HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

[Davidjayjordan]

John...you stated in a rather long posting

 

With some trepidation, I toss my two cents into the fire. Here are the questions I will raise and attempt to answer:

(1) Is the real age of a material thing, if it was created supernaturally, what it appears to be? As we will see, the Bible answers this question.
(2) Is it possible to determine the age of any physical thing without first determining whether it was created in time or in eternity?
(3) Were the days of creation, which are described in the first chapter of Genesis, twenty-four hours long, or could they have been much longer?
(4) Is it possible to be truly scientific, if you reject the fact that the earth and its creatures were supernaturally created by God ?ex nihilo? or out of nothing?

So lets have a go at your questions...

 

First, as a scientist, I would have to say the age of the Earth can definitely be 6,000 years ol, as Yes, as a long time missionary, the geneologies show that it is just over 6000 years old including Jacobs Trouble (with Laban) of 21 years)

(1) Is the real age of a material thing, if it was created supernaturally, what it appears to be? As we will see, the Bible answers this question.

 

Id rather you not use the word supernatural, as evolutionists use it in their supernatural theory that violates all the laws that were created in the Beginning. Evolutionists believe in magic and their supernatural theory that violates all the rules and LAWS of Biology and PHYSICS including the Second Law of THERMODYNAMICS. Evolutionists use the word 'natural' as a cop out as if evolution and beneficial mutations are natural. Its word games as that is all they have for proofs, that and intimidation as if science was created by evolution. NO SCIENCE is LAWS is and were created at GENESIS

Age can not be proven, beyond a few thousand years, thats a given. Even radioactive decay is limited with parameters constants that demand no change in the past, which is untrue...And yet Evolutionists deal with billions of years and toss it around and change it at will with their ever changing theories and billion million year approximations. none of which can be proven. They say a fossil is, lets say a billion years old because it is in a layer that is a billion years old. The geologists turn around and say the layer is a billion years old because the evolutionists say the fossils then were a billion years old
 

(2) Is it possible to determine the age of any physical thing without first determining whether it was created in time or in eternity?

In time, means after time was created... time was created by the Lord via light speed.... as it is the barrier between the ETERNAL NOW and the direction of TIME (Entrophy) Evolution contradicts and violates the 2nd Law of THERMODYNAMICS. Creation or the Creator created time, and its by design and corelates to distance, and speeds, as the equation states distance=time x speed. SEE sacred geometry as all speeds, distances, and ytimes are related and are ot separate entities. All things were created to be in harmony and balance. Hyperlinks later if need be for explanation.

 

(3) Were the days of creation, which are described in the first chapter of Genesis, twenty-four hours long, or could they have been much longer?

Remember Light was the first creation, and of course the parameters of Light meaning light speed which puts us in TIME. The Sun and Moon were created which cycles and revolutions gave us the seasons and the solar year, etc... as well as our Earth;s rotation of 24 hours. Yes, the days are exact and are 24 hours... Besides between the arrival of the Suns light for created plants, there obviously were only 24 hours, as they couldnt wait a billion years for the Suns created light to shine on us. SEE Link to Tabernacle of the Sun for its designed distances etc..

 

(4) Is it possible to be truly scientific, if you reject the fact that the earth and its creatures were supernaturally created by God ?ex nihilo? or out of nothing?

To be scientific one has to study the laws of science and proven facts and principles and observations etc etc.... theories are only theories especially when they are unprove-able and untestable as with the unscieitnfic theory of evolution. And your word 'out of nothing' doesnt apply logically to a Creator of everything, because God> Science as He created Science.

Laws are not greater than the one who created all of them (String Theory, TOE etc..) God>Science>all matter

 

In other words, God id MORE than all that He Created... For even if all Creation was destroyed, It would not dimminish His POWER, as He would simply just reCREATE over again... nothing deletes or depletes His POWER as He is all powerful and what He makes is not out of nothing, but from EVERYTHING..

Evolutionists create theories out of nothingness and from simply LUCK and CHANCE. Nothing the Creator has created ever is nothing but is part of the whole Creation as a WHOLE and as a PLAN. The Lord does not go by LUCK and CHANCE but by DESIGN and INTELLIGENCE

 

IHSS (In His Scientific Service

 

David

[OLD fashioned preacher]

On 2/20/2009 at 5:24 PM, John81 said:

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?



