How old do people think the earth is.

[angellous_evangellous]

AiG founder Ken Ham admits that young earth belief is not based on science, nor is it a product of science, nor is it related to science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp

"I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator."

"When someone says to me, ‘Oh, so you’re one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,’ I reply, ‘Actually, I’m a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!’ (which means I’m a young-Earth creationist!)."

"I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah’s day)." (eg, not an interpretation of science)

" Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible’s genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history."

 

[gnostic]

Many of the fossils discovered are not dated to the same period of Noah's Flood. How do the creationists account for that?

How do they account for fossils of human, primeval mammals and dinosaurs that are far older than those found in Adam's period of 5700 years ago and 4000 years ago in Noah's time (more precisely 1656 years after Adam's creation, which is 4110 years ago according to the Jewish calendar)?

And there were not single shred of evidence of mass extinction 4110 years ago. the alleged year of the Flood. There is no evidence of such global flood at this period too.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Many of the fossils discovered are not dated to the same period of Noah's Flood. How do the creationists account for that?

How do they account for fossils of human, primeval mammals and dinosaurs that are far older than those found in Adam's period of 5700 years ago and 4000 years ago in Noah's time (more precisely 1656 years after Adam's creation, which is 4110 years ago according to the Jewish calendar)?

And there were not single shred of evidence of mass extinction 4110 years ago. the alleged year of the Flood. There is no evidence of such global flood at this period too.

You can find your answer to this and all other related questions at www.answersingenesis.org. If anyone tries to answer you, they will rely on this misinformation.

 

[standing_alone]

What I found funny about AiG is this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Little off topic of the thread, but thought I'd share.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Standing Alone,

I just read that. Pretty amazing that folks are smart enough to realize how fallacious all those particular arguments are, but still want to insist on a 6,000 year old Earth. What is sad is that people are reading AIG thinking it is legit.

B.

 

[DanDanTheCoffeyMan]

How do you KNOW how old there earth is?

 

[Nehustan]

As old as it's hair....and a little bit older than its teeth?

 

[YmirGF]

As old as it's hair....and a little bit older than its teeth?

Very true Nehustan, but not older than its hand-me-down socks.

 

[Bangbang]

It is as old as the moon.

 

[Nehustan]

It is as old as the moon.

to argue for the sake of it, and as this thread is in an evolution section, if the evolution of the planetary bodies in this stellar system derive from a 'solar' event, then it could be argued that the moon is younger than the earth. Contrariwise it is just as possible that the moon was 'knocked' into its current trajectory and is of equal age.

:bonk:​

 

[painted wolf]

The idea that the moon was 'knocked' into its curent orbit is a tad out of fashion. Once we got moon rocks we were able to determine thier composition this made the Moon being a rogue much more unlikely due to the similarities between Earth and Moon stone.
Radiometric dating also shows that the Moon is about 4.5 billion years old.

The five accepted theories about moon formation: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html
moon age: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051212/moonage_spa.html

wa:do

 

[greatcalgarian]

What I found funny about AiG is this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Little off topic of the thread, but thought I'd share.

I like this one:

Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is ‘the truth’ (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments.

:biglaugh:

Thanks for the link.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

How do you KNOW how old there earth is?

Because it has been scientifically shown to be about 4.5 billion years old. If you want to know the methods of aging it, and there are myriad ways that it has been aged, go to the National Academy of Sciences, or just as easy, type in "Age of The Earth" on Google and follow some of the links.

No genuine scientists argue against that age for the Earth. Only those who choose to beleive an ancient Hebrew book over what science has shown to be true beleive in a 6,000 year old Earth.

B.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What I found funny about AiG is this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...aq/dont_use.asp

Little off topic of the thread, but thought I'd share.

If only they could extend the "Do not use" section to the rest of the current arguments that they use.

My favorite line
"This page also shows why it is important for people to stay up-to-date with sound creationist literature, since these publications (e.g. Creation magazine, and TJ) have already revealed the fallacious nature of some of these arguments."

Real science has uncovered the fallacious nature of all of their other arguments.