ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

How Old Is The Earth

According to the bible, how old is the Earth? My education is in the biological sciences.

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Heaven & Hell Bible Quiz
 ---LEFTYLEN on 12/1/05
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog

Has LeftyLen heard of the concept of reference frames. The correct answer to "does the earth move?" is "relative to what?" The Bible uses Earth as a reference frame -- just as modern astronomers do when they talk about "sunset", and our car speedometers measure speed relative to earth. From the reference frame of the centre of mass of our solar system, it is approximately correct that the earth revolves around the sun.
---Ktisophilos on 8/7/07

It is also crass to use poetic passages like the Psalms to derive a cosmology, because that was not their intent. For example, Psalm 93 states that the earth cannot be moved. But Psalm 16:8 says, "I shall not be moved", using the same Hebrew word mt for "moved". This is not teaching that the Psalmist stands still!

Genesis is historical narrative, unlike the poetic Psalms.
---Ktisophilos on 8/7/07

Neandertals were just a post-Babel variety of human. They buried their dead, had good manual skills, and even made a "superglue".

According to Skinner and DeWitt, The Neandertals place in human history, Virginia Journal of Science 51(2):83, 2000, the sites where Neandertals differed from modern man tended to be at mutational "hotspots"--sites where many modern humans also differ. And where Neandertals differed from each other, one would match modern human.
---Ktisophilos on 8/7/07

Darwin was an agnostic married to a unitarian. He said he would not wish Christianity to be true.

His main problem was the origin of death and suffering. All the long-age compromisers of his day placed millions of years of suffering before man. The Bible says it was man's sin that brought suffering. All the compromise was no good to Darwin when his young daughter Annie died of a disease.
---Ktisophilos on 8/7/07

As to the supposed scientific proof of billions of years-all these dates come from methods which are based upon untestable assumptions- see the site creationontheweb dot com & type age of the earth into the search box.. These billions of year dates have been shown to be irrelevant over & over again. For example basalt dated at 3 billion years was seen forming 200 yrs ago! The word limit precludes detailed coverage so read the site given.
---Warwick on 8/7/07

Jesus is Creator, there before any thing was spoken into existence, & says man was made at the beginning of creation. (Mark 10:6) The genealogies God gave show the time span from Adam to later stages of history so we have an earth some thousands of years old, with man created at the beginning. Not after eons of evolution. If Jesus is wrong about this how can we trust what he says about salvation & heaven?
---Warwick on 8/7/07

Some say the age of the earth doesnt matter. But what if God has told us how old it is & we don't believe Him? Would anyone find evidence in Scripture that the earth is billions of years old? Of course not so the idea is not coming from the God who was there at 'the beginning' but from the opinions of fallible men who weren't there even 200 years ago! Who are you going to trust!
---Warwick on 8/7/07

Bob, you bring up an interesting point. I am not sure I believe time is an issue that can be quantified the same for heaven as it can for the Earth. Yes God is the begining, but the word "begining" only has meaning in our time-oriented universe. God is eternal, which I interpret not to mean infinite time, but rather the complete abscence of time to constrain Him.
---Casey on 8/6/07

I too believe that the earth is very near 6,000 years old. I ask but one question: can any scientist prove that God didn't make the world with materials that would appear to be very old? Just to confound those that lean on their own understanding? Logically and observationally, the answer has to be "no." Therefore, it resolves to a question of where you put your faith: in God or in man. I choose God Almighty and His Son, Jesus.
---Stuart on 8/6/07

Many Christians say the earth is about 6000 years old. I'm not sure if they are trying to figure back to the Garden, or after the great flood. That could be true as far as the world as we know it.
But personally I think it is MUCH older than that, scientific data show it to be millions, or billions of years old. It doesn't matter much to me. I'm here and its 2005, and I'm just waiting for Jesus to return.
---NVBarbara on 5/27/07

How did you get the earth is only 6000 years old? God said that in the begining he made heaven and earth, not just the earth.
If you believe that the earth is just 6000 years old then you would also have to believe the same about heaven. God said I am the begining.

