How Old Is The Earth?

HKBhusal

Sparrow
It is a psyop designed to make anyone that questions Evolution, Global Warming etc. to look like fools by comparing them to Flat Earthers.
Sir, if this is the case... why is it when one types in "Flat Earth" on youtube every video is anti-flat earth theory? Youtube is one of the most convenient psyop platforms of our modern times and this observation does not seem congruent with your statement.
 

Crazy Ivan

Chicken
why is it when one types in "Flat Earth" on youtube every video is anti-flat earth theory?
that is plain wrong. I have watched 2 or 3 very long pro-Flat videos. they are not getting censored. The reason there are so many anti-flat videos is probably because Flat-Earth is retard-tier nonsense, that people with a decently high IQ and some knowledge in math and geometry can debunk easily.

The old Greeks already proved that the Earth is not flat but a sphere, using Geometry.
They even calculated the 'size' of the Earth and got pretty damn close to what it really is.


Round-Earth-1024x685.jpg
 
Last edited:

Steiner

Sparrow
42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God --"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"-- with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18
 

Crazy Ivan

Chicken
I'm seeing a pattern here of Chicken accounts posting all kinds of weird stuff here. Can we extend the newcomer ban to posts in this subforum?
I hope you are not referring to my 2 postings, which are quite high level in quality, despite my rather lackluster formatting. Also, when you promote censorship, you are hardly better than the CEO of Youtube. Sorry, I don't have the time to post a dozen comments, or how many are required for your taste to join the exalted club you have in mind. Banning should, imo, only occur after obvious and severe attempts at sabotage, bad taste trolling, vile language or really bad insults to Christianity.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Banning should, imo, only occur after obvious and severe attempts at sabotage, bad taste trolling, vile language or really bad insults to Christianity.
Do you think it's a good idea to join a club and then immediately propose new rules while making fun of a senior member for an offense you perceived from a post not even explicitly referring to you?
 

Crazy Ivan

Chicken
Do you think it's a good idea to join a club and then immediately propose new rules while making fun of a senior member for an offense you perceived from a post not even explicitly referring to you?
I was not proposing new rules. I was against proposed new rules. As for senior, I did not make fun of him, nor know that he is a senior member (which in itself is no reason not to disagree with somebody).
 

ball dont lie

Kingfisher
Gold Member
@Roosh or anyone else with info on a loosely similar topic - earth's population. I never really thought about it until like 3 years ago when I read a random article by a professor along the lines of "Strange statistics people take at truth without questioning". He basically argued multiple different reasons why there's no possible way earth's population can be 7B+ now, and I believe he estimated it at significantly under 1B people. This is a very important topic because so many narratives (anti-Christian narratives, really) hinge upon the universally-agreed truth of 7B+ rampant over-population. On it's face, the number seems absurd, and seems like a ridiculously high number modern governments would promote to back-door fear-driven initiatives such as birth control, Green New Deal, etc.

My question is, does anyone have any more info on this topic? Seems like something that would be relatively easy to analyze mathematically, and assess whether "Given the population in the year 1800, what is the likelihood the population in 2021 would be X". I assume that is a very low likelihood. Pulled from the comments section of the below YouTube video (avoid the 1st minute of video): "In 1750 the population on earth 700 million. In 1900 only 150 years later the population was 1.6 billion - a increase of 130%. End of 2016 only 116 years on the population was 7.5 billion - a further increase of 369% from 1900. In the next 100 years the increase will purportedly be a staggering 1100 %, which results into 90 Billion people on earth."

Edit (one more, admittedly amateur, link): https://big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/are-world-populations-exaggerated.html


I spent a decade taking the slow local trains around China, getting off in dozens, maybe hundreds of cities you have never heard of.

China has at least a billion people.

Maybe the entire world is a mirage or a hologram that exists entirely for my benefit. I'm guessing thats not the case.

The stuff popping up in here is staggeringly retarded. Never go full retard.
 
that is plain wrong. I have watched 2 or 3 very long pro-Flat videos. they are not getting censored. The reason there are so many anti-flat videos is probably because Flat-Earth is retard-tier nonsense, that people with a decently high IQ and some knowledge in math and geometry can debunk easily.

