how old is the earth

[zvezda]

This 3-minute animation will change your perception of time   

http://www.businessinsider.com/animated-timeline-earth-history-2015-11

[indianabob]

Sorry Zvezda,
The whole piece is based on false premises. Non-valid presumptions. In a Carl Sagan system of "billions and billions of years".

1. Sulfur and Sulfates created by near infra-red light striking rocks on the earth or being converted by the FIRST replicating single cell organisms. Where did the FIRST organisms originate from? Out of the previously FORMED rocks? Then cyanobacteria EMERGE? Emerge from what?
Totally false and illogical.
-
Long periods of time do NOT account for any part of creation.
We may agree that God could have taken as long as God wanted to perform the miracles we live with every day, but it is presumptuous to insist that God needed long periods of time.
I don't believe a word of it.

Indiana Bob

[lilitalienboi16]

Sorry Zvezda,
The whole piece is based on false premises. Non-valid presumptions. In a Carl Sagan system of "billions and billions of years".

1. Sulfur and Sulfates created by near infra-red light striking rocks on the earth or being converted by the FIRST replicating single cell organisms. Where did the FIRST organisms originate from? Out of the previously FORMED rocks? Then cyanobacteria EMERGE? Emerge from what?
Totally false and illogical.
-
Long periods of time do NOT account for any part of creation.
We may agree that God could have taken as long as God wanted to perform the miracles we live with every day, but it is presumptuous to insist that God needed long periods of time.
I don't believe a word of it.

Indiana Bob

Did you ever watch ray's study on the age earth and the 'global' flood?

All the science and the scriptures point to a very very old (~4.6bill yrs old) earth.

See rays discussion on the age of the earth for some of those scriptures.

God bless,
Alex

[zvezda]

Sorry Zvezda,
The whole piece is based on false premises. Non-valid presumptions. In a Carl Sagan system of "billions and billions of years".

1. Sulfur and Sulfates created by near infra-red light striking rocks on the earth or being converted by the FIRST replicating single cell organisms. Where did the FIRST organisms originate from? Out of the previously FORMED rocks? Then cyanobacteria EMERGE? Emerge from what?
Totally false and illogical.
-
Long periods of time do NOT account for any part of creation.
We may agree that God could have taken as long as God wanted to perform the miracles we live with every day, but it is presumptuous to insist that God needed long periods of time.
I don't believe a word of it.

Indiana Bob

Hi iBob, I think the main piint of the video is to tell us the timeline of the major events on earth. It just tells us "when" but not "how". No one knows what are the origins of life and how things went from non-living to living. Neither the sciencists nor the video claim to know it.
I tihnk Ray said the creation was done at Genesis 1:1, and then God made everything in 6 days (yoms).

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created (H1254 - bara) the heaven and the earth.
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made (H6213 - asah) heaven and earth

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,8385.msg68317.html#msg68317


I want to show you something very interesting, these are the things that require meditation and study these things don't just pop out at you on the first or the thirty or fortieth reading.

This person that I have been quoting from, all this nonsense.  He says, 'well there are those that say Genesis 1:1-2 happened ages before verse 3, they call it the gap theory.'  No actually the 'gap theory' is not that.  But the fact of the matter is that you get a big period of time between verses 1-2 and verse 3.

You know Moses informs us that the heavens were created at the same time as the earth and then he tells us in Exodus 20;

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth...

They will tell you, 'see it's all the same thing.  So the heavens and earth were made in the six days.  In a portion of one of  the six days the earth was created.  In a portion of those six days, because he tells us in Exodus "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth."  In Gen. we have "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and if He made them in six days then it has got to be in one of those six days. '  Well I already showed you that the words are not "create" (Gen. 1:1) and "create" (Ex. 20:11), it's "created" and "made."

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created (H1254 - bara) the heaven and the earth.

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made (H6213 - asah) heaven and earth

Everything was created from which He was then going to make, the raw materials if you will.

Gen 1:31  Then God saw everything that He had made (asah), and, behold, it was very good.

