Age of the earth.

[BeyondET]

What other question?
And thus another failing of modern scientists exploring the past is revealed.
Why should conditions remain the same when everything is in Flux?

The question is about why you mentioned psalm being written after the flood? What does psalm 36:6 have to do with the flood?

 

[dwb001]

The question is about why you mentioned psalm being written after the flood? What does psalm 36:6 have to do with the flood?

Check the posts before the one in question.
That should explain it to you.

 

[BeyondET]

Check the posts before the one in question.
That should explain it to you.

Indeed and yes you are wrong the earth wasn't spread out after the flood. Just the opposite long before the Flood as the context dictates in Psalm.

Paslm 136

5 By His insight He made the heavens.
His loving devotion endures forever.

6 He spread out the earth upon the waters.
His loving devotion endures forever.

7 He made the great lights—
His loving devotion endures forever.

8 the sun to rule the day,
His loving devotion endures forever.

9 the moon and stars to govern the night.
His loving devotion endures forever.

 

[dwb001]

Indeed and yes you are wrong the earth wasn't spread out after the flood. Just the opposite long before the Flood as the context dictates in Psalm.

Paslm 136

5 By His insight He made the heavens.
His loving devotion endures forever.

6 He spread out the earth upon the waters.
His loving devotion endures forever.

7 He made the great lights—
His loving devotion endures forever.

8 the sun to rule the day,
His loving devotion endures forever.

9 the moon and stars to govern the night.
His loving devotion endures forever.

It all depends what the Psalmist meant by "spread out" and what you meant by "spread out".

 

[BeyondET]

It all depends what the Psalmist meant by "spread out" and what you meant by "spread out".

It's not about after the flood

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We need to tell this to the climate cult guys.

And it can sometimes be difficult to determine what changes are "natural" and what changes are the result of global human causes.

 

[Diamond7]

Throw in tidal action, destructive storms, tsunamis and other extreme weather event

That is a problem, they do not endorse catastrophic theory so they do not know how to deal with catastrophic events.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Evolution requires an earth that is billions of years old. I recently saw a video of landslips and erosion that occur simply from wave action. That's before we get into earthquakes and volcanoes. Throw in tidal action, destructive storms, tsunamis and other extreme weather events, it's hard to imagine how the earth can be so old. Cliffs are collapsing into the sea in many places, including near where I live. I don't believe that the earth is 6,000 years old as I subscribe to the pre-Adamic theory. However, the earth in its present form is a result of Noah's flood, not billions of years of existence.

More than 3,000,000 men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is less than a million years old years old.

Several thousand men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is not even remotely an accurate account of historic events. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events.

I do not subscribe to baseless theories; I subscribe to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the earth that He has ordained that we live on, and to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the Bible that He has given to us.

 

[BNR32FAN]

More than 3,000,000 men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is less than a million years old years old.

Several thousand men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is not even remotely an accurate account of historic events. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events.

I do not subscribe to baseless theories; I subscribe to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the earth that He has ordained that we live on, and to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the Bible that He has given to us.

How many of those 3,000,000 believe a man can come back to life after being dead for 3 days? Or that a man walked on water? Or that a man healed the blind by mixing spit and dirt and rubbing it in his eyes? How many of them do you think know more about what took place than God does?

 

[BNR32FAN]

More than 3,000,000 men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is less than a million years old years old.

Several thousand men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is not even remotely an accurate account of historic events. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events.

I do not subscribe to baseless theories; I subscribe to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the earth that He has ordained that we live on, and to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the Bible that He has given to us.

Scientists are basing their dating methods on assumptions as if on week one of creation everything should’ve appeared as if they were one week old. They don’t expect anything to have any sort of age to it when it was created but Adam & Eve weren’t created as embryos, zygotes, fetuses, or even newborns, they were created as adults with the abilities to speak and comprehend speech. They didn’t have to acquire those abilities over time.

 

[dwb001]

Scientists are basing their dating methods on assumptions as if on week one of creation everything should’ve appeared as if they were one week old. They don’t expect anything to have any sort of age to it when it was created but Adam & Eve weren’t created as embryos, zygotes, fetuses, or even newborns, they were created as adults with the abilities to speak and comprehend speech. They didn’t have to acquire those abilities over time.

Never underestimate the power of a large number number of people making poor assumptions.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Never underestimate the power of a large number number of people making poor assumptions.

Yeah it’s kind of like when people were saying “if you can’t prove that the earth is a sphere then it’s not a sphere”. The truth is the truth regardless of how many people reject it or whether or not it can be proven. It’s not subjective it just remains constant regardless of popular belief.

 

[dwb001]

Yeah it’s kind of like when people were saying “if you can’t prove that the earth is a sphere then it’s not a sphere”. The truth is the truth regardless of how many people reject it or whether or not it can be proven. It’s not subjective it just remains constant regardless of popular belief.

And when a ignorant(without knowlege) person teaches the next generation... and so on... you get an entire system based on guesses and assumptions.

It can happen that way.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

How many of those 3,000,000 believe a man can come back to life after being dead for 3 days? Or that a man walked on water? Or that a man healed the blind by mixing spit and dirt and rubbing it in his eyes? How many of them do you think know more about what took place than God does?

Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, science could not care less about the teachings of religion. However, individual evolutionists and other scientists may have religious beliefs, and among evolutionists we find Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists, as well as persons with indigenous and ethnic beliefs. Some scientists, however, may have no religious beliefs, and a few of these scientists may be atheists—but atheism is uncommon among scientists because evidence is a major component of science, and evidence that God does not exist is seriously lacking!

Axiom: The fact that water (H2O) is a molecule consisting of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen is not dependent upon the religious beliefs of any scientist.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Scientists are basing their dating methods on assumptions as if on week one of creation everything should’ve appeared as if they were one week old. They don’t expect anything to have any sort of age to it when it was created but Adam & Eve weren’t created as embryos, zygotes, fetuses, or even newborns, they were created as adults with the abilities to speak and comprehend speech. They didn’t have to acquire those abilities over time.

Again, science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, scientists do not base their dating techniques on anything in the Bible or anything else in any religion. Neither do scientists base their dating techniques on baseless assumptions

The natural sciences are highly competitive! There are more participating scientists than there are sources of money to pay for their research. Therefore, each scientist has to be extremely careful to avoid making even very small mistakes. Moreover, let us not forget that science research articles are published in peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviews are arduous and exacting. Furthermore, even if a journal publishes the article other researchers painstakingly repeat the research themselves to make as certain as possible that the findings from the research are valid.

The very large majority of dates in science are based upon numerous factors rather than upon a single dating technique. Let’s not forget that a single error can cost a scientist his job, his home, and groceries on his families table.

 

[YorkieGal]

Too much credence and trust given to 'scientists'.

Mostly, I find this to be the case from people who have never formally studied science.

As for me, I spent years in university studying science and doing research and the discipline is rife with fraud, bias, 'research' which confirms what is needed to be confirmed for profit, not all 'conflicts of interest' are stated, as they should be nor are they paid attention to by the general population when they are confirmed.

It's fine to want to learn but don't minimize your learning to the statements of 'scientists' as though whatever they say is conclusive. Even they will tell you that's it's not, if they are true to the discipline, so stay aware or all you become is someone who parrots the theory of others. That's fine as long as you understand that you are parroting theory and not fact.

This is not directed to anyone in particular. Just a general observation based on the word 'science' being used as though it is all encompassing wisdom to not be challenged, questioned, refuted or dismissed. This logic is fallacy.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Again, science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, scientists do not base their dating techniques on anything in the Bible or anything else in any religion. Neither do scientists base their dating techniques on baseless assumptions

The natural sciences are highly competitive! There are more participating scientists than there are sources of money to pay for their research. Therefore, each scientist has to be extremely careful to avoid making even very small mistakes. Moreover, let us not forget that science research articles are published in peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviews are arduous and exacting. Furthermore, even if a journal publishes the article other researchers painstakingly repeat the research themselves to make as certain as possible that the findings from the research are valid.

The very large majority of dates in science are based upon numerous factors rather than upon a single dating technique. Let’s not forget that a single error can cost a scientist his job, his home, and groceries on his families table.

I think the best way to make my point is for you to present the different dating methods and I’ll explain how each one of them are based on assumptions.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect.

But if religion does not have some basis in observable reality it is in danger of simply being fantasy.

 

[shadowhunter]

More than 3,000,000 men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is less than a million years old years old.

Several thousand men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is not even remotely an accurate account of historic events. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events.

I do not subscribe to baseless theories; I subscribe to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the earth that He has ordained that we live on, and to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the Bible that He has given to us.

If it's popular, there's probably something wrong with it: Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Truth is not determined by vote. Besides, your observation is skewed. Of those 3.000.000 how many went to schools which do not hire anyone deviating from the narrative? Your 3.000,000 only enumerates the number indoctrinated.

The doctrine of Balaam is when you seed doctrine into your enemies belief system to make God mad at them. The first seed is that science and religion are separate pursuits. You have swallowed that lie along with your 3,000,000 friends. A rational scientist does not eliminate the possibility of God a-priori and ignore evidences that then do not fit his remaining theories.

Christian scientists of the past saw that extreme reliability in the laws of 'nature' produced by a rational God and sought to understand the mechanisms he used. The atheist mis-characterizes this as using God as an excuse for anything not understood. I suppose we can blame their Kindergarten Sunday School teacher for permanently damaging them. No Christian scientist works that way.

 

[Aussie Pete]

More than 3,000,000 men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the natural science and who are currently employed as scientists believe that the earth is less than a million years old years old.

Several thousand men and women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is not even remotely an accurate account of historic events. Fewer than 5 men and 0 women who have earned at least one doctorate in one or more of the disciplines applicable to the study of the Old Testament and who are currently employed as Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events.

I do not subscribe to baseless theories; I subscribe to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the earth that He has ordained that we live on, and to what God has taught us, and is currently teaching us, about the Bible that He has given to us.

Sure, and countless highly educated people deny the very existence of God. I do not care how intelligent or educated people are. God's word is God's word.

There is no science involved in calculating the age of the earth. It is speculation based on unprovable assumptions that can be refuted. Just one simple statement that no one I know of has refuted: the moon is moving away from the earth. If the earth was billions of years old, the moon woud no longer be in earth's orbit. Another one. The ocean is still eroding shorelines all over the earth. If the earth was so old, there would be nothing left to erode.

Just saying that a statement is wrong is not refuting it.

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
1 Corinthians 1:20