How Old Is The Earth?

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No wonder materialists are now grasping at metaphysical straws, appealing to outright pseudo-science to shore up their crumbling ideas. They imagine a multiverse, but not only could they never demonstrate its existence, they cannot explain its origin. They claim matter can emanate from nothing, but their nothings are euphemisms for somethings. Their material gods are nothing but science fiction. They are lost without God, both spiritually and in their quest for natural explanations of our existence and that of our environment.

 

[Phillip Diller]

In some ways, yes, in others, no.

Hinduism was an early opponent of the “Big Bang,” first because it estimates the universe to be far older than the 2 billion years Hinduism claims for an oscillation, and then later because an oscillating universe was ruled out completely, along with all other possibilities of an eternal universe.

Don’t be misled. Materialists need eternal matter, and a system that can self-develop into a perfect environment for life. Even with the “old universe” as currently understood, they are dead in the water. No matter its extent, time is not on their side. No matter how old the universe, no matter how old the earth, the fine-tuning cannot be explained by natural phenomena, much less life itself.

Phillip: You are exactly right. Only the situation for materialists is far worse. We must also consider the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient". The finely tuned conditions in the universe in general, and in our solar system in particular, are necessary for life, but they are not sufficient for life. Suppose that the universe was 30 billion years old (10 to the 18th seconds), and 10 to the 80th supposedly represents the approximate number of sub-atomic particles in the visible universe. The maximum number of chemical reactions that could occur per atom/per second (based on Planck time & Planck length) is 10 to the 18th. So, 10 to the 18th times 10 to the 18th times 10 to the 80th gives us the maximum number of chemical reactions that could occur in the entire universe in 30 billion years - 10 to the 116th. Now, a single, average sized protein of 150 amino acids can be arranged in 10 to the 195th different ways, and that's assuming that chance managed to randomly only select left-handed alpha amino acids (a 1 in 1,000 chance for each position) and then place them in the correct sequence, and only with peptide bonds and get them to fold into the right three dimensional shape to perform some biological function. One scientist, Douglas Axe, compared the odds of chance producing such a protein as equivalent to a blind search finding a single marked atom somewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy. Actually, the odds of finding that special atom is about a billion times more likely than chance producing just one average protein.

And one functional protein is useless in biology. The simplest extant life-form known to man requires 482 different proteins. And it gets worse! Proteins can't self-replicate. DNA contains the information necessary to synthesize proteins, but it takes proteins to read the information. So, DNA without proteins can't make proteins. Proteins without DNA can't either. Scientists performing minimal-complexity experiments think that a primitive cell could survive with as few as 250 proteins, but they have no experimental evidence to back that up. And biology at the molecular level is vastly more complex than coming up with the necessary proteins. Believing in Creation is easy compared to the mental gymnastics that evolutionists have to go through.

Phillip

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Phillip: You are exactly right. Only the situation for materialists is far worse. We must also consider the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient". The finely tuned conditions in the universe in general, and in our solar system in particular, are necessary for life, but they are not sufficient for life. Suppose that the universe was 30 billion years old (10 to the 18th seconds), and 10 to the 80th supposedly represents the approximate number of sub-atomic particles in the visible universe. The maximum number of chemical reactions that could occur per atom/per second (based on Planck time & Planck length) is 10 to the 18th. So, 10 to the 18th times 10 to the 18th times 10 to the 80th gives us the maximum number of chemical reactions that could occur in the entire universe in 30 billion years - 10 to the 116th. Now, a single, average sized protein of 150 amino acids can be arranged in 10 to the 195th different ways, and that's assuming that chance managed to randomly only select left-handed alpha amino acids (a 1 in 1,000 chance for each position) and then place them in the correct sequence, and only with peptide bonds and get them to fold into the right three dimensional shape to perform some biological function. One scientist, Douglas Axe, compared the odds of chance producing such a protein as equivalent to a blind search finding a single marked atom somewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy. Actually, the odds of finding that special atom is about a billion times more likely than chance producing just one average protein.

