Do you think the Earth is older than 4.6 billion years?

[JulesMaximus]

I have no idea. I'm sure it is several hundred million years old at least though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: El Liberache
No, I do not believe it is that old. I (as well as most Christians) do not adhere to the conventional 'scientific' evidence that this planet has been around for any length of time comparable to billions of years. Instead, the evidence I look at, The Bible, points to a much shorter amount of time: around 10,000 years.

Of course, your theory is based completely in fiction...a point you fundies always conveniently leave out.

 

[judasmachine]

As far as I know (and care) it's only about 32 years old.

 

[SparkyJJO]

No it is much younger than 4.6 billion years. Where is that option?

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: El Liberache
No, I do not believe it is that old. I (as well as most Christians) do not adhere to the conventional 'scientific' evidence that this planet has been around for any length of time comparable to billions of years. Instead, the evidence I look at, The Bible, points to a much shorter amount of time: around 10,000 years.

Of course, your theory is based completely in fiction...a point you fundies always conveniently leave out.

Fundies + Fiction? Never!

 

[Liberator21]

91TTZ: My apologies if I offended you, was that childish retaliation necessary? I wouldn't consider myself 'hardcore' in the same sense that you mean it, but I must negate your comment of being 'as dumb as cow crap.' My answer to your question of when dinosaurs and humans came about: The sixth day (Genesis 1:24-1.31). And you must understand that I am not asserting my beliefs as true and accurate, just simply, my beliefs. There are many reasons as to my believing the Young-Earth Creationist consensus. My primary reason is this: Saul's accession to the throne as the (first) king of Israel is the first recorded event that can be traced semi-accurately, around 1100-1000 BCE. And before you ask, yes it can be proven that Saul was real and really was the first king of Israel. Working backwards through the Book of Judges, ancient Hebrew scrolls and materials, and other antiquities, it all leads to specific amounts of time I'm not going to get into here. All in all once you add (or subtract as it may be) the periods you get a very short timespan: 6000-10000 years. In all fairness, many Christians believe the Old-Earth theory, where the Hebrew word 'yom' that we translated into 'days' can actually be an indeterminate amount of time, and all your radiometric dating methods would hence prove valid. Myself, I believe God knew what He was doing when he created us and purposely made things extremely complex, thereby giving credit to all other theories and allowing absurd convictions that we came from monkeys with no great purpose, no great plan, and no real meaning. Again my apologies for offending you, but if you really think I have no common sense just because I choose not to believe the conventional scientific research that claims they found a rock 4 billion years old through some highly advanced, radiometric educated guess, then to that you are entitled.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: El Liberache
91TTZ: My apologies if I offended you, was that childish retaliation necessary? I wouldn't consider myself 'hardcore' in the same sense that you mean it, but I must negate your comment of being 'as dumb as cow crap.' My answer to your question of when dinosaurs and humans came about: The sixth day (Genesis 1:24-1.31). And you must understand that I am not asserting my beliefs as true and accurate, just simply, my beliefs. There are many reasons as to my believing the Young-Earth Creationist consensus. My primary reason is this: Saul's accession to the throne as the (first) king of Israel is the first recorded event that can be traced semi-accurately, around 1100-1000 BCE. And before you ask, yes it can be proven that Saul was real and really was the first king of Israel. Working backwards through the Book of Judges, ancient Hebrew scrolls and materials, and other antiquities, it all leads to specific amounts of time I'm not going to get into here. All in all once you add (or subtract as it may be) the periods you get a very short timespan: 6000-10000 years. In all fairness, many Christians believe the Old-Earth theory, where the Hebrew word 'yom' that we translated into 'days' can actually be an indeterminate amount of time, and all your radiometric dating methods would hence prove valid. Myself, I believe God knew what He was doing when he created us and purposely made things extremely complex, thereby giving credit to all other theories and allowing absurd convictions that we came from monkeys with no great purpose, no great plan, and no real meaning. Again my apologies for offending you, but if you really think I have no common sense just because I choose not to believe the conventional scientific research that claims they found a rock 4 billion years old through some highly advanced, radiometric educated guess, then to that you are entitled.

Well said :thumbsup:
Though I believe in literal 6 days

 

[Accipiter22]

see the problem is this, rocks older than that were probably melted to igneous form, which basically resets the radioactive dating we do on them to the time whenever they solidify.

 

[Captante]

mmmmmmm .... glue!

