How old is the earth?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yeah that’s been my thoughts as well. We can’t even cause mutations to result in a new species in a controlled environment so if the evolution process takes millions of years or whatever ridiculous number they claim then how did life forms survive that long in a natural before they were able to move around to protect themselves from the harsh environment and find food sources? Were they just lucky enough to have such an environment that didn’t run out of food or become too hot or cold for them to survive for millions of years?

That's why I also don't believe in chance-based evolution, where it all started with nothing, and suddenly, by chance, nothing exploded in the big bang. I believe that the cosmos was created miraculously by God in six clearly defined stages over a very long time. Because there was no measurement of time before the first clock was invented, other than day and night through the rotation of the earth, and the different seasons, there is no difficulty in accepting that the placement of the components of the universe, our sun and moon, and the construction of the world could have taken a very long period of time.

In many ways, it doesn't really matter how long the cosmos took to be constructed. Many who oppose old earth creation think that it has to be evolution, but not necessarily. But then people tend to think in extremes, and many young earth proponents tend to react against evolution, because atheistic evolutionists don't want to include God in the formation of the cosmos. That is more of a rejection of God than a concern about how the world was created. If God is included, then one must consider requiring a moral responsibility toward that God. Atheists want to be their own gods and be a law to themselves and be morally responsible to no one but themselves. That is the accurate reason behind chance-based evolution.

But there is no problem with God taking billions of years to lay out the foundations of the universe (Job 38) and to form our world with everything in it. who care anyway? The fact that creation is a miracle of God is enough for me.

It was said that time was invented by clock makers who wanted to sell more clocks.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes, I’d like to read an explanation for the evidence of human remains from 20,000 years ago being discovered. And not the same one about dating methods being unreliable.

You might have to trawl around Google to find the reference to it. I read about it a number of years ago, and I can't remember where the actual article is now. I do know that humans could only have migrated to North America while there was an ice bridge between Siberia and Alaska, and that was during the last ice age, Once the ice bridge had melted, mass migration was impossible. The last ice age was way more than 4,000 years ago; in fact according to scientists, we are 5,000 years overdue for another ice age. They reckon that global warming will trigger a new ice age as the polar ice cap melting causing more water vapor in the air, which in turn will cause more snow to fall in Siberia and Northern Canada, and this will turn to ice, which will spread right down even to Southern California.

 

[AlexB23]

That's why I also don't believe in chance-based evolution, where it all started with nothing, and suddenly, by chance, nothing exploded in the big bang. I believe that the cosmos was created miraculously by God in six clearly defined stages over a very long time. Because there was no measurement of time before the first clock was invented, other than day and night through the rotation of the earth, and the different seasons, there is no difficulty in accepting that the placement of the components of the universe, our sun and moon, and the construction of the world could have taken a very long period of time.

In many ways, it doesn't really matter how long the cosmos took to be constructed. Many who oppose old earth creation think that it has to be evolution, but not necessarily. But then people tend to think in extremes, and many young earth proponents tend to react against evolution, because atheistic evolutionists don't want to include God in the formation of the cosmos. That is more of a rejection of God than a concern about how the world was created. If God is included, then one must consider requiring a moral responsibility toward that God. Atheists want to be their own gods and be a law to themselves and be morally responsible to no one but themselves. That is the accurate reason behind chance-based evolution.

But there is no problem with God taking billions of years to lay out the foundations of the universe (Job 38) and to form our world with everything in it. who care anyway? The fact that creation is a miracle of God is enough for me.

It was said that time was invented by clock makers who wanted to sell more clocks.

Amen sir. The fact that we exist here today is a miracle in itself, and that quote about timepieces is quite simply put, perfect. The Cambrian explosion (538.8 million years ago) also shows that life went from bacteria to advanced multicellular creatures and fish in a matter of only a few million years is a miracle. That's God's hands right there making animals (part of Genesis).

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Amen sir. The fact that we exist here today is a miracle in itself, and that quote about timepieces is quite simply put, perfect. The Cambrian explosion (538.8 million years ago) also shows that life went from bacteria to advanced multicellular creatures and fish in a matter of only a few million years is a miracle. That's God's hands right there making animals (part of Genesis).

