[_ Old Earth _] How old is the Earth?

[Free]

When all sciences agree on an age, why try to resist it? I will post more. . . . gotta get to work.

Of course, it would be fallacious to conclude that they are all therefore correct. Science has been wrong in the past when all agreed....just saying.

 

[freeway]

I have not posted in the Science forum for some time.. but reading some/most of the post on this subject my I inject my 2 cents.
Psalms 19.1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Arguments can be given for both side of the debate. If God is all powerful and there is nothing he cannot do then creating the universe would be child's work for Him.
The bible says the heavens "space" stars, planets everything declares the "glory" of God. So if God wanted to show His glory "power" so why could he not spread the universe out full functioning. So that when "we" gaze upon or into it... It would be beyond our comprehension it would have the WOW factor. He could and would create it with light from distant stars and galaxies all ready reaching us.. If he spread the universe out only 6000 to 10000 years ago "which is my belief" and did not create it so as the light was already here but still on its way here, then there would not be much glory in that. What we could only see would be our sun and moon in the skies along with a few planets.. No God created it to show His Glory. It is all about Him and what he can do. Look we still are stuck on how old is the earth? where did we come from?, little alone how old is the universe. Also I heard the case well if God created the universe only a few thousand years ago and not billions then he is leading us with a lie, not so, God is God and can and does create from nothing and has the power to place it wherever he wants. Then it is us who doubt and get hung up on these things. Can you name just one thing that is 100%irrefutable that says the earth and universe has to be billions of years old?

 

[lordkalvan]

I have not posted in the Science forum for some time.. but reading some/most of the post on this subject my I inject my 2 cents.
Psalms 19.1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Arguments can be given for both side of the debate. If God is all powerful and there is nothing he cannot do then creating the universe would be child's work for Him.
The bible says the heavens "space" stars, planets everything declares the "glory" of God. So if God wanted to show His glory "power" so why could he not spread the universe out full functioning. So that when "we" gaze upon or into it... It would be beyond our comprehension it would have the WOW factor. He could and would create it with light from distant stars and galaxies all ready reaching us.. If he spread the universe out only 6000 to 10000 years ago "which is my belief" and did not create it so as the light was already here but still on its way here, then there would not be much glory in that. What we could only see would be our sun and moon in the skies along with a few planets.. No God created it to show His Glory. It is all about Him and what he can do. Look we still are stuck on how old is the earth? where did we come from?, little alone how old is the universe. Also I heard the case well if God created the universe only a few thousand years ago and not billions then he is leading us with a lie, not so, God is God and can and does create from nothing and has the power to place it wherever he wants. Then it is us who doubt and get hung up on these things. Can you name just one thing that is 100%irrefutable that says the earth and universe has to be billions of years old?

In the first place, requiring a Universe less than 10 KYO is only necessary if you follow a minority, idiosyncratically literalist interpretation of the OT. Most Christians don't seem to have a problem with this.

Secondly, as there are multiple lines of evidence from independent areas of research that indicate Earth and the Solar System are much older than 10 KYO, even if this evidence is individually not '100% irrefutable', collectively its consistency and consilience seems to be overwhelmingly persuasive.

 

[Sparkey]

It has been said that there are four possibilities:

There are other possibilities like my personal favorite: The age of the earth and universe are unknowable --but nobody likes it when I say such things so let's look at the 4th possibility, right?

Problem of Distant Starlight
Somebody mentioned the "Problem of Distant Starlight" in a previous post but the dilemma has a sharper point to it than what was stated. The problem that many have with a young Earth / young universe isn't just the time it takes for light to travel such distances. If the Earth and Universe are less than 15,000 years old why do we see evidence of supernovas more than 15,000 light-years away? Did God create stars that exploded before they were created?

He could and would create it with light from distant stars and galaxies all
ready reaching us.

Theistic proponents of Old Earth theories point to this as something that God (by His very nature) would not do. He would not mis-lead us and draw us to false conclusions by creating evidence of something that did not exist.

