How old is the earth?

[SuperCow]

The Bible record shows that life on Earth is only around 6000 years old but we don't know from that - how old the rocks on Earth are.

Genesis 1:1 says the heavens and the earth. Some people think that the creative days began on verse 2 and others on verse 1. If it is verse 1, then the rocks on earth cannot be older than the heavens. If it is verse 2, the earth could be much older than the life on it. Either way it is reasonable to conclude that the earth's creation included the rocks on it.

God makes Adam and Eve as adults - they would not appear to be 1 day old zygotes...nor even one day old humans. They would appear to be 24 or something around that age. For practical useful reasons -- not merely "to deceive the one that sees them" as some evolutionists have claimed against the Bible.

Of course they are not embryonic, but they don't have to be the equivalent of a biological 24 year old either. It could be a "Blue Lagoon" age scenario meaning 14-16. People are attracted sexually to potential partners much earlier than 24, and can have children. Regardless of what age Adam and Eve looked, they, for all intents and purposes, their experience was no more than an infant, and their mental development is not demonstrated in the narrative to be anything beyond juvenile.

Seth was born when they were at a documented age of 130, so they had definitely enough time to mature before having children.

It is based on guesswork - assumptions about starting conditions. Not direct observation of the starting conditions.

It's based on mathematical modeling, and known scientific principles. The modeling is very accurate, but what is not clear is the beginning state of most of these processes. As tonychanyt demonstrated, they can plot a course to Mars remotely using known mathematics. They can work backwards with similar models, but eventually you get to a singularity state that nobody understands, and no way to model before the beginning. (Not to mention numerous competing theories for many things on the way back.)

Notice how flummoxed they seem to be about the findings of the James Webb space telescope regarding the early conditions of the Universe.

Christian scientists can be equally flummoxed, but that's not the point. Genesis 1 (and maybe 2) is intended to teach a simplified creation process in a way that can be understood by children or by unscientifically developed adults. It's not a literal reading in that God has a booming voice in the depth of space that says what is to happen. Nobody is around to hear it anyway, unless they are orders to his angels in whatever native language spirits speak.

Even so, the Bible itself gives plenty of clues that a literal understanding of a creative day is misguided. Notwithstanding the fact that most things that happen on a creative day do not happen in a day. (eg. "The land produced vegetation") The vegetation was either created as vegetation or it was given time to produce it. Both Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day. But Adam was put in Eden, gave names to animals, then was put to sleep where some process from his rib was used to create Eve. This was after all the animals (presumably of the mammal class) were created. Of course you can argue that God didn't need anymore than 24 hours to do all this. He can snap his fingers and create all the animals in 6 hours, or 6 minutes, or 6 seconds. He is an infinitely powerful God, is he not?

But why the facade of the 24 hour period. If he can create all the mammals in instantly. Why not just put Eve there with Adam in the first place. Is that so they don't argue over the animal names? He should know beforehand that Adam needed a companion. He is all-knowing.

There is a reason for the process, and the process takes time. But to explain that in 31 verses would be too complicated for anyone of the time to read. That is the reason that Genesis 1 is written the way that it is.

 

[tonychanyt]

You are not talking about the same thing at all. OEC & YEC are both correct in what they are saying. Adam and Eve did live 6,000 years ago and that was the beginning of many many things. Or if a day is 1,000 years that fits also. They are all true and correct in their own context.

What is the speed of light?

 

[Diamond72]

What is the speed of light?

299 792 458 m / s According to quantum physics everything in the universe is connected in real time. So we can be anywhere in the universe in an instant. When I was around 8 years old God took me in a dream to the center of the universe and He showed me how the universe is expanding. Eventually, the universe will contract and all come back together again.

 

[tonychanyt]

299 792 458 m / s .

How far away is the closest galaxy?

 

[Diamond72]

How far away is the closest galaxy?

The Andromeda Galaxy is located approximately 2.537 million light-years away from us. Are you going somewhere with this?

 

[tonychanyt]

The Andromeda Galaxy is located approximately 2.537 million light-years away from us. Are you going somewhere with this?

I am trying to understand what you have written.

How old is the earth? the universe?

 

[Diamond72]

How old is the earth? the universe?

You can google that question. Science has an answer. Gerald Schroeder talks about the age of the universe where each day is half the length of the day before. He has a Phd from MIT so he knows a lot more about Physics than I do. I tend to be more of dispensationalist where a day is equal to 1,000 years.

For me, he gets Genesis chapter one to line up with what science tells us The length of the days are 7.1; 3.6; 1.8; 0.89; 0.45; 0.23. billion years. So if we look at day 6 - 230,000,000 million years ago, we see the beginning of mammals. We know that God created man on the sixth day and he was a mammal. This was at the time of Pangea where there was one land mass.

On day five 450,000,000 million years ago. Scientists believe the Late Ordovician event some 450 million years ago was linked to the end of an ice age, resulting in rising sea levels and plummeting oxygen levels in the oceans. On day five we see: "God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly".

