How old is the universe? Which option most closely says what you believe?

How old is the universe? Which option most closely says what you believe?

  • 1A: @11-20 billion years. The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science book, and the purpose of its

  • 1B: @11-20 billion years. It is irrelevant what the Bible says about creation.

  • 1C: @11-20 billion years. It is irrelevant what the Bible says about anything.

  • 2A: @6000 years. Creation took 144 hours, and any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disr

  • 2B: @12,000 years. Creation took 6000 years, and any scientific evidence to the contrary should be d

  • 2C. @6,000 years. Gap theory (explained in post # 1).

  • 3A. @11-20 billion years. Gap theory (explained in post # 1).

  • 3B. @11-20 billion years. Each biblical "day" of creation is separated by ages or periods of time.

  • 3C. @11-20 billion years. Since the Hebrew word for "day" ([i]yom[/i]) can mean an indefinite period

  • 3D. @11-20 billion years. Creation could have taken 144 hours measured at the speed of outward thrus


Results are only viewable after voting.

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless, void and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit or Wind of God hovered over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2 gives an overview of the beginning of God’s creation of the universe. Verses 3-31 complete the story of creation, which the Bible sets out as occurring on six days. Did God create the universe in a total of 144 hours of our time, or are other interpretations more likely? Judging from the discussions of this and related questions on various threads on both the CF and other Christian message boards I have seen thus far, there seems to be a split of opinion among the following major lines:
1. Those who tend to ignore what the Bible says with regard to creation, or who disbelieve it or discount it, and who support mainstream scientific theory and evidence regarding the forming of the universe, including our planet and the life found on planet Earth; These are listed as options 1A, 1B and 1C;
2. Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who disbelieve or discount mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation; These are listed as options 2A, 2B and 2C; and
3. Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who also believe mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation; These are listed as options 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D.


1. There are those who ignore what the Bible says with regard to at least the non-spiritual aspects of creation, or who disbelieve it or discount it, and who support mainstream scientific theory and evidence regarding the forming of the universe, including our planet and the life found on planet Earth.

1A. Some of this group hold that the Bible is intended to be a spiritual guide and is not a history or science guide book. They do not feel the need to ignore what the Bible says about spiritual matters or what science says about scientific principles, but rather let each lead to a higher total truth than either could do alone. They choose not to try to shoehorn science to fit the Bible or the Bible to fit science. Christians and Jews in this group would probably add that the Bible is God's word to us regarding spiritual matters.

1B and 1C. Others in this group tend to dismiss the Bible's account of creation as a fable or a story Moses merely inserted to answer questions from an unenlightened people wandering in the wilderness. They point out that scientific measurements place the age of the universe as being between 11-20 billion years of age, with the most likely time being about 12-16 billion years of our time. They say that there is no way to reconcile the biblical account of creation to the factual evidence, and therefore they choose to ignore at least this portion of the Bible. Since they tend not to be Christians or Jews and generally do not recognize the Bible as being the word of God, any biblical evidence to the contrary is generally brushed aside and discounted, or is used to support their claim that the Bible cannot really be trusted as being true. Option 1B limits this scorn of the Bible to those areas where a perceived conflict exists with science, while option 1C says the Bible has no relevance to anything.



2. At the other extreme are those who believe the English translation of the Bible's creation account should be applied literally, and any scientific evidence to the contrary should be ignored or discounted since it is perceived as being at odds with the word of God.

2A. Some within this group believe the Bible means six consecutive 24-hour periods of time (i.e., 144 hours total), and they choose to ignore, disbelieve or discount the scientific evidence to the contrary, often stating that the appearance of a universe billions of light years across is merely an illusion (much as the fossils and rock strata that appear to be millions or billions of years old were merely “aged” by God to give them the appearance of being ancient), and that God is deceiving us in order to test our faith. Under this theory, the important thing is to not let one’s faith waiver in the face of contrary scientific evidence but rather to stand true to God’s word and one’s faith.

2B. One offshoot of this theory is interpreting the scriptures [Psalms 90:4 and 2Peter 3:8] that tell us that “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” as meaning that each day of Genesis should be treated as a thousand years. Under this variation, creation took 6,000 years instead of six days.

