Age of the earth isn’t 4.6 Billion years

[SkyWriting]

Here’s the deal ladies and gentlemen, a long time before Darwin came along and they started digging up dinosaur bones and reconstructing what they looked like, there have been depictions found all over the world, in artwork and drawings of several types of dinosaurs that are very accurate , and the only way they could have so accurately drawn dinosaurs back then is that they saw them in the flesh..

And not just drawings either, they have pottery depictions of dinosaurs in 3-D that are also extremely accurate.

Now and then fossils are found complete.

 

[Thera]

I’ve known for a long time that secular science calculations of the recession rate of the moons orbit, shows that the earth cannot be older than 1.5 billion years.

And very recently I saw an article where scientist now say that the earths core can’t be older than 1.5 billion years.

The earth is still much younger than 1.5 billion years, but it’s interesting that there are two groups of scientists saying that the earth is over 3 billion years younger than paleontology and geology claims.

Yup. It's about 6000 or 7000 years, like the bible records.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I’ve known for a long time that secular science calculations of the recession rate of the moons orbit, shows that the earth cannot be older than 1.5 billion years.

And very recently I saw an article where scientist now say that the earths core can’t be older than 1.5 billion years.

The earth is still much younger than 1.5 billion years, but it’s interesting that there are two groups of scientists saying that the earth is over 3 billion years younger than paleontology and geology claims.

The term “secular science” in a ridiculous and intentionally deceiving absurdity concocted in recent years by some radicalized Christian fundamentalists. Science is a secular pursuit because it is concerned with the physical world rather than the spiritual world. Moreover, virtually all of today’s scientists affirm that the earth is 4.54 billion years old based upon extremely reliable radiometric dating. However, some radicalized Christian fundamentalists erroneously believe that this date contradicts the Bible and they dishonestly misrepresent the facts to make it appear that scientists are divided upon the issue when in fact they are not!

 

[Torah Keeper]

Home | The Institute for Creation Research

Creation | Creation Ministries International

Here are some links to real scientists doing real science.

 

[coffee4u]

I’ve known for a long time that secular science calculations of the recession rate of the moons orbit, shows that the earth cannot be older than 1.5 billion years.

And very recently I saw an article where scientist now say that the earths core can’t be older than 1.5 billion years.

The earth is still much younger than 1.5 billion years, but it’s interesting that there are two groups of scientists saying that the earth is over 3 billion years younger than paleontology and geology claims.

All such claims and dating methods are based on certain assumptions. Those assumptions are based on nothing but the sinking sand of human reason and thought.
No one was there to see it being made, to record how exactly things acted and reacted at that time. Today's world is not the key to the past, the past is gone and all we have left is the present. The world as it is now can certainly tell us a lot about how things act now, it tells us nothing about how they acted at created. The world changed at the fall and again at the flood, what we have been left with only has hints of what it once was.

 

[coffee4u]

Here’s the deal ladies and gentlemen, a long time before Darwin came along and they started digging up dinosaur bones and reconstructing what they looked like, there have been depictions found all over the world, in artwork and drawings of several types of dinosaurs that are very accurate , and the only way they could have so accurately drawn dinosaurs back then is that they saw them in the flesh..

And not just drawings either, they have pottery depictions of dinosaurs in 3-D that are also extremely accurate.

And Dr. Carl Baugh has excavated dinosaur foot prints from a river bed in Texas with overlays of human foot prints on top of the dinosaur tracks - and diagnostic imaging has shown that compression of the soil took place under those foot prints, from their weight, so they are real and not carved or cast foot prints.

And soft tissue and blood vessels have been found in dinosaur bones that therefore cannot possibly be 80 million years old.

Therefore in addition to the planet not being the required 4.6 BYO for evolution to occur, dinosaurs and man coexisted, and evolution is thus falsified.

Dinosaurs are simply dragons renamed.

 

[coffee4u]

Now and then fossils are found complete.

No reason why they wouldn't, the flood was the perfect situation to quickly kill, bury and preserve bones. A good example of the groaning world.

 

[coffee4u]

Moreover, virtually all of today’s scientists affirm that the earth is 4.54 billion years old based upon extremely reliable radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is based upon 3 assumptions:
1) the initial amount of the daughter isotope is known.
2) neither parent or daughter product has migrated into, or out of, the closed rock system 3) decay has occurred at a constant rate over time.

