Is the Bible 6,000 years old?

Question

11/29/2001 -Six Thousand-Year-Old Earth (Topic#: 8540)
When you are literally made out of words...literally...it's eternally critical that the words you live your life by are the correct ones. (For more information on this phenomenal secret click on to "Made Out of Words" on this site.) Over and over again this web site, www.godsaidmansaid.com, proves the veracity of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. Every Thursday (God willing) we air a brand new subject that proves that God is and that His word is true.

Psalm 119, Verse 105:

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

His word is the light of life. It never changes and is always correct. Build your "house" upon it. God's word is the solid rock.

GOD SAID that He created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. When you track the genealogical record in God's Word you will discover that the earth is just over 6,000 years old.

MAN SAID, "That's absurd! Every intelligent human knows that the earth is billions of years old. That's just another reason to discard that archaic Bible."

Now THE RECORD. You have probably sat in a school classroom and heard or someone has said to you that the world is billions of years old or that bones have been discovered that are millions of years old. The next opportunity you have in such a setting ask the individual to prove it. If you find someone who attempts to prove their old age position, they will typically march out flawed circular reasoning or dating systems built up upon unprovable assumptions. The results of their dating systems have been proven wrong numerous times. The reason the anti-God group has never proven its position is quite simple and that is that their position simply isn't true. Keep in mind that proof is established by two or more reliable witnesses. Where are their witnesses? Recorded history goes back approximately 5,000 years and comes to an abrupt halt and the reason for that is obvious...there isn't much history prior to that point.

Because the evolutionists have no recorded history of man prior to the 6,000 plus years declared in God's Word which is a reliable history book and witness, the anti-Bible groups have no witnesses to support their pre-6,000 years old claims. In order to debunk the authority of God's Word they created an armada of pseudoscientific theories and techniques designed to offset their lack of witnesses...their lack of proof.

I mentioned earlier flawed circular reasoning. For example, if you asked the evolutionists to date a particular fossil they would certify its age by telling you what strata it was found in. And if you pursued and asked how you can tell the age of particular strata they would tell you by the age of the fossil found in it. That kind of sounds like the dog chasing its tail, doesn't it?

I also mentioned erroneous dating techniques. Carbon-14 which is a dating technique used to date once living things is probably the dating system with the most notoriety. After a living thing dies it begins to decay and Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14. By measuring the levels of Carbon-14 left in the dead specimen a scientist estimates its age. The carbon-14 process has proven far from perfect. On numerous occasions Carbon-14 measurements have shown living things to be of ancient ages as well as attaching ages to dead things, of which their ages have been certified, far older than they actually are. Regarding radiocarbon dating, Dr. G. E. Aardsma, Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Dept. of the ICR Graduate School, had this to say:

At the present time it appears that the conventional radiocarbon dating technique is on relatively firm ground for dates which fall within the past 3,000 years.

In spite of this 3,000 year limit, anti-creationists have thrown out ages of 70,000 years and more as a result of radiocarbon dating.

Most, due to lack of real interest, are unaware there is a mountain of information to support a 6,000 year old earth. There are 107 scientific measurements alone that prove the earth to be young; scientific research concerning things such as population statistics and the fossil record to Helium in the atmosphere to erosion of the continents.

Perplexing news concerning recent dinosaur bones unearthed in Alaska should have sent a lot of the old-earth proponents back to their bunkers to attempt to shore up their theories. According to the anti-Bible folks there was a huge catastrophe that killed off all the dinosaurs around 70 million years ago. M. Helder in a 1992 article titled, "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," published in Creation ex nihilo, Vol. 14, the following information was found:

She could not accept that fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized) dinosaur bones had been found in Alaska. Such bones could never have lasted 70 million years, she said. Unlikely or not, it is a fact that such bones have been found...How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived...Why then did these bones not decay long ago?...The obvious conclusion is that these bones were deposited in relatively recent times.

Scientists at the University of Montana were shocked when they found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Not only were the bones not fossilized but they appeared to have blood cells which would be impossible if they were millions of years old. The following is part of the report issued by the scientists:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope...the lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center...red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn't possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year old tyrannosaur.

The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990...When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilzed...So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme as hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues."

In another effort to make fossils speak in new ways, post-graduate student Mary Schweitzer has been trying to extract DNA from the bones of T. rex. Originally, like Kristi, she had intended to thin-section the bones and conduct a histologic investigation. But under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she'd discovered were in fact blood cells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.

Author, popular lecturer and broadcaster Ken Ham weighed in with the following comment on this subject:

These red blood cells provide excellent evidence that these fossils are not millions of years old, but are no more than a few thousand years old.

Ancient historic accounts, the Bible and thousands of local sightings testify of dinosaurs and fiery flying serpents in recorded history. Even in this present day reports of dinosaur-like creatures exist. For example, in the publication Science Digest, 1981, and in Science Frontiers, number 3367, they recorded that explorers and native Africans reported sightings of dinosaur-like creatures. In the February 6, 1980, issue of the Australian Melbourne Sun it was reported that over recent years 40 people claimed to have seen plesiosaurs off the Victorian coast of Australia.

For more exciting information about dinosaurs, click on to "Dinosaurs" on this web site.

