How old is the Earth?

[SNPete]

I have a question. In your opinion, how old is the earth and on what do you base your view?

IMO there are only two answers that are supportable. The Biblical if one takes Genesis as literal. Or one based on current scientific thought.

If one takes Genesis as literal one comes up with a 6000 year old earth.

If one takes current scientific thought one comes up with a 4.5 billion year old earth.


Now this is what puzzles me. Some creationists say the earth is 10,000 to 12,000 years old. What’s with that? There is nothing in the Bible that supports such a notion. IMO this date is an attempt to reconcile the date of Adam’s creation with verifiable human history (e.g. Jericho being at least 10,000 years old) or the verified (by tree rings) age of Bristle Cone pines; also at 10,000 years.

As far as I am concerned, a POV or theory not based on scripture of science is mere speculation.

 

[pgp_protector]

If I'm right around 4.5 billion years old

 

[heavensangelwv]

4.5 billion years....

Who am I to say that billions of years in man's time is not only a few days in God's time?

 

[ExpatChristian]

I don't know. But it is definitely not 6000 years old, or 10 or 12 000 years old. That belief is simply childish.

 

[theIdi0t]

IMO this date is an attempt to reconcile the date of Adam’s creation with verifiable human history (e.g. Jericho being at least 10,000 years old) or the verified (by tree rings) age of Bristle Cone pines; also at 10,000 years.

As far as I am concerned, a POV or theory not based on scripture of science is mere speculation.

Is that why they believe the earth is over 6,000 years old? because of outside evidence? Perhaps the folks at the Evil Atheist Conspiracy forged the evidence?

 

[laptoppop]

When YECs say 10-12K years, it is typically used as an outer bounds. There are gaps in the timelines where it is not possible to determine exact dates, but if your evidence says less than 10-12K years, then there is something very wrong with conventional theory, or your evidence is wrong.

Here's some arguments for a young earth: http://icr.org/article/1842/

Yes, most of these has been debated back and forth. To me the creationist arguments are compelling.

 

[michabo]

If one takes Genesis as literal one comes up with a 6000 year old earth.

If one takes current scientific thought one comes up with a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Please pardon me, I don't know your views are on this subject. Do you think that the literal Genesis account is inconsistent with physical, scientific evidence?

I have always seen Creationists arguing that a young earth is in fact consistent with evidence as well as with the bible, and that people who believe the earth is old are rejecting this evidence in order to reject God or something. Am I mistaken?

 

[heavensangelwv]

Is that why they believe the earth is over 6,000 years old? because of outside evidence? Perhaps the folks at the Evil Atheist Conspiracy forged the evidence?

I am certainly not an atheist, and I believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years. The age of the Earth is estimated by radiometric dating which just so happens to be a quite precise method. And, by estimated I mean that the oldest rocks that can be found on Earth's crust today are not in fact the "oldest" rocks so an estimation of how far back the Earth went had to be made based upon the evidence. Those rocks have been destroyed by the rock cycle.

 

[SNPete]

Please pardon me, I don't know your views are on this subject.

Since you asked.
Regarding the first part of Genesis:

I view the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates.

The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.

As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document. That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind. Of course we always must bear in mind that God is not limited to obey the laws of nature. So, if God wanted to create the universe in six, 24 hour days He could.

IMO the earth is older than 4004BC since our written history goes back much further-not to mention that the tree rings on Bristle Cone pines show some to be over 10,000 years old. I see problems with the literal rendering of Genesis which gives the date of creation as September 4004BC as I noted above. IMO if something is not provable by scripture or science it is mere conjecture and speculation. I have yet to see any evidence from a literal rendering of Genesis 1-11 that would indicate anything but the 4004BC date.

With that said, I contend that the misapplication of Greek thinking to a Hebrew document has caused the strict creationists to come to an incorrect conclusion regarding specie change via adaptation and the age of the earth and universe.

