Can an old earth be proven?

[mindlight]

Is the earth and universe old? Are there scientific evidences that can prove this?

Recently I started a thread examining evidences supplied by Answers in Genesis about a young earth. There were a lot of responses and discussions and I found overall that the science could neither persuade or dissuade me from a conviction that we live in a young universe which is in essence based on the bible and a belief in miracles.

But 2 arguments for an old universe really bother me.

1) Overlapping tree rings. Radagast used this one in the aforementioned thread. While the oldest tree trunk on which tree rings have been counted reaches only 5000 years. When you compare patterns of fossilised tree trunks from dead trees in the same forest you can go back a further 10000 years. This then becomes a problem for me holding the YEC viewpoint that the earth is only 6000 years old and there was a flood just 4500 years ago.

2) Starlight: We know that light travels 186000 miles a second. When Supernova 1985 exploded the speed of light was measured at 186000 miles a second there also by looking at how long it took to vaporize the rings around that star at measurable distances from the star itself. The star itself is 250000 light years away. So if light travelled at the same speed 250000 years ago then it is a constant and this event occurred 250000 years ago. Thus the YEC timescales become impossible.

Are these and other arguments proof that the YEC position is scientifically untenable?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

GAP theory explains it all.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

are the universal constants constant? The electro magnetic field of the earth reduces at a constant rate if you add strength over time it would be too strong for life to exist in the not so far distant past as it has a half life of 1500 years. They theorize that the earth recharges somehow and then starts the cycle over. A guy named Ebner id experiments on plants and fish by incubating them in stronger magnetic fields and the result was the field brought forth the stronger original DNA in the organisms. Corn grew and came to crop with many more ears in less weeks to produce, rainbow trout came out looking like salmon and grew to 3 pounds heavier than they should, ferns grew with solid healthy leaves and this experiment did show that major transformation can be achieved in a single generation. There is much we do not know but it would seem to be a young earth from a basis that why would God create a universe for man to be placed and His son be manifest for billions of years and then have the whole reason for creation play out in a mere 6-1000 thousand years?

Here is a short video about the Ebner effect

Here is an in depth article from more recent times showing teh experiments were repeated with the same results and it gives much more info on what was done.
Guido EBNER - Morphogenetic Fields - Electrostatic enhancement of plant and animal development

 

[dreadnought]

Is the earth and universe old? Are there scientific evidences that can prove this?

Recently I started a thread examining evidences supplied by Answers in Genesis about a young earth. There were a lot of responses and discussions and I found overall that the science could neither persuade or dissuade me from a conviction that we live in a young universe which is essence based on the bible and a belief in miracles.

But 2 arguments for an old universe really bother me.

1) Overlapping tree rings. Radagast used this one in the aforementioned thread. While the oldest tree trunk on which tree rings have been counted reaches only 5000 years. When you compare patterns of fossilised tree trunks from dead trees in the same forest you can go back a further 10000 years. This then becomes a problem for me holding the YEC viewpoint that the earth is only 6000 years old and there was a flood just 4500 years ago.

2) Starlight. We know that light travels 186000 miles a second. When Supernova 1985 exploded the speed of light was measured at 186000 miles a second there also by looking at how long it took to vaporize the rings around that star at measurable distances from the star itself. The star itself is 250000 light years away. So if light travelled at the same speed 250000 years ago then it is a constant and this event occurred 250000 years ago. Thus the YEC timescales become impossible.

Are these and other arguments proof that the YEC position is scientifically untenable?

I like Isaac Asimov's comments on this topic (paraphrased): Seven thousand years ago, the Lord could have created a world that appeared, from a scientific point of view, to be billions of years old.

 

[SkyWriting]

There were a lot of responses and discussions and I found overall that the science could neither persuade or dissuade me from a conviction that we live in a young universe which is essence based on the bible and a belief in miracles. But 2 arguments for an old universe really bother me.

When in doubt, rely on scripture for insights:

6 He stood and surveyed the earth; He looked and startled the nations. Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered, The ancient hills collapsed. His ways are everlasting.

26"The blessings of your father Have surpassed the blessings of my ancestors Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills; May they be on the head of Joseph...

15"And with the best things of the ancient mountains, And with the choice things of the everlasting hills,

Psalm 76:4 You are radiant with light, You are more majestic than the ancient mountains.


(Olam) mountains-
ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever* (70), forevermore* (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never* (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1)

 

[CGL1023]

Is the earth and universe old? Are there scientific evidences that can prove this?

Recently I started a thread examining evidences supplied by Answers in Genesis about a young earth. There were a lot of responses and discussions and I found overall that the science could neither persuade or dissuade me from a conviction that we live in a young universe which is essence based on the bible and a belief in miracles.

But 2 arguments for an old universe really bother me.

