How old is the earth?

[OD3]

Another confusing dilemma in the Bible (there sure are a lot of them, or maybe I'm just being dumb).

I know of a lot of Christians who actually believe the world is 12,000 years old. I know most Christians do not believe this. Evidence of this of course? Dinosaurs. Never mentioned in the Bible for some reason. But some Christians believe that the dinosaur bones were put on earth to "test us". I find this ludicrous. I dont think God is a practical joker.

On the other hand, I know Christians who DO believe in the theory of evolution. And that the planet is roughly 4,000,000,000 years old. They have used their common sense and used science in CONJUNCION with the bible. This is feel is not wrong. Please remember that the Bible was written by people who still thought the world was flat and that an eclipse was an act of God.

Where do most Christians stand on this? Is the planet a lot younger than we beleive and everything was put here and we were created as humans that did not evolve from chimps? Or are we maybe starting to understand that a lot of Genesis was metaphorical?

 

[stumpjumper]

Mod note:

More of an Origins topic than Philosophy or Ethics...

 

[crawfish]

The earth is 10 minutes old as of now. We were all created with memories built-in of everything beforehand.

I bet you're shocked that you didn't really write that.

 

[busterdog]

The earth is 10 minutes old as of now. We were all created with memories built-in of everything beforehand.

I bet you're shocked that you didn't really write that.

So, in other words, the copier goes down .... again.

I get this wierd sense of deja vu.

Its really just a programming glitch in the memory implant.

Guess I will be having two scotches with lunch today.

 

[busterdog]

Another confusing dilemma in the Bible (there sure are a lot of them, or maybe I'm just being dumb).

I know of a lot of Christians who actually believe the world is 12,000 years old. I know most Christians do not believe this. Evidence of this of course? Dinosaurs. Never mentioned in the Bible for some reason. But some Christians believe that the dinosaur bones were put on earth to "test us". I find this ludicrous. I dont think God is a practical joker.

On the other hand, I know Christians who DO believe in the theory of evolution. And that the planet is roughly 4,000,000,000 years old. They have used their common sense and used science in CONJUNCION with the bible. This is feel is not wrong. Please remember that the Bible was written by people who still thought the world was flat and that an eclipse was an act of God.

Where do most Christians stand on this? Is the planet a lot younger than we beleive and everything was put here and we were created as humans that did not evolve from chimps? Or are we maybe starting to understand that a lot of Genesis was metaphorical?

Since, the Bible as written by God, he would have known the earth was round.

There is evidence that many of the educated folks in antiquity also understood that the earth was round.

Eclipses are acts of God, they are just also predictable with astronomy. The crossing of the red sea involved a geologic process to create a land bridge just below the surface in the gulf of aqaba, but also a miracle of God to make the timing just right.

By contrast, Jesus didnt just happen to show up when Lazarus about to naturally join the ranks of the undead.

We dont have a lot of clarity for how much time passed between day 7 of creation and the fall of man, but the generations following Adam seem to add up to about 6,000 years. It is doubtful that the earth is much older than that.

There other models that will create planets and stars within 24 hour days. Remember that even Big Bang is a theory in extremis. If you can push energies, densities, velocities, etc. to practically any value you want, you do get quite a bit of freedom in modelling creation. If you want the links, you may simply ask.

 

[Assyrian]

Since, the Bible as written by God, he would have known the earth was round.

Of course he did, he just didn't share that information with the writers of the bible. He probably had more important lessons to teach the Israelites than science. Ultimately we don't know why God didn't choose teach science in the bible, just that he didn't. Instead he taught the truths of God being an all powerful creator and ruler of the cosmos in terms people understood from their own unscientific cosmology. It is the same with mustard seeds God was well aware the poppy seed and orchid seeds are smaller than mustard seeds, but the illustration Jesus gave was teaching about faith, not trying to conveying an accurate science lesson. If your interpretation of the bible contradicts established science it is because you misunderstand what the bible is teaching us, not because either the bible or science are wrong.

There is evidence that many of the educated folks in antiquity also understood that the earth was round.

But not back when the OT was being written. Greek round earth ideas came later.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is the same with mustard seeds God was well aware the poppy seed and orchid seeds are smaller than mustard seeds, but the illustration Jesus gave was teaching about faith, not trying to conveying an accurate science lesson.

I always thought that the mustard seed was the smallest that those who Jesus was speaking to were generally familiar with. I'm sure the lesson would have been lost if he referred to a seed that they were not familiar with.

owg

 

[Assyrian]

I always thought that the mustard seed was the smallest that those who Jesus was speaking to were generally familiar with. I'm sure the lesson would have been lost if he referred to a seed that they were not familiar with.

owg

They would have know about poppies which were grown in the area. But I agree, the lesson would have been lost if he went into a comparative description of seed sizes.

I am not sure poppy seeds would have been a great illustration of faith either, unless you are a marxist smallest of all seeds you are familiar with and when it is full grown becomes the opiate of the people. But calling the tiny and fiery mustard which grows into a huge bush 'the smallest of all seeds' is a wonderful bit of hyperbole and a lovely illustration of faith. But it is not accurate science and was not meant as accurate science.