As Schroeder says, all the books in the world would not be enough to explain Genesis chapter one. So to try to give some sort of explanation in a short little post is difficult. Clearly, we could devote our whole life to the study of Genesis chapter one, and in the end we would only begin to understand.

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written". John 21 15

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

 

[ozso]

To me from a Christian standpoint this is a no brainer. Since it's likely Adam and Eve were created as fully developed adults, it's likely the Earth was created as an already fully developed planet. So Just as Adam could have been 1 day old chronologically, but 20 years old physically, the Earh could be 6000 years old chronologically, but 4.5 billion years old physically.

 

[trophy33]

To me from a Christian standpoint this is a no brainer. Since it's likely Adam and Eve were created as fully developed adults, it's likely the Earth was created as an already fully developed planet. So Just as Adam could have been 1 day old chronologically, but 20 years old physically, the Earh could be 6000 years old chronologically, but 4.5 billion years old physically.

Why is it likely that Genesis is inspired literally?

 

[Diamond72]

Since it's likely Adam and Eve were created as fully developed adults

DNA does not support this. In Gensis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Adam and Eve had the breath of life. Nephesh in the Hebrew. It took God 14 Billion years to create Adam and Eve and then God breathed life into him. Tyson and Sagun both talk about we are star stuff. What the Bible calls: The dust of the ground.

There was a literal 24 hour day when God was finished with his work.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Some Christians think that the earth is between 6000 to 15,000 years old (coinciding with the Neolithic Age). Astronomers think that it is 4.5 billion years old. Here is an attempt to resolve this incongruity.

Jesus turns water into wine in John 2:



How old is this wine?

If you ask the servants, the human observers/witnesses, they would say a few seconds old.

The story continues:



If you ask the expert, the master of the banquet, "How old is this wine?", he would say it was some months or even years old.

So which answer is true?

Both are true depending on the perspective. The supernatural perspective tells us that it was only a second old. The natural perspective tells us that it was at least some months old.

Similarly, in Genesis 1:



How old is the earth?

If we ask an astronomer from the natural perspective, he can only study the present-day physical data based on scientific calculation. It is 4.5 billion years old. That's the scientific space-time perspective.

On the other hand, from the supernatural angle, if we read the Bible literally, the present-day earth is only some thousands of years old. That's the biblical witnessed-time perspective.

So which answer is true?

Both are true depending on the time perspective. God created the earth with the embedded evolutionary records of billions of years. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. It focuses on the story of redemption. In terms of witnessed-time history, it is only some thousands of years old. On the other hand, from the scientific-time point of view, the earth is billions of years old.

Note that this is not the same as Last Thursdayism because God tells me the contrary. God did not create the universe last Thursday. Genesis contradicts this. I can also contradict this. I was alive last Thursday. God was with me. God dwells in me. It happened in real live-time. I didn't see God create this universe last Thursday. I believe in the words of God, not Last Thursdayism.

Jesus spoke about it as a historical witnessed-time event in Mark 10:



From the perspective of scientific time, the details of this embedding are amazing:
24,000-year-old animal found alive, well, and ready to reproduce
Fossils reveal what may be the oldest known case of the dino sniffles.

There are two different frameworks of time. Roughly, witnessed-time started when Adam opened his eyes. Space-time is measured by scientific calculations. Even scientifically, there is something funny about time.

I distinguish between these two concepts of time. The Bible speaks of events that happened in the real historical witnessed-time. Scientific research speaks in terms of space-time even when there were no live animals there to observe the original events.

Yeah I’ve often said if God were to create a rock instantaneously and gave it to scientists to examine the rock wouldn’t appear to be just a few minutes of just because of the fact that rocks can’t form in just a few minutes so it would obviously appear to be thousands of years old just because of the fact that it is a rock.

 

[tonychanyt]

For me, he gets Genesis chapter one to line up with what science tells us The length of the days are 7.1; 3.6; 1.8; 0.89; 0.45; 0.23. billion years. So if we look at day 6 - 230,000,000 million years ago, we see the beginning of mammals. We know that God created man on the sixth day and he was a mammal. This was at the time of Pangea where there was one land mass.

Now I understand your point better. Sure, you can reason that way to reconcile the difference between the two ages. My explanation is the OP is simpler.

 

[tonychanyt]

Yeah I’ve often said if God were to create a rock instantaneously and gave it to scientists to examine the rock wouldn’t appear to be just a few minutes of just because of the fact that rocks can’t form in just a few minutes so it would obviously appear to be thousands of years old just because of the fact that it is a rock.

Excellent simple point

 

[Diamond72]

My explanation is the OP is simpler.