1) Overlapping tree rings. Radagast used this one in the aforementioned thread. While the oldest tree trunk on which tree rings have been counted reaches only 5000 years. When you compare patterns of fossilised tree trunks from dead trees in the same forest you can go back a further 10000 years. This then becomes a problem for me holding the YEC viewpoint that the earth is only 6000 years old and there was a flood just 4500 years ago.

2) Starlight. We know that light travels 186000 miles a second. When Supernova 1985 exploded the speed of light was measured at 186000 miles a second there also by looking at how long it took to vaporize the rings around that star at measurable distances from the star itself. The star itself is 250000 light years away. So if light travelled at the same speed 250000 years ago then it is a constant and this event occurred 250000 years ago. Thus the YEC timescales become impossible.

Are these and other arguments proof that the YEC position is scientifically untenable?

I am taught from a bible teacher that the creation of the universe is an ancient event and the creation of the Adamic race happened 6000 years ago. That is going to mean that there human-like beings on earth before Adam, that there was likely a "big bang" type of incident, that dinosaurs likely didn't coexist with people of Adam's line and that there was a Genesis flood, as described in Genesis, sometime after Adam's line began. That permits time for the formation of fossil fuels, which is a very long process

I have never heard of proof on for any assertions but I have never heard of science disproving the bible account either. There have been and still are discoveries being made that support the creation as told in Gen.

 

[CGL1023]

When in doubt, rely on scripture for insights:

6 He stood and surveyed the earth; He looked and startled the nations. Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered, The ancient hills collapsed. His ways are everlasting.

26"The blessings of your father Have surpassed the blessings of my ancestors Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills; May they be on the head of Joseph...

15"And with the best things of the ancient mountains, And with the choice things of the everlasting hills,

Psalm 76:4 You are radiant with light, You are more majestic than the ancient mountains.


(Olam) mountains-
ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever* (70), forevermore* (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never* (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1)

I watched a video of an MIT professor, who was Jewish, speaking about some aspect of the creation, trying to make some deep math concept simple. He said that there are now 11 known dimension; i.e., length, width, height and eight more dimensions. He also said that Jewish Rabbis knew from their studies and meditations that ten dimensions existed in the 13th century AD -- showing the value of going to God's Word as you say.

 

[SMITTY7000]

Is the earth and universe old? Are there scientific evidences that can prove this?

Recently I started a thread examining evidences supplied by Answers in Genesis about a young earth. There were a lot of responses and discussions and I found overall that the science could neither persuade or dissuade me from a conviction that we live in a young universe which is essence based on the bible and a belief in miracles.

MINDLIGHT,

Today, many Christians are confounded by the age of the earth. Being taught in church a young earth teaching and then seeing for themselves in geology and the fossil record and the mounting evidence from the scientific community that the world is eons old brings distrust and hinders one`s belief in God.

If we accept on face value what we are taught by others, then we stand the chance that we will not get the whole truth. We must, for ourselves search the scriptures and ask our Father for the wisdom and common sense to understand. The bible was not originally written in English, so we need a way to understand the meanings of the original words. A Strong`s Concordance with a King James Version Bible will go a long way to bring you a clear understanding of God`s Word and not discounting any evidence from any source, the Bible is to be the final authority. We must train ourselves to believe God`s Word over man`s tradition and be happy to change our thinking when we plainly see that what we have believed before was not true.

In 2 Peter 2:3-4 we can read about scoffers who deny God`s Word and would lead others astray. Remember that you can listen to anyone but you have to prove for youselves what is true.

2 Peter 3:5 “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:”

They are ignorant to the fact there was an age before this one. The Word of God, Our Father is declaring the Heavens were of old. He is stating the earth and all of creation is not just six-thousand years old, but eons in age.

2 Peter 3:6 “Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:” FIRST EARTH AGE

Our Father is documenting the destruction of The World That Then Was, The First Earth Age. God is not talking about Noah’s flood in this verse. The world did not perish in Noah’s time.


Now here is the kicker.

2 Peter 3:7 “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.” SECOND EARTH AGE

Our Father has defined two separate time periods forus in the last two verses. “The World That Then Was” from verse six and “the heavens and earth which are now” in verse seven. God explains, He destroyed that old earth age with a major flood, a flood of the whole earth.

2 Peter 3:13 “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” THIRD EARTH AGE – ETERNITY ___ Same Earth – New Age

We even get to see here that the Third Age is just waiting on our Father to get us to that point.

As a 2nd witness to the age of the earth and the destruction that ended the First Age I would point to Jeremiah. Jeremiah 4:22 “For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.”

I think our Father is upset with most of us in todays world because we do not believe His Word when it is the thing we should believe in with all of our might. We have congregations and denominations who can`t agree on any one thing and even go to heathen religions to get their doctrine.

