How old is the earth?

Just saw a really cool show on this on the Discovery Chanel. Evidently there's new evidence about the scientific possiblity that the Earth could be as young as the Bible implies it is.

My belief is that science and God will reconcile some day in a way that even athiests will not be able to deny. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

About 6000 years, as the Bible has given history for this length of time. When God created, He created everything with time in it. Adam was created as a grown man, so how old was he when he was created? At that second he was newly created, but had age in him. I would assume that rocks had age, plants had age, etc. I believe as the Bible teaches, 6- 24 hour days to create aged things.

Dinosaurs co-existed following this line of thinking

 

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

 

The problem with the young-earth theory is that different species are found in different layers of rock strata according to approximate age in which they lived. Dinosaur remains and human remains are never found in the same layer of rocks. One could argue that we can see light from distant stars because God made that light closer to us when he created the universe (which makes sense - why would He make stars if we wouldn't be able to see them?). But there's no reason I can think of why God would be dinosaur fossils and human fossils (along with everything else) in different layers of rock.

Unless you want to believe that God, for whatever reason, placed these fossils there as an example of "age", this is pretty good evidence that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist. As John said, the age of the Earth has been determined to be 4.5 billion years, +- about 100 million.

 

3958 B.C. on the first day of the first month of the Jewish calendar. (I'm not sure about daylight savings time. ) Seriously, a young earth is the only thing a Bible believing Christian can reasonably believe.

 

I'm a devout Bible believing Christian. I believe the Earth is probably 4 1/2 billion years old.

 

If you were to ask an evolutionist it is getting eolder and older by bilions and billions of years. In my teens it was said to have been milions od years old. But in just about 35 years it has grown to billions and billions.

I guess you could call that progessive evolution. We have a progressive theology why not a progressive evolution. Then there are some who seem to stick closer to the real facts and say it is less than ten thousand.

But of course the evolutionists try and explain creation without God. So then you have to have a length of time to accomodate their theory which they preach as fact.

 

Interesting. When I was in grade school in the 70's, and it was thought to be about 4 billion years old. Today, it's still thought to be about 4 billion years old.

 

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml?main#fossil_lines

 

This has always been a question of interest with me.

I have always believed that Genesis 1:1 is a statement unto itself: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. IMHO, the first day of Creation begins with Verse 2. I guess that I am considered to be an "Old Earth'er."

When I was in junior high school, my father and I really got into astronomy, probably as a result of watching Cosmos. As most (if not all) of you know, Carl Sagan produced this series on PBS, and it dealt with all things astronomical. [Who could forget the way Carl said “billyuns???”] This is the first exposure I really had to the Big Bang Theory. I could never comprehend why anyone professing to be an atheist would extol this postulate. The Big Bang Theory proclaims the existence of the Creator.

Now stay with me:

Remember Sir Isaac Newton? Newton (a Christian, by the way) formulated the Laws of Physics. If you took Physics in high school or college, you will recall that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the particles collided, giving us the Big Bang, something (or Someone!) had to set this into motion. I believe that the Big Bang occurred in the instant that God spoke our universe into existence.

We would all agree that all knowledge comes from God. It would follow that God wrote the laws of physics and chemistry. Isaac Newton merely observed these, and “discovered” God’s Universal Laws. God promised that if we seek Him that we will find Him.

I seem to recall my college professor in astronomy telling us that Albert Einstein did not believe in the Big Bang Theory. Unfortunately, I cannot confirm the validity of that statement. I had previously done a little reading on a totally unrelated topic involving Alan Guth (a Professor of Physics at MIT) and found this statement on the New York Academy of Sciences web page (nyas.org):

Recent observations of distant supernovae lend further support to Guth's inflationary model. Astronomers have attempted to measure changes in the expansion rate of the universe over the last five to seven billion years by using supernovae type Ia explosions as "standard candles" - objects whose intrinsic brightness they believe they know. By observing that these supernovae are appearing dimmer - and therefore moving farther away - they've determined that the rate of expansion in the universe today is actually larger than it was five billion years ago, an unexpected result that has shaken up cosmology and astrophysics. It has revived the idea of a "cosmological constant," first proposed (and then rejected) by Albert Einstein, a special force that must be working against gravity to account for such an acceleration. [note: the emphasis placed on the last phrase is mine]

We all know the identity of the “Cosmological Constant,” don’t we? It’s right there, in front of our faces…..