Virtually all scientists think their base assumptions are water tight and correct.
It doesn't matter how reliable the actual process of dating appears, like all dating methods if only one assumption it is based upon is wrong the entire calculation is wrong.
They cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent, its all assumed due to knowledge of how the world acts now. Now isn't then.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Home | The Institute for Creation Research

Creation | Creation Ministries International

Here are some links to real scientists doing real science.

Peddling young earth propaganda is not science, and people who peddle young earth propaganda are not scientists. I am familiar with The Institute for Creation Research, and I am one of the people who a number of years ago exposed their fraudulent practices. I do not know of a more corrupt and dishonest organization.

I am much more familiar with Creation Ministries International, and I have personally engaged them in detailed conversation about their severe misrepresentation of the Bible and its teaching. I have also explained to them in detail why their pseudoscience makes a mockery of the Bible and the Christ that it proclaims. However, their “scientists” suffer so badly from an obsession with one of the very old interpretations of Genesis 1-11 that has been thoroughly debunked by the Bible itself that they have lost the ability to reason. Consequently, they have lost the careers that God had blessed them with, having become unemployable as scientists, and they are now peddling the wares of their employers who are purveyors of false information.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Radiometric dating is based upon 3 assumptions:
1) the initial amount of the daughter isotope is known.
2) neither parent or daughter product has migrated into, or out of, the closed rock system 3) decay has occurred at a constant rate over time.

Virtually all scientists think their base assumptions are water tight and correct.
It doesn't matter how reliable the actual process of dating appears, like all dating methods if only one assumption it is based upon is wrong the entire calculation is wrong.
They cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent, its all assumed due to knowledge of how the world acts now. Now isn't then.

Young earth creationism is based upon three assumptions:

1) Genesis 1-11 is not really a collection of severely redacted epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends but is an accurate account of historic events.

2) The 3,000,000+ scientists who believe that the earth is very old are wrong, and the three dozen or so pseudoscientists who believe that the earth is no more that 10,000 years old are correct.

3) Radiometric dating is inaccurate by a magnitude of 45,400.

Virtually all professors of ancient Hebrew believe that assumption #1 is correct. Assumption #2 is an absurdity of absurdities. Scientists do not use radiometric dating to amuse themselves; they use it very, very carefully to learn dates that are of interest to them—and, of course, no pseudoscientist has ever demonstrated that radiometric dating could yield results that are off by such a huge magnitude.

 

[coffee4u]

Young earth creationism is based upon three assumptions:

1) Genesis 1-11 is not really a collection of severely redacted epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends but is an accurate account of historic events.

2) The 3,000,000+ scientists who believe that the earth is very old are wrong, and the three dozen or so pseudoscientists who believe that the earth is no more that 10,000 years old are correct.

3) Radiometric dating is inaccurate by a magnitude of 45,400.

Virtually all professors of ancient Hebrew believe that assumption #1 is correct. Assumption #2 is an absurdity of absurdities. Scientists do not use radiometric dating to amuse themselves; they use it very, very carefully to learn dates that are of interest to them—and, of course, no pseudoscientist has ever demonstrated that radiometric dating could yield results that are off by such a huge magnitude.

1)Young earth creationism is based upon scripture, nothing more and nothing less.
Many scriptures not just Genesis.
My own preference is for Exodus 20 which I have quoted here many time before.
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

2) That would be creation science. I am not a creation scientist although they have some interesting things to say.

3) Might not want to say that too loudly.

I notice you love to use worlds like 'scientist' 'professors' and 'doctors' like I should be impressed. I don't care what letters someone has after their name, human beings can be wrong and often are.
James 3:15
This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.
The majority of atheists are well educated people, doesn't make them right.

That Don't Impress Me Much

 

[PrincetonGuy]

1)Young earth creationism is based upon scripture, nothing more and nothing less.

Many scriptures not just Genesis.

Young earth creationism is based upon one of many very old and thoroughly debunked interpretations of Genesis 1-11 and the other Scriptures in the Bible that are based upon Genesis 1-11. In previous posts in other threads, I have addressed all of these Scriptures—especially those in the New Testament.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Peddling Darwinian propaganda is not science and people who peddle Darwinian propaganda are not scientists. I am familiar with Atheists and I am one of the people who a number of years ago exposed their fradulent practices. I do not know of a more corrupt and dishonest religion.