The old Greeks already proved that the Earth is not flat but a sphere, using Geometry.
They even calculated the 'size' of the Earth and got pretty damn close to what it really is.


Round-Earth-1024x685.jpg

Doesn't prove much. You would see same effect on a flat earth and a lower sun shining at an angle. Other tales used as proof like ships sailing in the horizon are also worthless since they are all brought back with a zoom on camera.

I am undecided on this topic. I will believe it when I see it; when space travel becomes public. Otherwise, I have no way to reliably tell if we are rotating and travelling through space. I have to deny my senses and believe NASA and all of their hired actors. Ultimately, the moon landing hoax planted a deep seed of doubt on this topic.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
Also, when you promote censorship, you are hardly better than the CEO of Youtube.
Hardly better by what metric? We're not libertarians, we're Christians. There's going to be censorship. You're not free to blaspheme God here, for example.

Sorry, I don't have the time to post a dozen comments, or how many are required for your taste to join the exalted club you have in mind.
Then you are not who we want here. You don't get to just march in and act like you're one of the guys. Honestly, if I was a mod, I'd ban you just for this post alone because it shows that you don't respect the fact that policies, especially forum rules like the ban on newcomers posting in political and religious threads, exist for very particular reasons.

And I wasn't just talking about your posts specifically. I've been spotting a lot of new accounts posting weird things out of the blue, and it wouldn't shock me if this was part of a wave of shilling or infiltration effort. Being agitators for freedom of speech is usually how infiltrators get in and become lodged in targeted institutions. Maybe you're genuine, but your timing (and sense of etiquette, in light of this post) is terrible.

These are extraordinary times.
 
I spent a decade taking the slow local trains around China, getting off in dozens, maybe hundreds of cities you have never heard of.

China has at least a billion people.

Maybe the entire world is a mirage or a hologram that exists entirely for my benefit. I'm guessing thats not the case.

The stuff popping up in here is staggeringly retarded. Never go full retard.

Well done on the mockery, strawmen, and ad-hominem's, a cheap serotonin rush for your ego. And congratulations on traveling through China, that's very impressive. Your very assertion to wisdom by having traveled through China and having seen many large cities, is one of the very reasons I suggest could be a reason why an over-population myth could succeed: The human mind has limited cognitive perception. It is not easy to tell 10,000 from 100,000 people intuitively. People who travel through large cities often, could easily fall into the trap of believing any population number thrown at them is plausible, by their own bias of being surrounded by large crowds often. One year it's 1B people, the next it's 3B people, then 7.8B- where does it end and what ends does it serve? However, if you will read what I literally wrote, I made no actual claims towards facts of reality, I simply made an inquiry with statements like:

"does anyone have any more info on this topic?"

"Seems like something that would be relatively easy to analyze mathematically, and assess"

"I assume that is a very low likelihood" (a statistical statement literally designed to suggest I am undecided on the topic but that some probabilities might shed further light on it)

So in effect what you are doing, is attacking a false position of fact which I did not make, that you imagined. I am simply saying - who does the narrative of over-population serve to benefit? Why would such a narrative be promoted? Is it even possible to compute such a number and what are the ways in which it is currently done? Why do we blindly accept it as fact? Does anyone have any more resources on this topic? And finally, it would be something which could most likely be reasonably analyzed statistically so as to remove our opinions from the matter. I am totally open to being wrong, it doesn't matter to me. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But please sir, don't let me get in the way of your prideful, anecdotal assertions of exotic foreign-travel domain-knowledge, and calling people retards for critically thinking or exploring topics which on their face, seem to go against Christian values (population control, sterilization, abortion, racism, etc). You literally quoted Tropic Thunder as a premise to attack another person's proposition as unsophisticated. Think about that for a minute.
 