And one functional protein is useless in biology. The simplest extant life-form known to man requires 482 different proteins. And it gets worse! Proteins can't self-replicate. DNA contains the information necessary to synthesize proteins, but it takes proteins to read the information. So, DNA without proteins can't make proteins. Proteins without DNA can't either. Scientists performing minimal-complexity experiments think that a primitive cell could survive with as few as 250 proteins, but they have no experimental evidence to back that up. And biology at the molecular level is vastly more complex than coming up with the necessary proteins. Believing in Creation is easy compared to the mental gymnastics that evolutionists have to go through.

Phillip

Exactly, which is what I was referring to in the last part of my post. "No matter how old the universe, no matter how old the earth, the fine-tuning cannot be explained by natural phenomena, much less life itself."

And again, it is not having enough time that is the problem, because any precursor to life must be preserved in a harsh environment. Without special intervention, longer time only works against such a scenario. They need God, we all need God, in every way. Always have, always will.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Perhaps getting a bit off topic, but atheistic engineering scientists may be the biggest hypocrites in all of this, as the modern trend is to mimic nature in order to make the largest leaps in technological advancement.

Imagining that mindless, purposeless forces are what produced the best designs in the world, which modern man can only poorly copy, is a willful blindness beyond belief.

To attribute nature's "progress" to time, which some do, is such a huge logical contradiction, that I marvel at the magnitude of their misplaced faith.

 

[church mouse guy]

It is atheistic thinking based upon their pseudoscientific analysis which is mostly laughable.

 

[Calminian]

Where, in what book, does it say that God states a given number for the age of the Earth?
And I gotta ask, where, in what book, does it say that it matters any?
I ask this as I have reached out to churches before where they consider the young Earth theory mandatory to being saved.

Genesis. The genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 give the ages of the patriarchs as well as their ages when their sons were born. They are dated chronological historical genealogies. Genesis 1 gives us a six day creation account from Gen. 1:1-Gen. 2:1 when it is completed. Exodus 20:11 confirms Moses believed it was 6 literal days. No way to add millions of years, or thousands for that matter.

Many ask does the age of the earth matter? I ask, does the history of the earth matter? Indeed it does. Considering the importance of the sequence of events, very good creation, the fall, death, redemption, I'd say yes, it does indeed.

 

[Calminian]

The earth is dated very old. The earth is only 7000 years young. ...

That sounds pretty old to me.

 

[Salty]

I found two seperate studies

Answers in Genesis

Christian Balanced Perspective

Both could be read in about 30 minutes,
but when you get a chance - plan a couple of hours.

 

[church mouse guy]

I found two seperate studies

Answers in Genesis

Christian Balanced Perspective

Both could be read in about 30 minutes,
but when you get a chance - plan a couple of hours.

Your second commentary about Christian Balanced Perspective is too old, 1998, to be relevant. Science has moved on very rapidly to support the viewpoint of Biblical Creation.

The Bodie Hodge article from AiG is one that I have read before and it is good. Bodie Hodge appears on a lot of AiG news programs and he is a familiar figure. However, on his point about the old earth viewpoint originating from the Enlightenment "Three of the old-earth advocates included Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old. Pièrre LaPlace imagined an indefinite but very long history. And Jean Lamarck also proposed long ages", I think that it is interesting to note that these men were mostly European and Lamarck is a joke for his notion that acquired characteristics are inheritable. I think that Europeans revived Greek ideas of deep time and the Greeks got it from the Hindus and I imagine that Bodie Hodge would tend to agree with that idea since the information has also been published by AiG.

When young people trapped in secular education learn that science teaches deep time and evolution, they quickly discard Genesis, the foundation of Christianity. However, students who realize that evolution is scientifically impossible and then investigate the problems with deep time scientifically are more likely to believe in the perfection of Scripture.

 

[Calminian]

I found two seperate studies

Answers in Genesis

Christian Balanced Perspective

Both could be read in about 30 minutes,
but when you get a chance - plan a couple of hours.

I'm very familiar with AiG (been reading them for 25+ years). The other article outlined 3 popular views (also very familiar with). But I think this quote says it all.

Biblically, we find the young earth approach of six consecutive 24-hour days and a catastrophic universal flood to make the most sense. However, we find the evidence from science for a great age for the universe and the earth to be nearly overwhelming. We just do not know how to resolve the conflict yet.​

First, I applaud them for being honest (also the article is older, when old earthers weren't careful about saying that. you won't catch them saying that today.). I believe all old earth interpretations are based on evidence from outside the Bible. The young earth recent creation view is the straightforward reading of the text. They are honest that it's modern naturalistic theories that are swaying them from fully accepting this, not the text itself.