By Bill Sizemore

February 20, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

.................................................................................................. (edited due to length)

http://www.newswithviews.com/Bill/sizemore166.htm

 

On 2/20/2009 at 6:08 PM, John81 said:

I am posting this because the author takes a bit of a different tact than most. It would be interesting to see how some might corborate or refute some of his ideas.

1: John 81 hasn't been on here in quite some time

2: He pasted in a "News With Views" article by a Berry, not by John.

3:  He never stated he agreed (see post # 2 & 3)

[swathdiver]

I love that Genesis 1:1 is scienctific: time, space and matter and in that order!

[Davidjayjordan]

And so to answer the original question of the OP.... the Earth is just over 6,000 years if we use Genesis as our scientific measuring ruler.

IE... Each generation being given by Genesis or Moses the author ..... and if added together like Usser did or anyone can do, it shows the Earth is not billions and billions of years old.

Thats an unproven fallacy of unscientific evolution...

IMO

David

40 minutes ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

 

 

 

3 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

 

1: John 81 hasn't been on here in quite some time

2: He pasted in a "News With Views" article by a Berry, not by John.

3:  He never stated he agreed (see post # 2 & 3)

Yea tis true as evolutionists almost always run when faced with any kind of scientific opposition...or any questions.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

10 minutes ago, Davidjayjordan said:

 

 

Yea tis true as evolutionists almost always run when faced with any kind of scientific opposition...or any questions.

Repeat ---- John was not an evolutionist (secular nor theistic) nor a day/age theorist. He was a member (and prolific poster) for MANY years here. He left and was not run off. Is he still alive? Not really sure. Is he missed here, yes.

It behooves an individual to not spout off with limited knowledge (at 70 I would assume that life has taught this. As an individual who professes around 58 years with the Lord, I would think Scripture has taught this)

[Jim_Alaska]

John 81 was not an evolutionist. He copied and pasted an article from someone else as an article of interest. He did not say he agreed with it. 

John was a very prolific poster here and a staunch IFB. He just disappeared after having been on these forums for many years. No one kows what happened to him, but I suspect he passed away.

Wow OFP, we posted almost the same words at just about the same time. You may have beat me to it I since saw that there was a new post as I was typing.

[Davidjayjordan]

7 minutes ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

Repeat ---- John was not an evolutionist (secular nor theistic) nor a day/age theorist. He was a member (and prolific poster) for MANY years here. He left and was not run off. Is he still alive? Not really sure. Is he missed here, yes.

It behooves an individual to not spout off with limited knowledge (at 70 I would assume that life has taught this. As an individual who professes around 58 years with the Lord, I would think Scripture has taught this)

Wow, spouting off was rather aggressive when all I said was evolutionists seldom if ever answer questions. """Yea tis true as evolutionists almost always run when faced with any kind of scientific opposition...or any questions."""

Lets encourage them to answer questions, there must be an evolutionist somewhere HEREIN that wants to scientifically defend evolution. For lets be objective rather than subjective.

 

[OLD fashioned preacher]

4 minutes ago, Davidjayjordan said:

Wow, spouting off was rather aggressive when all I said was evolutionists seldom if ever answer questions. """Yea tis true as evolutionists almost always run when faced with any kind of scientific opposition...or any questions."""

Lets encourage them to answer questions, there must be an evolutionist somewhere HEREIN that wants to scientifically defend evolution. For lets be objective rather than subjective.

 

Aggressive? Yes, I admit it was but you had quoted my post in which I made it clear that it was not the stance of the poster (John 81). This was the context in which you accused an evolutionist of fleeing.

As I stated before, IF there is an evolutionist here it will probably be a lurking visitor who may or may not come out of the shadows.

[Davidjayjordan]

OK, most evolutionists run, I dont know John or Bill or the author, as I was posting genrically and being objective rather than subjective...but in general most evolutionists run and wont answer questions.

And now that I know there are no evolutionists HEREIN, there surely wont be hardly any discussion on this debate evolution/creation sub forum....as we surely all be creationists. TTL...

 

[DaveW]

11 hours ago, Davidjayjordan said:

John...you stated in a rather long posting 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Davidjayjordan said:

OK, most evolutionists run, I dont know John or Bill or the author, as I was posting genrically and being objective rather than subjective...but in general most evolutionists run and wont answer questions.

And now that I know there are no evolutionists HEREIN, there surely wont be hardly any discussion on this debate evolution/creation sub forum....as we surely all be creationists. TTL...

 

No, you were posting directly by name.

You were corrected on your misunderstanding - at least twice.

Instead of apologising to John - even if he never sees it - you refuse to admit your mistake and instead attack the messengers.