Last edited:

Max Roscoe

Kingfisher
Meanwhile, the Bible suggests an Earth age that is not much older than 7,000 years.
Where?
Techniques like carbon dating or DNA analysis do more to reveal the arrogance of man than the truth of our world. Scientists believe the Earth is old, and are already in a state of rebellion against God, and so settled on techniques that confirmed their tightly-held convictions. They hate God and so they will believe that which allows their hatred to manifest.
Because (some) scientists may be atheistic does not make them wrong. Atheists are capable of truthful observations. And until death any atheist is merely in the natural fallen state that man is born in until he accepts God. There is plenty of evidence for science being misused and abused today, but that is not evidence for any particular claim being truthful or not. I do not disbelieve in gravity because Isaac Newton had conflicting religious beliefs to mine. And my religious faith is not a grounds to blindly accept, or reject the claims of others. Evil people make truthful statements every day (my weatherman can be a satanist and still give accurate predictions of rain) so we need a positive, not a negative, claim for accepting or rejecting truth. Even if you establish a reason to not take the evidence of the scientist, where is the evidence for the alternative claim??
I don’t know exactly how old the Earth is, but I don’t believe it to be older than 10,000 years.
Permalink
Why? Why is this particular number valid and other numbers invalid?

The age of the earth is not something i'm particularly intellectually curious about, nor is it relevant to my faith in any way, but if one is making a specific claim there should be a reason. Why is it 10,000 and not 2,000 or 100,000 or a billion? And again, where is this supposed biblical age coming from? The bible? A religious figure? From the author's own supposition? It is never clarified.

But I still do not see the argument for why the age of the earth is relevant to one's Christian faith.

If the earth was 500 billion years old, there would be zero impact to my religious faith. If anything, it would be a more impressive work that God put into effect long ago before he brought Man to life. But time is meaningless to God, and the beginning of time is a pre-human period (ie only God existed and God has no concept of a "day" which is merely the age of our planet going around ONE of billions of stars), so debating time itself before humans were here is somewhat meaningless.

Whether God created the Badlands in a day, or put in to motion this amazing self-sustaining planet with all its millions of linked intricacies which allowed the Badlands to be naturally created (a much more impressive proof of creation in my mind) does not affect my faith at all. I think a better article would be one making this type of claim. That science cannot disprove God. Science can only bring to light God's amazing creation (when science is right--when science is wrong is a different issue completely).

I think many Christians set themselves up for spiritual falls when they erect arbitrary limits around things they "know" must be true, which are actually not spiritual issues at all. If evolution happens (it clearly does, the only question is to what degree, but we can observe it in limited play in things like fruit flies in a matter of hours). If alien life exists somewhere. If the age of the earth is different from what some "expert" states it is. If some pre-human body is discovered in Siberia. None of these things affect my faith at all. Because the existence of God is totally independent of any of these things.

I will say this is one area where the Catholic church has excelled. The (modern) church has Christian explanations for things like evolution and even alien life, if it exists.

I don't spend much time thinking about fantastic things that do not exist, but if unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster or E.T. exists, or the planet is flat instead of round, or we are all living in a simulation, all these things would be a creation of God and His universe, not a reason to doubt the existence of Him.

Maybe I missed the contradictions when I last read my bible, but I never noticed any specific statements on the age of planet earth (or any other planet, which by the way other planets were not mentioned in the Bible and could therefore be another potential stumbling block, but when they were discovered, their existence should not have caused any true believer to lose his faith), but at a bare minimum this article is lacking the supposed biblical claims so the reader can understand what the supposed contradiction is.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Where?

Because (some) scientists may be atheistic does not make them wrong. Atheists are capable of truthful observations. And until death any atheist is merely in the natural fallen state that man is born in until he accepts God. There is plenty of evidence for science being misused and abused today, but that is not evidence for any particular claim being truthful or not. I do not disbelieve in gravity because Isaac Newton had conflicting religious beliefs to mine. And my religious faith is not a grounds to blindly accept, or reject the claims of others. Evil people make truthful statements every day (my weatherman can be a satanist and still give accurate predictions of rain) so we need a positive, not a negative, claim for accepting or rejecting truth. Even if you establish a reason to not take the evidence of the scientist, where is the evidence for the alternative claim??

Why? Why is this particular number valid and other numbers invalid?