2C. Another variation off this theory is the Gap theory (also known as the Interval and Restitution theory, the Divine Judgment theory, and the Recreation theory) which was more popular about 50-80 years ago than it is now. The Gap theory is usually largely based upon the fact that Hebrew tends to be more general and less specific than English or Greek. Thus, Hebrew words can often have a wider range of meanings. In the first part of Genesis 1:2 ["and the earth it was formless, void and empty"], the verb hayethah (which is generally translated "it was") can also be translated as "it became." Proponents of the Gap Theory therefore generally claim that Genesis 1:2 should be translated to read "and the earth became formless, void and empty" rather than using the more common translation of the phrase. This theory uses passages (primarily in Isaiah and Ezekiel) regarding the fall of Satan or Lucifer to bolster the theory that the world was created in Gen. 1:1 but became formless and void because of Satan's fall, and then creation continued in verse two. There are, however, some proponents of the Gap theory who go about it slightly differently. Instead of translating hayethah as "it became" they use verse one of Genesis to emphasize that God had created the Earth "in the beginning" of creation, but by verse two, the Earth was formless, void and empty. These persons tend to ignore the fact that Hebrew had no single word for universe and that the Hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" is the Hebrew equivalent of the English word universe.


3. Then there are those who attempt to reconcile scientific evidence with biblical evidence. Persons who adhere to one of these theories tend to believe that since God is responsible for both the biblical revelation and the natural world, the words of the Bible are true and at the same time are consistent with the facts of nature. In other words, they tend to think that God’s character and attributes are expressed through both channels, and neither negates nor contradicts the other. The theories listed below are the primary explanations I have found thus far that attempt to reconcile science and the Bible:

3A. Some advocates of the Gap theory [see 2C, above] combine it with one of the theories more consistent with mainstream science (the theories listed here as 3B, 3C and 3D), instead of with the young earth creationists.

3B. Since the Bible does not specifically say that the six days are consecutive, there are those who assert that each “day” is the time God spoke the next period of creation into existence—but there is an undetermined period of time (possibly lasting billions of years) between each day. In other words, adherents of this theory say there were six days of creation (each of which could be 24 hours—or 1,000 years—or some other period of time) separated by other periods of time. Some who follow this theory also point to the staccato pattern revealed in the fossil record, which indicates that there were periods of time when new forms of life suddenly burst onto the scene.

3C. There are those who point out that the Hebrew word for “day” is yom, which can mean either a 24-hour period of time or an indefinite period of time. Thus, those who follow this theory say that each “day” was of an indefinite period of time (even millions or billions of years) and Christians shouldn’t get caught up in insisting that the Bible means something here that it probably does not mean.

3D. The final theory is one that has been advanced by physicist and Hebrew Bible scholar Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder. He has proposed that the six “days” are in fact six consecutive 24-hour periods of time measured at the speed of outward thrust using Einstein's theory (or law) of relativity and a universal time-clock based on cosmic background radiation and the wavelength of light beginning about the time God initiated creation (what science now calls the Big Bang). Because of time dilation, 144 hours measured at a speed calculated by using such a universal time-clock would be equal to about 15.75 billion Earth-years looking back toward the time of creation.


What is your belief? Please vote in the poll, and then tell us your reasons. Thank you.
 

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The word of God is infallible...
And the word of God is witten in good grammar.
The word of God must be perfect.
The word of God plainly states that the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.The history of the Gap theory goes back to the beginning of the Darwinian Empire.
Evolution hide there philosophy under the name of science.By doing that they could feeble mind the opposition much easier.
So some creationist at the time were thinking up ways they could be cool like these Darwin dudes. So they invented the Gap theory.Total non-biblical.Most students of the "Gap Theory" eventually gave up on the weak theory and took the next [in their minds] logical step.....Evolution!
The bible is not that hard to understand.The books of prophecy are because they are symbolic.But only prophecy has symbolism.90% of the bible is read at face value.


