Age of the Earth

[mead11]

How old would everyone say that the earth is?

4.55 Billion years, 6000, 4000 or 2000 years old?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Age of the Earth

How old would everyone say that the earth is?

4.55 Billion years, 6000, 4000 or 2000 years old?

Who cares what everyone says? God says it's around 6,000 years old, and he's the only eyewitness to the Creation.

Before you start a thread, you might consider looking around our Forums to see if it's been done before. This question has been discussed at great length in the Proof of a Young Earth thread. Please ask your questions in there, and we'll be happy to answer them.

Moderators, can we close this thread?

[mead11]

Re: Age of the Earth

But I was asking for an opinion. Some people may have varied thoughts on the age of the earth. I have also heard others say that the Earth is closer to 4000 years old.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: Age of the Earth

The Earth is 6000 years old (plus some small change). 4000 years before the birth of Christ, 2000 years after. Plus, as I said, small change.

God made it so it looks 4.5 billion years old. In every respect. And that includes isotopes!! And frozen mastodons. So don't even bring them up.

He also made the universe so that it looks 13.7 billion years old. Yes, He created the light from distant quasars in media res, 6000 light-years away from Earth and already redshifted to look like it came from objects 12.5 billion lightyears away.

Now look into your mind. Deep deep into your consciousness...NO! Don't look there...that's where you keep the smutty stuff. Look over in the other corner, where you store the memories. Can you prove that the memories you have from just this morning are not the result of someone sneakily tampering with your mind and implanting a perfectly constructed, perfectly plausible remembrance of, say, what you had for breakfast?

Not if they did it perfectly you couldn't. Because our past is only a record, and our present is only a fleeting whiff of roses, the buzz of an airplane, and the touch of a finger on the "f" key on the keyboard as you type.

And now that present is a memory, and there is a new present...and now there is a new one...etc.

You do not so much live your life as topple from evaporating moment to evaporating moment -- much like a drunk trying to stay on his feet (while the state trooper, smiling ironically, gets out the handcuffs).

Such is time for the human mind.

God's time, on the other hand, is a solid, permanent thing -- like mustard. It exists in a lump, all at once, and He can spread it out and look at it in any way He wants. Or use it to make an absolutely divine ham sandwich, perhaps.

So there is no point in questioning God's viewpoint on these things. He is what He is, and He does what He does, and you either accept Him and live forever or you don't and burn forever.

~~ OEJ

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Age of the Earth

But I was asking for an opinion. Some people may have varied thoughts on the age of the earth. I have also heard others say that the Earth is closer to 4000 years old.

So you think that personal opinions are more important that facts. We at Landover disagree. Anyway, go to the Proof of a Young Earth thread and you will see plenty of opinions. I'm not going to say anything more in this thread, it is a complete waste of time when we have already covered this exact question about 200 times already in that thread.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Age of the Earth

The Earth is 6000 years old (plus some small change). 4000 years before the birth of Christ, 2000 years after. Plus, as I said, small change.

God made it so it looks 4.5 billion years old. In every respect. And that includes isotopes!! And frozen mastodons. So don't even bring them up.

He also made the universe so that it looks 13.7 billion years old. Yes, He created the light from distant quasars in media res, 6000 light-years away from Earth and already redshifted to look like it came from objects 12.5 billion lightyears away.

Now look into your mind. Deep deep into your consciousness...NO! Don't look there...that's where you keep the smutty stuff. Look over in the other corner, where you store the memories. Can you prove that the memories you have from just this morning are not the result of someone sneakily tampering with your mind and implanting a perfectly constructed, perfectly plausible remembrance of, say, what you had for breakfast?

Not if they did it perfectly you couldn't. Because our past is only a record, and our present is only a fleeting whiff of roses, the buzz of an airplane, and the touch of a finger on the "f" key on the keyboard as you type.

And now that present is a memory, and there is a new present...and now there is a new one...etc.

You do not so much live your life as topple from evaporating moment to evaporating moment -- much like a drunk trying to stay on his feet (while the state trooper, smiling ironically, gets out the handcuffs).

Such is time for the human mind.

God's time, on the other hand, is a solid, permanent thing -- like mustard. It exists in a lump, all at once, and He can spread it out and look at it in any way He wants. Or use it to make an absolutely divine ham sandwich, perhaps.

So there is no point in questioning God's viewpoint on these things. He is what He is, and He does what He does, and you either accept Him and live forever or you don't and burn forever.

~~ OEJ

Ok, just out of interest, because it is my username, why submit to this unfalsifiable argument? No one can prove that the world isn't 6000 years old (i.e. the oldest historical records are Chinese, and date back to only 5000 years ago, no flood, interestingly), but it sure looks like it isn't. No one can prove that God didn't set it up so it looks like it isn't but why would he do that? To test our faith? Maybe.