---Bob on 9/10/06

I heard a man talking about the age of the earth and from his studying and figuring from the Bible ... 6,000 years old. He was also explaining how fossils, etc. are formed and it doesn't take millions of years. I'm sorry I can't remember more. Maybe searching google would help.
---Nellah on 1/1/06

I do believe the Bible is accurate, though not always to be understood literally. I believe it is God's word to man, with His Spirit promised to all who ask as the Guide into all truth. Therefore when the command was given to Israel to remember the 7th DAY because in 6 days God created the earth, sea, and all that is therein, it is evidence to me that the six days were literal days. In dreams, revelations, visions, etc. we see many things symbolic, some of which the scripture itself confirms.
---Wayne87 on 12/31/05

Wayne, I thpought ypu said before that some things in the Bible were symbolic, that you did not believe it was all literally accurate. Even the symboloc parts have God's authority. I mdonm' think that Job and his friends spoke those long speeches as written, but I do accept that the story has God's authority
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/17/05

Alan, thanks. The scripture says, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind (Romans 14:5). I do not judge anothers conscience, but encourage all to take God's word as their authority, let His Spirit guide them, and be true to Him alone. We trust Him that if any are honest, He will reveal the truth to them. I believe that for Christians, the Bible is the authority. To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
---Wayne87 on 12/16/05

Most scientists said they believe people may have arrived in America as much as 25,000 years ago. They point to evidence of camps -- man-made tools, a human footprint and huts dating back 25,000 years -- that have been found in Chile as evidence of man's imprint on the Americas long before mammoth hunters. It is clear that the old Clovis point theory, that man arrived her only 11,000 years ago, is in ruins. In my state, California the oldest human i remains found are 11,000 years old.
---len_k on 12/16/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals

Even though God created the earth only those few thousands of years ago He could easily have created it 4 Billion years old. How old was Adam when he was made?He was a full grown man but he was 0. So, you can wonder all you like how old it is. You probably will never really find out.
---john on 12/16/05

You can believe man, or you can believe the Bible. I believe the Bible. Yes, to believe the earth is older than 6,000 years is apostate, you have a clear answer from at least one here. As to science, it would be abuse to send my children to a foolish non-Christian college learn what is against the Word.
---Robert on 12/16/05

There are several 'boundries' throughout the strata. One point is two-thirds of earths history there was no life. A point that interest me is that 'explosians' of life appear in the strata at certian points, at least a dozen, with NO preceding fossil record, none at all!!! what does this say? It says at the very least that evolution is NO argument agaisnt creation! I could list them if requested.
---len_k on 12/15/05

The oldest rocks found found have been in Canada. The exposed strata is Eoarchean. I would reference Stratigraphy, but that is not my field. As I remember no microscopic forms are found in pre-cambrian strata. astronomic neogene dating, ion-gas, all these disiplines help in dating. The first appearance of a complex 'trace fossils' Trichophycus pedum that is found worldwide.
---len_k on 12/15/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. There is 'belief' there are 'facts' and there are theories. Beliefs are based on a faith paradigm. Facts are based on objectove empirical evidence. Facts and truth are not always in alingment. My point is that science and a secure faith in the scriptures need not conflict. True faith has no fear of uncompromising free inquiry.

Moderator - How did you get 4.5 billion years old?
---len_k on 12/12/05

Some say the age of the earth does not matter, spiritually. I tend to agree. The few ultra-fundamentalist who said it was 'essentual' that one believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, bailed, thus lost all credibility. The fallasy of non-sequitor. Its like the discussion about Pat Robertsons whacky statements about Dover pa, he said them, but everyone avoided, danced around that FACT, a non-sequtor, unbelievable!

Moderator - I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old nor does the Bible. That Bible theory came from someone adding the ages of the people in the Bible from Genesis to the birth of Christ through today. Of course there are gaps. You don't really believe the theory that the earth is billions of years old on the other extreme side do you?
---len on 12/12/05

This question is like asking God how old he is. But no one knows because God is spirit and he is no age. Scienctists can agrue and try with all their might trying to figure out how old the earth is. There is an answer but God Almighty is the only one whom knows.
---Rebecca_D on 12/11/05

It's 6000 years old... no, wait, its a billion years old... no...

