[_ Old Earth _] Earths Age

[stovebolts]

To be honest everone, I wasn't even responding to earlier posts on Stephen Hawkin. I simply read the article that came out yesterday and it reminded me of a pet theory I have. No offense ever.

This theory is my own, it just dovetails with his recent ideas.

Right, and I think your theory deserves some discussion, and thanks for citing the source which spurred your thoughts.

 

[KevinK]

OK, back to topic, for real this time...


True, but other types of radiometric-dating, other than carbon-dating, puts the age of the planet at around 4.5 billion years. The age of the universe (using other methods) has been estimated at around 14 billion years.

Today Stephen Hawkin discussed some theories about the nature of time in relation to the beginning of the universe. It got me thinking of a different theory I've been considering. Does anyone have any views on time compression? It could be a nifty way to reconcile both Scripture and Science.

A lot of the discussion on the creation of the universe and the earth specifically makes the assumption that time-flow is constant. As Hawkin reminds us, this is for the most part a very bad assumption. At singularity, all the laws of physics regarding the space-time continuum were compressed, including time. To keep it simple, time probably flowed much, much faster for the first 10 billion years.

So what if the 7 days mentioned in Genesis were much longer than the current earthly counterparts? If each "day" lasted about 2 billion years by our standard, you could have a 4.5 billion year old planet built in the Biblical 2 days. Well, a bit longer than 2 days, a little into the third day to fully form the planet.

By my reading of Genesis, the earth was fully-formed a little into the third day.

I would like to hear for_his_glory's reaction to my post, if any, about 2 billion year "days". Does my idea even make sense?

 

[Truthfrees]

In the last three weeks, I have actually spent three hours of my life listening to Young Earth Christian apologists, all from Answers In Genesis, defend a 6,000-year-old earth on The Christian Worldview, a radio program that I often enjoy. Notwithstanding the supposed "science" the YEC cite, mostly in hopes of raising the bar to a level where their claims don't seem completely and utterly nonsensical, the reality is that the YEC position is almost entirely grounded in a particular interpretation of the Bible. The host, David Wheaton, asserted that even a "flexible" Christian could not believe in an earth older than about 6,500 years. Really? Watch me, pal.

I believe that God gave us intellectual and analytical abilities for a reason. He created a universe susceptible to investigation and analysis for a reason. Every scientist in every scientific discipline this side of Answers In Genesis believes the earth is billions of years old. It is as easy to prove the earth is eons older than 6,000 years as it is to prove it is not flat. Moreover, there is nothing in the Genesis account that compels the interpretation the YEC give to it. Ergo, I believe the earth is billions of years old and that Genesis does an amazing job of describing a systematic account of creation that is far more profound than the typical ancient creation myth. But Genesis is neither history nor science.

As I have said on other threads, I believe that those who insist on a young earth are forced to live in a state of cognitive dissonance. They rely on their own intellectual and analytical abilities, and on the best work from the scientific disciplines, in every area of their lives every day. But when it comes to the age of the earth, suddenly believing in a 6,000-year-old planet becomes a matter of faith, a litmus test for whether one is a real Christian.

It is my personal opinion that NO ONE, including the good folks at Answers In Genesis, actually believes the earth is anything like 6,000 years old. It's kind of a game, a line in the sand, a way to set oneself apart from those whose faith is supposedly not as strong and to bond with a little community whose members revel in being "different" and "spiritually superior."

the fact is no one knows how old the earth is - even scientists - they just guess - so each of us have to decide who we believe - scientists who guess or the bible

the thing about science is that it is always changing it's mind - at first the earth was a million years old - because they believed evolution needed 1 million years

then they decided the earth needed millions - then billions of years for evolution to work

now they decided the earth needs a big bang - but recently are wondering about that too

science is good for things that are observable and falsifiable - but really unreliable for things that are not observable

for this reason i choose to believe God over science regarding the age of the earth

 

[Truthfrees]

OK, back to topic, for real this time...


True, but other types of radiometric-dating, other than carbon-dating, puts the age of the planet at around 4.5 billion years. The age of the universe (using other methods) has been estimated at around 14 billion years.

Today Stephen Hawkin discussed some theories about the nature of time in relation to the beginning of the universe. It got me thinking of a different theory I've been considering. Does anyone have any views on time compression? It could be a nifty way to reconcile both Scripture and Science.

A lot of the discussion on the creation of the universe and the earth specifically makes the assumption that time-flow is constant. As Hawkin reminds us, this is for the most part a very bad assumption. At singularity, all the laws of physics regarding the space-time continuum were compressed, including time. To keep it simple, time probably flowed much, much faster for the first 10 billion years.

So what if the 7 days mentioned in Genesis were much longer than the current earthly counterparts? If each "day" lasted about 2 billion years by our standard, you could have a 4.5 billion year old planet built in the Biblical 2 days. Well, a bit longer than 2 days, a little into the third day to fully form the planet.