But what about option #4?
Dr. Humphreys is an American creationist and physicist. His theory deals with the distant starlight problem by suggesting that the Earth emerged from a white hole and the clocks on Earth were influenced by time dilation. The most significant difference between a black hole and a while hole (according to a review of Humphreys book, "Starlight and Time" by Carl Cantrell) is that matter can only go into a black hole, whereas it can only go out of a white hole. Cantrell states, "In Big Bang Theory, the matter originally collapsed into a black hole. As the outward expansion began, the black hole had to change into a white hole in an instant for the matter to escape out into space. The expanding matter was subject to the gravitational effects on time. For some reason, this was not included in the Big Bang Theory."

Cantrell quotes Humphreys (Starlight and Time, pg. 23) and goes on to say that the event horizon of either a black hole or a white hole is the point where gravity is strong enough to cause "light to bend back on itself and where time is massively distorted."

As the first matter passed through the event horizon, time began to rapidly accelerate for it and time continued to accelerate for it as it got further from the event horizon. In relation to the matter still at the event horizon, the matter out side of the event horizon began to move away from the event horizon more quickly and its speed away from the event horizon appeared to continue accelerating until the matter at the event horizon also passed through the event horizon. When the matter that would be our universe reached the event horizon, the matter furthest from the event horizon would have aged billions of years permitting the cosmos to be older and permitting enough time for light to have traveled tens of billions of light years from those stars to our matter.

 

[Deavonreye]

... It would be beyond our comprehension it would have the WOW factor. He could and would create it with light from distant stars and galaxies all ready reaching us.. If he spread the universe out only 6000 to 10000 years ago "which is my belief" and did not create it so as the light was already here but still on its way here, then there would not be much glory in that. What we could only see would be our sun and moon in the skies along with a few planets.. No God created it to show His Glory. ...

The problem is, . . . it makes your god a trickster. It is the promotion of [basically] a lie. Something said to be real, but never was. For example, . . . any supernova remenant beyond 10,000 years old [in other words, further than 10,000 light years away], would be a false reality. There would be absolutely no reason to have an "after event" except for the purpose of deceiving scientific minds in future times.

 

[freeway]

The problem is, . . . it makes your god a trickster. It is the promotion of [basically] a lie.

There it is the quote for those who have a hard time with the power of God...

minority, idiosyncratically literalist

thats me.. thank you. but about your first quote. Let me see if I get this right. If I can not explain something or someones theory, let just say Albert Einstein the Theory Relativity. Now i don't see me traveling 25 years at the speed of light anytime soon just to come back to a planet that is 1000 years older or so. So just not being able to prove this, makes it a lie.. strange. So as you imply light has to be and always have been constant? Can you prove that?

research that indicate Earth and the Solar System are much older than 10 KYO, even if this evidence is individually not '100% irrefutable

Again thank you..Yes your best evidence can and always will have someone who can refute it.. thats just the way these things go.. but Deveneye you do seem like a very intelligent person. Although I do not post here as I did in the past for my own reasons I enjoy these topics.. And it is not to change your mind or your belief only God can do that. But only for those who may be looking for a different view... I wish I had this type of forum with I was and Atheist...some 30 years ago... Again enjoy your input.. Also to you Lk..

 

[lordkalvan]

It has been said that there are four possibilities:

There are other possibilities like my personal favorite: The age of the earth and universe are unknowable --but nobody likes it when I say such things so let's look at the 4th possibility, right?

Problem of Distant Starlight
Somebody mentioned the "Problem of Distant Starlight" in a previous post but the dilemma has a sharper point to it than what was stated. The problem that many have with a young Earth / young universe isn't just the time it takes for light to travel such distances. If the Earth and Universe are less than 15,000 years old why do we see evidence of supernovas more than 15,000 light-years away? Did God create stars that exploded before they were created? Theistic proponents of Old Earth theories point to this as something that God (by His very nature) would not do. He would not mis-lead us and draw us to false conclusions by creating evidence of something that did not exist.

But what about option #4?
Dr. Humphreys is an American creationist and physicist. His theory deals with the distant starlight problem by suggesting that the Earth emerged from a white hole and the clocks on Earth were influenced by time dilation. The most significant difference between a black hole and a while hole (according to a review of Humphreys book, "Starlight and Time" by Carl Cantrell) is that matter can only go into a black hole, whereas it can only go out of a white hole. Cantrell states, "In Big Bang Theory, the matter originally collapsed into a black hole. As the outward expansion began, the black hole had to change into a white hole in an instant for the matter to escape out into space. The expanding matter was subject to the gravitational effects on time. For some reason, this was not included in the Big Bang Theory."