 

Just laying out the correct details here, that's all.

[Davidjayjordan]

Oh lighten up, I have been at EVC, Topix, bible wheel, etc etc etc... and evolutionists run and hide, from ever answering questions. I thought this was a debate board for and against evolution, and wanted to disproof evolution, as I always do

 

SEE http://creationismdefeatsevolution.webstarts.com/

 

The web links to those evolution/creation boards are thereIN. For therein I must have posted over two thousand posts against evolution and evolutionists postings. SEE for yourselves.

As I am a creationist, I dont post subjectively but objectively.  Me trying to discredit John or Bill or whoever you are talking about, I know not. The thread was about creation versus evolution and I went into detail as can be seen in posting the four questions of the author whoever he was.... I didnt look. Do note and recheck my posts HEREIN for the long posting I gave against the four points made by the author.

Please enough of this witch hunt, and trying to find fault as an excuse.

 

Or maybe I will have to repost it for you, to show that I posted objectively against the author of the writings that were the topic of this thread

 

Here it tis..

 

•  
•  
• 
• Members
• 2
• 46 posts
• Location: British Columbia, Canada

• Report post
•  

Posted 11 hours ago

John...you stated in a rather long posting

 

With some trepidation, I toss my two cents into the fire. Here are the questions I will raise and attempt to answer:

(1) Is the real age of a material thing, if it was created supernaturally, what it appears to be? As we will see, the Bible answers this question.
(2) Is it possible to determine the age of any physical thing without first determining whether it was created in time or in eternity?
(3) Were the days of creation, which are described in the first chapter of Genesis, twenty-four hours long, or could they have been much longer?
(4) Is it possible to be truly scientific, if you reject the fact that the earth and its creatures were supernaturally created by God ?ex nihilo? or out of nothing?

So lets have a go at your questions...

 

First, as a scientist, I would have to say the age of the Earth can definitely be 6,000 years ol, as Yes, as a long time missionary, the geneologies show that it is just over 6000 years old including Jacobs Trouble (with Laban) of 21 years)

(1) Is the real age of a material thing, if it was created supernaturally, what it appears to be? As we will see, the Bible answers this question.

 

Id rather you not use the word supernatural, as evolutionists use it in their supernatural theory that violates all the laws that were created in the Beginning. Evolutionists believe in magic and their supernatural theory that violates all the rules and LAWS of Biology and PHYSICS including the Second Law of THERMODYNAMICS. Evolutionists use the word 'natural' as a cop out as if evolution and beneficial mutations are natural. Its word games as that is all they have for proofs, that and intimidation as if science was created by evolution. NO SCIENCE is LAWS is and were created at GENESIS

Age can not be proven, beyond a few thousand years, thats a given. Even radioactive decay is limited with parameters constants that demand no change in the past, which is untrue...And yet Evolutionists deal with billions of years and toss it around and change it at will with their ever changing theories and billion million year approximations. none of which can be proven. They say a fossil is, lets say a billion years old because it is in a layer that is a billion years old. The geologists turn around and say the layer is a billion years old because the evolutionists say the fossils then were a billion years old
 

(2) Is it possible to determine the age of any physical thing without first determining whether it was created in time or in eternity?

In time, means after time was created... time was created by the Lord via light speed.... as it is the barrier between the ETERNAL NOW and the direction of TIME (Entrophy) Evolution contradicts and violates the 2nd Law of THERMODYNAMICS. Creation or the Creator created time, and its by design and corelates to distance, and speeds, as the equation states distance=time x speed. SEE sacred geometry as all speeds, distances, and ytimes are related and are ot separate entities. All things were created to be in harmony and balance. Hyperlinks later if need be for explanation.

 

(3) Were the days of creation, which are described in the first chapter of Genesis, twenty-four hours long, or could they have been much longer?

Remember Light was the first creation, and of course the parameters of Light meaning light speed which puts us in TIME. The Sun and Moon were created which cycles and revolutions gave us the seasons and the solar year, etc... as well as our Earth;s rotation of 24 hours. Yes, the days are exact and are 24 hours... Besides between the arrival of the Suns light for created plants, there obviously were only 24 hours, as they couldnt wait a billion years for the Suns created light to shine on us. SEE Link to Tabernacle of the Sun for its designed distances etc..

 

(4) Is it possible to be truly scientific, if you reject the fact that the earth and its creatures were supernaturally created by God ?ex nihilo? or out of nothing?