Jeremiah 4:23 – 29 Father gives us a play by plat narrative of the destruction of that First Earth Age. Notice, if you will, the similarity to the verse in Genesis 1:2. Also be aware that others will try to say this is Noah`s flood but careful examination will document that this is not the case.

As you read the description in these verses please compare them with verses from Genesis about the flood of Noah. Learn for yourself from God1`s Word and be thankful for the truth.

I have included a comparison of the two floods for your inspection.

After Flood #1 After Flood #2
[Lucifer's Flood] [Noah's Flood}
Earth made waste Not made waste

(Gen.1:2; Jer. 4:23) (Gen.8:11-12, 22)
Earth made empty Not made empty
(Gen.1:2; Jer. 4:23) (Gen.6:17-22; 8:16)
Earth made totally dark Not made dark
(Gen.1-2; Jer. 4:23) (Gen.8:6-22)
No light from heaven Light from heaven
(Gen. 1:2: Jer. 4:23) [Gen. 8:6-22)
No days Days
(Gen.1:2-5) (Gen. 8:1-22)
All vegetation destroyed Vegetation not destroyed
(Gen. 1:2-12; Jer.4:23-26) (Gen.8:11-12, 22)
God rebuked the waters and Waters gradually receded
they hastened away in 1 day away over a period of months
(Gen.1-12; Ps.104:7) (Gen.8:1-14)
All fish destroyed Fish were not destroyed
(Gen.1:2, 20-23; Jer.4:23-26) (Gen.6:18-8:22)
No fowl were left Fowl did not disappear
Gen.1:20;Jer.4:23-26) (Gen.6:20; 8:17)
No animals left Animals were saved
(Gen.1:24-25; 2:19) (Gen.6:20; 8:17)
No men left on earth Men were saved (8 eighth day men & women
(Gen.1:26-28; Jer.4:23-26) (Gen.6:18) [ along with 2 of every flesh ]
No social system left Social system was preserved
(2 Pet.3:6; Jer.4:23-26) (Gen.6:18; 8:22; 2 Pet.2:5)
Caused by fall of Satan (Isa.14:12-14; Caused by wickedness of man
Jer.4:23-26; Ezek.28:11-17; Lk. 10-18) + (Gen.6:5-13)
and fallen angels and fallen angels (Gen.6:1-4)
Became necessary to re-create All things preserved
(Gen.1:3-2:25) (Gen.6:18-8:22)

 

[Favourofone]

I watched a video of an MIT professor, who was Jewish, speaking about some aspect of the creation, trying to make some deep math concept simple.

Got a link ?

 

[mindlight]

I like Isaac Asimov's comments on this topic (paraphrased): Seven thousand years ago, the Lord could have created a world that appeared, from a scientific point of view, to be billions of years old.

Yes he could have but I believe it more likely that the judgments of fall and flood have changed a universe designed to last forever to a universe with the impression of great age with its youth and strength prematurely drained from it.

But the 2 arguments I shared are immune from this rebuttal because there is empirical evidence of an age greater than 6-10000 years.

 

[mindlight]

I am taught from a bible teacher that the creation of the universe is an ancient event and the creation of the Adamic race happened 6000 years ago. That is going to mean that there human-like beings on earth before Adam, that there was likely a "big bang" type of incident, that dinosaurs likely didn't coexist with people of Adam's line and that there was a Genesis flood, as described in Genesis, sometime after Adam's line began. That permits time for the formation of fossil fuels, which is a very long process

I have never heard of proof on for any assertions but I have never heard of science disproving the bible account either. There have been and still are discoveries being made that support the creation as told in Gen.

There are various ways you could argue that but I do not believe the bible says that.

I have no doubt however that Adam was the first man and that abiogenesis and macroevolution are myths.

My questions are all about the age of the earth and the 2 questions I shared in the OP bug me most.

 

[mindlight]

When in doubt, rely on scripture for insights:

6 He stood and surveyed the earth; He looked and startled the nations. Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered, The ancient hills collapsed. His ways are everlasting.

26"The blessings of your father Have surpassed the blessings of my ancestors Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills; May they be on the head of Joseph...

15"And with the best things of the ancient mountains, And with the choice things of the everlasting hills,

Psalm 76:4 You are radiant with light, You are more majestic than the ancient mountains.


(Olam) mountains-
ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever* (70), forevermore* (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never* (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1)

That the Eternal God is Creator of the universe is not in question. Nor does it detract from His glory if he created billions or thousands of years ago. Nor does it diminish Him if he decided to destroy what he originally created to last forever.

 

[mindlight]

I watched a video of an MIT professor, who was Jewish, speaking about some aspect of the creation, trying to make some deep math concept simple. He said that there are now 11 known dimension; i.e., length, width, height and eight more dimensions. He also said that Jewish Rabbis knew from their studies and meditations that ten dimensions existed in the 13th century AD -- showing the value of going to God's Word as you say.