Then when we read in verse 31 of all that God created for making, when He bara for asah, you see.  He created for making, so He did not create the heavens and earth in six days.  In six days He made the heavens and the earth as they now are, from what He had already created, millions or billions of years earlier in verse one. 

[indianabob]

Zvezda and friends,

There are a lot of, mysterious to us, views of creation to discuss here.
However we are not to teach other views or cause divisions among ourselves or confusion among the thousands of guests that read this forum. So I will limit my remarks to this.

All the work that Ray did regarding belief in God and true understanding of scripture was to a high level inspired by God and by previous teachings found in the Bible. Along this line I have noticed that Ray has stated and most of us have agreed that the popular church organizations have been and still are teaching error. Error that is established as factual truth in their own minds. The deceived do not know...
-
Therefore it amazes me that when it comes to science and scientific theories of men, that great credence is given by many on the forum to so many of those theories that in fact are just as much the fruit of fallible men's thinking as is the teachings of the many church organizations.
-
God has dribbled out a portion of understanding of HIS creation to scientist over the centuries to insure HIS own plans are carried out. In similar manner God dribbled out his plans for the salvation of all of mankind to HIS called out servants.
-
The 12 apostles did not know how God's plan with Jesus would work out until it happened, even after Jesus told them part of it. They didn't need to know because God was in charge and in control.
-
Why should we believe that men of science are any less self promoting and confused about the true facts than are the thousands of churchmen who teach error? Every man doing what seems right to themselves.

I think that if we examine the various accepted teaching of secular science with the same degree of diligence that Ray Smith applied to his examination of the false teachings of organized religion we would realize that they, the scientist, are just as ignorant in many instances as the churchmen have been proven to be.
-
Theories that become popular due to wide publication are not valid due to their acceptance by puny mortal men.
e.g. we know a lot about the operation of the animal kingdom and the human anatomy because we have physical examples at hand to examine and experiment with and test for correct understanding. We have none of that type of example at hand when it comes to astrophysics. It is all speculation!
-
We measure the speed of light in our solar system under steady state, controlled conditions and presume that we have discovered a LAW that the speed of light is the maximum velocity possible in the Universe. We further state that God cannot break HIS own law of physics which by the way God instituted for the continuous operation of the environment God provided for the building of His family here on planet Earth, so then all data observed in the study of astrophysics must adhere to our poor understanding of local conditions.

Scientific research and its publication is as much a philosophy as every religion. It is mostly a stab in the dark and will eventually be exposed for the error it contains just as are the various religions.
That doesn't mean we quit trying to learn...

Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. 3 As the heavens for height and the earth for depth, So the heart of kings is unsearchable....

I'm willing to pursue this topic on private email if anyone is interested.
Prove all things and hold fast to that which is true and uplifting.

Kindly offered, Indiana Bob

[lilitalienboi16]

Dear Bob,

The difference is that the study of the natural world around us yields results which can be reproduced time and time again  (iiregardless of spiritual maturity) verse faith in God and scripture which often times cannot be proven let alone reproduced.

The proof is in the pudding. Planes, computers, satellites, rockets that fly past pluto, eradication of the polio virus, women living through child birth as opposed to many of them dying in it, development of antibiotics... etc.. etc... if science were wrong then all these things and more, think of the radio, cell phones, gps, refrigerators, microwaves, cars, sky scrappers, etc... none of those things would work! And yet they do! They are all created using fundamental scientific principles and knowledge (biology, physics, math, chemistry, etc... etc..) of the natural universe. Its this very same science which used its acquired knowledge over generations of study to calculate the age of the earth and the overwhelming evidence is that it is very, very, very old.

It doesnt take the spirit of God to understand the natural world and judging by the current progress the scientific community has made, testified to by their many innovations, i think its safe to say they know what they are doing.