Now, would someone tell me... in the long run DOES IT MATTER???
---NurseRobert on 12/11/05

Send a Free Angel Ecard

The primary question was, 'how old is the earth?' As said, the ultra-fundamentalist have bailed from this discussion, as their arguments are viseral. I will sum up by saying i see no conflict between faith and science,-and by science i do mean natural selection. The conflict betweeen evolution and scripture is a false duality, fueled by ignorance-ignorance of both scripture, and science.
---len_k on 12/11/05

Hi LeftyLen: My training is also in the sciences. The more I study the more I am convinced that God not only created the universe but the physical sciences as well. My Muslim ex-husband recently retired as a medical scientist for the US government. He once told me, " I discover only what God allows me to discover". There was no doubt in his mind who was in charge of our universe. This incredible God even indwells us thru His Son Jesus Christ, the greatest discovery we will ever make!
---Elsie on 12/11/05

Wayne ... you say "I do not believe in "literalism" as there are many things that are symbolic, object lessons, etc., spoken from a human point of view in scripture" OK, I agree with you. But who are you to decide which parts are literal & which symbolic? If you accept some parts are literal, why deny that the detail of Creation story? might be.
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/11/05

Wayne & Len, i enjoy your replies. i don't think literalism or figuratism is the issue, for a remote perspective could be just as valid as a nearer perspective. Scripture is the living words of God who has created existence itself, revealing the mind of God, and refutedly proven repetitously throughout time by its thousands of fulfilled literal prophesies. Science will do it's earthly measurements, but when it endeavors to denounce the Holy Scriptures to be Unholy, then it blatantly becomes foolish.
---Eloy on 12/11/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

This blog is used by mostly fundamentalist, who are literal. I am not. My scriptural frame of reference, i shall say is larger, much larger. I believe God works through physical laws, our finite understanding cannot grasp the fullness of these laws. Literalism reduces scripture, therefore reduces God.
---Len_k on 12/10/05

Then if there is no harmony with the "science," "discovery," or idea, then I must cling to the word. Faith is simply believing that God is true, that His word is true, and trusting Him to give understanding at each step of the way. It is not dogmatic, but is simple in its operation; teachable, yet trusting wholly in the authority of His word.
---Wayne87 on 12/10/05

I do not believe in "literalism" as there are many things that are symbolic, object lessons, etc., spoken from a human point of view in scripture. I do believe that I can take God's word as authority.

When man comes up with a theory, discovery, idea, then I compare it to what the word teaches. I ask the Spirit to guide me so that I may understand His word, the truth. This does not mean we deny facts, but let the Bible place facts in proper perspective.
---Wayne87 on 12/10/05

wayne-so what are you saying? In the final analysis is this the old 'faith vs reason' argument? Then does one have to dismiss all science thereby returning to the medieval Christianity of our ancesters? Is it possible that the Bible is not the issue, but literalism is the problem?
---len_k on 12/10/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce

If we have any doubts about a point, then let us ask wisdom of Him who gives to all liberally. For Christ's followers, His word is the test of doctrine, experience, faith, and hope. We search its pages to know His will, to know the truth, and to know He who is the Truth. When a contradiction arises between something and the word, we go with the word of God. If we do not believe Moses, then we will not believe Jesus even if one is raised from the dead. Faith comes by hearing the word of God.
---Wayne87 on 12/10/05

Civil history can be traced very clearly back to well before Christ. Let us grant that there may be a difference of a year (a part year may not be counted or it may be counted) for each generation or event (or two if we want to cover every possible variation). Taking every possible "year" that might thus be added to the record, we still have a very clear record as to the age of the earth according to the Bible. Does one have to believe? No. Should I believe God's word? Yes.
---Wayne87 on 12/10/05

Just finished enjoying catching up on this blog and on the Bible as the ultimate authority. Sadly it seems that there is much contradiction. If the Bible is our authority, then must not I accept what it says and reveals? Notice that I did not say accept what someone thinks it says. The bible begins with Adam, created on the 6th day and gives the years of his life. Moses traced histories record down through the Exodus.
---Wayne87 on 12/10/05

I thought this was the age of the earth blog? Well it seems, as best i can see it is a non-issue to most here. The '6,000 year brigade' is a minority, withen a minority. They bail quickly, and i suspect they the find college campus to be the devils liar. Fossils to them being like kryptonite to Superman, as a former professor joked, metaphorically.
---len_k on 12/5/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry

Reply to Eloy on December 25th being a cofirmed fact. With all due respect, I would like to ask if anyone knows what one A. Ephines did to the Jewish Priests, The Altar in The Holy Of Holies in The Temple at Jerusalem on that date causing The Maccabees to revolt producing Hanucha, on the same date that year! Fact & tradition, can be as different as fact & theory. Say anthing often & long enough & not a few will believe it!
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 12/5/05