It had to do with the increase in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere that enabled more advanced forms of life to develop. Originally 1% oxygen enabled just bacteria to survive, so when the oxygen level went up to 5%, insects appeared, and when it went up to 8%, birds and animals appeared. By the time man was created, the full level of oxygen was in place. That is why plants and trees were created before the birds, animals and man, because plants and trees absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. The more forests, the more oxygen given off. This is the fear of the deforestation of our rain forests. As they decrease in size, the less oxygen is released into the atmosphere, and less carbon dioxide is absorbed. This is why we have global warming. If too much of our rain forests are cut down, the oxygen level in the atmosphere will fall, and we, along with the land animals will go extinct.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The terms "evening" and "morning" are not number values, so "day" in these instances could quite easily mean "epochs" and still be Scripturally accurate.

But you still have day one, the second day, the third day, etc, etc, and Exodus 20:11 says that everything was created in 6 days.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It had to do with the increase in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere that enabled more advanced forms of life to develop. Originally 1% oxygen enabled just bacteria to survive, so when the oxygen level went up to 5%, insects appeared, and when it went up to 8%, birds and animals appeared. By the time man was created, the full level of oxygen was in place. That is why plants and trees were created before the birds, animals and man, because plants and trees absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. The more forests, the more oxygen given off. This is the fear of the deforestation of our rain forests. As they decrease in size, the less oxygen is released into the atmosphere, and less carbon dioxide is absorbed. This is why we have global warming. If too much of our rain forests are cut down, the oxygen level in the atmosphere will fall, and we, along with the land animals will go extinct.

Sounds like someone has been watching some Hugh Ross videos.

 

[AlexB23]

It had to do with the increase in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere that enabled more advanced forms of life to develop. Originally 1% oxygen enabled just bacteria to survive, so when the oxygen level went up to 5%, insects appeared, and when it went up to 8%, birds and animals appeared. By the time man was created, the full level of oxygen was in place. That is why plants and trees were created before the birds, animals and man, because plants and trees absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. The more forests, the more oxygen given off. This is the fear of the deforestation of our rain forests. As they decrease in size, the less oxygen is released into the atmosphere, and less carbon dioxide is absorbed. This is why we have global warming. If too much of our rain forests are cut down, the oxygen level in the atmosphere will fall, and we, along with the land animals will go extinct.

Yep, that is true as well. It seems that God built our universe with the life bearing chemicals in mind, allowing the O2 levels to go up on Earth. Our earth is just the right distance from the sun to sustain life. The O2 came from multiple places, but one comes to mind. Cyanobacteria were capable of photosynthesis, and expelled O2 while reducing CO2 levels. Then, that gave rise to the moment where the Cambrian explosion could take place, as described in Genesis 1:11 or so. God designed the universe in just the right way for everything to fall into place, as he guided some parts of creation. What you and I are discussing is known as intelligent design (ID).

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's why I also don't believe in chance-based evolution, where it all started with nothing, and suddenly, by chance, nothing exploded in the big bang. I believe that the cosmos was created miraculously by God in six clearly defined stages over a very long time. Because there was no measurement of time before the first clock was invented, other than day and night through the rotation of the earth, and the different seasons, there is no difficulty in accepting that the placement of the components of the universe, our sun and moon, and the construction of the world could have taken a very long period of time.

In many ways, it doesn't really matter how long the cosmos took to be constructed. Many who oppose old earth creation think that it has to be evolution, but not necessarily. But then people tend to think in extremes, and many young earth proponents tend to react against evolution, because atheistic evolutionists don't want to include God in the formation of the cosmos. That is more of a rejection of God than a concern about how the world was created. If God is included, then one must consider requiring a moral responsibility toward that God. Atheists want to be their own gods and be a law to themselves and be morally responsible to no one but themselves. That is the accurate reason behind chance-based evolution.

But there is no problem with God taking billions of years to lay out the foundations of the universe (Job 38) and to form our world with everything in it. who care anyway? The fact that creation is a miracle of God is enough for me.

It was said that time was invented by clock makers who wanted to sell more clocks.

My position is this, I can’t find any other way to interpret the scriptures to support OEC without directly contradicting what was actually written. So I have to make a choice, either science is right or the word of God is right. If I go with science on the creation of the world then where can I stand on the other numerous miracles mentioned throughout the Bible that contradict science? Did the donkey really talk to Balaam? Did Jesus or an angel really save Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego from the furnace? Did Jesus really walk on water? Was He really born from a virgin? Did He really die and come back to life 3 days later? If I’m going to question the miracles of God because science says otherwise how can I possibly actually believe the word of God?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But you still have day one, the second day, the third day, etc, etc, and Exodus 20:11 says that everything was created in 6 days.

