how old is the earth

[one love]

How old do you think the world is?

6000 years? 50,000, 50 million etc...

and how do you come up with this conclusion biblically.

RAMBO AND RUSSELL how accurate is the dating of fossils? I know nothing about that and I know that is Rambo's specialty and seems Russell has some experience as well.
I have always thought and believed the world is 6000 years old but I would love to be proved wrong...

[Russell Roberts]

Onelove,

The conflict arises from ones INTERPRETATION of the creation account in Genesis one. If genealogical records are followed back to Genesis, an argument for a young earth can be made. This is normally done to support a fundamentalist view of scripture.

Using radiometric dating methods, scientists have dated the earth to around 4.5 billion years old.

What many fail to realize is that Genesis 1 is not an attempt to give an account of the creation of the materials that comprise the universe. The ancient Hebrews weren't concerned about that. Genesis 1 is an account of God assigning various FUNCTIONS to the material of the universe. For example, the sun and moon were assigned the function of marking days and years, etc.

The same kind of mistake of trying to use one's 'literal' interpretation was made some time back when the Church believed the sun revolves around the earth. Those who believed or taught otherwise were shunned and persecuted by those who insisted that, according to the bible, the earth had foundations, hence, everything revolved around the earth. That has obviously since been totally disproven as a young age for the earth has also been totally disproven.

Still, some will insist that the earth is young so they can defend their OWN INTERPRETATION of scripture.

[Russell Roberts]

The universe, however, has been dated to around 14.5 billion years old. That's when God made the big bang happen.

Check out this video if you get the chance. Building an atomic bomb required scientists to know how atoms work. Suffice it to say, they know. Unless, of course, you want to deny that a bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here's the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDn5SqE9jc&feature=related

[Poimen]

Russell,

A more literal reading of Scripture is natural and does not necessarily, much less readily, lead one to erroneous conclusions. Can it, if taken out of context? Sure. But I propose that the majority of Scripture is written

As for "function" versus a "bringing into existence" it seems to me that when one takes the whole of Scripture on the subject into account it becomes apparent that Divine inspiration intends for us to learn not only of God's functional purpose for creation but His bringing it into existence itself (i.e. 2 Peter 3:4-7, Colossians 1:16, & Hebrews 11:3).

To clarify, I'm not denying function. I am suggesting that it is an interpreting of God's creative work to narrowly when we isolate and emphasize functionality over or apart from institution. After all. you can't give function to something non-existent. Besides, "the beginning" is the beginning for a reason -- it all starts there.

Having said that ... how old is the earth? I have no idea. I would guess somewhere between six and ten thousand years, but there are variables that Scripture does not seem (or at least that I am not yet aware of) to give us that could account for brief moments or ages of time that otherwise are not detailed or specified for us. For instance, just how long were Adam and Eve in the pre-fallen state? How much time passed between their fall and their removal from Eden?

Anyhow, just trying to add to the discussion.

[Russell Roberts]

One love,

Did you ask that question with an open mind? Do you really want to know the age of the earth? If you seriously want to know the age of the earth - if we are on a quest for the truth, we will have to address some presuppositions about the way we view the world.

For example, I used to believe that most scientists estimated an old age for the earth to support the theory of evolution so they could disprove the existence of God to justify immoral behavior. That was before I understood that science does not address the metaphysical aspects of creation. In other words, science does not address aspects of reality that are non-physical like the existence of God or the fact that he brought the material world into existence. Science only addresses observable, testable, physical facts. In light of those facts they formulate theories about how things happened. When new data arises that casts doubt on that theory, they attempt to formulate a different theory that enables them to reconcile it with the facts. This is what the Pharisees should have done when Jesus showed up on the scene.

They KNEW what the bible said and they KNEW that their interpretation was correct. But when the God who inspired it showed up on the scene, pissed in their bushes, ate lunch with them, got sleepy, or stubbed his toe, they didn't recognize him. He refused to mold his life to their expectations of who a Messiah would be. These were unable to look at the FACTS and develop a new theory about their own interpretation of scripture. I guess the question boils down to this: Are we any different from the Pharisees? Do we seriously want to know the truth? Are we willing to reconsider our INTERPRETATION of the scriptures based on observable facts rather than to cast dispersion on science and on the scientists?

It is one thing to ask a question with an open mind - one that is willing to consider observable facts and is willing to question their own interpretation of scripture. It is something else entirely to ask a question for the sake of initiating a good hearted exchange of jocular comments between friends. LOL If you are willing to question your own interpretation of scripture based on observable facts, rather than to attempt to explain the facts away, then let the games begin! Otherwise, nothing will make you believe, even if one rises from the dead.