And therein lies the problem. Man's word vs. God's word. Eisegesis vs. exegesis. Ever-changing naturalistic ideas vs. timeless truths. Scientific theories can never be an interpretive factor, and the reasons seems pretty obvious.

Bishop Spong is a liberal Christian (non-christian, of course) who denies every miracle in the Bible, including the resurrection. However, he says he believes in the resurrection, just not literally. Why? Science. Everyone knows science proves a man can't die and resurrection from the dead. Therefore, because of the clear scientific data, the resurrection (and all miracles for that matter) must be interpreted figuratively.

 

[Calminian]

When young people trapped in secular education learn that science teaches deep time and evolution, they quickly discard Genesis, the foundation of Christianity. However, students who realize that evolution is scientifically impossible and then investigate the problems with deep time scientifically are more likely to believe in the perfection of Scripture.

This is exactly what I believe, and more firmly every day. Ken Ham and other biblical creationists believe that true Christians can be old earth, but they also believe it prevents some unbelievers from considering the Gospel. Why go into a house with such a shaky foundation?

CMI put this Fallout film together, talking to kids who have left the Church. Fascinating.

 

[Barry Johnson]

Not so long ago, the universe was considered eternal by many non-Christian scientists. What really raised their hackles was the discovery that the universe is expanding. Why? Because it implies a beginning, suggesting that the Bible was right all along: ”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

They were desperate to come up with an explanation that avoided a beginning. Every attempt has failed. Now they postulate, metaphysically not scientifically mind you, an eternal Multiverse.

If instead of focusing on the age of the earth, Christians apologists would focus on the fact of the beginning and the metaphysical cop-out of a multiverse, perhaps they would make more headway in getting a hearing.

approx 6 thousand years old according to the bible. why are we doubting the bible ?

 

[church mouse guy]

This is exactly what I believe, and more firmly every day. Ken Ham and other biblical creationists believe that true Christians can be old earth, but they also believe it prevents some unbelievers from considering the Gospel. Why go into a house with such a shaky foundation?

CMI put this Fallout film together, talking to kids who have left the Church. Fascinating.

Nice video!

 

[Calminian]

No, the earth IS old. Why would God make something to LOOK old? That'd be a deception, which GOD doesn't do.

It's not God that makes the earth look old, it's your own assumptions. When you approach the evidence with a naturalistic mindset, it's very easy to see age. But when you put on biblical glasses, the evidence confirms the truth.

I don't see age at all in the evidence, because I start with a biblical mindset. If I were transported back in time, and saw Adam on day six, I would not believe he was 30+ years old. Mainly because I trust the Biblical account. But if an atheist were there with me, he'd see age because he rejects the creation story (assuming he wasn't swayed by the fact that something supernatural thrusted him back in time).

 

[Salty]

approx 6 thousand years old according to the bible. why are we doubting the bible ?

Yes, since Adam was created - but I leave it open for time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
but here is the bottom line - weather the Earth is 6,024 years old or one million years - makes no difference.
in my salvation. And keep in mind - that "4004 BC" more than likely incorrect.

FTR - I do believe that Adam was created in the vicinity of 4K BC. Other than that - I am not really worried about.


Salty

PS - BTW, I do have a coin made by Adam - with a date of 3916 BC - with a notarized statement of authenticity

 

[robycop3]

It's not God that makes the earth look old, it's your own assumptions. When you approach the evidence with a naturalistic mindset, it's very easy to see age. But when you put on biblical glasses, the evidence confirms the truth.

I don't see age at all in the evidence, because I start with a biblical mindset. If I were transported back in time, and saw Adam on day six, I would not believe he was 30+ years old. Mainly because I trust the Biblical account. But if an atheist were there with me, he'd see age because he rejects the creation story (assuming he wasn't swayed by the fact that something supernatural thrusted him back in time).

God caused evidence of the earth's great age to be found. I live near the Appalachian Mountains, which were once as high as the Rockies. They're now worn down & covered with soil. Obviously, that didn't occur quickly, or the soil would've been washed away.