....Jesus made a few obvious symbolic statements.
The study of Hebrew and Greek grammar has proven all Gap theory experts wrong.
The Gap is over and there is no such thing has theistic evolution.
It is either Evolution or God the creator.
If the bible is not grammaticly good enough,then we might as well just through it away!
Do you believe in God;
or do you really believe God?
God guided the bible along while it was being written.
The Bible has never been proven wrong nor will it ever.
God created the 'universe' in six litteral days,has the book of Genesis clearly states.
God created the earth in our own time zone-EST..
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Sinai said:
[i3D. The final theory is one that has been advanced by physicist and Hebrew Bible scholar Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder. He has proposed that the six “days” are in fact six consecutive 24-hour periods of time measured at the speed of outward thrust using Einstein's theory (or law) of relativity and a universal time-clock based on cosmic background radiation and the wavelength of light beginning about the time God initiated creation (what science now calls the Big Bang). Because of time dilation, 144 hours measured at a speed calculated by using such a universal time-clock would be equal to about 15.75 billion Earth-years looking back toward the time of creation

What is your belief? Please vote in the poll, and then tell us your reasons. Thank you.
[/b]

Sinai, this isn't about belief. You asked a question about the age of the earth. That isn't a matter of belief, but a matter of data.

The belief comes in when you start considering how to view the Bible. BUT, if you are serious in your belief that God created the universe, then only 1 and 1a are possible as interpretations, since the universe is just as much God's Book as the Bible.

Now, the latest number for the age of the universe is 13.7 +/- 0.4 billion years. This is too young for Schroeder's number and his theory has now been falsified.

Notice that Schroeder did what a good scientist and a good scientific theory is supposed to do: it made a risky prediction about knowledge yet to be found. In this case Schroeder predicted the exact age of the universe. Unfortunately, the new data that was found showed the risky prediction to be wrong. This happens all the time in science and theories and hypotheses get falsified.

The only question now is whether Schroeder is going to personally admit that his theory is falsified.
 
Upvote 0

samiam

Active Member
Jun 25, 2003
290
74
San Diego, CA
Visit site
✟12,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Democrat
lucaspa said:
Sinai, this isn't about belief. You asked a question about the age of the earth. That isn't a matter of belief, but a matter of data.

This is the same mistake the fundamentalists make: The belief the one's belief is the one true belief.

Lucaspa, please try to prove that the universe was not created last Wednesday, and that all of our memories from before that time are not merely fabrications.

It takes, faith, yes faith, to believe the univese was not created last Wednesday.

- Sam
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
FEZZILLA said:
The word of God is infallible...
And the word of God is witten in good grammar.
The word of God must be perfect.

These are your premises and I'm going to argue that they are wrong. Nothing in the Bible says it is infallible. The most that is claimed is that it is useful for instruction. Also, Mark 10:1-10 and Matthew 3:16-21 have Jesus telling us that the OT is not God's Word but Moses word, and Moses got it wrong on at least one occasion.

So, starting from false premises, you reached false conclusions.

The word of God plainly states that the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.The history of the Gap theory goes back to the beginning of the Darwinian Empire.
Evolution hide there philosophy under the name of science.By doing that they could feeble mind the opposition much easier.

Now you are re-writing history. Gap theory was proposed about 1800.
While Darwin was just a newborn.

Evolution is NOT a philosophy. It is NOT atheism. True, atheism needs evolution in order to counter the Argument from Design and be viable, but that doesn't make evolution atheism.

The Gap is over and there is no such thing has theistic evolution.
It is either Evolution or God the creator.

Or it is God creating by evolution.
Let's go to Darwin:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." Origin pg. 449.

Now, let's check out some other Christians:
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu/individuals/eng188/petrossian/darwin/church.htm Darwin and the Church

So, theistic evolution is completely viable and defendable.

The Bible has never been proven wrong nor will it ever.

A literal interpretation of the Bible has indeed been proved wrong. But, of course, a literal interpretation (which you are advocating) is not the Bible, but an interpretation made up by fallible humans.

God created the 'universe' in six litteral days,has the book of Genesis clearly states.
God created the earth in our own time zone-EST..[/QUOTE]

How about Genesis 2:4b where the Bible clearly says God created the universe in ONE day?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
samiam said:
Lucaspa, please try to prove that the universe was not created last Wednesday, and that all of our memories from before that time are not merely fabrications.

Sam, I've always said that the argument against this one does not come from science.

The argument against this -- the Oomphalos argument first stated by Paul Gosse -- is theological. If God did this, then God is a deceiver and Christianity false.

