PDA

View Full Version : Question about time....



BSC
Apr 27th 2007, 01:49 PM
Does the Bible give us an idea how only ago Adam and Eve were created? I was under the impression that it was in the 6,000 year range for some reason.

Anyway, the other day I pulled up the internet and saw that scientist claimed to have found a 40,000 year old human skull. I found that strange because I have been under the impression that we humans were in the 6,000 year old range.

matthew94
Apr 27th 2007, 02:53 PM
If the genealogies in Scripture are chrono-genealogies with no gaps, then Adam & Eve were created less than 7,000 years ago and the dating methods used by contemporary scientists are inaccurate.

Johndigger
Apr 27th 2007, 02:55 PM
Instead of simply making outrageous statements and expecting people to believe you, please at least attempt to justify them with accurate sources/evidence.


JD

BSC
Apr 27th 2007, 05:02 PM
Hey now lets not get all testy. :hug:

Anyone else have any opinions on this.

slightlypuzzled
Apr 27th 2007, 05:08 PM
Instead of simply making outrageous statements and expecting people to believe you, please at least attempt to justify them with accurate sources/evidence.


JD

The problem with that statemtent is that even the 'scientific' method involves opinions about how certain things and processes change over time. So, it is really just an educated guess, providing you are willing to accept the assumptions.

RogerW
Apr 27th 2007, 05:15 PM
The following link provides two articles based on in-depth biblical research. The articles are "Let the Oceans Speak" and "Biblical Calendar of History."

http://worldwide.familyradio.org/zusa/graphical/literature/frame/

threebigrocks
Apr 27th 2007, 05:17 PM
I am moving this over to A&E.

Please take time to read the rules of that forum before continuing.

Also, if there is a hint of theistic evolution or that that was the intent, please let me know. Theistic evolution is only allowed in the controvesial forum.

Thanks, continue on in the A&E way! :)

rchivers
Apr 27th 2007, 05:54 PM
Has anyone ever heard of this: (someone told me it and I have always wondered)

The level of dust on the moon is more consistant with something that is 7,000 years old rather then millions.

Also, I wonder why high powered telescopes cant see the flag that was planted there.... Always wondered that. No doubt we did go there... just curious why we never see what we left there.

RogerW
Apr 27th 2007, 08:13 PM
Has anyone ever heard of this: (someone told me it and I have always wondered)

The level of dust on the moon is more consistant with something that is 7,000 years old rather then millions.

Also, I wonder why high powered telescopes cant see the flag that was planted there.... Always wondered that. No doubt we did go there... just curious why we never see what we left there.

I too have heard something about this. It was supposed by scientists in the first moon landing that if our solar system were millions of years old then the space module landing on the moon ought to encounter several feet of space dust on the surface of the moon, possibly even deep enough to bury the lunar shuttle. It was a great surprise, which is seldom mentioned, that there was but a mere layer of dusting on the moon's surface. Of course this signaled the truth that our solar system could not possibly be millions of years in age, but this little tidbit of info somehow gets left out of all the scientific journals. I've forgotten how they linked the amount of dust on the surface of the moon to the age of our solar system, but it doesn't surprise me at all that information that could be used to prove a young earth was never really mentioned. This is much like the article in the link I gave earlier about sediment on the ocean floor. This too shows pretty convincing proof for a rather young earth.

RW

MBJ
Apr 28th 2007, 07:12 PM
My own perspective on this.... We know that God created Adam and Eve. Generally, as Christians we are down with that. Then we often leap to some weird assumptions. We don't take into consideration that Adam and Eve could have been frolicking in the garden for countless centuries or even millenia. There is also no evidence that time has remained constant from that time. In addition to that, I don't think any reliable scientist will say that carbon dating is absolute. Not really.

tHbaGLORY
Apr 30th 2007, 01:47 PM
The moon-dust argument has been proven to NOT be evidence of a young Earth. I myself believe the Earth is less than 7000 years old, but should you guys want to use to disprove suppossedly scientific observations on the age of the Earth then I suggest not using the moon-dust argument. If you guys are really interested in this subject then I suggest you check out the ANSWERS IN GENESIS website. It will answer just about any question you have on this subject. The bottom line is that as far as Origins of the Universe go--the scientific Theory of Evolution is as much based on "faith" as the Christian Genesis account, because the Theory of Evolution is based on assumption after assumption--this includes their dating methods...

threebigrocks
Apr 30th 2007, 01:56 PM
Be careful with that thought.

To say their basis is placed on assumption after assumption yet we both base our beliefs on faith can get us in a world of stink if you use that thinking to stand against evolution. It is indeed a faith issue. But, only those who are convicted in their heart and causes growth in the soul is the right one. ;)

tHbaGLORY
Apr 30th 2007, 03:02 PM
Be careful with that thought.

