How old is Earth? - Armor Games Community

242	37425

offline

Alric

52 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 6:31pm UTC

Why are so many Christians and atheists close-minded about the age of the Earth? Why does believing in God mean you have to believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Where does it say that in the Bible? And why do atheists believe that by proving the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, they can disprove the existence of God?

Why can't it have taken over 4 billion years for God to create the universe? Who says the Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive? Can't God have caused the Big Bang? Doesn't his omnipotent nature make that a possibility? Why can't the "days" in the Bible be metaphors for longer periods of time?

If we get the distance of this star from earth and divide it by a light year, we get the number of years it has taken the light of the star to reach us and how old our earth is.

dank - Just because that light is now reaching us doesn't mean the Earth was around when that light was sent. That star might not even exist anymore, but we won't know until its light ceases to reach us, which could take millenia.

Besides that, doesn't the bible tell you to pray quietly and let us regular agnostic folk enjoy science?

Yakooza - Firstly, the Bible tells us to pray quietly because true believers only flaunt their fervor before other believers impress them. We pray to maintain a relationship with God, not to impress others.

But the Bible also tells us to go out and share the message of Christ's sacrifice and rebirth, and let people know He'll be coming back someday. Some Christians take that to mean they can beat non-believers about the head with a Bible, which serves only to push people further from God. It is our job to SHARE His message, not sell it or force-feed it.

If you offer to share your dinner with someone and they refuse, would you try to convince them it's the best meal they could possibly eat? If they still didn't want it, would you hold them down and force them to eat it? Treat the message of Christ the same way. Offer it. Offer it to everyone you know. But if they don't want it, let that be all. Live like a good Christian, and people will be drawn to you. They'll want to know why you're so happy and why you're so blessed.

Secondly, I echo fourtytwo's statement. Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive. There are radical Christians who go about with blinders on, refusing to listen to what others say if it conflicts with what they've been taught by their parents or church leaders. What they fail to understand is that those people are HUMAN and therefore fallible. Blindly following someone who tells you what is right and wrong without looking into the Word of God and praying for understanding is ignorance. Germany blindly followed Hitler, and look where that led.

As for carbon and radiometric dating, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to speak to its accuracy. If what I understand is correct, the item being dated must be at least a certain number of years old, and if it is not (i.e. live doplhin or recent lava flow), the results are skewed.

I do know this... any person with an agenda, whether Creationist or Evolutionist, will begin his research, set his criteria, and write his report based on proving that agenda. Someone whose sole purpose is to prove or disprove something with his research will meet that goal.

The simple fact is this... there is no proof that God exists. If there were proof, then believing in him wouldn't require faith. It doesn't take faith to believe in gravity; we feel its effects every day and we know it's there.

But there's also no proof that He doesn't exist. Atheists and Evolutionists do research and discover something amazing, then use it like a flag of victory. "Look, you silly Christian fool! The Earth wasn't created in seven 24-hour cycles approximately 6000 years ago! So that means your Bible is wrong and God doesn't exist!" Rather than opening their minds, stubborn Christians refuse to accept what has been proven scientifically. And rather than accept that there is a master Architect behind this amazing, unique, extremely unlikely world, Atheists run about assuming that all the tiny little factors that had to be just right for this planet to become inhabitable were merely coincidence.

Let me explain... No, that would take too long. Let me sum up...

The Earth is really old. Carbon and radiometric dating are reliable, but only within a certain window. There is no proof for or against God, so we all believe what we choose to believe.