Therefore, no Christian can fall back on this argument.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
samiam said:
Lucaspa, please try to prove that the universe was not created last Wednesday, and that all of our memories from before that time are not merely fabrications.

You can remember things that happened before last Wednesday? Wow, that is impressive.

What I want to know is: why do people forget what the sermon was about five min. after they leave the church. I have asked lots and lots of people: what did the paster preach on, and often they go aahhh, uummm, it was really good, but I don't remember what it was about.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Evo

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2003
731
2
Bible Belt
✟891.00
samiam said:
This is the same mistake the fundamentalists make: The belief the one's belief is the one true belief.

Lucaspa, please try to prove that the universe was not created last Wednesday, and that all of our memories from before that time are not merely fabrications.

It takes, faith, yes faith, to believe the univese was not created last Wednesday.

- Sam


AHHHH Faith, get this stuff off me!!! It burns my EYES!!! I Can't SEE!!!
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Evo said:
AHHHH Faith, get this stuff off me!!! It burns my EYES!!! I Can't SEE!!!

Uh, faith isn't a bad word. Science ultimately depends on faith, too. It's just that science and Judeo-Christianity depend on the SAME faiths.

I think Kitty Ferguson in Fire in the Equations gives this the best.
"There is a further element of risk for anyone on a search for the truth. You cannot start in a vacuum. You must begin by trusting some ideas about the universe that have never been proved, may never be proved, and might turn out to be wrong. To be simplistic about it, you have to assume that you exist and that you are sane. Those may not be such difficult assumption. Common sense supports them. Of course, you have to believe they are true in order to trust your common sense. You see what sort of mental mess we get ourselves into!
"The search for truth in science is based on agreement concerning just such basic assumptions. It is a gamble, if you will; a gamble that certain articles of faith which cannot be proved by science are nevertheless well-founded enough to provide a springboard for all scientific investigation. It is intriguing to find that religion shares much of science's basic view of reality. How is it that two approaches, science and religion, both claiming to be avenues of truth but in many ways reputed to clash with one another, should be in agreement on so basic a level? ...
"Scientists of the seventeenth century, most but not all of whom had religious views closer to my grandparents that to Hawking ... developed a procedure that would systematically separate what is true from what is not true. That is the procedure that we call the scientific method. It has served us splendidly ever since its birth and made our spectacular technology possible. Whatever the scientific method's origins or its philosophical foundations, we have no cause to doubt its usefulness.
"Depending upon whether we believe in God, you or I might leave God out of the following." (I put the comments related to deity in [ ] to separate them.)

"1. The universe is *rational*, [reflecting both the intellect and the faithfulness of its Creator]. It has pattern, symmetry, and predictability to it. Effect follows cause in a dependable manner. For these reasons, it is not futile to try to study the universe.
"2. The universe is *accessible* to us, not a closed book but one open to our investigation. [Minds created in the image of the mind of God can understand the universe God created.]
"3. The universe has *contingency* to it, meaning that things could have been different from the way we find them, and chance [and/or choice] played a role in making them what they are. Whether this is contingency in the sense that chance [and choice] play an on-going role within the universe, or merely in the sense that there was a initial chance occurrence [or choice] which brought about this universe instead of a different one or none at all, one cannot learn about the universe by pure thought and logic alone. Knowledge comes by observing and testing it.
"4. There is such a thing as *objective* reality. [Because God exists and sees and knows everything, there is a truth behind everything.] Reality has a hard edge to it and does not cave in or shift like sands in the dessert in response to our opinions, perceptions, preferences, beliefs, or anything else. Reality is not a democracy. There is something definite, some raw material, out there for us to study.
"5. There is *unity* to the universe. There is an explanation -- [one God], one equation, or one system of logic -- which is fundamental to everything. The universe operates by underlying laws which do not change in an arbitrary fashion from place to place, from minute to minute, or even millenium to millenium. There are no loose ends, no real contradictions. At some deep level, everything fits."
"Divorced from the assumption that there is a God, these five assumptions about the universe, these five articles of faith, if you will -- rationality, accessibility, contingency, objectivity, and unity -- continue to underlie the practice of science. Some would argue that upon them depends all possibility of doing science as we know it. The best argument for their validity is not that they are obvious but that the scientific method seems to work so well! The proof (dangerous word) is in the pudding." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations pg. 8-9
 
Upvote 0

Evo

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2003
731
2
Bible Belt
✟891.00
lucaspa said:
So, theistic evolution is completely viable and defendable.