I see no problem with a 4.5 Billion year old earth or a theistic evolutionary view, which I lean towards.


I hope I have addresed your question.

 

[laptoppop]

I am certainly not an atheist, and I believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years. The age of the Earth is estimated by radiometric dating which just so happens to be a quite precise method. And, by estimated I mean that the oldest rocks that can be found on Earth's crust today are not in fact the "oldest" rocks so an estimation of how far back the Earth went had to be made based upon the evidence. Those rocks have been destroyed by the rock cycle.

Ummm, no. http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

 

[SNPete]

When YECs say 10-12K years, it is typically used as an outer bounds. There are gaps in the timelines where it is not possible to determine exact dates, but if your evidence says less than 10-12K years, then there is something very wrong with conventional theory, or your evidence is wrong.

What gaps? This is a new concept to me.

 

[laptoppop]

Since you asked.
Regarding the first part of Genesis:

I view the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates.

The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.

As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document. That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind. Of course we always must bear in mind that God is not limited to obey the laws of nature. So, if God wanted to create the universe in six, 24 hour days He could.

IMO the earth is older than 4004BC since our written history goes back much further-not to mention that the tree rings on Bristle Cone pines show some to be over 10,000 years old. I see problems with the literal rendering of Genesis which gives the date of creation as September 4004BC as I noted above. IMO if something is not provable by scripture or science it is mere conjecture and speculation. I have yet to see any evidence from a literal rendering of Genesis 1-11 that would indicate anything but the 4004BC date.

With that said, I contend that the misapplication of Greek thinking to a Hebrew document has caused the strict creationists to come to an incorrect conclusion regarding specie change via adaptation and the age of the earth and universe.

I see no problem with a 4.5 Billion year old earth or a theistic evolutionary view, which I lean towards.


I hope I have addresed your question.

You have every right to view it that way, but your viewpoint is not supported by the evidence. A simple word search on "truth" will demonstrate the "Greek" orientation of historicity in the Hebrew people and the Old Testament. http://cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=truth&Version=NASB&sf=3
They were a unique people who were called by One True God to worship Him.

 

[laptoppop]

What gaps? This is a new concept to me.

Gaps is probably the wrong word. As I recall, there are geneaologies without ages given in some places. I'd have to look it up-- but I remember reading that we couldn't really tell the precise numbers as much as reasonable estimates.

 

[SNPete]

Here's some arguments for a young earth: http://icr.org/article/1842/

.

I looked at the link and the author is saying the earth is 6000 years old. So what about The Bristle Cone Pine and the City of Jericho?

 

[laptoppop]

Bristle cone pines: http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_95-103.pdf

I'm not sure what problem you are referring to with Jericho. The time estimates vary greatly, and all are less than 10K years old. Here's an interesting article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/318/

 

[michabo]

laptoppop,

Maybe you can answer the question I asked SNPete - do you (and other Creationists) believe that the physical evidence as well as the biblical account both point to a young earth?

 

[laptoppop]

laptoppop,

Maybe you can answer the question I asked SNPete - do you (and other Creationists) believe that the physical evidence as well as the biblical account both point to a young earth?

Absolutely. I can't speak for all creationists, but the wide range of creationist organizations and myself would support that statement 100%.

 

[theIdi0t]

laptoppop,

Maybe you can answer the question I asked SNPete - do you (and other Creationists) believe that the physical evidence as well as the biblical account both point to a young earth?

Yes they do, Pop claims if the evidence pointed differently he would reconsider being a YEC, but he believes the current evidence fits the biblical account, while the evidence that says otherwise is the result of "speculation and conjecture".

 

[laptoppop]

Just to be clear - that's not what I mean to say about "evidence" that says otherwise.

I say that the physical evidence fits the Biblical record. I think the interpretation of that evidence can be done in a manner which supports the TOE. I think that interpretational model is flawed and incorrect.

 

[heavensangelwv]

Ummm, no. http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

Ummm yes... http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earthorigin.htm