Alric

Why are so many Christians and atheists close-minded about the age of the Earth?  Why does believing in God mean you have to believe the Earth is 6000 years old?  Where does it say that in the Bible?  And why do atheists believe that by proving the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, they can disprove the existence of God?\r\n\r\nWhy can't it have taken over 4 billion years for God to create the universe?  Who says the Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive?  Can't God have caused the Big Bang?  Doesn't his omnipotent nature make that a possibility?  Why can't the "days" in the Bible be metaphors for longer periods of time?\r\n\r\n[quote] If we get the distance of this star from earth and divide it by a light year, we get the number of years it has taken the light of the star to reach us and how old our earth is.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[b]dank -[/b] Just because that light is [i]now[/i] reaching us doesn't mean the Earth was around when that light was sent.  That star might not even exist anymore, but we won't know until its light ceases to reach us, which could take millenia.\r\n\r\n[quote]Besides that, doesn't the bible tell you to pray quietly and let us regular agnostic folk enjoy science?[/quote]\r\n\r\n[b]Yakooza -[/b] Firstly, the Bible tells us to pray quietly because true believers only flaunt their fervor before other believers impress them.  We pray to maintain a relationship with God, not to impress others.\r\n\r\nBut the Bible also tells us to go out and share the message of Christ's sacrifice and rebirth, and let people know He'll be coming back someday.  Some Christians take that to mean they can beat non-believers about the head with a Bible, which serves only to push people further from God.  It is our job to SHARE His message, not sell it or force-feed it.\r\n\r\nIf you offer to share your dinner with someone and they refuse, would you try to convince them it's the best meal they could possibly eat?  If they still didn't want it, would you hold them down and force them to eat it?  Treat the message of Christ the same way.  Offer it.  Offer it to everyone you know.  But if they don't want it, let that be all.  Live like a good Christian, and people will be drawn to you.  They'll want to know why you're so happy and why you're so blessed.\r\n\r\nSecondly, I echo fourtytwo's statement.  Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive.  There are radical Christians who go about with blinders on, refusing to listen to what others say if it conflicts with what they've been taught by their parents or church leaders.  What they fail to understand is that those people are HUMAN and therefore fallible.  Blindly following someone who tells you what is right and wrong without looking into the Word of God and praying for understanding is ignorance.  Germany blindly followed Hitler, and look where that led.\r\n\r\nAs for carbon and radiometric dating, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to speak to its accuracy.  If what I understand is correct, the item being dated must be at least a certain number of years old, and if it is not (i.e. live doplhin or recent lava flow), the results are skewed.\r\n\r\nI do know this... any person with an agenda, whether Creationist or Evolutionist, will begin his research, set his criteria, and write his report based on proving that agenda.  Someone whose sole purpose is to prove or disprove something with his research will meet that goal.\r\n\r\nThe simple fact is this... there is no proof that God exists.  If there were proof, then believing in him wouldn't require faith.  It doesn't take faith to believe in gravity; we feel its effects every day and we know it's there.\r\n\r\nBut there's also no proof that He doesn't exist.  Atheists and Evolutionists do research and discover something amazing, then use it like a flag of victory.  "Look, you silly Christian fool!  The Earth wasn't created in seven 24-hour cycles approximately 6000 years ago!  So that means your Bible is wrong and God doesn't exist!"  Rather than opening their minds, stubborn Christians refuse to accept what has been proven scientifically.  And rather than accept that there is a master Architect behind this amazing, unique, extremely unlikely world, Atheists run about assuming that all the tiny little factors that had to be [i]just[/i] right for this planet to become inhabitable were merely coincidence.\r\n\r\nLet me explain... No, that would take too long.  Let me sum up...\r\n\r\nThe Earth is really old.  Carbon and radiometric dating are reliable, but only within a certain window.  There is no proof for or against God, so we all believe what we choose to believe.\r\n\r\nAlric

offline

Alric

52 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 6:33pm UTC

Allow me to reword this so it makes sense:

Besides that, doesn't the bible tell you to pray quietly and let us regular agnostic folk enjoy science?

Yakooza - Firstly, the Bible tells us to pray quietly because Christians only flaunt their fervor before other believers to impress them. We pray to maintain a relationship with God, not to impress others.

Alric

offline

Mobyduck

108 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 6:34pm UTC

And why do atheists believe that by proving the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, they can disprove the existence of God?

I believe it was stated in another thread that proving the age of the Earth do not disprove God existence. I will your post now.

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted March 9, '09 6:45pm UTC

And why do atheists believe that by proving the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, they can disprove the existence of God?

Atheists aren't the ones saying the Earth is 4.5 B years old, geologists are. And no, geologists and atheists aren't the same thing. The only reason I (an atheist) would say the earth is 4.5 B years old is because a geologist told me (or I learned it somehow, obviously).

I do know this... any person with an agenda, whether Creationist or Evolutionist, will begin his research, set his criteria, and write his report based on proving that agenda. Someone whose sole purpose is to prove or disprove something with his research will meet that goal.

And what would be the agenda of these scientists? It's as if you're suggesting that scientists are simply out to disprove the existence of god. Their "agenda" is to observe, measure, record, and report results. But a Christian's agenda is to preserve his or her faith, and defend what are perceived as threats to it.
Now, it might be the atheists that use scientific data to attack Christian beliefs, but to attack the scientists who retrieved the data based on bias is just silly.

But there's also no proof that He doesn't exist.

This is exactly why Christians shouldn't comment on scientific practices; that saying something like this is okay. I would say it's a logical contradiction the prove the nonexistence of something. Either way, science is about trying to disprove things, and if you can't, then it's likely true. Christians accept their beliefs in blind faith and defend them by doing to the scientific method the exact things that scientists are doing. They are trying to disprove their theories. And they can't. So that's why these theories remain.