When it comes to spiritual matters, because the carnal mind receives not the things of God for they are foolishness to him, then yes, I agree, skepticism is healthy but the age of the earth is not a spiritual matter and there is zero scripture that supports a young earth theory or literal creation days. Ultimately, our striving through the narrow gate hinges zero percent on our understanding of the age of the earth and hence why understanding its age is purely a carnal endeavor. The problem is that the church has made it into an issue and created a stumbling block out of it for the vast majority of people when it shouldn't be.

Sincerely,

Alex

[indianabob]

Friend Alex,

Partial reply to your welcome comments.
Did you view the video that Zvezda offered?
Yes I presume that you did.
My rebuttal was mainly directed at that video and the assumptions that it made.
It was pretty much ALL conjecture as concerning the time frame and the order of even the development of rocks on the planet. Assumptions which cannot be proven by science as far as the term Millions of years is concerned.
-
I did not mean to imply that spiritual discernment was needed to develop practical scientific advances in metallurgy,  electricity, medicine etc. Although I do believe that God has intentionally limited the discovery and advance of physical science for HIS own purposes. Otherwise men and women of superior intellect in ages past would have brought those inventions to the fore. Where do we think those thoughts and the curiosity to pursue the investigation came from initially? They were put in the minds of humans when God was ready for the advance to happen. The field of study that you pursue was in its infancy only about a century ago and was held back by mythical religious fears, so I thought you would understand my reservations.
-
So my reply had nothing to say about the age of the earth being six days.
I don't know the meaning of yom or yoms so I leave that to those better educated than myself.
I do know a little about how untrustworthy theoretical science is and that is one source of my objections to speculations. If we cannot demonstrate it, then it remains theoretical...

Your valid comments about all the practical advances in earth science does not invalidate my objection to unprovable, theoretical speculation on a Galactic scale.

I had better leave it there.

Thanks for the concern and counsel, Indiana Bob

[lilitalienboi16]

Bob,
It appears I was over zealous in my reply. Indeed I am sharing my understanding and its ultimately an opinion that could never be absolutely proven.

Please accept my apology, brother.

Sincerely,
Alex

[indianabob]

Our goal of course is brotherly love.
As iron sharpens iron we may generate a little heat with the light.
Maybe some of that will pique our further curiosity.

Your candid commentary is always welcome and appreciated.
Please don't apologize for having a different view of the unknown or dimly seen operation of our life on this earth. Without some degree of disagreement I would have ceased to learn years ago.
Warm regards, Physician soon to be, Alex  , ole contrary Indiana Bob

p.s. I've had several surgeries and am the beneficiary of a working steel knee and hip, a re-sectioned descending colon resulting from the successful removal of an 8 inch tumor in 1987.
-
Without all the experimentation and willing subjects from the recent century I could be confined to a wheel chair. I'm the last person to criticize modern medicine even with its many faults.   

[lareli]

The earth is so old. What really baffles me is... Why, in all the history of mankind, did they only think to start tracking the years a couple of thousand years ago?

[lilitalienboi16]

Our goal of course is brotherly love.
As iron sharpens iron we may generate a little heat with the light.
Maybe some of that will pique our further curiosity.

Your candid commentary is always welcome and appreciated.
Please don't apologize for having a different view of the unknown or dimly seen operation of our life on this earth. Without some degree of disagreement I would have ceased to learn years ago.
Warm regards, Physician soon to be, Alex  , ole contrary Indiana Bob

p.s. I've had several surgeries and am the beneficiary of a working steel knee and hip, a re-sectioned descending colon resulting from the successful removal of an 8 inch tumor in 1987.
-
Without all the experimentation and willing subjects from the recent century I could be confined to a wheel chair. I'm the last person to criticize modern medicine even with its many faults.   

Thanks bob, my old friend , my brother.  A man could ask for no better family than I have here in you all. As I watch what looks like evil spiraling out of control (though I know its all within God's frame) in this world, my heart is always warmed upon your remembrances and I am moved to prayer for you all.

One day we shall all be together and the King of Peace shall reign over all the world. A day that could never come too soon.

