealed new details through science. The Bible is not a science textbook, but contains a general description of the Creation in words that could be understood by those who wrote it down and their society; the truths so written are still true, even though scientists have filled in the bare skeleton with more detail.

flashguy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: flashguy,

quote:

DrDan has done a nice job of explaining why we shouldn't use science to explain religious questions and religion to explain what are scientific questions. Either will lead you very far astray.

A brilliant analysis... better than any I could posit. Thank you, DrDan!!

There's no reason an all knowing, all powerful being could not create the universe exactly as it is now in the blink of an eye. It's a bit arrogant to think we can understand how such a being does things.

That doesn't mean I don't believe we should not continue to keep trying to figure out how things work. I'm amazed at the vastness of the universe both outward and inward.

Few years back I was on a Roads Scholar tour of Yellowstone... one of our guides was a geologist from the University of Montana.... the first morning of the tour she gave a lecture on the history of the place starting 4.2 billion years ago...

What if the earth was formed from matter pre-existent to it's current form? Matter millions of years older -billions even- than the age of earth? That would certainly throw the whole dating mechanism out the window. What if in that matter were the remains of other life forms?

I should be a sci-fi writer.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
What if the earth was formed from matter pre-existent to it's current form?

It very well could have been. With the universe ~ 14B and the earth ~4.5B there's some time in between there to have done it before. The formation of planets and stars is not always a one yer done deal especially when galaxies collide.

I voted for being fairly positive of a young earth.
I’m absolutely positive we will all know for sure when we die.

Sadly, for some it will be too late.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
What if the earth was formed from matter pre-existent to it's current form? Matter millions of years older -billions even- than the age of earth? That would certainly throw the whole dating mechanism out the window. What if in that matter were the remains of other life forms?

I should be a sci-fi writer.

That's essentially true: matter - all matter (as far as we know) - comes from the interior of stars. In the case of the earth, our sun, which existed some little time before the planets (brief in astrological time though), provided the raw materials, cookies baked in the magic nuclear furnace from helium and hydrogen. Or at least is substantially from the same glob of "matter," potentially from somewhere else, in another star. With some extraneous additions that just flew in. And since the Universe had about 10 billion years to "cook" before that, good bet that at least some stuff was "recycled." Not in a recognizable T-Rex or Corvette form, but as atoms, which as far as we know are eternal, although transfigurable in that same magical furnace to, well, everything. So the timing of the age of the earth is very much dependent in your definition of "earth," and when it became same.
Almost certainly, it contains atoms - as do you - from that first brilliant flash of light that created everything. A really long time ago.

I figure when I die and go to Heaven (assuming that is....he he he) I will get the definitive answer then...

How old is the Earth?

Old enough to know that it will still be here and strong long after mankind is reduced to dust.

^^^^^^ The geologic record records numerous mass extinctions and mankind could be in one at any time.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
I believe that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. But if God had created it in 4004BC or whenever, couldn't He have also created the fossil record, etc., as if it were billions of years old?

This is why I voted : "I hold a different view (feel free to explain)"

While in portland Oregon 2 years back I saw a couple hundred foot core sample that was pulled out of the earth during some excavation for the tram system.... it was displayed and showed the history of the earth for the last billion years or so (according to the experts) What I realized was a couple hundred million years from now some folks will come to this planet to check it out and they will drill a core sample like this to check out earths history and somewhere in that 500-1000ft sample will be a tiny 1/4" section of plastic, radiation and other crap and that will be what's left of us.

^^^^^^ The gallery must be clutching their pearls to see which way the pendulum swings on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
4.5 billion years old - give or take a few mil.

This, Gods days, are not on our time.
Fer sure.

As an aside, the new testament addressed the whole time thing with what was somewhat mind blowing numbers for the day.
"2 Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I would lean toward a young earth as I believe that the flood of Noah's time has taken much of what we know today from a geological viewpoint and flipped it on its head. Also I have a hard time believing much of the radio-Carbon dating that is conducted today as the logarithmic curve of the Carbon breakdown cycle is very hard to accurately display out past several thousand years.
There just doesnt seem to be solid science behind much of these billions of years ago predictions.

Older than a millennium but younger than an eon.

God knows and I trust Him!

quote:

Originally posted by bordeth:
I would lean toward a young earth as I believe that the flood of Noah's time has taken much of what we know today from a geological viewpoint and flipped it on its head. Also I have a hard time believing much of the radio-Carbon dating that is conducted today as the logarithmic curve of the Carbon breakdown cycle is very hard to accurately display out past several thousand years.
There just doesnt seem to be solid science behind much of these billions of years ago predictions.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you are dismissing the science because you don't deem it solid enough, but point to the story of the flood as support for your point of view? That is shocking to me.

Honest question - how old do you think the earth is? Forget the billions of years stuff, how does one explain other geological science regarding events that has happened over the last several million?

quote:

Originally posted by Kraquin:
^^^^^^ The gallery must be clutching their pearls to see which way the pendulum swings on this one.

What are you talking about? Explain this remark, please.

I believe the earth is probably around 6-10,000 years old. I'm not dismissing science at all but rather just questioning the accuracy of the radio Carbon dating that much of scientific community hangs their hats/ opinions on.

I'm a Civil Engineer / Hydrologist by education and experience and believe that Pangea (state of when all the continents were a large joined mass) was separated into many separate masses during the up-whelling of seawater as well as water trapped in the earth's crust. It seems logical (to me anyway) that much of what we see exposed in rock faces or other geological formations were once trapped below unexposed areas of the earth's crust.

I take no offense at your question but do enjoy intelligent discussion what are your thoughts? Love to hear.

There is a

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

quote:

Originally posted by bordeth:
I would lean toward a young earth as I believe that the flood of Noah's time has taken much of what we know today from a geological viewpoint and flipped it on its head. Also I have a hard time believing much of the radio-Carbon dating that is conducted today as the logarithmic curve of the Carbon breakdown cycle is very hard to accurately display out past several thousand years.
There just doesnt seem to be solid science behind much of these billions of years ago predictions.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you are dismissing the science because you don't deem it solid enough, but point to the story of the flood as support for your point of view? That is shocking to me.

Honest question - how old do you think the earth is? Forget the billions of years stuff, how does one explain other geological science regarding events that has happened over the last several million?