The age of the earth is not something i'm particularly intellectually curious about, nor is it relevant to my faith in any way, but if one is making a specific claim there should be a reason. Why is it 10,000 and not 2,000 or 100,000 or a billion? And again, where is this supposed biblical age coming from? The bible? A religious figure? From the author's own supposition? It is never clarified.

But I still do not see the argument for why the age of the earth is relevant to one's Christian faith.

If the earth was 500 billion years old, there would be zero impact to my religious faith. If anything, it would be a more impressive work that God put into effect long ago before he brought Man to life. But time is meaningless to God, and the beginning of time is a pre-human period (ie only God existed and God has no concept of a "day" which is merely the age of our planet going around ONE of billions of stars), so debating time itself before humans were here is somewhat meaningless.

Whether God created the Badlands in a day, or put in to motion this amazing self-sustaining planet with all its millions of linked intricacies which allowed the Badlands to be naturally created (a much more impressive proof of creation in my mind) does not affect my faith at all. I think a better article would be one making this type of claim. That science cannot disprove God. Science can only bring to light God's amazing creation (when science is right--when science is wrong is a different issue completely).

I think many Christians set themselves up for spiritual falls when they erect arbitrary limits around things they "know" must be true, which are actually not spiritual issues at all. If evolution happens (it clearly does, the only question is to what degree, but we can observe it in limited play in things like fruit flies in a matter of hours). If alien life exists somewhere. If the age of the earth is different from what some "expert" states it is. If some pre-human body is discovered in Siberia. None of these things affect my faith at all. Because the existence of God is totally independent of any of these things.

I will say this is one area where the Catholic church has excelled. The (modern) church has Christian explanations for things like evolution and even alien life, if it exists.

I don't spend much time thinking about fantastic things that do not exist, but if unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster or E.T. exists, or the planet is flat instead of round, or we are all living in a simulation, all these things would be a creation of God and His universe, not a reason to doubt the existence of Him.

Maybe I missed the contradictions when I last read my bible, but I never noticed any specific statements on the age of planet earth (or any other planet, which by the way other planets were not mentioned in the Bible and could therefore be another potential stumbling block, but when they were discovered, their existence should not have caused any true believer to lose his faith), but at a bare minimum this article is lacking the supposed biblical claims so the reader can understand what the supposed contradiction is.
Why do people act like the age of the earth for young earth creationists is some weird thing that comes from nowhere? If you take the Bible at its word and look at the ages of the first people, and the lineages of Christ, you have to come up with an answer less than 10,000 years. The onus is on Christians who believe in an older earth to explain why they think the text of the Bible is wrong. You ignored Roosh's point where he mentions that God created living things with an apparent age, i.e. not as zygotes. If God would create animals with an apparent age, why wouldn't He do the same with rocks and the cosmos?

Regarding the fruit fly thing, obviously things can adapt, especially when forced to in a lab, but they have never created a new species of fruit fly, and never will. It doesn't matter how many hundreds of generations reproduce under forced adaptive situations. They can make fruit flies look different and prefer similar fruit flies, but people are the same, that doesn't make us different species of human.

You're presupposing that everything science leads us to believe at this particular moment is absolutely correct, or at least more correct than the words of the Bible, and that the Bible must fit into that box.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
Why do people act like the age of the earth for young earth creationists is some weird thing that comes from nowhere? If you take the Bible at its word and look at the ages of the first people, and the lineages of Christ, you have to come up with an answer less than 10,000 years.
With the caveat that this reading consists of no gaps in the genealogies. That's where the 6000/7000 figures come in, but 10,000 is a more conservative estimate allowing for light gaps, which would be a logical estimate based on the idea that if genealogies could be traced back to Adam and Eve, then records - whether passed down by oral tradition or written - are probably not that corrupted by time that we're missing millions of years between the recorded generations.

With knowing that Moses wrote or compiled Genesis and that Moses lived somewhere in the middle of the second pre-millennium (somewhere around 1500 BC), and that according to Wikipedia, the oldest writing systems date back as far as 3400 BC, there is a reasonable degree of confidence that we are not missing that much in the genealogies. And even if one tries to claim that the genealogies only mention "VIPs" of the human bloodline like great heroes, prophets, and kings, that still doesn't explain how you would have genealogies be able to trace back across millions of years to the first two human beings.

