Topic: How old is earth - page 4. (Read 12902 times)

Free from the artificial limitations the yoke of establishment scientific dogma puts on the mind I look at the available facts and they tell a fantastic story not fit for the mind of a mind-controlled sex-slave/farm-animal. You must escape the black magic NASA has used on your mind if you're truly interested in the age of the Earth.

Be man not a lamb!


Bonus image:

I am confused.  Science and Bible have different approach on telling how old are earth is.  But the only certain thing is we are alive right now.  Maybe we should focus on what we can do to help our mother Earth in keeping its reign by helping her to live more years.  We already become the mere reason why we keep her in danger.  The question of how old is the Earth would be good if it is gone already.  Let us leave that to the scientist to figure out how old it is.  But I want to believe on the simple explanation on the Bible. So yes, it is maybe less than 10,000 years.   

Less than 10,000 years.

Hahahahaha omg. Nice one, I'm saving this quote for a later date.

Good work, Fluffer. Took you all day to take some things out of context just to prove how goofy you are, right?

Turn, now, while you still have a chance.

 

In addition, when God "tossed" the universe into existence a little over 6,000 years ago, He also set the light in place between the planets and stars, so it looked like the light had been traveling a much longer time to get here. What it was, was, God simply, almost instantaneously, set everything in place, just as though it had always been this way.

Because of this, all looking at nature to understand the age of the earth won't work. Science that suggests otherwise is the religion.

I understand how hard it can be to get down to the basics of what you know or believe, sometimes... and often when you are simply trying to express it. That's why you appear to be jumping around in the things you say rather than staying on topic.

As for blind believers with regard to the age of the earth, you will find enough unprovable theory and even "silly" theory, and enough contradiction among science and scientists, to show that accepting what they say is blind faith.

So, if you want to start to have knowledge, you can take the part of science that is fact, and see that God is proven to exist (in combining the laws of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy). God's existence is, also, shown in the machinery of nature. Since not much is shown about God in a simple look at nature, or in the science law that proves the existence of God, we need to seek God more fervently, if we want to find out things like how old the earth is.


Looking at this a little deeper, we can see that God appears to be love. How can we see this? We see it in the fact that the machinery of the body is so extremely complex that we cannot duplicate it. We can barely help it along a little in its operations of life. Yet it works quite well, and certainly in such a complex way that we don't understand it. And we have pleasure at times.

So, where does the body and life come from? Sure, scientists have their guesses in unproven, foolish evolution ideas. But the body is a gift from God. So, it seems, that even without God telling us directly through religion that He is love, we can see it simply through the nature He has made for us, and the body He has given us.

It isn't that God hasn't given us proof and evidence of Himself. It's simply that people don't want to believe the proof and evidence when it almost jumps right out at them.

Now don't jump back and forth. You are confessing God here. So, don't jump back to suggesting that He doesn't exist. Why? God wants confession to His existence. He wants confession to faith in Him. He will not tolerate jumping back and forth.

I think that if light is well demonstrated to travel at a certain speed, then we have measurable amounts of time.  Similarly if there are minimum size movements of objects possible eg.  Plank's constant, then there should be a minimum unit of time, eg time is quantized.

But I could be wrong about that.

Just because I don't agree with your specific version of events does not mean I'm closed to other ideas or possibilities. The difference is that I don't choose to believe something simply because someone says it to be true.

You have your faith and that's great, but you're a blind believer and that makes you blind to anything but your own opinion and no number of presented facts, arguments or proof can sway you from you belief. The irony is that in your eyes anyone who doesn't agree with you is the one who isn't open.

If someone were able to produce enough evidence to demonstrate the existence of a Supreme Being then yes I would change my stance, but I'm yet to see any actual evidence that supports one.

God works in mysterious ways.

God works in mysterious ways.

Reproducible evidence? Science doesn't have a start towards reproducible evidence regarding a factual Big Bang. When are you going to start to be open to other possibilities as you said?