Thinking with a bit of common sense, say, ockham's razor - the theory that states that the more believable should be accepted over the starkly less believable, we are really going against the grain.

What if "The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)" was just a bit of... a mistake? Or something not meant to be literal? Or something said without real knowledge? Humans are fallible, remember. Where in the Bible does it say God made it look like the world is older? He just didn't....

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: Age of the Earth

Thinking with a bit of common sense, say, ockham's razor - the theory that states that the more believable should be accepted over the starkly less believable, we are really going against the grain.

That's what we are.
For "God created it" IS the most easy answear to the question of how the earth came to be.

And why should we believe a falsifiable theory?
After all, if it actually can be falsified then it must be false for you can't prove truth wrong. It's impossible.
Stupid scientists are stupid.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: Age of the Earth

Unfalsifiable: "...why submit to this unfalsifiable argument?"

Well! This argument shuts the derned heathens up, that's why we use it!

If Christians didn't resort to unfalsifiable arguments, then we would always be having to tinker around with pseudoscientific clap-twaddle in order to justify the Faith.

Why, I've read some foolish Christian arguments claiming that much higher incidences of cosmic rays -- such a tremendous flux of energetic particles that they penetrated not just into the upper atmosphere but deep into the rocks -- is the reason isotopic ratios look the way they do after only 6000 years.

Never mind that those levels of cosmic radiation would have blasted the gonads off old Noah and every creature in his ark, and there would be no life left on Earth!

Or the claim of the Incredible Shrinking Sun. Back in the late 1970s a study seemed to show that the Sun's radius was steadily shrinking. Extrapolating back into the past, Creation Scientists found that 4 billion years ago the Sun would have been so huge it would have vaporized the Earth like a jelly-bean in a blast furnace.

But shortly thereafter many studies confirmed that the Sun is not, in fact, shrinking. Creation Scientists still use the Incredible Shrinking Sun argument to this day, but the sneaky secularists and their facts cut the ground right out from under them.

You see? Once Christians start answering scientific objections to Creationism with scientific arguments, they just get in deeper and deeper trouble.

No, it is much better for the Faithful to answer questions with unfalsifiable claims based on Faith.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:17

~~ OEJ

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Age of the Earth

Unfalsifiable: "...why submit to this unfalsifiable argument?"

Well! This argument shuts the derned heathens up, that's why we use it!

If Christians didn't resort to unfalsifiable arguments, then we would always be having to tinker around with pseudoscientific clap-twaddle in order to justify the Faith.

Why, I've read some foolish Christian arguments claiming that much higher incidences of cosmic rays -- such a tremendous flux of energetic particles that they penetrated not just into the upper atmosphere but deep into the rocks -- is the reason isotopic ratios look the way they do after only 6000 years.

Never mind that those levels of cosmic radiation would have blasted the gonads off old Noah and every creature in his ark, and there would be no life left on Earth!

Or the claim of the Incredible Shrinking Sun. Back in the late 1970s a study seemed to show that the Sun's radius was steadily shrinking. Extrapolating back into the past, Creation Scientists found that 4 billion years ago the Sun would have been so huge it would have vaporized the Earth like a jelly-bean in a blast furnace.

But shortly thereafter many studies confirmed that the Sun is not, in fact, shrinking. Creation Scientists still use the Incredible Shrinking Sun argument to this day, but the sneaky secularists and their facts cut the ground right out from under them.

You see? Once Christians start answering scientific objections to Creationism with scientific arguments, they just get in deeper and deeper trouble.

No, it is much better for the Faithful to answer questions with unfalsifiable claims based on Faith.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:17

~~ OEJ

Ok, that is a fair point. But what I don't agree with is how we state our unfalsifiable justification as fact. Like, ok the world is 6000 years old, but why say God wanted it to look older? Yes it is a logical step but it is really a step we have no right to take. We as true Christians should surely have to keep our mouths completely shut, and never try to make up anything that isn't written in the Bible.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Age of the Earth

We as true Christians should surely have to keep our mouths completely shut...

You could definitely benefit from following your own advice, that's for sure.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: Age of the Earth

Unfalsifiable: "We as true Christians should surely have to keep our mouths completely shut, and never try to make up anything that isn't written in the Bible."

No, I don't think Jesus wants us to do that. We have a purpose, a mandate from God.

"The purpose of Christ's coming was in terms of the creation mandate… The redeemed are called to the original purpose of man, to exercise dominion under God, to be covenant-keepers, and to fulfil 'the righteousness of the law' (Rom. 8:4)… Man is summoned to create the society God requires."

We are summoned to create the society God requires.

This will not be done only by quoting scripture. We must oppose what we know is false. This is total warfare between God and evil...and we are God's soldiers of dominion.