So, here we are at a crossroads. The predominant belief among fundamental Christianity is that a wooden literal interpretation of scripture is the best hermeneutic and that, according to genealogical records, the earth is 6 to 10 thousand year old earth based on our INTERPRETATION. ? Can we muster the courage to have an open mind, look at the facts, and question our interpretation of scripture? CAN WE??? I don't know, you tell me.

[Russell Roberts]

Having said that, here is an excellent article about radioactive dating. The science is way over my head but there are a lot of really smart scientists who apparently believe that it's a pretty good method for dating rocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

It is worth noting at this point that if evolution and the estimation of an old age for the earth is a conspiracy, it is so widespread as to make it incredibly remarkable. It would have to include, biologists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, geneticists, chemists, and a host of other sciences.

Is it possible that they are right? What's at stake? The credibility of Christians, that's what is at stake. Can we really be good 'witnesses' when we refuse to consider factual information? I don't think so. I think the refusal to consider factual information causes a lot of people who might otherwise embrace it, to reject it as mere superstition.

Maybe it's about time to consider if our own interpretation of scripture could be wrong. It helps to know that we can embrace good science while still embracing the theological truths set forth in Genesis. It isn't necessary to choose between believing the bible and believing science. That, my friends, is called a false dichotomy.

[Tracy]

Here is a link to a page at Answers in Genesis that will direct you to lots of resources on their site for answers regarding the age of the earth.

Enjoy!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... -the-earth

[Brian]

Having said that, here is an excellent article about radioactive dating. The science is way over my head but there are a lot of really smart scientists who apparently believe that it's a pretty good method for dating rocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

It is worth noting at this point that if evolution and the estimation of an old age for the earth is a conspiracy, it is so widespread as to make it incredibly remarkable. It would have to include, biologists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, geneticists, chemists, and a host of other sciences.

Is it possible that they are right? What's at stake? The credibility of Christians, that's what is at stake. Can we really be good 'witnesses' when we refuse to consider factual information? I don't think so. I think the refusal to consider factual information causes a lot of people who might otherwise embrace it, to reject it as mere superstition.

Maybe it's about time to consider if our own interpretation of scripture could be wrong. It helps to know that we can embrace good science while still embracing the theological truths set forth in Genesis. It isn't necessary to choose between believing the bible and believing science. That, my friends, is called a false dichotomy.

Russell, is it so unbelievable that mere men can be deceived? On the great day of judgement there will be untold billions of these mere men with all manner of PHD's and heeped up accolade's galore behind there name, only to discover the error of there human understanding.

What facts do you speak of? The fact that blind eyes are made to see simply by imputing faith? The fact that a man (peter, at jesus bidding) walked on water? The fact that men not unlike you or I prayed for the sick to recover and they did? The fact that death is defeated? yea, your right, I'll stick to the facts!!!

[Russell Roberts]

Brian, imputation is a myth. But that's another argument for another day. I don't find it unbelievable that so many people are deceived. What I don't buy into is the idea that so many different people from such varied scientific disciplines (including most of the leading CHRISTIAN scientists over the last fifty years) would conspire to develop a theory that can prove nothing whatsoever about the existence of God or the fact that he created everything that exists.

What it can prove wrong, is your interpretation of scripture.

[beckrl]

I brought this up before in another thread, but as Peter was saying of the time that will come...2 Peter 3:6-7

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (Genesis 1:1-6)
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Notice Peter didn't refer to that time of the fire coming upon the earth as in the days of Noah, as Jesus refered to as that day of the Lord.
But refers to creation as being overflowed with water, and that [world] or social order perished. This was all before God created man[Adam]

Something to think on

[RamboPreacher]

all radiometric dating techniques are flawed and have assumptions. they are best stated in statistical approximation, but are usually not. Nearly all reading or reporting to the non-scientific community (us) is in apriori fashion. Russel's dates are examples of this kind of presentation. there is no descriptive of how these dates are derived and extrapolated. and there can be no doubt that they are derived and extrapolated. there is no dating method that you can, as example, put an artifact into a process, and at the other end of that process tells you an exact date of it's "origin".

Unlike RR (perhaps), I do not take the scientific approach and see it as "the fact". NOR, will I take a 17th century Chronological approach to God's Word, which is NOT a genealogical record. The Bible contains some genealogies, but is not an "official" genealogical record. the Bible contains some science and scientific presentations, but is not a textbook used to teach science. There is much philosophy, but it is not a philosophical discourse. the Bible is a compilation of God's Word presented to us about Him, us and a relationship, it is about theology.