Also consider that with the dynamics of human population if you start with two humans, history would have been exponentially easier to remember and keep track of, and even keep alive accurately in a society governed by a strong oral tradition (it has been scientifically demonstrated that in societies with heavy emphasis on oral tradition, the game of "telephone" doesn't work like it does in societies that emphasize writing).

And then if you consider a reset like the Great Flood, in which humanity was basically reset to a single family, the complexity of keeping history would have been reset as well. This probably explains why we get this kind of weird double hourglass-shaped evolution of narrative complexity in Genesis where the story starts out very detailed about Adam and Eve, and you could almost imagine what their life was like frolicking in the Garden, to that one fateful day Cain murdered his brother, and then you notice the narrative complexity gets thinner, and we just get this big list of names, then the Flood happens, and we're back to knowing the details of what happened to Noah and his sons and daughters, and it's almost like you're actually there witnessing things as they happened. And then you get names, names, and more names, then we read about the Tower of Babel and we could imagine the sun-baked slaves laboring under the sun to build the abominable structure, and then names, names, names, and then Abraham comes along and we're along for the ride again.

It's very interesting how the narrative waxes and wanes like that, in a way that could be seen as pretty consistent with how historical complexity would have changed with the human population under a YEC presumption.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
I think that young-earth creationism is from The Devil himself, meant to horribly distort people's view of The Almighty's Wonderful and Awe-Inspiring Creation. (I also think taking things too far in the other direction and removing The Almighty entirely is equally wrong.)
I would tend to agree with that. Plus it’s a relatively young idea and a very “Protestant” one.

The furthest back we can go in written records is About 6,000 AD. There themselves they seem to indicate the existence of previous ancient civilizations that were destroyed by mass cataclysm events like the flood.
 

DanielH

Pelican
I would tend to agree with that. Plus it’s a relatively young idea and a very “Protestant” one.

The furthest back we can go in written records is About 6,000 AD. There themselves they seem to indicate the existence of previous ancient civilizations that were destroyed by mass cataclysm events like the flood.
I would like sources for these claims if you have them. When I search for the oldest written records, everything I find only goes back to 3400 or 3200 BC. Also was it that YEC is a recent idea, or was it just that it only recently that the term had to be defined?

Modern science says things happened in an order quite opposite of the Bible. The Bible claims that the Earth was formed before the stars, trees came before sea creatures, that birds were created before land animals. To what do we defer to? The Bible or science? Knowing Satan likes to invert Truth, and that "science" says that things happened opposite or contrary to Genesis, why should I default to trusting the science and trying to force the Bible into that?
 

Max Roscoe

Kingfisher
Why do people act like the age of the earth for young earth creationists is some weird thing that comes from nowhere? If you take the Bible at its word and look at the ages of the first people, and the lineages of Christ, you have to come up with an answer less than 10,000 years. The onus is on Christians who believe in an older earth to explain why they think the text of the Bible is wrong.
Let's try to remain objective at least until the argument is presented. Before I can take a position on the age of the earth I need to understand the argument each side is making. I understand the basis for carbon dating claims of a billion year old earth. Let's examine the argument for a 10,000 year earth before boxing people into being "bible deniers".

The onus is on someone making a specific claim (ie a 10,000 year old earth) to explain the basis of such a claim, not to obfuscate the argument by saying "if you don't believe this then it's your fault for not having a better explanation."
You ignored Roosh's point where he mentions that God created living things with an apparent age, i.e. not as zygotes. If God would create animals with an apparent age, why wouldn't He do the same with rocks and the cosmos?
This is a supposition which may well be true or untrue, though it needs evidence or rationale to support one scenario over the other. However, I fail to see how it affects my faith whether God created the chicken prior to the egg, or even created both simultaneously. It may be an interesting question to pursue, but it is not a question of faith.
Regarding the fruit fly thing, obviously things can adapt, especially when forced to in a lab, but they have never created a new species of fruit fly, and never will. It doesn't matter how many hundreds of generations reproduce under forced adaptive situations. They can make fruit flies look different and prefer similar fruit flies, but people are the same, that doesn't make us different species of human.
The point is not about arguing creationism vs evolution, which is a false equivelancy. It is about setting up traps concerning questions of faith where Man makes assumptions off of biblical readings that, when later disproven, can cause him to lose his faith. There are many allegories and parables in the bible. The bible is not a scientific textbook and doesn't attempt to explain things like sexual dimorphism and at the time Man (inspired by God) wrote the holy text, there are a myriad of things we didn't know about, from viruses to Aztecs to gravity.