I can understand the way people feel a need to 'defend the bible' and claim it only means the smallest seed cultivated in the region, but God's word does not need defending, instead we should let issues like this challenge the assumptions we bring to scripture, and learn how God actually speaks to us instead of how we think he should speak.

 

[Mallon]

I always thought that the mustard seed was the smallest that those who Jesus was speaking to were generally familiar with.

You're not suggesting Jesus accomodated his teachings to the limitations of human knowledge, are you? Isn't that blasphemy as far as neocreationists are concerned?

 

[juvenissun]

Another confusing dilemma in the Bible (there sure are a lot of them, or maybe I'm just being dumb).

But some Christians believe that the dinosaur bones were put on earth to "test us". I find this ludicrous. I dont think God is a practical joker.

This is a very convenient, shallow and cheap view. Even when some person said something you do not understand, you may accuse him lying or cheating. I still believe it is a very legitimate view of theology that God made everything up like they are in a short period of time, include the numbers from radiometric dating. I do not see anything wrong with this belief. God does not intend to cheat anyone because God tells us that He creates. If you accept creation, then everything is perfect. People do not want to believe his creation, so they said that God cheated them. It really does not matter, they are going to hell anyway.

Everything science established so far (include predictions and verifications) are only models. Only fools will take models as the truth.

 

[busterdog]

Another confusing dilemma in the Bible (there sure are a lot of them, or maybe I'm just being dumb).


This is a very convenient, shallow and cheap view.

I dont have a big problem with the dinosaur bones "test" as such.

Today it is raining. Is God testing me to see if I will thank Him for the rain and praise Him for His victory over the flood if it starts to rain too much? I think so. Is He sifting us to see how we fit ordinary or extraordinay rain within His Word? Yes. And so the dinosaur.

Dinosaur bones needn't be seen as a "special" test. If our limited knowledge makes thems seem anomalous, that is really not all that pertinent to the fundamental question God asks us about how we see natural phenomena.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I can understand the way people feel a need to 'defend the bible' and claim it only means the smallest seed cultivated in the region, but God's word does not need defending, instead we should let issues like this challenge the assumptions we bring to scripture, and learn how God actually speaks to us instead of how we think he should speak.

That approach is fine for mature Christians, like you and I, but for 'babes' that might find this parable troubling this simple explaination may allow them to move forward.

owg

 

[Jim Larmore]

This topic can be confusing if you let it. To me I have no problem with what we call tere-firma being billions of years old. I do have a problem with saying life has been here and existing on it for billions of years. That does not jive with the Bible. BTW, The Bible does speak of what would be considered as a dinosaur when it speaks of the beehamoth ( ms ) having a tail as big as a tree.

The fossil evidence is not conclusive for slow evolution of the biota. What it is definitely evidence for is rapid burial and sequential deposition of stratified layers of sediments as a result of hydrology.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Assyrian]

Oh Dear... No the bible does not say behemoth's tail is as big as a tree.

 

[Mallon]

The fossil evidence is not conclusive for slow evolution of the biota.

As someone who works on fossils for a living, let me assure you that it is.

 

[Jim Larmore]

Oh Dear... No the bible does not say behemoth's tail is as big as a tree.

Here's the way the original language reads from the hebrew. I'll let the reader's decide:

" Behold please behemoth which I made with you grass as an ox he is eating, behold please vigor of him in waists of him and virility of him in navel/muscle of him belly of him he is inclining TAIL OF HIM LIKE A CEDAR sinews of him awesome part of him."

To say the least there is some things lost in translation wouldn't you agree?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jim Larmore]

As someone who works on fossils for a living, let me assure you that it is.

I'm sure you are convinced of that. However, your conclusions are based on a biased perspective. I used to see things that way too but there are other ways to see things and there are other ways to interpret the evidence than what the mainstream paradigm does.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

I'm sure you are convinced of that. However, your conclusions are based on a biased perspective. I used to see things that way too but there are other ways to see things and there are other ways to interpret the evidence than what the mainstream paradigm does.

The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.

 

[Jim Larmore]

The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.

The GC is a great example of rapid erosion of the then fairly soft sediments laid down right after the flood. The GC was most likely formed very rapidly by a huge rush of water from a huge lake north of it's location. The fact that there are essentially no signs of erosional cuts in the sediments tells us this is true. Slow formation would show massive signs of erosion in the lateral layering but very little or no erosion is apparent. Ignoring this evidence is a prime example of the mainstream paradigms perspective.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[juvenissun]

The only way to interpret the fossil record as having been deposited in less than millions of years is to ignore evidence. For example, you cannot argue that the Grand Canyon was rapidly carved in a single massive flooding event unless you ignore the many mammillary coatings on the canyon's walls that attest to its great age.

Why do you want to say something outside of your field with such a confidence? I am a little tired on debating this triviality. Most mammillary coatings (what material?) only take a very short period of time to form.

And this sort of argument is not really adequate in this thread at all.