You severely misrepresent the Bible and it's teaching. Your Atheist pseudoscience makes a mockery of the Bible and the Christ that it proclaims. Your "scientists" suffer so badly from an obsession to prove Atheism that has been thoroughly debunked by real science and the Bible itself that you and your Atheist overlords have lost the ability to reason.

Consequently, they are employed by anti-Christians, who are peddling the wares of Satan, and purveyors of false information.

Old Earth evolution is based on 3 assumptions:

1. God does not exist. The Bible is a collection of make-believe myths.
2. The majority is always right.
3. Radiometric dating is accurate.

Virtually anyone who believes the Bible does not agree with your assumptions.

 

[Job 33:6]

Geology has nothing to do with Darwin.

James Hutton, the father of modern geology, proposed an old earth back in the 1700s, whereas Darwin didn't propose the theory of evolution until the mid-1800s. They are two very distinct fields but people should understand that geology came first.

What AIG and those other rogue christian groups are doing is they're simply spreading misinformation a pseudoscience, and they're accrediting this misinformation to our Lord.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All such claims and dating methods are based on certain assumptions. Those assumptions are based on nothing but the sinking sand of human reason and thought.
No one was there to see it being made, to record how exactly things acted and reacted at that time. Today's world is not the key to the past, the past is gone and all we have left is the present. The world as it is now can certainly tell us a lot about how things act now, it tells us nothing about how they acted at created. The world changed at the fall and again at the flood, what we have been left with only has hints of what it once was.

Not that I agree with Chad, to whom you answered here, but the present is the result of the past. It is illogical to consider them unconnected. Cause-and-effect is pervasive.

 

[chad kincham]

Young earth creationism is based upon three assumptions:

1) Genesis 1-11 is not really a collection of severely redacted epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends but is an accurate account of historic events.

2) The 3,000,000+ scientists who believe that the earth is very old are wrong, and the three dozen or so pseudoscientists who believe that the earth is no more that 10,000 years old are correct.

3) Radiometric dating is inaccurate by a magnitude of 45,400.

Virtually all professors of ancient Hebrew believe that assumption #1 is correct. Assumption #2 is an absurdity of absurdities. Scientists do not use radiometric dating to amuse themselves; they use it very, very carefully to learn dates that are of interest to them—and, of course, no pseudoscientist has ever demonstrated that radiometric dating could yield results that are off by such a huge magnitude.

As an expert on radiometric dating, explain the fractionation problem in dating rocks.

 

[coffee4u]

Young earth creationism is based upon one of many very old and thoroughly debunked interpretations of Genesis 1-11 and the other Scriptures in the Bible that are based upon Genesis 1-11. In previous posts in other threads, I have addressed all of these Scriptures—especially those in the New Testament.

By whom exactly has it been 'debunked'?

God says otherwise.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[coffee4u]

Not that I agree with Chad, to whom you answered here, but the present is the result of the past. It is illogical to consider them unconnected. Cause-and-effect is pervasive.

Not really. Not when the past is supernatural and the present is natural and not when things about the past are assumed from something in the present when none of those assumptions may be correct. Every single base assumption being used could be wrong.

If a man tries to walk on water he should sink. Cause-effect.
Jesus walks on water. Defies cause and effect.
When an event is supernatural it is not held to any natural cause and effect.
It defies logic and reason by its very nature. Creation was a supernatural event.

Radiometric dating is based on these 3
1) the initial amount of the daughter isotope is known.
2) neither parent or daughter product has migrated into, or out of, the closed rock system
3) decay has occurred at a constant rate over time.

None of these assumptions has the capacity to ever be verified because we don't have a time machine. Now is the groaning corrupt world so its obviously changed as it was neither groaning or corupt when God first made it. That much we know. But as to the properties of that created world we have no idea.
For all we know all the properties changed drastically at the fall.
Or it may be they were created outside of time as we know it and then brought into time and not actually be compatible with any dating method mankind may try and make. The initial components may have been created in such a way that we can't even begin to comprehend. We can't assume things about it from what we see now.