To say their basis is placed on assumption after assumption yet we both base our beliefs on faith can get us in a world of stink if you use that thinking to stand against evolution. It is indeed a faith issue. But, only those who are convicted in their heart and causes growth in the soul is the right one. ;)

yeah you're right, thank you brother... I do not meant to imply that it is the same kind of Faith and that faith in Christ is only based on assumptions...I'm just trying to say that scientifically speaking--both Creation and the Theory of Evolution are equally unknowable. For us to know scientifically and mathmatically exactly how the Creation of the World happened--as far as timing and all goes--it requires us to know, unknowable measurements. One of the arguments against taking the Genesis account as literal is the idea it is unscientific because it is not falsifiable, but what Evolutionist fail to acknowledge is that their Theory of Evolution is equally non falsifiable, because they base their measurements and predictions on assumed values they can't possibly know--that they have assumed are a fact...So, in return they get back data that is reflective of their assumptions rather than an unbiased scientific observation. Anyway, I thank you for the correction and I hope I explained myself a bit better.


Basically--Faith as a Christian understands it is an understanding given by God to discern spiritual truth.

Evolutionist in a similar manner assumes that the Theory of Evolution is truth and they base their assumptions and values off of that premise.

One is an infallible understanding given by God and the other is a fallible understanding invented by Men.

threebigrocks
Apr 30th 2007, 03:27 PM
yeah you're right, thank you brother... I do not meant to imply that it is the same kind of Faith and that faith in Christ is only based on assumptions...I'm just trying to say that scientifically speaking--both Creation and the Theory of Evolution are equally unknowable. For us to know scientifically and mathmatically exactly how the Creation of the World happened--as far as timing and all goes--it requires us to know, unknowable measurements. One of the arguments against taking the Genesis account as literal is the idea it is unscientific because it is not falsifiable, but what Evolutionist fail to acknowledge is that their Theory of Evolution is equally non falsifiable, because they base their measurements and predictions on assumed values they can't possibly know--that they have assumed are a fact...So, in return they get back data that is reflective of their assumptions rather than an unbiased scientific observation. Anyway, I thank you for the correction and I hope I explained myself a bit better.


Basically--Faith as a Christian understands it is an understanding given by God to discern spiritual truth.

Evolutionist in a similar manner assumes that the Theory of Evolution is truth and they base their assumptions and values off of that premise.

One is an infallible understanding given by God and the other is a fallible understanding invented by Men.

Hence why science and faith can be so difficult to mesh together. Seperately, they do well. I haven't seen that yet, in my place of understanding, how they are. To me, God is behind it all regardless and the truth on all things can be found in Him.

DSK
Apr 30th 2007, 04:15 PM
The following link provides two articles based on in-depth biblical research. The articles are "Let the Oceans Speak" and "Biblical Calendar of History."

http://worldwide.familyradio.org/zusa/graphical/literature/frame/

I would warn others to be cautious of what may be contained on the above web-site. That site is own by Harold Camping, who in the past falsely predicted Christ's return, in spite of the fact that Scripture says: Matt 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.

DSK
Apr 30th 2007, 04:23 PM
Has anyone ever heard of this: (someone told me it and I have always wondered)

The level of dust on the moon is more consistant with something that is 7,000 years old rather then millions.



MOON DUST—Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface!

Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. It is believed, by many, that the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile [32 to 97 km] layer of dust on it!

In *Isaac Asimov’s first published essay (1958), he wrote:

" . . I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), xvi-xvii.

In the 1950s, *R.A. Lyttleton, a highly respected astronomer, said this:

"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultraviolet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.

In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,000ths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So NASA first sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there was hardly any dust on the moon! In spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6000-8000 years old.

*Dr. Lyttleton’s facts were correct; solar radiation does indeed turn the moon rocks into dust. With only a few inches of dust, the moon cannot be older than a few thousand years.

It is significant that studies on the moon have shown that only 1/60th of the one- or two-inch dust layer on the moon originated from outer space. This has been corroborated by still more recent measurements of the influx rate of dust on the moon, which also do not support an old moon. - evolution-facts.org

tHbaGLORY
Apr 30th 2007, 04:33 PM
Hence why science and faith can be so difficult to mesh together. Seperately, they do well. I haven't seen that yet, in my place of understanding, how they are. To me, God is behind it all regardless and the truth on all things can be found in Him.

To equate the two is indeed a mistake, but to mesh them together I don't think is--as many Christian Scientist would attest to. I think when you put them in their proper order they compliment each other quite nicely. Faith in God first (he is the inventor of science after all), then scientific exploration based off of that. The problem in my opinion is the application of science to things that science cannot ever know or explain in and of itself--such as the creation of the universe. However, when you put a wall of seperation between the two I think that you get what we have today...which is millions of people using the Theory of Evolution as a basis to justify their unbelief in God and Christ Jesus. People need to understand that Science has it's limits...

Frances
Apr 30th 2007, 06:50 PM
the other day I pulled up the internet and saw that scientist claimed to have found a 40,000 year old human skull. I found that strange because I have been under the impression that we humans were in the 6,000 year old range.

There are many 'scientific' claims for an amazing variety of assumptions without foundation. I believe it all depends on whether you believe the Holy Bible to be God's Word or not. Whether you are prepared to trust Him, or try all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to fit the Bible in with the thinking of those who seek to destroy it's credibiliy.