By my reading of Genesis, the earth was fully-formed a little into the third day.

the thought is that the universe seems to be observably expanding at a changing speed - so if they calculate that change of speed in reverse they believe time at creation was at a different speed than time right now - and time on earth is different than time millions of light years from here

if this is true then it could be as you said - days were longer at creation than they are now

this is only a theory - and this theory is only needed because of evolution - if evolution was discarded as an incorrect theory for the origins of life and species diversification time would not be an issue

imo evolution of one species into a different species is not observable - and is actually disproven by the cambrian explosion geological evidence

evolution within a species - mutations - natural selection - cross breeding - is observable but does not prove the origins of life and the variety of distinct species

 

[KevinK]

this theory is only needed because of evolution - if evolution was discarded as an incorrect theory for the origins of life and species diversification time would not be an issue

Thank you for responding to my ideas. Just to explain, I originally came up with this theory to accomodate the current estimated age of the universe and the planet earth, not evolution...

Universe: 14 billion years
Earth: 5.5 billion years

But speaking of evolution...
Life: 4 billion years

 

[Jim Parker]

By my reading of Genesis, the earth was fully-formed a little into the third day.

Genesis 1 is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth.
It is an example of the standard ancient, near eastern practice in literature to begin a story and to separate episodes of a continuing story with a genealogy.
It is a misunderstanding to assume it is supposed to be a modern historical, chronological, report of events.

Also, considering vs 1 -3
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 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”; and there was light.

There is no indication of how long the earth was without form and void or how much time passed between it being in that condition before God said, "let there be light."

So, all the speculation about the meaning of the word "day", in order to determine how old the earth and the universe might be, is moot.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

the reality is that the YEC position is almost entirely grounded in a particular interpretation of the Bible.

Therein lies the problem.
You do not "do" science by deciding what is true and then go looking for evidence to support the "truth".
You "do" science by looking at the evidence and then determining what it means.
When you have done that, you will have formulated a "theory" which is supported by the available evidence. It may or may not be "true." You may have to adjust your theory if and when new evidence is uncovered.
The YEC start with a theological belief and then try to find evidence to support it.
That's not science. That's theology with a facade of science.

 

[Jim Parker]

for this reason i choose to believe God over science regarding the age of the earth

Actually, you have chosen your personal understanding of a part of the Bible over science.
There is no guarantee that your interpretation is correct or that the meaning you have gleaned from the scripture is what was intended to be communicated.

iakov the fool

 

[KevinK]

Genesis 1 is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth.
It is an example of the standard ancient, near eastern practice in literature to begin a story and to separate episodes of a continuing story with a genealogy.
It is a misunderstanding to assume it is supposed to be a modern historical, chronological, report of events.

Also, considering vs 1 -3
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 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”; and there was light.

There is no indication of how long the earth was without form and void or how much time passed between it being in that condition before God said, "let there be light."

So, all the speculation about the meaning of the word "day", in order to determine how old the earth and the universe might be, is moot.

iakov the fool

Yes, indeed, precisely why I refer to my ideas as working theory or even mere hypothesis. While I think it's interesting how closely the numbers match up, I'm not at the point quite yet where I can depart from my original assessment that the timeline in Genesis is a non-literal parable.

Compelling, isn't it, to think that Science and Scripture could both be right?

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes, indeed, precisely why I refer to my ideas as working theory or even mere hypothesis. While I think it's interesting how closely the numbers match up, I'm not at the point quite yet where I can depart from my original assessment that the timeline in Genesis is a non-literal parable.

Compelling, isn't it, to think that Science and Scripture could both be right?

Scripture is right about what God has revealed to mankind.
Science is right about many things, like the speed of light in a vacuum, and has theories about many other things.
People have a habit of getting those two all tangled up and confused and are constantly mistaking their personal opinions for actual facts.


iakov the fool

 

[Truthfrees]

Actually, you have chosen your personal understanding of a part of the Bible over science.
There is no guarantee that your interpretation is correct or that the meaning you have gleaned from the scripture is what was intended to be communicated.

iakov the fool

in principle this is true - but Genesis 1 is not really open to personal understanding

it's only the theory of inter-species evolution that causes christians to want to comply with this pseudo science - and to do this a person has to twist the clear meaning of Genesis 1

intra-species evolution is observable - cross breeding - random mutation - natural selection - this is real science

 

[Jim Parker]

Genesis 1 is not really open to personal understanding

To consider Genesis 1 an historic record of the six, 24-hour days of creation is, in fact, a personal opinion.
Gen 1:1 -2:3 is the introductory genealogy of the man-God relationship which begins at Gen.2:4. It id not meant to be either history or science. It is a standard, ancient, near eastern, literary devise used to introduce a story.

it's only the theory of inter-species evolution that causes christians to want to comply with this pseudo science - and to do this a person has to twist the clear meaning of Genesis 1

What you call "the clear meaning" is a meaning contrived to fit the YEC hypothesis. It is neither historical nor scientific.