If the meaning of "day" is taken as "epoch" then it would be just as correct to say epoch one, the second epoch, and so on. I don't see a problem in the Exodus reference because Moses wrote both sections, and he would have used the same meaning for "yom" to be consistent.

But then, I don't have a problem with 6 24 hour days, because God is quite capable of doing it that way. But with young earth creation we have the contradiction between the rocks being billions of years old, fossil fuel deposits, etc., and them being just 4,000 years old - not enough time for rocks and fossil fuel deposits to form. So we have a problem.

Also, the 6th day would have had to take more than 24 hours to enable Adam to tend the garden, name all the animals, receive and recover from surgery.

In my view, an old earth creation (not evolution) solves most of those problems, and enables Christian scientists to speak freely of billions and millions of years in the creation of the cosmos, thereby having more opportunity to influence atheist scientists for Christ, than presenting God magically conjuring up the cosmos in six 24 hour days.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sounds like someone has been watching some Hugh Ross videos.

Yep! I have enjoyed every one of them. For 50 years I have strongly defended young earth creation, and his ideas have turned my thinking on its head! He makes a lot of sense to me and it is a relief not to be bombarded with evolutionary theories from some old earth atheistic people.

 

[AlexB23]

If the meaning of "day" is taken as "epoch" then it would be just as correct to say epoch one, the second epoch, and so on. I don't see a problem in the Exodus reference because Moses wrote both sections, and he would have used the same meaning for "yom" to be consistent.

But then, I don't have a problem with 6 24 hour days, because God is quite capable of doing it that way. But with young earth creation we have the contradiction between the rocks being billions of years old, fossil fuel deposits, etc., and them being just 4,000 years old - not enough time for rocks and fossil fuel deposits to form. So we have a problem.

Also, the 6th day would have had to take more than 24 hours to enable Adam to tend the garden, name all the animals, receive and recover from surgery.

In my view, an old earth creation (not evolution) solves most of those problems, and enables Christian scientists to speak freely of billions and millions of years in the creation of the cosmos, thereby having more opportunity to influence atheist scientists for Christ, than presenting God magically conjuring up the cosmos in six 24 hour days.

Agreed. Old Earth works better with solving these problems, hence why I have always been an Old Earth Creationist, and will always be. Also, when you say Christian scientists, there is sadly a cult unrelated to Christianity or even the sciences called with the name Christian Science, founded back in the late 1870s in the Eastern USA. So, it is better to say "scientists who are Christian", even though that phrase is clunkier. Another way of saying scientist who is Christian is to specify the type of scientist such as saying "Christian biologist" or "Christian Astronomer", or even "Catholic Physicist" and all other permutations of Christian and the specific professions/fields of folks in the sciences. If only we could travel back in time, and prevent the cult from being founded in 1879. But alas, time travel tech isn't here yet, and God would probably not like us to tinker with history.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

My position is this, I can’t find any other way to interpret the scriptures to support OEC without directly contradicting what was actually written. So I have to make a choice, either science is right or the word of God is right. If I go with science on the creation of the world then where can I stand on the other numerous miracles mentioned throughout the Bible that contradict science? Did the donkey really talk to Balaam? Did Jesus or an angel really save Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego from the furnace? Did Jesus really walk on water? Was He really born from a virgin? Did He really die and come back to life 3 days later? If I’m going to question the miracles of God because science says otherwise how can I possibly actually believe the word of God?

The reality is that we don't actually know one way or the other about how and when the cosmos was created. The fact that it was created miraculously by God is a great wonder in itself. However it remains a mystery how a cosmos can be created and then appear to be billions of years old. So whether the "day" is from God's perspective or ours remains open to debate, especially that our English translation "day" could have several different meanings in the Hebrew.

In a forum like this, it is interesting and fun to debate the issues so as to make life more interesting on CF, but really, it doesn't matter too much how the cosmos was created. As God is sovereign, He can create the cosmos any way He likes and doesn't have to answer to anyone. But on the face of it, if we depend on our English translation of Genesis 1, then we will have to accept the 24 hour day option. But a Hebrew scholar might have a different way of looking at it.