Everyone has their own unique perspective. We talk about time: "seasons, days and years" were not created until the 4 th day. Years are based on how long it takes for the Earth to circle the Sun. Time goes back long before there was an earth, sun and moon.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Excellent simple point

Another indication to me that the earth is not millions of years old is man’s technology progression seems inconsistent with that theory. Scientists believe that man, as we exist today, has existed for around 300,000 years. Historians claim that the wheel was first invented around 3500 BC, so 5500 years ago. What I find strange is that apparently for 295,000 years the simple concept of a wheel completely escaped man and yet in such a minuscule portion of man’s existence after creating the wheel he has been able to accomplish everything we have today. World wide air travel, automobiles, computers, internet, space travel, smartphones, worldwide communications, nuclear technology, I mean he even landed on the moon for crying out loud which is a major technological feat. So I find it really hard to believe that for over 98% of man’s existence on earth he was unable to understand such an elementary concept as a wheel, something we can actually observe in a natural environment like seeing a rock roll down a hill or chopping a log and seeing it roll down a hill, yet in the last 1.8% of his existence he managed to accomplish the vast amount of technology we have today. The progression doesn’t appear to be consistent. But if the earth is actually 6000 years old then it seems more plausible to me that man might not’ve discovered the wheel during his first 500 years then afterwards was able to accomplish everything we have today. This seems a lot more consistent than what scientists are actually predicting.

 

[tonychanyt]

Everyone has their own unique perspective. We talk about time: "seasons, days and years" were not created until the 4 th day. Years are based on how long it takes for the Earth to circle the Sun. Time goes back long before there was an earth, sun and moon.

Right.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

 

[tonychanyt]

Another indication to me that the earth is not millions of years old is man’s technology progression seems inconsistent with that theory. Scientists believe that man, as we exist today, has existed for around 300,000 years. Historians claim that the wheel was first invented around 3500 BC, so 5500 years ago. What I find strange is that apparently for 295,000 years the simple concept of a wheel completely escaped man and yet in such a minuscule portion of man’s existence after creating the wheel he has been able to accomplish everything we have today. World wide air travel, automobiles, computers, internet, space travel, smartphones, worldwide communications, nuclear technology, I mean he even landed on the moon for crying out loud which is a major technological feat. So I find it really hard to believe that for over 98% of man’s existence on earth he was unable to understand such an elementary concept as a wheel, something we can actually observe in a natural environment like seeing a rock roll down a hill or chopping a log and seeing it roll down a hill, yet in the last 1.8% of his existence he managed to accomplish the vast amount of technology we have today. The progression doesn’t appear to be consistent. But if the earth is actually 6000 years old then it seems more plausible to me that man might not’ve discovered the wheel during his first 500 years then afterwards was able to accomplish everything we have today. This seems a lot more consistent than what scientists are actually predicting.

Another great point

See also Adam, Eve, and Evolution

 

[SuperCow]

The point is not whether or not God could create the earth to look thousands, millions or billions of years old. The question is whether or not he did. He could also have perhaps covered the earth with water, and then a year later evaporated it all into space. The question is whether he did. Looking for a natural cause of existence or other Biblical miracles (like the many theories about the plagues of Egypt) is folly if they are truly supernatural miracles.

However; logic would tell you that if you did something miraculous, why would you want to remove, alter or otherwise obscure the evidence to deliberately confuse your creation. Therefore, the focus on proving the Bible is not the determination of what natural phenomena caused the miracle, but what evidence was left behind.

To understand the evidence, you need to understand the Bible, and the Bible leaves many clues about things that aren't stated directly. Is a creative day 24 hours long? Was the seventh day of rest 24 hours long?

Genesis 2:2,3 - "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

If it was a single day, then why do we read in Psalms 95:11 regarding the generation of the Israelites that left Egypt.

"So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’”

This is over 2500 years after the time that God rested. If this rest was still happening then the day of rest had not ended yet. You may argue that the "rest" in this verse is different from Genesis, but this is elaborated on in most of Hebrews 4 (after quoting Psalms in chapter 3). The entire chapter is a good read on the subject, but here's a snippet from verse 9-11:

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience."

Now we are 4000+ years from creation. If God's "day" of rest is over 4000 years long, then it is logical to conclude that the "days" of creation are longer than 24 hours, as is the "day" that God made the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 2:4)

 

[tonychanyt]

The point is not whether or not God could create the earth to look thousands, millions or billions of years old. The question is whether or not he did.

I think he did.

 

[Diamond72]

Right.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

Occam's razor is not an absolute rule and does not guarantee that the simplest explanation is always the correct one. Scientific inquiry often involves balancing simplicity with other factors, such as explanatory power, predictive ability, and empirical evidence. Scientists must consider multiple criteria and evaluate the overall coherence and fit of an explanation to the available evidence.

Therefore, while Occam's razor is commonly employed in scientific reasoning, it is not solely based on science itself, but rather it reflects a broader philosophical and logical principle that is widely applied in various fields of inquiry, including science.

My basic approach is to use the Scientific method to show that the Bible is true and accurate. Of course, not everything can be proven true. We accept some things by faith. There is nothing in the Bible that can be shown not to be true when properly understood. Science can help us in our translation and interpretation of the Bible.