Science teachings are based in guesswork that can never be proven.

Bible teachings are based in eye witness reports, and in the things God tells people. While these won't be proven until we meet God in the judgment, there is way stronger evidence in Bible teaching than in science guesswork.

Couldn't agree with you more on all points with the only exception being your comment regarding time.

The difference between me and BADecker though, is I'm open to discussion about other possibilities and if offered up enough reproducible evidence will change my stance and admit when I'm wrong. 

Scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years or only 6000 years old as the Bible teaches

i think Scientists answer are more relevant
This can be true

Not sure why you think I was picking on you as I was simply stating that I'm more than aware of the kind of answer you'll post in reply to anything I write. And you certainly didn't disappoint this time around. 


Actually I've stated it quite clearly - you wrote that there is a period for which there is no knowledge.

Of course, this that you seem to believe is way more improbable than the Bible explanation.


Science could build a theory of no time, or no electromagnetic spectrum if they wanted.



Poor baby. Hurt your itty bitty feewings, did I?

The tools we use are engineered into existence, not theorized into existence. Most of the time the theories need to change to match the reality of the engineering. Much of this theory change has to do with semantics.

The theories of how stars work? Fun things. But totally laughable as something practical. They don't even deserve theory status, because there will never be a practical way that these theories can be tested.

Because of this, it is the scientists who have a religion of hypocrisy.

Thank you for this. As you finally start to understand the flaws in your thinking, you start to pick on me, because you are running out of facts. So you move into twisting, which includes picking on me.


You neglect to state in what way you believe that my thinking relies on no knowledge. But it doesn't matter, because...

Up until the beginning of the electromagnetic spectrum (light), we have knowledge that something existed, but it was void or empty. This means that it doesn't match our understanding of physics and physical laws.

Then God spoke light into existence, and we have the beginning of the first day. Certainly there were other things that God did to make the day - "separated the light from the darkness." But because most of it is beyond our understanding, and certainly is beyond the understanding of simple people, God chose to talk about the light, something that almost all of us understand in one way or another.

Day 1, day 2, day 3, etc., - time - down to the present; some amount of time a little over 6,000 years.


Wrong! In simple terms, nothing that we know about. "Then" 6,000+ years. I have "then" in quotes, because "then" denotes time even though there was no time. Possibly there is no correct word to use when talking about "movement" from no time into time.


What does a margin of error have to do with it? Does anybody know the exact number of days that have existed, other than God? However, way less of a margin of error than secular science. Why? Because even if Big Bang had been a reality, nobody knows what things were like before the BANG. But the secular margin of error is, like, 2 billion years following the BB. And that is all based on a theory that has absolutely no way to be proven. Big Bang should not even be relegated into theory it is so flawed as such.


Huh! You have no answer. So you start to pick on me again.



Since the sun was made on the 4th day, time existed 3 days longer than the passage of the earth around the sun. Whoopty doo. Now you really want to get picky by 3 days, all the while modern science suggests billions of years difference, and all that with a theory that shows itself to be doubtful (BBT), all the while there could be any number of things that invalidate the BB Theory entirely. Science really needs to get back to the Bible, the best record we have.

A reasonable hypocrite of a Christian would agree with you, of course.

Personally I think the understanding of stellar evolution is well established.  Stars burn until they are rich in heavier elements, and when iron predominates, fusion starts to end and they implode and supernova.  A couple cycles of that is what results in planets with "elements" and that's why the universe is 13+ billion years, while the Earth and it's moon are about 4 billion.

As for time, there would clearly be a a lower limit based on quantum theory, a smallest possible and fixed unit of time.   

Anyone who wants to argue these issues should reject their computers and their cell phones, because those could not exist without man's understanding of these issues. 

But they want it both ways. They want to be free to babble mindless puke from past ages, while using the benefits of quantum theory to do so.  Such as posting on this forum.

Fuck 'em.