 

[Shawn]

No. It can't be significantly older than that anyway because the solar system isn't much older and it likely took a few billion years for the rocks and debris to settle into planets.

I guess it depends on your definition of Earth.

 

[IGBT]

One intriguing argument for the age of the Earth was provided by Edmund Halley (of comet fame). Halley stated that oceans are constantly becoming saltier with time, as rivers continuously wash small amounts of dissolved salt into the sea. The Earth, Halley argued, cannot be extremely young (as the Bible claims) because then the oceans would still be fresh water. On the other hand, it cannot be infinitely old, because then the oceans would be saturated with salt, like the Dead Sea or the Great Salt Lake.
Actual numerical estimates of the Earth's age, based on scientific principles, had to wait until the 1890's. In that decade, Lord Kelvin (of temperature fame) assumed that the Earth was originally a molten sphere of rock, and asked how long it would take to cool to its current temperature. His answer was that the Earth is 20 to 40 million years old. (This answer is actually an underestimate; radioactivity in rocks keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.) John Joly, an Irish geologist, following Halley's suggestion, estimated that the Earth's oceans must be 80 to 90 million years old, if they started out salt-free. (This answer is actually an underestimate; salt is actually taken out of the ocean by sea spray and in the corpses of dead sea animals, which keeps the salinity lower than it would otherwise be.)

Despite the fact that the ages estimated by Kelvin and Joly were underestimates, they still, by being thousands of times longer than the biblical age, caused a crisis of faith among the late Victorians. Most Christians have adopted the view that the chronology of the mythical story of Genesis (especially the six days of creation) are to be taken as a metaphor, or parable.






Text

 

[eits]

can you make an "i don't really care about the age of the earth... i just know it's not 10,000 years old" option?

 

[Kanalua]

No option for "less than 4.6 billion"...

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: IGBT
One intriguing argument for the age of the Earth was provided by Edmund Halley (of comet fame). Halley stated that oceans are constantly becoming saltier with time, as rivers continuously wash small amounts of dissolved salt into the sea. The Earth, Halley argued, cannot be extremely young (as the Bible claims) because then the oceans would still be fresh water. On the other hand, it cannot be infinitely old, because then the oceans would be saturated with salt, like the Dead Sea or the Great Salt Lake.
Actual numerical estimates of the Earth's age, based on scientific principles, had to wait until the 1890's. In that decade, Lord Kelvin (of temperature fame) assumed that the Earth was originally a molten sphere of rock, and asked how long it would take to cool to its current temperature. His answer was that the Earth is 20 to 40 million years old. (This answer is actually an underestimate; radioactivity in rocks keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.) John Joly, an Irish geologist, following Halley's suggestion, estimated that the Earth's oceans must be 80 to 90 million years old, if they started out salt-free. (This answer is actually an underestimate; salt is actually taken out of the ocean by sea spray and in the corpses of dead sea animals, which keeps the salinity lower than it would otherwise be.)

Despite the fact that the ages estimated by Kelvin and Joly were underestimates, they still, by being thousands of times longer than the biblical age, caused a crisis of faith among the late Victorians. Most Christians have adopted the view that the chronology of the mythical story of Genesis (especially the six days of creation) are to be taken as a metaphor, or parable.






Text

Yeah, pretty much any way you look at it the earth is way older than 6,000 years.

 

[WildHorse]

Well that's the estimate the scientists give us currently, so I accept the experts' estimates.

However, the matter which Earth is made of is vastly, almost inconceivably, older than 4.6 billion years, since it has recycled through perhaps several generations of stars, then exploded, again coalesced into other stars, etc. It merely happens to be part of Earth presently, and someday will recycle into something else, like a gas cloud or star or something.

Unless the glue holds.