The earth's population also testifies of the earth's age. By taking the earth's present percent of population growth and taking into account the history of Earth's abnormalities and then by simply calculating backwards we should be able to get a bead on the age of our earth. In an article titled "Creation vs. Evolution" I found this following interesting calculation:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

The earth's magnetic field also points to a very, very young earth. Scientists believe that the earth is a large electromagnet and the source of the magnetic field is probably a large electric current. In 1971, Dr. T. Barnes theorized that nothing keeps the earth going except its own inertia. Because it is not being refueled with energy the Barnes theory says that the current is running down slowly like a flywheel without a motor. Consequently the strength of the earth's magnetic field is decreasing. Since the first measurement of the earth's magnetic field in 1835, it has lost 7% of its strength. According to the Barnes model the strength of the magnetic field should decrease by a constant rate each year and the data is consistent with just such a decrease. Present data points to a magnetic field which has lost one-half of its force over the past 1,400 years. Following this line backwards it is clear to see that Earth's age should be measured in thousands, such as in 6,000, and not billions of years. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., is an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and as of 1993, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. He had this to say:

As measured by clocks on earth, the age of the universe today could be as small as the face-value biblical age of about 6,000 years.

The earth is very young...6,000 years young and we can prove it.

GOD SAID He created the earth in six literal days about 6,000 years ago.

MAN SAID, "That's absurd."

Now you have THE RECORD.



References

King James Bible

Aardsma, G.E., "Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating," Impact Pub., March 1999.

Helder, M., "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," Creation ex nihilo, Vol. 14.

Ham, K., The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved!

Humphreys, R., "The Mystery of the Earth's Magnetic Field", Impact Pub., Feb. 1989.

Looks like it is.

The Spam of Truth*

Answer 1

Answer 2

I am laughing at the finite infinite comment. Nothing finite can be infinite and nothing rubber can be steel and comparing apples and oranges is a typical creationist argument. 1, 2, and 3 are finite numbers, but you can have a collection of numbers that is infinite, you may also have an infinite amount of groups of 3 or 6 or 11, so from where I sit, the argument is, and I'll be kind here, moot. There are religious scholars who claim that if you follow the descriptions in the bible regarding lifespans and amount of time passed, that they can place the age of the universe, not just earth, remember, according to the genesis story, it was all snapped into existence in 7 little old days, at around 6000 years. This indicates a belief so shaky that if this particular disagreement should go against the 6000 year idea, that it would devastate christianity. Wow, how strong must their convictions be?

Answer 3

Most of the evidence points to Earth being very young. There are also many accounts, some of the early explorers of North America (try search: David Engram beaste), of clearly recorded dinosaur sightings.

Secular historical documents only goes back to about 3000 B.C., where we find highly advanced people building, farming, fishing, forging metals, with elaborate artwork and boating. Some of the technology is still beyond our knowledge today, such as pyramid building.

Much of the alleged "debunking" is not scientific articles, but website postings, which are non scientific until they meet peer review and are published.

Robert Gentry's radiohalo articles and papers, on near-instantaneous formation of granites, published in science Journals around 1974, have never been refuted. Scientifically, the Earth is really young, until someone publishes refutations.

Answer 4

The bible in no way is 6000 years old. The Hebrew culture did not appear until after the 13th century BCE.

All of the anti-evolution claims you have cited have been disproved, debunked and shown to be ill educated guesses. Please refer to the listed site below.

Edit:
Anytime someone uses Carbon-14 and dinosaures in the same sentence is a good indication that that person is clueless -- unless they say that you can't use C-14 for samples over 70,000 years. There are many other radioactive isotopes and several are used to date fossils, to do this ratios are computed (this methodology accounts for varying amounts due to evniroment etc....) and those ratios compared.

Answer 5

umm didn't feel like reading it all bu t i get the question. The Bible itself is not 6000 years old, but there are scriptures in it that are. Your right in that the world is not billions of years old, but 6000 is a little low. If you add the dates to present time you will find that the worl is prbably closer to 11000 years old. What is shown thoug is that there was a gread world calamity about 6000 years ago,(the flood). This is why some people think that the world is only 6000 years old because life had to basicly restart. I've taken entire courses on this subject and noone can give an exact date.

Simple notes:
Life can not come from non-living objects
carbon dating can become extremly unacurate(by say billions of years) if the sample is not preseved exactly otherwise it becomes contaminated.
there are many unexpaind facts and flaws with the theory of evolution.
DNA can be traced to three seperate women by modernday science. It is believed that these women are Noah's wife and her sisters. But this also means that the DNA cannot be trace to before the flood.

And I say te Entire topic is BS I its a waste of time for man to try and figure out what is imposible to know. People for evolution will disprove the claims of those against it and vise versa.

So what does it mean?
NO ONE IS RIGHT AND WE KEEP TRYING TO FIND ANSWERS BASED ON SCIENCE THAT IS ALREADY BEEN DISCLAIMED!!!

Answer 6

"Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it's still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present."

The dino was still 68 million years old. So this is spam and worthless spam at that. Stop trying to subvert the truth.

Answer 7

No, the Bible is NOT 6,000 years old. More like 4,000 years.

I think that life on earth is about 10,000 to 15,000 years old. As for Earth itself, that is a completely different matter.

I totally agree with the additional source material you presented. Those, of course, would send evolutionists into a rage. You have prepared yourself for some harsh answers for them, I hope.

Answer 8

Earth itself "is" only about 6000 years old, as claimed by Ushar and the following legions of xianity.

The oldest book is not older than 1200-1300 years.

Answer 9

You moron! Radiometric dating for rock strata, not circular reasoning, as that is your delusional approach. That and not telling the truth!

The rest of your rant; pure BS!!!

Answer 10

The answers are all there. They may be out of order. I'll check back for 7 days.
******************************************

Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.


Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).


Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.


The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

This claim assumes that the population growth rate was always constant, which is a false assumption. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years.


There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years.


The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by

P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N

The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).


Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.


T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.


Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.


The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).


The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).


DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.

Answer 11

moron. Your ignorance is inexcusable considering your ability to access the internet.