Except that we're in the 2007th year (we haven't completed it yet) so that means it's really 2006 years, 5 Months
Biased towards the 4.5 billion, but I'm optimistic that we'll continually find better (and more fascinating) ways to estimate the age of the Earth; which will probably help "disprove" that estimate.
I had my money on 06/06/06. But now I put double or nothing odds in Vegas on 12/21/12 I'm gonna win big either way!
I figured I would do some research on creationists and found this article. If you believe in the flood this comes off as a fairly resonable explination for the belief of such a young earth. -Ever since the May 18, 1980, eruption of Mount St. Helens, ICR has made it a focus of intense research. From it we have learned a great deal about the origin of rocks and geologic features, and the processes needed to form them. In general, ICR holds that most of earth's rocks were formed rapidly during the great Flood of Noah's day, not over the millions of years of supposed geologic history. But here's the problem. Geologists like to study modern rocks and the processes which form them, and infer past circumstances. Yet Noah's Flood was a totally unique event, unlike any in our experience. Those geologists who assume uniformity in history thus seem to have an advantage. But the rocks really do appear to have been formed by dramatic processes operating at rates, scales, and intensities far beyond those we experience. Only modern, local catastrophes, such as the eruption of Mount St. Helens, can give us a glimpse into earth's geologic power, particularly as we expand our thinking onto the worldwide scale of Noah's Flood. Thus the Mount St. Helens catastrophe becomes a scale model for the great Flood. Keep in mind that most of the damage done by the eruption was water related. Mount St. Helens had been glacier-covered, and when it got hot, water raced down the mountain as a mighty flood, eroding soil, rocks, trees -- everything in its path -- eventually redepositing them at the foot of the mountain. Volcanic episodes added to the fury. When the eruption calmed, up to 600 feet of sediments had been deposited, full of plant and animal remains. Now the sediments have hardened into sedimentary rock and the dead things have fossilized. Furthermore, wood is petrifying. Peat (the precursor to coal) has formed. A deep canyon has been gouged out. Many features which geologists are taught take long ages to form, were seen to happen rapidly. Igneous rocks which formed since 1980 yield radioisotope dates of millions of years, but are obviously much younger in age. A catchy slogan helps illustrate this. To form geologic features, it either takes a little bit of water and a long time, or a lot of water and a short time. Even though we didn't witness the Flood, we do see modern catastrophes, and they rapidly accomplish things the Flood did on a grander scale. In a short, Biblically compatible time scale, such a Flood can account for the features we see on earth, features which many geologists mistake for evidence of great age. Earth doesn't really look old, it looks flooded. Dr. John D. Morris is the President of the Institute for Creation Research. http://www.icr.org/article/3267/
The mount st helens "claims" have been debunked over and over and over again. I remember watching that half-truth propaganda when i was a little kid sitting in church.
and what sucks about that, from my perspective, is the inflexibility around issues like that pushes people like yourself away from exploring God further. people develop thoughts regarding the relevance of God when they see this sort of thing. by focusing with vehemence on the literalness of the story, they push people away from the beauty of the bigger picture of the narrative.
I concur of course. Kierkegaard pretty much nailed it. The church is no longer "state-sponsored" like it was in his day, but the criticisms are still apt, insightful, and accurate. People have no idea what christianity even means anymore. This is, in my opinion, unaviodable for any religion inasmuch as religion is collectivism. I don't know if I believe in god anymore, but I damn sure won't find her in a church.
i'll disagree with you here. i could never be part of a traditional church again as a member. but there are churches out there (including the one i'm involved with) where i think you absolutely would find God. but God can be found virtually anywhere, so why should church be different? even the churches that make me uncomfortable (including the ones with big budgets designed solely to serve their own building campaigns and preach things that i find no basis in scripture for -- i find even these churches grasp truth sometimes) the problem is that for too long the Church has decided that there is a distinction between the sacred and the secular in the world. that one side belongs to God and the other doesn't. it is an "in or out" proposition. an "us vs. them" game. The churched vs. the unchurced. God is distant in some other place (and we inexplicably point up to signify a literal physical place in the created cosmos) and we are here...and nary the two shall meet. it's the concept that takes you to deism. and then goal is solely to get to heaven and to make sure others agree with you about God so they can get to heaven, too. it becomes solely centered on mental assent. and i can't grasp how that fits with the God of the Bible who desires to redeem THIS world through human beings. who seeks to bring heaven to earth through people. sorry...this is just really important stuff to me so i rant about it!
Well said, as usual. My comments about churches are more concerned with the abscence of individualism, of questioning, or personal understanding of spirituality. As opposed to the usual "do what you learned", and "I am waht I am because I was raised that way" ideology normally espoused in such situations. Obviously, some churches are less centered on disavowing those who think differently than their own views. But I can't get comfortable in those either. It's the idea that bothers me to some extent. As if I need someone to tell me how to believe - or some community to support me in my belief - or, more likely, a combination of the two that self-propogates mindless collectivism.
What about a group of people all trying to figure this out together -- not judging each other or trying to force others into a mold, but all wrestling with common issues. And along with that using the strength in those numbers to try to help others. Cleaning up dirty neighborhoods, providing support groups for struggling parents, helping a single mother move into a new apartment etc...... Things that can not be accomplished alone.
i understand that. there is certainly a competing tension. i certainly agree with the folks at my church regarding things like who Jesus is. but we come from such different denominational backgrounds that we tend to differ on those issues that have divided churches for so long...things that I really don't think are all that important. i would hesitate to say there is mindless collectivism at our church...in fact, i'd say were a church of misfits from those places that you speak of.
St. augustine's assesment of time can be a case study for any scientist,my favorite during my 6 hours of theology courses. However,some members of my family are unfortunately evangelicals(i still love them)and they have a hard time believing in dinosaurs.
Speaking of asshats, this almost made me laugh until I realized that it's basically a museum dedicated to stupidity, and thousands of people believe it. Beyond comprehension.
I was about to fire off an annoyed reply at your comments aobut creationism until I remembered how you get when the topic of religion comes up In any case. There are some aspects of it that I agree with, and others that seem farfetched to me. Almost like some scientific theories