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: El Liberache
91TTZ: My apologies if I offended you, was that childish retaliation necessary? I wouldn't consider myself 'hardcore' in the same sense that you mean it, but I must negate your comment of being 'as dumb as cow crap.' My answer to your question of when dinosaurs and humans came about: The sixth day (Genesis 1:24-1.31). And you must understand that I am not asserting my beliefs as true and accurate, just simply, my beliefs. There are many reasons as to my believing the Young-Earth Creationist consensus. My primary reason is this: Saul's accession to the throne as the (first) king of Israel is the first recorded event that can be traced semi-accurately, around 1100-1000 BCE. And before you ask, yes it can be proven that Saul was real and really was the first king of Israel. Working backwards through the Book of Judges, ancient Hebrew scrolls and materials, and other antiquities, it all leads to specific amounts of time I'm not going to get into here. All in all once you add (or subtract as it may be) the periods you get a very short timespan: 6000-10000 years. In all fairness, many Christians believe the Old-Earth theory, where the Hebrew word 'yom' that we translated into 'days' can actually be an indeterminate amount of time, and all your radiometric dating methods would hence prove valid. Myself, I believe God knew what He was doing when he created us and purposely made things extremely complex, thereby giving credit to all other theories and allowing absurd convictions that we came from monkeys with no great purpose, no great plan, and no real meaning. Again my apologies for offending you, but if you really think I have no common sense just because I choose not to believe the conventional scientific research that claims they found a rock 4 billion years old through some highly advanced, radiometric educated guess, then to that you are entitled.

I want to see written what your opinion of the human races purpose is according to your beliefs.

 

[n7]

None of the above.

I'd be more inclined to believe a creationist's 10K years old theory than 4.6 billion years...

 

[Brentx]

4.6 billion ftw! Too much scientific study and theory to say otherwise.

 

[sonoma1993]

I believe earth is around 4.6 billions year old. There no way Earth can be only 10,000 years old when Dinosaurs lives on Earth for over 100 million years.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Earth is 24 years old. My birth was the birth of the Earth. It had no existence before me.

 

[markgm]

I have no way of measuring how old it is. What do the people with the tools to do so say it is? That's probably the best answer.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: El Liberache
No, I do not believe it is that old. I (as well as most Christians) do not adhere to the conventional 'scientific' evidence that this planet has been around for any length of time comparable to billions of years. Instead, the evidence I look at, The Bible, points to a much shorter amount of time: around 10,000 years.

Now we know who has been sniffing the glue.

QFT.

The search for truth is sacrosanct whether found through science or religion. They are sister's in the search of truth. Why ignore something that is clearly staring at you in the face just because science doesn't fit your interpretation of the Bible? They did that in Copernicus' and Galileo's day, too. Even St. Augustine warned Christians to not try to interpret the Creation story other than the main point of the fall of man and the idea of Grace, and St. Augustine is basically one of the founders of modern Christian thinking. Also, he said this way before any idea of evolution came along.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: mugs
How the hell would I know?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's 42 you twits. 42 is the answer to everything. It must be only 10,000 years because a book that contradicts itself and a reads like a fairy tale and is taught to us at a very young impressionable age where we believe anything that is told to us MUST be true. Even though the bible says it's 10,000 years old and if the bible hasn't benn altered at all and is the literal word of God then the Earth was 10,000 years old 2,000 years ago so THE EARTH HASN'T AGED!!!!

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: El Liberache
91TTZ: My apologies if I offended you, was that childish retaliation necessary? I wouldn't consider myself 'hardcore' in the same sense that you mean it, but I must negate your comment of being 'as dumb as cow crap.' My answer to your question of when dinosaurs and humans came about: The sixth day (Genesis 1:24-1.31). And you must understand that I am not asserting my beliefs as true and accurate, just simply, my beliefs. There are many reasons as to my believing the Young-Earth Creationist consensus. My primary reason is this: Saul's accession to the throne as the (first) king of Israel is the first recorded event that can be traced semi-accurately, around 1100-1000 BCE. And before you ask, yes it can be proven that Saul was real and really was the first king of Israel. Working backwards through the Book of Judges, ancient Hebrew scrolls and materials, and other antiquities, it all leads to specific amounts of time I'm not going to get into here. All in all once you add (or subtract as it may be) the periods you get a very short timespan: 6000-10000 years. In all fairness, many Christians believe the Old-Earth theory, where the Hebrew word 'yom' that we translated into 'days' can actually be an indeterminate amount of time, and all your radiometric dating methods would hence prove valid. Myself, I believe God knew what He was doing when he created us and purposely made things extremely complex, thereby giving credit to all other theories and allowing absurd convictions that we came from monkeys with no great purpose, no great plan, and no real meaning. Again my apologies for offending you, but if you really think I have no common sense just because I choose not to believe the conventional scientific research that claims they found a rock 4 billion years old through some highly advanced, radiometric educated guess, then to that you are entitled.

You are truly dumb if (and that's a big IF) you actually believe that dinosaurs lived in the same age as humans.