God bless,
Alex

[Jeff]

Dear Bob,

The difference is that the study of the natural world around us yields results which can be reproduced time and time again  (iiregardless of spiritual maturity) verse faith in God and scripture which often times cannot be proven let alone reproduced.

The proof is in the pudding. Planes, computers, satellites, rockets that fly past pluto, eradication of the polio virus, women living through child birth as opposed to many of them dying in it, development of antibiotics... etc.. etc... if science were wrong then all these things and more, think of the radio, cell phones, gps, refrigerators, microwaves, cars, sky scrappers, etc... none of those things would work! And yet they do! They are all created using fundamental scientific principles and knowledge (biology, physics, math, chemistry, etc... etc..) of the natural universe. Its this very same science which used its acquired knowledge over generations of study to calculate the age of the earth and the overwhelming evidence is that it is very, very, very old.

It doesnt take the spirit of God to understand the natural world and judging by the current progress the scientific community has made, testified to by their many innovations, i think its safe to say they know what they are doing.

When it comes to spiritual matters, because the carnal mind receives not the things of God for they are foolishness to him, then yes, I agree, skepticism is healthy but the age of the earth is not a spiritual matter and there is zero scripture that supports a young earth theory or literal creation days. Ultimately, our striving through the narrow gate hinges zero percent on our understanding of the age of the earth and hence why understanding its age is purely a carnal endeavor. The problem is that the church has made it into an issue and created a stumbling block out of it for the vast majority of people when it shouldn't be.

Sincerely,

Alex

Alex,

You touched on something that I think is significant.  Science relies on proof - hard, material, repeatable, measurements.  We, on the other hand, rely on faith, given to us by the One who created what the scientists are forever measuring.  They're at a disadvantage because they draw on something that has limitations. 

For example, take the quark - at this point as small as it gets - but science realizes and allows that it doesn't mean there isn't something smaller.  They're open to new truths but those truths will always be physical.  They're just limited by what's observable.  They can never transcend the physical and grasp the spiritual.  They don't recognize "first the physical" because for science there is only the physical.

In a sense (or maybe more so) it's a model of the Scriptures.  I would compare science to the religion of the church, reliant on nothing more than dogma, sans incontrovertible truth.  Science can only measure against previous findings or explore new ideas.  They establish a baseline - set by "them" - as they observe, then test, hypothesize, prove to their satisfaction, write papers, and continue studying.

I don't mean to say that science is bad - I love science - it's fascinating when new discoveries are made and old ideas are discarded.  It's truly amazing to me what science is able to do by the grace of God. But science doesn't realize that God is showing them what they're discovering.  I think that's irony (in a good way.) Science will only, ever, understand what God allows. But on the same hand God is exersizing our incredibly intricate brain by giving us mysteries to solve.  The universe is comically large.  Who can comprehend it?  The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.  I believe that God wants to stretch our imagination and He provides the means. 

But in my analogy of the church/religion and science, they are the physical, never comprehending the spiritual, while we can embrace the spiritual, and have an understanding of the physical at the same time, because that was our path - first the physical, then the spiritual.  We have an advantage - faith given to us by God.  We can comprehend the physical but we know the it was created by Spirit. Science doesn't have that, as their focus is just on the physical.  Science is blind to the spiritual and relies on the physical, just as the religious church does.

We, on the other hand, can understand science - the physical - as well as the spiritual, and see how those work together.

I think I wrote way more than I intended.  My original thought was that everything in the universe is modeled after our creator or maybe more accurately it has a consistent pattern as designed by God. For instance subatomic particles closely resemble the macro universe, by design.  It's all perfection.

The significance of our blessing is not lost on me.  God dragged us to the Truth, we are free from bondage, and know of Gods glorious plan for the salvation of all mankind.

Science has beakers...

Jeff

[lilitalienboi16]

Great thoughts Jeff and very well said. Thanks for sharing, I don't think I can add anything more to yours.

God bless,
Alex

[indianabob]

Friend Jeff,

Loved your explanation and exposition of our limited thought processes in physical science.

Thank you for that contribution to our better understanding.

Indiana Bob