Furthermore, from fossil records, we know that 99% of all species of plants or animals that ever lived are extinct. But Scripture says Noah took at least 1 pair of EVERY land animal & bird aboard the ark, so those critters had come & gone before Noah lived. And then there are the La Brea tar pits near Los Angeles, where the well-preserved skeletons of thousands of now-extinct animals are found.

The PRESENT ARRANGEMENT of the earth's surface & the life upon it isn't that old. That's what occurred in 4004BC or whatever date one wishes to use. But the earth was already here, as Genesis points out where it says God's spirit moved OVER THE FACE OF THE WATERS.

 

[Calminian]

God caused evidence of the earth's great age to be found...

Not with me, he didn't. I don't see any evidence that necessitates age. If you see it, it's on you. Don't blame God.

Furthermore, from fossil records, we know that 99% of all species of plants or animals that ever lived are extinct. But Scripture says Noah took at least 1 pair of EVERY land animal & bird aboard the ark, so those critters had come & gone before Noah lived. And then there are the La Brea tar pits near Los Angeles, where the well-preserved skeletons of thousands of now-extinct animals are found.

The fossil record, for the most part, is a snapshot of the world that persisted in the flood. And species come and go all the time. Species are merely variations of various kinds of animals. They can come and go before or after the flood.

It's also possible, some kinds (families) of animals died out before the flood. It's certainly possible, though it would be unlikely we'd find fossils of them. But those that existed at the time of the Flood, God brought onto the Ark. Kinds, not specie variations.

None of this is evidence against the Genesis account.

The PRESENT ARRANGEMENT of the earth's surface & the life upon it isn't that old. ....

Depends on who you ask. Most scientists disagree with you. I agree with you.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, since Adam was created - but I leave it open for time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
but here is the bottom line - weather the Earth is 6,024 years old or one million years - makes no difference.
in my salvation. And keep in mind - that "4004 BC" more than likely incorrect.

FTR - I do believe that Adam was created in the vicinity of 4K BC. Other than that - I am not really worried about.


Salty

PS - BTW, I do have a coin made by Adam - with a date of 3916 BC - with a notarized statement of authenticity

I used to be a gapper (not that that's totally relevant). Here are the issues that pulled me away from it and keep me away from it.

• Makes up a fall of Satan prior to Adam's with no biblical evidence. Contracts the biblical fall of Satan (the serpent) in Gen. 3 and in Ezekiel 28, which place it in the Garden of Eden.

• Contradicts Ex. 20:11, heaven, earth, sea and all in them created in 6 days—not just an earth surface makeover. (this verse moved me to the day-age theory, before I went to YEC)​

but perhaps the most convincing:

• Gen. 1:1 and 2:1 bookend the 6 day creation account. This is significant, as both verses use the merism the heavens and the earth. This confirms it was the creation of the universe (the heavens and the earth), not just a resurfacing job.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Gen. 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”….
Gen. 1:6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament….
Gen. 1:9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens…let the dry land appear”….
Gen. 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass….”
Gen. 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament….
Gen. 1:20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures,….let birds fly above….
Gen. 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature….
Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image….
Gen. 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good….

Gen. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.​

Also, the gap theory, is another example of interpreting from modern theories rather than the text itself. I think there's inherent danger in this, undermining the authority of God's word (albeit with good intentions).

 

[Barry Johnson]

Yes, since Adam was created - but I leave it open for time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
but here is the bottom line - weather the Earth is 6,024 years old or one million years - makes no difference.
in my salvation. And keep in mind - that "4004 BC" more than likely incorrect.

FTR - I do believe that Adam was created in the vicinity of 4K BC. Other than that - I am not really worried about.


Salty

PS - BTW, I do have a coin made by Adam - with a date of 3916 BC - with a notarized statement of authenticity

I agree its not a salvation issue . But ( there's always a but ) I believe there is no conflict with the bible on a ' 6 day creation' . It doesn't matter if your Ken Ham , Hugh Ross or Laurance Kraus we cannot ultimately prove the age of the earth by the scientific method . its safer to trust the bible on this one . Especially on the issue of no death before Adam .

 

[Salty]

You must have missed it- YEs I beleive in the six day creation.