I can not tell you how old the earth is Biblical, because I don't know, and furthermore, I do not believe that the Bible will tell us that either.

radiometric dating is often cited for dating various things, but in order to get the real picture, there is much prerequisited science that needs to be understood. I'll start with the first one that all others are based:

a lesson in C14 testing, by RP:
Essentially c14 (I believe the first radiological method, that others are based on this process) goes like this: C12 (stable element - Carbon 12) is absorbed in living materials. It is assumed that c14 (unstable Carbon with extra electrons) is absorbed at the same rate. The testing process is essentially a count of the c14 that is in the specimen's remains compared to the c12, and yields a difference that can be applied to a chronology.

The challenge is that as with all radiological dating methods, there are many assumptions. The first assumption is the absorption rate is equal. This has been proven incorrect and is not even some "constant" at not being equal. What has been done to help, is to use dendrochronology (counting tree-ring pairs) and doing test of the tree rings themselves using c14 testing and then "calibrating" the resulting number.

The c14 test is then "calibrated" to some time ago about 6000-8000 years (interesting date range) because that is the oldest trees available to calibrate the dendrochronology with the radiometric c/14 calculations. So admitting (which scientists fully acknowledge) that c14 test must be calibrated, also verifies that the method is flawed to begin with.

There are c14 test that supposedly date prior to 6000bc, but are incorrect (as most scientists Christians and Non will fully admit), and without a calibration factor (remember the tree rings?), there is no way to know "how much", since there are too many assumptions that were initially made and are known variables now.

Even with that understanding that it is somewhat flawed, further making it less accurate is that the calibration itself is based on dendrochronology.

while the counting of tree ring-pairs is pretty accurate, the assumption missed, here, is that it is based on yet another assumption that the absorption rate for all living matter is the same as the wood that was used in the calibration tests (not to mention assumptions that the absorption rate is the same for different woods). (on the order of about a thousand years off/too young at a dated period of about 5000bc, and it gets worse, the further back they go)

and the next thing to consider is that these dates are expressed using statistical approximation and standard deviation! that means at a single standard deviation, as example a date has a 67% chance that it falls within 25 years plus or minus. This could be 50 years, of the date claimed. Using two standard deviations (the number of deviation used should be noted when looking closely at these kinds of dates); the claim is now 95% chance that it is "accurate", but with a plus or minus of 50 years - 100 year difference - of the date claimed. This is not "proof".

Side note - So if you hear or read about carbon dating on dinosaur fossils or other fossils, they are wrong. a fossil is a rock, it is not biological matter, it cannot be carbon dated.

Essentially it comes down to a lot of conjecture, guessing and wanting certain dates to appear for various reasons. is it all wrong? no, but I have learned to question the questions that are used to come up with the questions asked for the questioning of the conjectures based on assumption.

[Russell Roberts]

Rambo,

Does it strike you just a little funny that you are attempting to discredit the science used by the smartest scientists in the world (including the most prominent Christian scientists) who have generally come to a consensus about the age of the universe?

I have to admit it would be fun to watch you explain to these astronomers, geologists, biologists, astrophysicists, nuclear scientists, etc. how, if they would just listen to you they would understand why their science is faulty.

It does me!

I have to admit Rambo, I could waste a lot of time trying to understand the science supporting their consensus of a really old universe (they have spent thousands and thousands and thousands of hours studying the science that you just discredited in a small comment on a chat board). But I am humble enough to admit that the science is beyond what I will ever hope to learn, or am interested in learning.

Maybe it is time to show a little humility and admit the same for yourself. Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just MAYBE, you have misinterpreted Genesis 1?

[RamboPreacher]

Rambo,

Does it strike you just a little funny that you are attempting to discredit the science used by the smartest scientists in the world (including the most prominent Christian scientists) who have generally come to a consensus about the age of the universe?

I have to admit it would be fun to watch you explain to these astronomers, geologists, biologists, astrophysicists, nuclear scientists, etc. how, if they would just listen to you they would understand why their science is faulty.

It does me!

interesting. did you see me say they were wrong? nope. only that they don't seem to ever want to give the whole story. people like yourself that soak it in like a sponge and just assume that the doctrine they teach is "obviously" correct.

I never said I knew how old the earth is, let alone this universe (I happen to hold a "breathing" multi-verse model, myself), and this physics - just a point for clarification.

[Russell Roberts]

Rambo, if they don't give the whole story, how in the world did you find out about it?

They aren't trying to hide anything.

BTW, I have no idea what a 'breathing universe' or whatever is and I'm honestly afraid to axe.

[Russell Roberts]

If you didn't think they were wrong I'm perplexed about why you would be presenting arguments to discredit their conclusions.

How old do you think the earth is?

I am familiar with the whole multi-verse thing if it is the idea that black holes spawn new universes on the other side.