Night-eyes on a horse are vestigual remnents, as are gill clefts. These attacks of science are all first grade. There is so much true evil in our society. Child and drug abuse, and poverty. Would it not be more Christ-like to attack those real evils? The false duality between natural selection and scriptures in a hamster on a treadmill. You have said "Unless you believe in a 6,000 year old earth, your not a true Christian-is that true?
---len_k on 12/4/05

Jerry-My religion speaks of Jesus as being the son of God. As to Mr. Darwin, I believe he was a Anglican. You constantly throw up 'straw man' arguments again and again, I don't know what your education in the sciences is, depending on your state, community colleges are mostly inexpensive. I will pray for you. Atheism is indeed a faith, I see so much evidence of Gods handiwork to deny a creator at work. I dont need to be dogmatic, as dogmatism is a feeble faith attempting to express itself forcably.
---len_k on 12/4/05

Mr Jerry. I will restate. I see no conflict between science and faith. Many people of great faith work in ALL the sciences, on and off campus. I refrain from using jargon as that would be pedagogic, and self promoting. my only point is science, natural selection or otherwise is NOT an argument for atheism. In person I have debated fundamentalist, and they always retreat to rhetoric and emotion. In the final analysis you are saying only fundamentalist of your unique camp are true Christians.
---leftylen on 12/4/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

We all know of about piltdown man. It reflects only on those few individuals almost a 100 years ago. No disipline of science is monolithic. The fact is Neanderthals mtDNA has been extracted, and confirmed as being not related to modern man, unless you do not believe in mitochondrial DNA. You have only thrown up a straw man. BTW, Evolution by Natural selection, geology, palentology, are different sciences, so you suggest they are all a conspirasy, a coven of evilmen working together for satanic forces?
---len_k on 12/4/05

No, no, no Len, knowing the date of Christ's birth and the age of the earth are not essential to your salvation.
---M.P. on 12/4/05

Nice try, but it won't wash in this forum like it does at the college coffee shop. Punctuated equilibrium is a band-aid on a failed hypothesis. If it were science, it would be testable. Many "scientists" have worked feverishly for 150 years to substantiate the hypothesis, but have utterly failed to demonstrate its most rudimentary principles. All they have produced is hoaxes such as Neanderthal Man (normal guy with arthritis), Nebraska Man (pig's tooth), Piltdown Man (complete forgery), etc.
---jerry6593 on 12/4/05

Eohippus is nothing but the modern hyrax, and has nothing to do with horses. The horse series is just another hoax. The missing link they loudly proclaim is still missing (because it doesnt exist). But our children are still indoctrinated with these lies in support of the Darwinian blind-faith religion of the atheist. Artists draw scenes of entire cultures of animal-like cave men based entirely on a single bone fragment of questionable origin. And this we call science?
---jerry6593 on 12/4/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops

You speak of the flat earth myth of the dark ages. It was brought to us by the forced indoctrination of an apostate church in control of the government. It would seem that history is being repeated in modern America. The false religion of Darwinism is firmly in control of our public schools, and like the RC church of the dark ages, it will not even allow open discussion, let alone conscientious dissent.
---jerry6593 on 12/4/05

Thought this was 'age of the earth'-? As to Dec 25th, it was the birthday of Mithra, superceded by Constantine in 325AD, a sharp political ploy. The exact date may be interesting to find out, but its not essential to my salvation. Now, back to our regularly sceduled program.........I have only seen two here who claim the earth is 6,000 years old. It that any more essential to salvation than the real birthday of Jesus? That is my point.
---len_k on 12/3/05

moderator, i personally accept this, because i find that bishop Cyril who went to Rome solely for the purpose of acquiring the date from the records, and returned to Jerusalem with the confirmed date, would have any reason to lie. This has been recorded as a fact since the mid 4th century A.D., but anyone is free to disbelieve it if they choose.
---Eloy on 12/3/05

len_k, the word "moved" is not a good English translation in verse 1 of Psalm 93. The Hebrew word in Psalm 93 is transliterated "mowt" which is better translated "shaken". Thus,"...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be shaken."
---Eloy on 12/3/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer

cliff, i am not transfixed on Dec.25. The date of Jesus' birth is a matter of public historical record disclosed since the mid 4th century A.D., and also commonly accepted and celebrated annually ever since then.