 

Not as devout as you think. You cannot worship a false god.

Christ pointed to Adam and Eve and quoted Gen. 2:24 and said it was the beginning. If that was only 6,000 years ago, and the earth is really 4 1/2 billion years old, Christ would at best be uninformed and at worst, well I won't even say it. Your allegiance is to a dying belief of some of the scientists.

 

I have a different idea. The creation was (according to the Bible) app. 6000 years ago. It took a literal six 24 hour days. But it was a re-creation. (Just as we are "new creatures" when we are saved. Just as the world after the millenial kingdom will be "re-created" a "New heaven and a new earth".)


This gives place to both the literal translation of Genesis 1&2. But it also gives us a place to put the fall of Satan in Ezekial 28:13-17. If all the Angels were created 6000 years ago, then when did satan fall? And who were the morning stars who sang. (Job 38:7) It also explains why Adam was told to "re-plenish" the earth. (see Gen1:28; 9:1.)

Notice that the condition of the world in

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This phrase "without form, and void" is only found one other place and describes the world after a terrible (future) judgement. (Jeremiah 4:22-31). If we compare scripture with scripture, it would stand to reason that the condition of the pre-Adamic world before the (new) creation was the result of a judgement of the earth on a cosmic scale (remember the firmament itself, the stars, moon, and the sun were recreated too) as a result of the fall of Satan.

It is not classic "Gap theory". I don't believe in geological "Day-Ages" or any such nonsense. I believe that the flood can explain 99.99999% of all the geological "evidence" for an old earth. I believe there will be evidence for both a young earth and (A little) evidence for an older earth.

Toss it against the wall and see if it sticks.

Lacy

 

That is an interesting speculation that I never thought of. I started my research with the mentioning of the leviathan and the behemoth (excuse mispelling?) being a sea serpant (dinosaur water snake) and a brontosarus. Now though I must agree that it does seem weird that dinosaur and human fossils do not exist on the same level.

Of course, this requires further study, and a later posting </font>[/QUOTE]http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm

How much evidence do we need? Look at the tracks. Look at the artwork especially from Peru.

If the flood caused the geological layers, then the fossils would be generally dispersed into layers according to many factors such as weight, density, intelligence, mobility, etc. the denser, more stupid creatures (clams) at the bottom. The mobile (birds) more intelligent (Men) at the top.

But there would be much chaos in the layers too. That is exactly what we do see. (petrified trees running upright through "billions" of years of layers, etc.)



Lacy

 

Not as devout as you think. You cannot worship a false god.</font>[/QUOTE]I have read many of Johnv's posts and vehemently disagree with your statement. You may or may not agree with what he believes, but Johnv does not "worship a false god."

 

I could accept this theory as well.

Those were excellent links you provided, and I remember my Anthropology professor becoming angry when someone raised the "Paluxy River" subject in class. I cannot remember to rationale he provided to refute this claim, but I remember that it was not convincing.

Although I do believe in the Big Bang, I do not believe in evolution.

 

My take:

One creation (as of yet) of six 24 hour periods; Young earth; no "Big Bang" (Let there be light); no "Primordial Soup"; no evolution.

HankD

 

The problem with the Paluxy River tracks is that no credible scientist has examined them.

Unless someone can show some actual proof otherwise, Dr. Don Patton and Dr. Carl Baugh do not have real doctorates in anything--only honorary ones. And that being the case, they're no more qualified than Bill Clinton is.

I believe there are tracks in the Paluxy River that NEED to be investigated thoroughly; the next question is, why aren't the evolutionists looking at them?

 

Of course, that is your right. However, when the Christ of Scripture attributes the Genesis account to being correct (including the geneologies), I will stick with him over what SOME of the scientists say.