[quote]And why do atheists believe that by proving the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, they can disprove the existence of God?[/quote] \r\nAtheists aren't the ones saying the Earth is 4.5 B years old, geologists are.  And no, geologists and atheists aren't the same thing.  The only reason I (an atheist) would say the earth is 4.5 B years old is because a geologist told me (or I learned it somehow, obviously).\r\n\r\n[quote]I do know this... any person with an agenda, whether Creationist or Evolutionist, will begin his research, set his criteria, and write his report based on proving that agenda.  Someone whose sole purpose is to prove or disprove something with his research will meet that goal.[/quote] \r\nAnd what would be the agenda of these scientists?  It's as if you're suggesting that scientists are simply out to disprove the existence of god.  Their "agenda" is to observe, measure, record, and report results.  But a Christian's agenda is to preserve his or her faith, and defend what are perceived as threats to it.\r\nNow, it might be the atheists that use scientific data to attack Christian beliefs, but to attack the scientists who retrieved the data based on bias is just silly.\r\n\r\n[quote]But there's also no proof that He doesn't exist.[/quote] \r\nThis is exactly why Christians shouldn't comment on scientific practices; that saying something like this is okay.  I would say it's a logical contradiction the prove the nonexistence of something.  Either way, science is about trying to disprove things, and if you can't, then it's likely true.  Christians accept their beliefs in blind faith and defend them by doing to the scientific method the exact things that scientists are doing.  They are trying to disprove their theories.  And they can't.  So that's why these theories remain.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 7:05pm UTC

I must say you can't be more right, well exept on one thing
If you cannot prove God, then how is he real? If someone 6000 years ago said blah blah spaghetti monster was here blah blah, would you believe him 6k years later? And don't give me any c.rap on blind faith, I want logic, because I know that if I trick a religious person out they would become more and more religious in their arguement, which is rubbish on garbage on bull on some extra rubbish mixed in with bull ontop of garbage....
If you can't prove it, it's not real
If you can but there's something that disproves it - Debait further
If you can and there is no disproof - You have to look deeper in to as far as you can

So yeah, what's you're religious proof compared to evolution? Monkey into man is more than believable, and to be honest we, as a race are a screwup - We broke off the evolution tree and thus pollution ect, but Co2 is actually a good thing, I know i'm rambling but there was a religous teacher (or priest) who retired and found out that without Co2 you can't live, it's on Youtube...

But I rest my case until someone brings LOGIC with them that can set back either one of these arguements

I must say you can't be more right, well exept on one thing\r\nIf you cannot prove God, then how is he real? If someone 6000 years ago said blah blah spaghetti monster was here blah blah, would you believe him 6k years later? And don't give me any c.rap on blind faith, I want logic, because I know that if I trick a religious person out they would become more and more religious in their arguement, which is rubbish on garbage on bull on some extra rubbish mixed in with bull ontop of garbage....\r\nIf you can't prove it, it's not real\r\nIf you can but there's something that disproves it - Debait further\r\nIf you can and there is no disproof - You have to look deeper in to as far as you can\r\n\r\nSo yeah, what's you're religious proof compared to evolution? Monkey into man is more than believable, and to be honest we, as a race are a screwup - We broke off the evolution tree and thus pollution ect, but Co2 is actually a good thing, I know i'm rambling but there was a religous teacher (or priest) who retired and found out that without Co2 you can't live, it's on Youtube...\r\n\r\nBut I rest my case until someone brings LOGIC with them that can set back either one of these arguements

offline

Alric

52 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 7:57pm UTC

Moegreche - It is not my claim that every scientist is an atheist. And it is not my claim that every researcher has an agenda. What I said was that anyone who begins a research project with the intent of proving or disproving something will succeed in doing just that, if only in their own minds. And those who were of like mind before reading the report will almost always gladly accept that research as viable and accurate.

But if you truly believe that researchers are always objective men and women devoted solely to the pursuit of knowledge, you're more blind than the Christians you mock. Research was done in the past to prove cigarettes weren't bad for you. (And whom do you think funded this research?) Research is constantly being done to prove or disprove something, and there are often groups or corporations funding research to help their agenda.

What exactly do you mean when you say Christians shouldn't comment on scientific practices? Do you mean close-minded fools claiming to be enlightened Christians shouldn't be allowed to run around screaming about how proven scientific facts are lies? Or do you mean a God-fearing man shouldn't be allowed into medical school?

Either way, science is about trying to disprove things, and if you can't, then it's likely true.

If that's the case, why don't you believe in God? Science hasn't disproven his existence... so his existence is "likely."