Moderator - As discussed before, that is a myth and disinformation.
---Eloy on 12/3/05

nvBarb, The reason measurements of the world register much older than that recorded in the Bible is because God is the author of time, and therefore he is in complete control over it. Remember how Jesus using God's power turned the water into perfectly fermented and aged wine in an instant? All he has to do is say, "Let it be so-and-so", and then it is brought into existance. Besides fastforwarding time, he also has power to make time stand still, and to reverse time. Please read Hebrews 11:3.
---Eloy on 12/3/05

Correction response to my previous reply: Not that it matters to anyone, but Lucifer's rebellion would have been before the recreation, including the recreation of the 2nd heavens & earth, not the 1st as I previously stated.
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 12/3/05

The Roman church and many protestants did not accept that the earth went around the sun until 1890. Literalism gone wild! In Psalms 93 it says the earth does not move, thus the belief in a 'geocentric' universe. Along with the flat earth society, their are still 'geocentrist' and 6,000 year-old earth believers. The real issue is if they gain any real power in goverment, which would be a march backward, to medieval Christianity, what Renaissance Christians called 'the dark ages.'
---len_k on 12/3/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting

This is a false duality; which fundys are known for on all fronts, be it science, religion, or more frightening, politics. Either/or is the hallmark of fundamentalism, representing a fragment of Christianity. Neanderthal bones (nonfossilized) have mtDNA extracted, confirming them NOT related to modern man. They were extracted with devices like shovels, and studied with devices like electron microscopes, no rhetorical device will make them disappear.
---len_k on 12/3/05

Your argument-first cause, Of course palio-biologist dont know. Asexual mitosis can occur in single cell PreCambrian life of course was non-fossilized. Many explosions punctuated equilibrium is the theory, a theory not proved unproved Absence of intermediate forms? pure cognative dissonance. Some chains are missing. The horse is complete from Eohippus to now. Diehard fundys when an intermediate form is found is simply claim new species is found. Mitochondrial DNA confirms commonality in so many species.
---len_k on 12/3/05

1. You are not addressing an atheist. My argument for God is ontological. I agree with you, life had to be brought here or created here. 2. Protien synthesis is impossible, the theory of it beginning on the oceans is impossible. 3.Even simple life forms have the most complex DNA patterns we know less than 1% about. I agree with Dr. Behe
---len_k on 12/3/05

Why could God not have put very primitive cels here on earth, in the right environment, so that tin accordance with His plan, they grew into what we have now?
Maybe He did this, and left conflicting clues and accounts, just to show us that for all our cleverness, we are not clever enough to understand it.
Is He now laughing at us all? I'm sure God has a sense of humour!
---alan8869_of_UK on 12/3/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing

The question asked "according to the bible" and not what do each of us think. If I asked what did Luther say about the condition of the will in his "The Bondage of the Will" what would I think of answers giving me their opinions of what the truth is, or what Luther should have said, but didn't? I wanted to know what Luther said! Now here cannot we all just share with the questioner what the Bible says? We do not have to even believe the Bible is correct to share what it says.
---Wayne87 on 12/3/05

Len: It seems that some people check their brains when entering these blogs. As a biologist, please explain a few holes in the Darwinian Theory. (1) Explain the origin of life from inorganic materials (Pasteur proved spontaneous generation impossible). (2) Compute the mathematical probability of a single living cell forming by random chance (Hint: Its impossible!). (3) Explain how a living cell can form without a DNA code and without a code translating apparatus to use it. - CONTD
---jerry6593 on 12/3/05

CONTD - (4) Explain how the first cell lived with nothing organic to eat. (5) How did the first sexually-reproducing organism propagate without a partner? (6) Explain the sudden explosion of complex life forms in the Cambrian layer with no precursors in the Precambrian. (7) Explain the total absence of intermediate forms between species in the entire fossil record. (Even Darwin conceded this flaw in his theory). When you finish with these, I have a few hundred more. CONTD
---jerry6593 on 12/3/05

CONTD - Theistic Evolution is bad science and bad religion combined. Life exists due to either random chance or intelligent design. There is no hybrid middle ground. Either the Bible is true and Evolution is a lie, or Evolution is true and the Bible contains lies. I think I know which you choose. By the way, you might appear more credible if you spelled Pleistocene correctly.
---jerry6593 on 12/3/05

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service

As a biologist I would not take that 'Dr' Hovind serious. He is a not a scientist. This 'creationism' is religion, not science. It does not belong in the classroom, as intelligent design does not. It represents a particular sectarian view, a view ONLY endorsed by fundamentalist. It does belong in say philosophy or a humanities class. The presidents own science adviser, himself a religious man, has stated there is no evidence for it. 'Creationism' tears down both science and religion.
---leftylen on 12/2/05

