How can you prove how old the earth is?

Please discuss.

I personally believe it is around 6,000 years old. I get that from the chronological order of people and events that happened in the Bible. The Bible IS a historical document, so please do not dispute that.

So, what is your thinking? Please back it up.

 

Through the use of carbon dating,scientists have been able to determine the age of rocks and fossils millions of years old.

 

There's your answer.

The bible also says Eve was created from Adam's rib. That clearly makes women inferior in the eyes of God. /end sarcasm

 

The Egyptians were building the pyramids at the supposed time of Noah's flood. We can see the light from stars that are billions of light-years away. The sun is a star and the moon doesn't emit its own light. It's not even close to being a historical document; it's a book riddled with contradictions and absurdities.

Incorrect. Carbon-14 has a half-life of a mere 5 750 years, making it inaccurate in dating things old than approximately 60 000 years. (Although this half-life is large enough to demonstrate that these objects are far older than the Bible would have us believe.) For things of this age, other radiometric forms of dating are used, such as potassium-argon and uranium-lead dating (both of which are accurate on things millions to billions of years old).

 

Sorry for being so brash, but I always am satisfied when my own deductive reasoning is validated and even put into words, and posted before I myself could do it.
Historian's would not hesitate to discard the Holy Bible as a historical document. For the reasons stated above, I am forced to question the train of thought that leads a person to [actually believe the planet Earth could possibly be 6,000 years old. To make this statement is to defy most all of our present scientific knowledge base. The age of the planet is indeed determined by most modern scientists using multiple angles that appeal to the scientific method.

Connecting such massive studies as the human genome project, reviewing the fossil record, and countless other methods are ways in which modern scientists determine the age of our big, beautiful planet. However, not one of these credible scientists will tell you She is a meager 6,000 years old...

A biologist might use the latter, as a sociologist might use the former.
However, it seems the geologist's answer of radiometric dating has been selected, as it is based on 100% sound science, and is not based at ALL on opinion or variable data.

 

WISCONSIN!!
THAT EXPLAINS IT xD

 

1. Please state these contradictions. I am curious to see what they are. I am curious because a lot of individuals will read one verse, take that out of context, then read another, and say they are contradicting each other.

2. In the major prophet books, they prophesy the birth of Jesus, how he is born, who he is born from, how he dies. Those were written thousands of years before Jesus was born.

3. The Jewish people made sure this would not happen when they translated the Bible into different languages because they treated it with respect and the holy of all holys pretty much. Yes, there are MANY translations, many of them are perverted because thats how the translator wanted it, sometimes because their translation made them feel "good" because the Bible is not always a "feel good" book.

Isotope dating I am assuming is quite similar to carbon dating? Correct me if I am wrong. But, carbon dating detects the rate of decay to the half life up to around 5700 years or so, and then, the next half life to around 11400, it is theoretically accurate up to 50,000 years because of the decay rate of c14, aka it not being there.



Guys please refrain from personal attacks and dumb opinions like the rib thing. I want to here valid arguments. This stuff fascinates me and allows everyone to give their opinions on these areas.

 

Isotope dating and carbon dating are the exact same thing. I personally believe carbon dating is the answer

"They probably would have used potassium 40 which has a half life of 1.3 billion years, which then turns into argon 40 and calcium 40, to judge the age of the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old from the time that it had began cooling (f.y.i. before then eveything was molten lava)."

Things in the bible should never be considered scientific fact.

 

The Old Testament is very vague with its predictions, with different religious sects describing different verses as being prophetic. An example of this can be seen in the book of Isaiah, which Matthew quotes as being a messianic prophecy:

If the relevant passage is read in context, however, it becomes apparent that the quoted passage is not, in fact, a messianic prophecy, but rather an event already said to have happened.

It should also be noted that the word translated 'virgin' in Isaiah, while having a connotation of virginity, doesn't necessarily entail it; rather, because the authors of the New Testament used the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), they falsely believed the women in question would have to be a virgin because the word used in Greek, parthenos, has a much stronger connotation (otherwise put, the entire virgin birth narrative was falsified to make it appear as if Jesus fulfilled a prophecy that resulted from a poor translation).

 

Why is this spam in the something for all forum?

 

I'm so convinced OP is trolling

 

Carbon dating.

 

And if someone says "Bible > scientific carbon dating"

You have a mental disorder.

 

Wrong. Let me start you with the following: The Jews NEVER translated the bible (excluding reform congregations) they kept it in the original Hebrew, which they spoke for that sole purpose
Here are the actual passages to which you refer:

Isaiah

First of all, notice that the child's name is Emanuel עמנואל
and not Jesus ישו
The rest of that passage talks about honey and butter and stuff - Not the least relevant

Don't doubt my Hebrew skills, you have nothing against them.

Matthew - Can't find the hebrew text for that one, because IDK what part of the bible he is in


As for radioactive dating, you may be aware of this concept of math? now, math extends beyond the realm of 2+2 = 4. Math lets me tell you how fast a galaxy is rotating depending on how bright it is

 

I swear to god I could answer half of Sythes threads with a google..

1. The bible is not a historical document.
2. This is a fairly simple question, surely you've heard of Wikipedia.
3. Why would you even try an reply to Sythe, as I'm warning you, he will rip you apart..

 

OP was corrected within the first 5 posts, thread should be closed. No room for debate here.

 

Most of the time Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. Therefore maybe other sources would be needed. But does sound right from what I have been learning in my science classes.

 

Way to ignore my post.

The Septuagint (LXX) was translated by Alexandrian Jews in the centuries preceding Christ.

I quoted this entire passage in my post.

Your Hebrew may be find, but you've so far shown yourself as unable to read the text in a meaningful way.

The Gospel of Matthew wasn't written in Hebrew; it was written in Aramaic (though our only extant copies are Greek translations of the original).