The only past humanity can be sure of is that which we know. We can look and measure something that is 100 years old because 100 years ago it was the same groaning world, even a thousand years ago it was the same groaning world. But at some point going back at the flood and at the fall everything changed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not really. Not when the past is supernatural and the present is natural and not when things about the past are assumed from something in the present when none of those assumptions may be correct. Every single base assumption being used could be wrong.

The present 'natural' is also supernatural, being created by God. And the present is necessarily is the result of past events. I agree the base assumptions could be wrong, but that is from a lack of evidence and a lack of logic.

If a man tries to walk on water he should sink. Cause-effect.
Jesus walks on water. Defies cause and effect.
When an event is supernatural it is not held to any natural cause and effect.
It defies logic and reason by its very nature. Creation was a supernatural event.

Jesus walks on water. Still cause and effect. Defies the usual.

Radiometric dating is based on these 3
1) the initial amount of the daughter isotope is known.
2) neither parent or daughter product has migrated into, or out of, the closed rock system
3) decay has occurred at a constant rate over time.

None of these assumptions has the capacity to ever be verified because we don't have a time machine. Now is the groaning corrupt world so its obviously changed as it was neither groaning or corupt when God first made it. That much we know. But as to the properties of that created world we have no idea.

Agreed. There are certain things we can know, but yeah, I agree.

None of these assumptions has the capacity to ever be verified because we don't have a time machine. Now is the groaning corrupt world so its obviously changed as it was neither groaning or corupt when God first made it. That much we know. But as to the properties of that created world we have no idea.
For all we know all the properties changed drastically at the fall.
Or it may be they were created outside of time as we know it and then brought into time and not actually be compatible with any dating method mankind may try and make. The initial components may have been created in such a way that we can't even begin to comprehend. We can't assume things about it from what we see now.

The only past humanity can be sure of is that which we know. We can look and measure something that is 100 years old because 100 years ago it was the same groaning world, even a thousand years ago it was the same groaning world. But at some point going back at the flood and at the fall everything changed.

Yeah, it gets me too, the assumption that all things have always been as they continue now. It is bad logic to say that something that the Bible says God did, cannot be true, because it defies the natural, including time passage, etc. Here we have the creator, the 'inventor' of time, not under obligation to any external principle or fact, and they want to judge his abilities according to human wisdom?

 

[coffee4u]

The present 'natural' is also supernatural, being created by God. And the present is necessarily is the result of past events. I agree the base assumptions could be wrong, but that is from a lack of evidence and a lack of logic.

Being upheld by God yes, but God did not create the world corrupted and groaning which is what it is now. God made the world very good, it is no longer in that state.
Romans 8:21-22
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

If you sent off a blood sample to a lab and they said its been contaminated they would not continue to test it. The world is a contaminated sample.

Jesus walks on water. Still cause and effect. Defies the usual.

If told a man plans to jump off a boat and walk on a deep lake the people told this would say that he will sink-drown or swim.
Those assumptions about Jesus would be incorrect even if they logically make sense.
Just because these things about the world appear to make sense to the human intellect doesn't mean they are true.

Agreed. There are certain things we can know, but yeah, I agree.

To me mankind saying we can know this and figure this out is extreme arrogance.
We don't get to tell God how he created, he tells us.
He says he made over 6 days so that is what I believe. No matter if logic may point another way. That is worldly wisdom.
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.
And even if I turn out to be wrong I have not questioned what God's word says, I am taking it on faith. Will I be reprimanded for having too much faith?
If they are wrong what then?
40 The Lord said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”

No thank you, I would rather be found to be wrong but walking in faith. I don't believe I am wrong, I believe mankind with his puffed up self importance of what 'he knows' is wrong.
Never seen an example so clearly of worldly wisdom as claiming to know the age of ancient things no human has ever seen or can even understand.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”;

Yeah, it gets me too, the assumption that all things have always been as they continue now. It is bad logic to say that something that the Bible says God did, cannot be true, because it defies the natural, including time passage, etc. Here we have the creator, the 'inventor' of time, not under obligation to any external principle or fact, and they want to judge his abilities according to human wisdom?

Exactly. There are things we can't know for sure until we meet God. I am no scientist or creation scientist but I do know that many things of the world that look good on the surface, that look impressive to the intellect are but nothing. If mans intellect could be trusted then why don't we all follow the teachings of Richard Dawkins? A man can be brilliant and still truly have nothing.

Jeremiah 9:23-24
Thus says the Lord, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the Lord.