Science isn't only about disproving things, by the way. Gravity, for example, was proven, not disproven.

Highfire - Your arguments would be taken more seriously if they weren't poorly written, poorly spelled, and full of irrelevant garbage on rubbish on bull.

Whether monkeys evolved into men or not (let's please not argue about this particular topic... I'm sure there's another thread for that), as I stated in my first post, why can't God have planned it that way?

I have already stated that I cannot prove God does exist, so I ask you to prove that He doesn't exist. Until you do, we should respectfully agree to disagree.

Alric

[b]Moegreche -[/b] It is not my claim that every scientist is an atheist.  And it is not my claim that every researcher has an agenda.  What I said was that anyone who begins a research project with the intent of proving or disproving something will succeed in doing just that, if only in their own minds.  And those who were of like mind before reading the report will almost always gladly accept that research as viable and accurate.\r\n\r\nBut if you truly believe that researchers are always objective men and women devoted solely to the pursuit of knowledge, you're more blind than the Christians you mock.  Research was done in the past to prove cigarettes weren't bad for you.  (And whom do you think funded this research?)  Research is constantly being done to prove or disprove something, and there are often groups or corporations funding research to help their agenda.\r\n\r\nWhat exactly do you mean when you say Christians shouldn't comment on scientific practices?  Do you mean close-minded fools claiming to be enlightened Christians shouldn't be allowed to run around screaming about how proven scientific facts are lies?  Or do you mean a God-fearing man shouldn't be allowed into medical school?\r\n\r\n[quote]Either way, science is about trying to disprove things, and if you can't, then it's likely true.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf that's the case, why don't you believe in God?  Science hasn't disproven his existence... so his existence is "likely."\r\n\r\nScience isn't only about disproving things, by the way.  Gravity, for example, was proven, not disproven.\r\n\r\n[b]Highfire -[/b] Your arguments would be taken more seriously if they weren't poorly written, poorly spelled, and full of irrelevant garbage on rubbish on bull.\r\n\r\nWhether monkeys evolved into men or not (let's please not argue about this particular topic... I'm sure there's another thread for that), as I stated in my first post, why can't God have planned it that way?\r\n\r\nI have already stated that I cannot prove God does exist, so I ask you to prove that He doesn't exist.  Until you do, we should respectfully agree to disagree.\r\n\r\nAlric

offline

fourtytwo

698 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 8:13pm UTC

If you can't prove it, it's not real
If you can but there's something that disproves it - Debait further
If you can and there is no disproof - You have to look deeper in to as far as you can

What about, "If you can't, but you can't disprove it either"? You can't prove evolution, and you can't prove Christianity. Can you disprove them though? I'd like you (or someone else) to try to disprove both. Not just one.

offline

paintballer222

565 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 9:19pm UTC

Forty two you are totsally confusing me what are you talking about?

offline

fourtytwo

698 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 9:53pm UTC

"If you can't, but you can't disprove it either"

That was supposed to be, "If you can't prove it, but can't disprove it either, then what do you do?"

offline

theguitarhero777

45 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 11:10pm UTC

The only 'truth' is in the Bible, and Jesus Christ died 2009 years ago so i think the earth was created around 8,000 years ago

offline

Devoidless

3,675 posts

Jester

Posted March 9, '09 11:14pm UTC

....you have to be kidding, for serious.

Not only is that waasy off topic, but you have no way to prove it. Jesus dieing has nothing to do with the age of the earth, unless you are suggesting there was no earth until Jesus died.

offline

paintballer222

565 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 11:19pm UTC

BC (before Christ) was like 6,000 years and then AD is 2,009 years so it's about 8,000 years is what he was trying to say.

offline

Mobyduck

108 posts

Nomad

Posted March 9, '09 11:19pm UTC

I believe he is suggesting that the earth was created 6000 of years before Jesus died, therefore the earth must be 8000 years old, according to simple math. Open-minded people are hard to see.

offline

Devoidless

3,675 posts

Jester

Posted March 9, '09 11:26pm UTC

My iPod decided to cut off the last part of his post. How odd.

Still, how does that account for all the civilizations before that timeline? Unless we go for the explanation that mice created the Earth and added everything such as fossils and ruins to throw mankind off.

Kudos to anyone who gets that reference.

offline

fourtytwo

698 posts

Nomad

Posted March 10, '09 1:04am UTC

Still, how does that account for all the civilizations before that timeline? Unless we go for the explanation that mice created the Earth and added everything such as fossils and ruins to throw mankind off.

Which civilizations are you speaking of? A while ago in some other topic, we established that it is impossible to find out how old those civilizations are. Seriously, that is not a valid argument.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → How old is Earth?