To be scientific one has to study the laws of science and proven facts and principles and observations etc etc.... theories are only theories especially when they are unprove-able and untestable as with the unscieitnfic theory of evolution. And your word 'out of nothing' doesnt apply logically to a Creator of everything, because God> Science as He created Science.

Laws are not greater than the one who created all of them (String Theory, TOE etc..) God>Science>all matter

 

In other words, God id MORE than all that He Created... For even if all Creation was destroyed, It would not dimminish His POWER, as He would simply just reCREATE over again... nothing deletes or depletes His POWER as He is all powerful and what He makes is not out of nothing, but from EVERYTHING..

Evolutionists create theories out of nothingness and from simply LUCK and CHANCE. Nothing the Creator has created ever is nothing but is part of the whole Creation as a WHOLE and as a PLAN. The Lord does not go by LUCK and CHANCE but by DESIGN and INTELLIGENCE

 

IHSS (In His Scientific Service

 

David

 

End of past posting I made to objectively challenge the evolution authors posting.... I by error thinking it was John... as it seems Johnwas just the poster of an evolutionists post. Hardly me trying to intentionally degrade John... I have no idea who he was or if he had left. trying to falsely accuse me of defaming John  is rather aggressive...

 

Just ask if you have a question... rather than accuse..

 

[DaveW]

This is a simple matter of respect.

You made a mistake, and it was pointed out to you.

Instead of saying something like "Oh my mistake. I missed that, but the answers are still relevant." which would have been the respectful thing, you instead attacked those who pointed out your mistake.

Now, because I have pointed out your disrespect, you tell me to "Lighten up".

If you want to be treated with respect, then you should probably not be disrespectful to other board members.

 

I have no issue with what you posted about the topic - I actually haven't really read it, because it is an old thread that died a while back, and I am fully confirmed on my stance of evolution/creation.

I was simply addressing the disrespect shown to a member here, and the continuing disrespect shown to two moderators here.

I am happy to leave this right where it is from now on, but please, try to conduct yourself with common decency and good manners.

[Davidjayjordan]

Always have always will.. I had no idea, that there were only creationists HERE. I came HERE because I googled a prophecy web discussion board, and noticed my expertise field of creationism, design and science against evolution insanity. So I posted in detail against the author of the article posted, I had no idea that the author was not available and it was just a creationist who posted the article of an evolutionist. I wanted a discussion and stated that most evolutionists run and never stand and stay and answer questions. I agree with that statement and my comment that, evolutionists run from answering questions.

 

I usually say lets get on with the discussion, but as I mentioned, there are no evolutionists HERE to debate, or question.. They are runners.

 

But if you post what you think was offensive, do post it...

 

Allow me to repost, my apparently very offensive posting, that everyone is so upset by..... I found it, Here it is...

Yea tis true as evolutionists almost always run when faced with any kind of scientific opposition...or any questions.

Yup I agree with that as most evolutionists do run from questions, as they have no answers.

[*Light*]

I don't understand why "Christian" evolutionists go OUT OF THEIR WAY to disprove the plain text of scripture that even a child can understand (e.g., "number of creation days" -- literal or not?) This issue is only because certain groups have made it what I call a "hobby-horse issue", that is, something not related to our spiritual growth usually which is invested with tons of "research" and reams of paper to "prove" that everyone else is "wrong". These sorts of things don't even pass the "sniff test", however -- not with any Christian who is growing spiritually and has some spiritual common sense.  The fact that someone is making such a big deal out of proving something a such is generally thought to be the case is a give away that the person is not really that interested in the truth of scripture. 

God Bless!

[Martyr_4_FutureJoy]

On 2/20/2009 at 5:24 PM, John81 said:

Biblical evidence for the claim that the earth is only six thousands years old is hardly conclusive.

I hope no one reads the thread ,  not much anyway.   

With a false start like this from the opening post indicated,  nothing good has resulted,  only much wasted forum space and time reading if someone reads it.  

However, God Willing ,  there actually may be one good thing after all - the poster who may have posted clearly and Biblically the truth near the end/last page of the thread.   I started there, not at the first post or page,  as a result of a search for "thousand post" leading there.    Thankfully, for seeing that true post (still subject to verification if ever to be used) , or I might have just ignored the thread/topic since that's what I normally do when a thread starts with a false premise.

I will sometimes then , more or less frequently,  just post a reply that I read up to that point,  then stopped,  since proceeding with a false premise is not beneficial to anyone as far as I am aware.