By the way, I really appreciate the respectful way we have been having our discussion. This is the way it should be when we are discussing from opposing points of view. That way, we learn from each other.

 

[AlexB23]

The reality is that we don't actually know one way or the other about how and when the cosmos was created. The fact that it was created miraculously by God is a great wonder in itself. However it remains a mystery how a cosmos can be created and then appear to be billions of years old. So whether the "day" is from God's perspective or ours remains open to debate, especially that our English translation "day" could have several different meanings in the Hebrew.

In a forum like this, it is interesting and fun to debate the issues so as to make life more interesting on CF, but really, it doesn't matter too much how the cosmos was created. As God is sovereign, He can create the cosmos any way He likes and doesn't have to answer to anyone. But on the face of it, if we depend on our English translation of Genesis 1, then we will have to accept the 24 hour day option. But a Hebrew scholar might have a different way of looking at it.

By the way, I really appreciate the respectful way we have been having our discussion. This is the way it should be when we are discussing from opposing points of view. That way, we learn from each other.

I am 100% with you sir. And hey, I PMed BNR, and said that I enjoyed debating with him about the age of our universe, even though he is a YEC. He is a nice guy, and is accepting of other's opinions, despite the fact that he sees things differently from us two Old Earth Creationists, Mr. Watchman. If only everyone was as nice as BNR32 or our discussions today, and then maybe our world would be a better place without war or politicians ripping at each other/fighting.

 

[Diamond72]

So how old do you believe the universe is?

I believe the Universe is as old as science says it is. Dr. Gerald Schroeder talks about this.

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish

Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?

aish.com

 

[Diamond72]

So how old is the earth according to the KISS?

I go with Dr. Gerald Schroeder. With a PhD from MIT, he knows a lot more about this than I do.

Of course, there are lots of people with a fifth-grade education who are convinced they know more than PhDs. We may want to check first with the high school dropouts who flunked science. They even have a show on TV where they try to find people that are: "smarter than a fifth grader".

 

[Diamond72]

Not everything in the Bible is literal. See e.g. If your right eye causes you to sin, GOUGE it out.

The pastor who married me and my wife did "gouge it out". He had an infection and the doctors removed one of his eyes. I knew him for quite a while before he told me he only had one eye.

 

[Platte]

You might have to trawl around Google to find the reference to it. I read about it a number of years ago, and I can't remember where the actual article is now. I do know that humans could only have migrated to North America while there was an ice bridge between Siberia and Alaska, and that was during the last ice age, Once the ice bridge had melted, mass migration was impossible. The last ice age was way more than 4,000 years ago; in fact according to scientists, we are 5,000 years overdue for another ice age. They reckon that global warming will trigger a new ice age as the polar ice cap melting causing more water vapor in the air, which in turn will cause more snow to fall in Siberia and Northern Canada, and this will turn to ice, which will spread right down even to Southern California.

The age of the earth is one of the things God made clear to us. He provided a very detailed account of creation and He provided a very detail chronology of man. Based on the chronology God gave us, the earth is 6000 years old. Not sure why a Christian or anyone for that matter would have a hard time accepting that timeline.

 

[tonychanyt]

I go with Dr. Gerald Schroeder. With a PhD from MIT, he knows a lot more about this than I do.

So how old is the earth according to the KISS principle and Dr. Schroeder?

 

[tonychanyt]

The pastor who married me and my wife did "gouge it out". He had an infection and the doctors removed one of his eyes. I knew him for quite a while before he told me he only had one eye.

Did he gouge out his eye because of lust?

 

[BNR32FAN]

The reality is that we don't actually know one way or the other about how and when the cosmos was created. The fact that it was created miraculously by God is a great wonder in itself. However it remains a mystery how a cosmos can be created and then appear to be billions of years old. So whether the "day" is from God's perspective or ours remains open to debate, especially that our English translation "day" could have several different meanings in the Hebrew.

Adam & Eve didn’t appear to be newborns the day they were created my friend. Would you expect that if scientists were to examine them the day they were created that they would’ve concluded that they were created that very day? Just like if God were to create a rock and you immediately took it to scientists to examine it, do you think they would conclude that the rock was created just moments ago or do you think they would automatically conclude that it must be at least a few thousand years old just because of the fact that rocks can’t be formed instantly?