And the idea that the theory "causes" Christian to comply is a bit of a reach. People tend to believe that with which they are most comfortable. The existence of the theory does not force anyone to comply.

But, I agree that the theory of inter-species evolution is most likely false and seriously lacks empirical evidence, evolution within species is well established.

iakov the fool

 

[Truthfrees]

To consider Genesis 1 an historic record of the six, 24-hour days of creation is, in fact, a personal opinion.
Gen 1:1 -2:3 is the introductory genealogy of the man-God relationship which begins at Gen.2:4. It id not meant to be either history or science. It is a standard, ancient, near eastern, literary devise used to introduce a story.

What you call "the clear meaning" is a meaning contrived to fit the YEC hypothesis. It is neither historical nor scientific.

And the idea that the theory "causes" Christian to comply is a bit of a reach. People tend to believe that with which they are most comfortable. The existence of the theory does not force anyone to comply.

But, I agree that the theory of inter-species evolution is most likely false and seriously lacks empirical evidence, evolution within species is well established.

iakov the fool

my thoughts are "there was evening there was morning the 1st...2nd...etc day"

so evening and morning would be 24 hrs would it not?

i guess i thought everyone would see it that way

how can "evening morning the 1st day" not be 24 hrs?

i know inter-species evolution theory needs billions and possibly trillions of years - actually it can't ever happen - so the theory can't ever be proven true - it is forever only an unprovable theory

but intra-species evolution/mutation/natural selection doesn't need more than the 6000 bible days - because we already observe these things

why do you think the earth is older than the 6000 years bible time?

 

[brujaq]

Jim
Genesis 1:4-5 Pretty clear meaning to me, which you conveniently left out in two of your posts ..

 

[jasonc]

my thoughts are "there was evening there was morning the 1st...2nd...etc day"

so evening and morning would be 24 hrs would it not?

i guess i thought everyone would see it that way

how can "evening morning the 1st day" not be 24 hrs?

i know inter-species evolution theory needs billions and possibly trillions of years - actually it can't ever happen - so the theory can't ever be proven true - it is forever only an unprovable theory

but intra-species evolution/mutation/natural selection doesn't need more than the 6000 bible days - because we already observe these things

we will touch this in the exodus thread since the shabat is based off that and when it starts and as all feasts do, sundown in Jerusalem or then when the priests observed the moon from the tabernacle or temple.

channukah never thought I still learn from doing that

 

[Truthfrees]

we will touch this in the exodus thread since the shabat is based off that and when it starts and as all feasts do, sundown in Jerusalem or then when the priests observed the moon from the tabernacle or temple.

channukah never thought I still learn from doing that

i saw that thread - i need to subscribe to make sure i don't miss anything

 

[jasonc]

i saw that thread - i need to subscribe to make sure i don't miss anything

when we discuss Genesis we must remember it is meant to tell the story of How isreal came to be. if you doubt see the last few chapters and then read exodus. remember Moses wrote that and his first audience read it or knew it from oral passing. I believe moses was raised to know it by his mother and dad. he circumized his firstborn but not his second born until the Angel of the Lord was about to slay him.

 

[Jim Parker]

my thoughts are "there was evening there was morning the 1st...2nd...etc day"
so evening and morning would be 24 hrs would it not?

That would be a reasonable conclusion if Genesis was literature from the modern era in western countries that spoke Modern English.
It is not. It is ancient, near/middle eastern, literature written in an ancient Hebrew dialect that is not longer spoken.
To impose the meanings of Modern English from a modern, western, scientific, worldview is to insert error into the text.

why do you think the earth is older than the 6000 years bible time?

Real scientific evidence shows it to be so.

The Bible is not a science or history text.
It is God's self revelation to man and His desire that man have eternal life.
To try to make it tell us how old the earth is or how long it took for earth and everything on it to come into being totally misses the point.
It is a distraction.

 

[Truthfrees]

That would be a reasonable conclusion if Genesis was literature from the modern era in western countries that spoke Modern English.
It is not. It is ancient, near/middle eastern, literature written in an ancient Hebrew dialect that is not longer spoken.
To impose the meanings of Modern English from a modern, western, scientific, worldview is to insert error into the text.

Real scientific evidence shows it to be so.

The Bible is not a science or history text.
It is God's self revelation to man and His desire that man have eternal life.
To try to make it tell us how old the earth is or how long it took for earth and everything on it to come into being totally misses the point.
It is a distraction.

what science?

they don't know for sure how old the earth is

they are still just guessing - and the age of the earth keeps getting older

so that shows that they really don't know at all

 

[Jim Parker]

they don't know for sure how old the earth is

That's true.
But we certainly know that it is older than 6000 years.
The Bible is NOT a science book.
It's as THEOLOGY book.