The primitive view was that when a non-spiritual belief someone took from the bible, (something falsely believed to be a question of faith) such as a geocentric universe, were later proven false, the church, in this case attacked Galileo as a heretic who was attempting to reinterpret holy teachings from the bible which layed out the vision of an earth-centered universe.

In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"

The problem, of course, was that believe in a geocentric universe was not a question of faith at all, and those claiming the Bible insisted on geocentricity were incorrect. Likewise, I do not believe the Bible makes any specific claims about the age of the earth, but it very well could. What I am asking for is for those claims to be clearly stated. Instead of pointing fingers or name calling, let's examine these claims publicly.
You're presupposing that everything science leads us to believe at this particular moment is absolutely correct, or at least more correct than the words of the Bible, and that the Bible must fit into that box.
Asking questions to clarify an arugment is not supposing or presupposing anything. It's clarifying an argument so that one can later make suppositions or deductions. Let's try to remain civil and remember we are all seeking truth together.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Let's try to remain objective at least until the argument is presented. Before I can take a position on the age of the earth I need to understand the argument each side is making. I understand the basis for carbon dating claims of a billion year old earth. Let's examine the argument for a 10,000 year earth before boxing people into being "bible deniers".

The onus is on someone making a specific claim (ie a 10,000 year old earth) to explain the basis of such a claim, not to obfuscate the argument by saying "if you don't believe this then it's your fault for not having a better explanation."

This is a supposition which may well be true or untrue, though it needs evidence or rationale to support one scenario over the other. However, I fail to see how it affects my faith whether God created the chicken prior to the egg, or even created both simultaneously. It may be an interesting question to pursue, but it is not a question of faith.

The point is not about arguing creationism vs evolution, which is a false equivelancy. It is about setting up traps concerning questions of faith where Man makes assumptions off of biblical readings that, when later disproven, can cause him to lose his faith. There are many allegories and parables in the bible. The bible is not a scientific textbook and doesn't attempt to explain things like sexual dimorphism and at the time Man (inspired by God) wrote the holy text, there are a myriad of things we didn't know about, from viruses to Aztecs to gravity.

The primitive view was that when a non-spiritual belief someone took from the bible, (something falsely believed to be a question of faith) such as a geocentric universe, were later proven false, the church, in this case attacked Galileo as a heretic who was attempting to reinterpret holy teachings from the bible which layed out the vision of an earth-centered universe.



The problem, of course, was that believe in a geocentric universe was not a question of faith at all, and those claiming the Bible insisted on geocentricity were incorrect. Likewise, I do not believe the Bible makes any specific claims about the age of the earth, but it very well could. What I am asking for is for those claims to be clearly stated. Instead of pointing fingers or name calling, let's examine these claims publicly.

Asking questions to clarify an arugment is not supposing or presupposing anything. It's clarifying an argument so that one can later make suppositions or deductions. Let's try to remain civil and remember we are all seeking truth together.
I'm not saying any of this is or should be a question of faith. I guess I was confused at what you're asking and I wrongly assumed everyone knew why young earth creationists thought the earth was, well, "young." I also have questions, questions that Christian old earth creationists never seem to answer, or they end up being deflected. Someone else here accused the idea of being Satanic, and therefore I also am genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of this. Please don't read intonation into any of this. I'm not saying the earth absolutely cannot be billions of years old, I just lean the other way. Text really doesn't seem to be a good medium to discuss this - I'd rather communicate this face to face so people know I'm not trying to be aggressive.
 
Top