Cantrell quotes Humphreys (Starlight and Time, pg. 23) and goes on to say that the event horizon of either a black hole or a white hole is the point where gravity is strong enough to cause "light to bend back on itself and where time is massively distorted."

You always come up with thought-provoking posts, Sparrow. I am not enough of a physicist to even begin to argue the fine points of black hole/white hole physics without some extensive reading, but my immediate understanding is that, at least as far as the Solar System is concerned, there is not enough physical material present to provide the gravitational basis of a singularity and so the cosmological net would need to be cast wider. Also, our best understanding of the origins of our Solar System posits no such 'white hole' as a requirement and, indeed, insofar as we observe what appear to be solar systems forming in conditions absent such phenomena, there seems to be no reason to propose our own Solar System's origins should have been any different. Just my immediate thoughts and may require adjusting on further reading.

 

[Deavonreye]

There it is the quote for those who have a hard time with the power of God...

It has nothing to do with "having a hard time with the power of god". It is an untruth!! Plain and simple. If it isn't true, . . . it is a lie. The remnance of a supernova greater than 10,000 light years [and there are] would indicate a false past . . . for the purpose of deceiving future scientists.

Anyway, yes, I enjoy these types of conversations too. I'm not an expert in either the sciences or biblical references, but offer my own opinion/understanding on the topics.

 

[Sparkey]

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." - (Gen 1:3 KJV) That was the first day. It wasn't till the fourth day that He made the lights, the sun, the moon, and the stars.

God did what He did, then He said what He did. How can this be "for the purpose of deceiving future scientists," as you say? Your logic conundrum does not a liar make. Oh, wait. You mean if God did it LIKE YOU would have, then He too would be a liar. I understand now. Nevermind.

 

[freeway]

It has nothing to do with "having a hard time with the power of god". It is an untruth!! Plain and simple. If it isn't true, . . . it is a lie. The remnance of a supernova greater than 10,000 light years [and there are] would indicate a false past . . . for the purpose of deceiving future scientists.

Anyway, yes, I enjoy these types of conversations too. I'm not an expert in either the sciences or biblical references, but offer my own opinion/understanding on the topics.

See but I do believe it is all about God. for if he does exist, then we as mere mortals will have give an account of ourselves one day. Jesus stating in Mark 10.6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
Here Jesus is tying the creation with the creation of man. Then in the first chapter of Mathew we all given linage of Jesus to creation, or Adam.. Now I cannot say that the earth and universe was not here for a billion or billlions of years by our standard of measure. But sin, death and decay did not enter into the world until the fall on man. By this timeline around 6 to 10 thousand years ago. So if death did not enter into time until then. well then that changes everything. "time wise".
I too am by no means an expert on space and time, nor bible theology. but its fun.

 

[Deavonreye]

Sparrowhawke, I've already addressed this. . . . . and it has NOTHING to do with me and everything to do with a god who would create something WITHOUT PURPOSE. . . . except to eventually deceive people. There is absolutely NO reason to have anything beyond 10,000 light years [if this god knew people would figure out the speed of light] but to deceive scientists who would use their wisdom and intelligence to perform experiments to discover the truth about the natural world and universe. This isn't hard to understand! : It makes it LOOK like you don't have any other answer but "god did it that way and who are we to question it". That isn't a pathway to truth. . . if you are interested IN the truth.

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrowhawke, I've already addressed this. . . . . and it has NOTHING to do with me and everything to do with a god who would create something WITHOUT PURPOSE. . . . except to eventually deceive people. There is absolutely NO reason to have anything beyond 10,000 light years [if this god knew people would figure out the speed of light] but to deceive scientists who would use their wisdom and intelligence to perform experiments to discover the truth about the natural world and universe. This isn't hard to understand! : It makes it LOOK like you don't have any other answer but "god did it that way and who are we to question it". That isn't a pathway to truth. . . if you are interested IN the truth.

Have you read my previous two posts? [post #79 & 84] Is it possible for something you don't understand to have happened or must all things have been done according to your almighty word? Give me a break.