Some kind of argument based on time dilation , multiple dimensions might work with the starlight question but it would not answer the tree ring problem

 

[mindlight]

are the universal constants constant? The electro magnetic field of the earth reduces at a constant rate if you add strength over time it would be too strong for life to exist in the not so far distant past as it has a half life of 1500 years. They theorize that the earth recharges somehow and then starts the cycle over. A guy named Ebner id experiments on plants and fish by incubating them in stronger magnetic fields and the result was the field brought forth the stronger original DNA in the organisms. Corn grew and came to crop with many more ears in less weeks to produce, rainbow trout came out looking like salmon and grew to 3 pounds heavier than they should, ferns grew with solid healthy leaves and this experiment did show that major transformation can be achieved in a single generation. There is much we do not know but it would seem to be a young earth from a basis that why would God create a universe for man to be placed and His son be manifest for billions of years and then have the whole reason for creation play out in a mere 6-1000 thousand years?

Here is a short video about the Ebner effect

Here is an in depth article from more recent times showing teh experiments were repeated with the same results and it gives much more info on what was done.
Guido EBNER - Morphogenetic Fields - Electrostatic enhancement of plant and animal development

That is an interesting and positive argument for a young earth. This OP is focused on whether there are any strong arguments for an old earth that survive scrutiny and specifically on the 2 questions I asked.

 

[mindlight]

2 age 2 floods theory

Interesting theory but at odds with the best expositions of flood and creation and church tradition

 

[dreadnought]

Yes he could have but I believe it more likely that the judgments of fall and flood have changed a universe designed to last forever to a universe with the impression of great age with its youth and strength prematurely drained from it.

But the 2 arguments I shared are immune from this rebuttal because there is empirical evidence of an age greater than 6-10000 years.

Another possibility is that the Lord "fast-forwarded" the first 13.5 billion years.

 

[jhwatts]

Radioactive half lives can be shown to be unchanged over extended periods of time.

Secular equilibrium - Wikipedia

Here is an example.

http://www4vip.inl.gov/gammaray/catalogs/ge/pdf/u234_new.pdf

Due to secular equilibrium, the amounts of U-234 can be measured by U-234 and also can be measured by the amounts of Th-230 present. The half lives of both have to constant to measure the amount of parent from the daughter.

This can viewed strictly mathematically with a system of differential equations for the entire decay chain. You can show that initial half lives must be correct to produce the values we see now.

For those who state that they could have been different in earths past and are different now, they cant change. It can be shown mathematically and measured in a laboratory that half lives have to be constant over time.

The 240,000 year half life of U-234 must be correct because of it being secular equilibrium of Th-230 and its 74,000 year half life.

 

[Denadii]

Is the earth and universe old? Are there scientific evidences that can prove this?

Recently I started a thread examining evidences supplied by Answers in Genesis about a young earth. There were a lot of responses and discussions and I found overall that the science could neither persuade or dissuade me from a conviction that we live in a young universe which is in essence based on the bible and a belief in miracles.

But 2 arguments for an old universe really bother me.

1) Overlapping tree rings. Radagast used this one in the aforementioned thread. While the oldest tree trunk on which tree rings have been counted reaches only 5000 years. When you compare patterns of fossilised tree trunks from dead trees in the same forest you can go back a further 10000 years. This then becomes a problem for me holding the YEC viewpoint that the earth is only 6000 years old and there was a flood just 4500 years ago.

2) Starlight: We know that light travels 186000 miles a second. When Supernova 1985 exploded the speed of light was measured at 186000 miles a second there also by looking at how long it took to vaporize the rings around that star at measurable distances from the star itself. The star itself is 250000 light years away. So if light travelled at the same speed 250000 years ago then it is a constant and this event occurred 250000 years ago. Thus the YEC timescales become impossible.

Are these and other arguments proof that the YEC position is scientifically untenable?

Do you know how people decided that the Earth is only six thousand years old? They went by the lineage of man...Adam to Jesus.....plus two thousand years to today. That is NOT the age of the Earth...Its the length of time that man has been in existence.....The Earth may be millions or even billions of years older. The fact is, we do not know, and the bible does not say....It says the Earth was created, became without form and void, and then was reconstructed from the wreckage.

 

[SkyWriting]

That the Eternal God is Creator of the universe is not in question. Nor does it detract from His glory if he created billions or thousands of years ago. Nor does it diminish Him if he decided to destroy what he originally created to last forever.

OK. I didn't think so either.

 

[Favourofone]

I have no doubt however that Adam was the first man and that abiogenesis and macroevolution are myths

Just because you have no doubts in no way makes it true.

Someone had no doubts about these creation myths either

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

Yet they can’t all be true. So how do you argue one creation myth is better than any of the others ?

There is exactly as much scientific evidence to support any of these - which is none.