My error Mike, I misunderstood what you wrote.
I don't think we slithered up out of the water, or used to swing through trees as monkeys, further I don't think carbon dating is very accurate.
However I just don't think we have a solid clue as to how old the earth is.
Something else we'll learn in heaven, when it really won't matter!
---NVBarbara on 12/2/05

Dr. Kent Hovind is a GREAT authority and reveals so much regarding this issue. Might have to check it out.
---colle9488 on 12/2/05

If one was to read the scriptures in Isaiah & Ezekiel regarding Lucifers habitat, throne, etc [In The same garden in Eden before Adam], we can see how little we know about any fossils etc. To have a throne indicates subjects. All we know is what Echad/God allows us to! Lucifer rebelled against Echad/God 'before' the recreation of earth & maybe the 1st & 2nd heavens [Gen.1:1-4, >]! Rom.11:33.
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 12/2/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

Only 2 of the bloggers say the earth is 6,000 years old. I won't insult them I will say education is not a threat to real faith. I shrug my shoulders, how do you respond to that? Some groups in the same camp say the sun, stars go around the earth, a 'geocentric' universe. They base this on Psalm 93, literalism. My education is in biology. Where I live, during the the pliesticine man first arrived 15,000 years ago,(southwest) Nothing I know, or what I have learned threatens my faith in the scriptures.
---len_k on 12/2/05

The earth is about 6000 years old. All credible scientific data supports a young earth model, although this is not taught in the public schools. Please search out evolution-facts on the net.
---jerry6593 on 12/2/05

If only more people would scrutinize the "scientific" (falsely so called) data as much as they do the Bible, they would find the Bible to be a great deal more reliable. I am a physicist working in the aerospace/defense industry for almost 40 years. Go to the library and research it for yourself. All radiometric dating techniques are fatally flawed by the assumptions made in their application. The "scientist" simply choses the date that most closely fits his preconceived theory.
---jerry6593 on 12/2/05

I am a creationist but NEVER have I said that believing in a literal 6 day creation and a young earth is a salvation issue.
---M.P. on 12/2/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

Barbara, you missed what I was saying. I'm not saying your wrong, or not a Christian, its the 6000 year brigade who tell me I`m not a Christian for thinking that way.
---mike6553 on 12/2/05

No one knows for sure! Nvbarbara, you're right. Gen.1:1-19, 20-31. Echad/God did a lot of "creating" before there were 24 hrs in a day, bringing forth vegetation, water & land life, lastly his masterpiece Adam [& Eve]. I read a story of students bringing the horns of a mollusk(?) to their professor who estimated it's age as before mankind, the students then produced the live animal to the professor. So much for science & carbon dating's accuracy [I Tim.6:20].
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 12/2/05

When we ask, "according to the Bible" then we have to say that it gives us about 6000 years old. Moses should be consistent in his use of days, years, etc., so I see no reason to say some "days" are 1000 years, while other days in his books are literal. Jesus made the point that the "seventh day" or "Sabbath" was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. We may have many opinions, but the Bible gives its statement and leaves us free to believe or disbelieve.
---Wayne87 on 12/1/05

Gee wiz, In the lower Mojave they found fossil of a woman who died during the pliesticine. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago.

As 'some' here would do, they just dogmatically say something, offering a rhetorical statement as fact. Is that real faith? As for me our God given reason, and our faith should need not be opposites, a false duality. As to Dec. 25-Constantine put that as Jesus's birthday to compete with Mithras. History 101
---Len_K on 12/1/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

LEFTYLEN, the Bible would not give you the exact age of the earth, nor the date that the "earth came into being". As you have seen here, the bloggers are trying to tell you how the age of the earth was being calculated. If you search the internet using google, then you will also find how science tried to measure the age of the earth. You will see the similarity and difference between the two methods.
---Linda6546 on 12/1/05

Eloy;You're a very studious man, hard to know why you're transfixed on dec.25 as Christ's birth!Scripture does not support this date as discussed to exhaustion on this site! Next you'll say that John the Baptist's birth was June 24 (St.Jean Batiste day)RC church uses this date to support Christmas!12/25
---1st_cliff on 12/1/05

Isn't there a gap in Genesis Eloy before man was created that could account for perhaps the earth being many more years old?
Just wondering...
---NVBarbara on 12/1/05

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.