My personal opinion is that God created from the beginning with wisdom beyond our comprehension, that He didn't lie when He said, "My ways are higher than your ways." Consider one of the oldest questions that God put to man, "Where were you [when He created]?"

Deception of future scientists? Teach me about black hole event horizons, tell me why we have theories of dark energy and dark matter and while doing so, don't resort to speculation about matters beyond our ability to understand -- then, after you've explained things we can observe, declare God's intentions again.

 

[Deavonreye]

Have you read my previous two posts? [post #79 & 84] Is it possible for something you don't understand to have happened or must all things have been done according to your almighty word? Give me a break.

My personal opinion is that God created from the beginning with wisdom beyond our comprehension, that He didn't lie when He said, "My ways are higher than your ways." Consider one of the oldest questions that God put to man, "Where were you [when He created]?"

All you're saying here is, "it doesn't make sense, so god did it". And I am hardly stating what I do with an "almighty word". That is a silly accusation. What I state is logical. It doesn't matter IF there was some magical way it was done. The bottom line is, it could only have been done with an intent to deceive, WHEN you leave the world with no evidence, and actually STACK evidence against reality. Remember, when there IS only evidence to go on, what WE find, using the scientific method, can absolutely NOT be used against us.

But I personally see it as a "things look bad for a young earth theology so we make god do something to fix it". In other words, you make your god perform actions he never did because the contrary is too damning.

 

[Sparkey]

All you're saying here is, "it doesn't make sense, so god did it". And I am hardly stating what I do with an "almighty word". That is a silly accusation. What I state is logical. It doesn't matter IF there was some magical way it was done. The bottom line is, it could only have been done with an intent to deceive, WHEN you leave the world with no evidence, and actually STACK evidence against reality. Remember, when there IS only evidence to go on, what WE find, using the scientific method, can absolutely NOT be used against us.

But I personally see it as a "things look bad for a young earth theology so we make god do something to fix it". In other words, you make your god perform actions he never did because the contrary is too damning.

No, that is what you are saying that I said. Not what I said at all. You're creating a strawman because you don't want to deal with what I've actually said. Stop it. In addition, your statement that God is a deciever, even if you say it three times while clicking your heels together, remains untrue.

 

[Deavonreye]

Here's the problem. There would be no reason for people to create "fancy footwork" in physics principles if there had never been those who propose a young earth or universe. And even if I have to say it a forth time, I will. When various areas of study agree on an ancient earth and universe, BASED upon actual scientific discovery [not theoretical], . . . then people, such as me, must accept those peer reviewed pages that used repeatable data points as evidence.

The ideas you listed in #84 are fun to consider. But that doesn't matter to what science knows NOW. And since there isn't a conspiracy to hide the truth, within the science community, and since no one has yet come out with differing data [using the scientific method], ideas found on post #84 are JUST "interesting proposals". If there is something to it, . . .then by all means, those proposing it need to produce their evidence and submit it for review!!

 

[stovebolts]

Here's the problem. There would be no reason for people to create "fancy footwork" in physics principles if there had never been those who propose a young earth or universe. And even if I have to say it a forth time, I will. When various areas of study agree on an ancient earth and universe, BASED upon actual scientific discovery [not theoretical], . . . then people, such as me, must accept those peer reviewed pages that used repeatable data points as evidence.

The ideas you listed in #84 are fun to consider. But that doesn't matter to what science knows NOW. And since there isn't a conspiracy to hide the truth, within the science community, and since no one has yet come out with differing data [using the scientific method], ideas found on post #84 are JUST "interesting proposals". If there is something to it, . . .then by all means, those proposing it need to produce their evidence and submit it for review!!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

The Assumption of Rigidity of Time
Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.
Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.†So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.
It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.
Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.
Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind†faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.
In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel†any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

 

[lordkalvan]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

The Assumption of Rigidity of Time
Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.
Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.†So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.
It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.
Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.
Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind†faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.
In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel†any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

Just to cast a little cold water on AiG's hypothesis, first of all Earth isn't even at the centre of our own galaxy, never mind the Universe, but more importantly if we were near the centre of such a gravity well we would expect to see the light from distant galaxies blue-shifted rather than red-shifted as it actually is.