"Man cannot seek co-existence with evil without thereby declaring war against God. ... A law-order cannot escape warfare: if it makes peace in one area, it thereby declares war against another. ...The more total the peace desired, the more total the warfare required. The new creation of Jesus Christ is the end result of His total warfare against a fallen world; it requires the permanent suppression of evil in hell."

So in the service of total warfare we must use whatever tactics will aid us. If that includes as seemingly innocuous a tactic as posing unfalsifiable answers to anti-Creationism objectors, so be it.

The same theologian who wrote the passages above also wrote, "Warfare is sometimes waged with limited objectives; at other times, war is unto death, because the nature of the struggle requires it." The nature of the struggle between Christians and evil is an ultimate, absolute struggle.

It is total warfare.

~~ OEJ

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Age of the Earth

But much like not going in to pseudoscience why are we suddenly granted free passage to go in to pseudotheology... We are supposed to lie to win this war? Aren't we then evil ourselves?

It makes sense to deny the people who believe God didn't create the world, they are indeed wrong.... but.. it doesn't make sense to then... make stuff up, frankly, about how he did create the world.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Age of the Earth

But much like not going in to pseudoscience why are we suddenly granted free passage to go in to pseudotheology... We are supposed to lie to win this war? Aren't we then evil ourselves?

It makes sense to deny the people who believe God didn't create the world, they are indeed wrong.... but.. it doesn't make sense to then... make stuff up, frankly, about how he did create the world.

We are supposed to do whatever it takes to win souls for Christ. WHATEVER IT TAKES.

No one said anything about lying.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: Age of the Earth

First, Unfalsifiable, I must compliment you on your reasoned, calm posts. They are like springwater. It's refreshing to correspond with someone like you.

I think that if we say that God created the Earth 6000 years ago but did it in a way that makes it look like it is 4.5 billion years old then we are making a reasonable assumption from 1) our faith in Creation, and 2) the evidence of Earth's antiquity.

It is not explicitly stated in Scripture, but it is not necessarily a lie. It is the most reasonable assumption to make based on our primary and secondary sources of information, ie, faith and evidence respectively.

I think where my mind is going in this discussion is toward the dynamics of the relationship between Christians and non-Christians. We have sure word of Jesus' primacy.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Jesus is the truth. Therefore all that contradicts Jesus must be false; all that opposes Him must be opposed to truth. From this we easily understand Reverend Gary North's assertion about the attitude of Christians.

"It occurs to me: Was Moses arrogant and unbiblical when he instructed the Israelites to kill every Canaanite in the land (Deut. 7:2; 20:16-17)? Was he an 'elitist' or (horror of horrors) a racist? No; he was a God-fearing man who sought to obey God, who commanded them to kill them all. It sounds like a 'superior attitude' to me. Of course, Christians have been given no comparable military command in New Testament times, but I am trying to deal with the attitude of superiority--a superiority based on our possession of the law of God. That attitude is something Christians must have when dealing with all pagans. God has given us the tools of dominion." (emphasis in original)

In the Creationist - Evolutionist debate it would seem, then, that the proper Christian approach is to understand that Christians are superior because we have the truth of Jesus.

We are not called to debate on equal terms with our inferiors. Christians are called to lead pagans to accept Jesus.

No less than that.

Another quote, I am afraid; this one from the theologian R. Rushdoony.

"Every attempt to destroy this principle [of segregation] is an effort to reduce society to its lowest common denominator. Toleration is the excuse under which this leveling is undertaken, but the concept of toleration conceals a radical intolerance. In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed."

Here Rushdoony is not talking about racial segregation but about social segregation...or, more accurately I think, religious tolerance. The Christian cannot associate with unbelivers -- atheists, perverts, criminals, Muslims, -- on a basis of equality. There is no such equality, for Christians have the truth and others do not.

Unfortunately, our laws as currently written enforce religious tolerance, this false equality. Candidate Mike Huckabee has hinted that if elected he would tend to bring the US Constitution into greater conformance with the Bible, and one assumes that a primary goal would be to eliminate religious "freedom" in this country.

As Reverend North put it, we must get leaders like Huckabee into power, and "Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." (Emphasis added.)

~~ OEJ

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Age of the Earth

Thanks for your kind words, you are also a very civil and respectable writer and I enjoy reading your posts.

Surely we are required to debate with our inferiors as we need to get as many warriors of Jesus as possible? Wouldn't that then mean we need to study their positions and their queries to find out exactly where they are wrong?

It is written in Pslams that the world is 6000 years old... but what exactly does that mean. 6000 years old entirely? Maybe 6000 years of history is important to us, I can believe that, 6000 years of relevance. I mean, that statement is open to interpretation surely? Doesn't that just make more sense then to take this poem literally? Did the trees really start waving their arms in Judges? Or are we talking about swaying branches here? Seriously, this troubles me greatly.