I find this statement to be a complete falisy. In an otherwise enlightening post, this is evidence of intelectual polymorphism into a real of rationlization which requires a perverbial "house of mirrors" take on reality. Evolution and theism (assuming of course your speaking of christianity in this particular case as the rest of your post would suggest) are diametricaly opposed and to suggest that they can be used as a single describer of any indvidual is utterly intoxicating to the sober mind of a logical thinker.

Here is my point: Evolution takes away adam and eve. No adam and eve no orginal sin (no sin at all infact, unless you consider animals to have sin, which they don't). Evolution also supports the concept that we are animals. You take away the "idea" of sin, you take away the need for a savior (ie jesus). You take away jesus, you take away christianity. Its a simple logical progression.

This leaves your with 2 alternatives.

1) God (threw satan threw reasoning/logic and/or science) is trying to trick you. After all satan is one of God's creations. And God did know before he created him everything he would do. Your mind is one of God's creations he knew how you would percieve the world when he created you, therefore the own logic he gave you was to trick you with.
Sounds kind of like some big brute picking on a little handicaped mouse or something, then laughing about it.

2) All religions are a lie. And your own logic is the winding grueling path that will lead you to the truth some day. God gave you a wonderful mind and did not intend for it to reject reason and reality, but to accept it as an eye accepts light.

-a conspircy theory is fairly irrelavent considering you would have to disprove so much, including a flat earth which so few YEC'ers want to confront, as the bible clearly states the earth is flat and held up by pillars.
 
Upvote 0

Evo

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2003
731
2
Bible Belt
✟891.00
lucaspa : the faith line was a joke :). I read an intresting article (in the new Scientific America) about the posiblity that we live in a two dimensional world and we only percieve it to be a 4d world. Or the possiblity that reality is nothing like what we percieve. Physics is comming across some strange an unusal findings. It could revolutionize the way all sceintiest "observe" the universe around us. So perhaps the faith that we have in what our eyes tell us is not exactly what actually is. in fact its more than likely the case.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
lucaspa said:
Sinai, this isn't about belief. You asked a question about the age of the earth. That isn't a matter of belief, but a matter of data.

The belief comes in when you start considering how to view the Bible. BUT, if you are serious in your belief that God created the universe, then only 1 and 1a are possible as interpretations, since the universe is just as much God's Book as the Bible.

That may be your belief or your interpretation, but there is room for other opinions as well. You may believe that the Bible's account of creation is fatally flawed, but that is probably based upon your interpretation of what the Bible says versus your interpretation of what current scientific data states.

I presume from your posts that you chose option 1a. Is that correct?

Now, the latest number for the age of the universe is 13.7 +/- 0.4 billion years. This is too young for Schroeder's number and his theory has now been falsified.

Notice that Schroeder did what a good scientist and a good scientific theory is supposed to do: it made a risky prediction about knowledge yet to be found. In this case Schroeder predicted the exact age of the universe. Unfortunately, the new data that was found showed the risky prediction to be wrong. This happens all the time in science and theories and hypotheses get falsified.

The only question now is whether Schroeder is going to personally admit that his theory is falsified.

You may be premature in your assessment. The most reliable and accepted numbers generally accepted within the mainstream scientific community has changed at least three times over the past 15 months--and I have seen data suggesting an age both above and below the figures used by Dr. Schroeder.

Hubble is providing us with so much good data that the figures and models will probably continue to fluctuate for at least the next few years--and then the next generation of satelite (or possibly lunar) telescope may flood us with even more impressive data , though it appears likely that the probable age postulated by such scientific data will remain in the 11-20 billion year range.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Evolution explains biodiversity, it says nothing about the existance or non-existance of God. To say could could not have used evolution to create is stuffing him in a box.

So what if Adam and Eve were not literal people, their names mean "dirt" and "hearth", which is a strong indicator that they aren't real people. The point of Genesis is to show God created everything, man is in sin and needs a saviour and God will provide that saviour.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums