How Old is the Earth?

[AV1611VET]

As I understand it, AV is saying that the Universe is really only 6000 years old. But God embedded age into it such that for instance the Earth is now appearing to be 4.5billion years old... but really it's 6000 years old. It's confusing, I get that. It took me a while to understand. The key is "embedded age" and how AV uses that term.

 

[dlamberth]

Huh.
Too elabourate.

Ya, I can see the possibilities of that.
Basically I'm saying that "embedded age" IMO, presents a God that is not honest and straight up with His Creation, or us.

 

[dlamberth]

Am I still getting it wrong?

 

[Astrid]

As I understand it, AV is saying that the Universe is really only 6000 years old. But God embedded age into it such that for instance the Earth is now appearing to be 4.5billion years old... but really it's 6000 years old. It's confusing, I get that. It took me a while to understand. The key is "embedded age" and how AV uses that term.

Ah so desu ka, so so solly. My mistakee. It's last Wednesdayism.

Last Wednesday a 14+ billion year old Universe
was poofed into existence.

But the poofer claimed he did it earlier.


I heard about that.

 

[Astrid]

Ya, I can see the possibilities of that.
Basically I'm saying that "embedded age" IMO, presents a God that is not honest and straight up with His Creation, or us.

Actually it presents a person.

 

[AV1611VET]

Am I still getting it wrong?

Yes.

 

[partinobodycular]

I believe the universe is as old as God willed it to be.

If it's 13.7 billion years old, it's 13.7 billion years old.

But, however old it is, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

Like everyone else I've been sitting here trying to wrap my head around this argument, but I must admit that I'm having a difficult time of it.

However, for the sake of argument I'm going to simply accept the premise that the universe is both 13.7 billion years old, and was created 6k years ago. However, this dichotomy leads to some vexing questions, because it means that some physical evidence of an ancient universe must be accurate, but in attempting to correlate that ancient age with the book of Genesis that same evidence seemingly can't be accurate.

For instance, one of your favorite examples... angiosperms.

It seems to me that you're trying to force two things together that simply don't go together.

 

[Astrophile]

I will agree the farthest is around 14 billion until a telescope can reach far back in time to the beginning its age is still undetermined. And from the look of things telescopes are still finding galaxies peeking back in time.

The oldest source of electromagnetic radiation that telescopes can observe is the cosmic microwave background, which was emitted during the recombination epoch, about 380,000 years after the origin of the universe. Before this time the universe was an opaque plasma, so no light from earlier times can be observed.

The first galaxies formed a few hundred million years after the origin of the universe, and therefore about 13-13.5 billion years ago.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes.

It's still extra-Biblical and non-scientific. It goes against both science, the Bible and God's own creation.

 

[Pommer]

As I understand it, AV is saying that the Universe is really only 6000 years old. But God embedded age into it such that for instance the Earth is now appearing to be 4.5billion years old... but really it's 6000 years old. It's confusing, I get that. It took me a while to understand. The key is "embedded age" and how AV uses that term.

Good to know!
So we can safely say that 1 Corinthians 14:33 is incorrect!

 

[AV1611VET]

Like everyone else I've been sitting here trying to wrap my head around this argument, but I must admit that I'm having a difficult time of it.

However, for the sake of argument I'm going to simply accept the premise that the universe is both 13.7 billion years old, and was created 6k years ago. However, this dichotomy leads to some vexing questions, because it means that some physical evidence of an ancient universe must be accurate, but in attempting to correlate that ancient age with the book of Genesis that same evidence seemingly can't be accurate.

At least you're trying.

And I find that commendable!

 

[AV1611VET]

It's still extra-Biblical and non-scientific.

Science can take a hike.

It goes against both science, the Bible and God's own creation.

Nope.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science can take a hike.

So can your 'embedded age' crock.

Nope.

Yes, it very much goes against God's creation, the Bible, and science in general.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you don't understand the maths then you are no position of making any assumptions.
Perhaps this picture will make thinks clearer using the ¹²⁴Xe example.

View attachment 336225
​

Radioactive decay is a quantum mechanical process involving probabilities.
You will never get the same half life for all observations but a distribution of results.
The distribution of radioactive decay times follows a Poisson distribution as shown.
The mean half life of 160 trillion years has the highest probability and sits on top of the curve.
The odds of detecting ¹²⁴Xe in our universe is extremely small as shown at the extreme left of the graph, but was discovered in a xenon tank dark matter detector due to the enormous number of Xe atoms found in a ton of liquid xenon.

The point is this, a 4.5 billion year old earth explains why elements such plutonium and neptunium exist in trace quantities as their mean half lives are considerably shorter than the age of the earth and therefore the probability of finding such elements is quite small.
A 6000 year old earth would result in these elements being abundant.

The other point I should make you are employing a characteristic logical fallacy used by YECs that if dating methods are wrong or we don't know what has happened in the past does not lead to the conclusion the earth is 6000 years old.
This is a false dichotomy.

You never answered my question. Aren’t you assuming that at some point there was no decay in these materials?

 

[AV1611VET]

So can your 'embedded age' crock.

I don't think you'd talk that way if you understood it.

Yes, it very much goes against God's creation, the Bible, and science in general.

So if God created the earth with oil embedded in it, that would violate His creation, the Bible, and science in general?

What about a loaf of warm raisin bread? same thing, I take it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think you talk that way if you understood it.

It's a crock.

So if God created the earth with oil embedded in it, that would violate His creation, the Bible, and science in general?

What about a loaf of warm raisin bread? same thing, I take it?

God can do whatever He wants, since He is God. But if you try and tell me that God created the world 6,000 or 4004 years ago but purposefully made it look to be that it's 4.5 billion years old, then I question your own interpretation about God.

You can try and pretend that it's the same as baking a raisin bread or making a canoe or whatever but it's still an extra-Biblical idea that is just an absolute load of crock.

 

[AV1611VET]

But if you try and tell me that God created the world 6,000 or 4004 years ago but purposefully made it look to be that it's 4.5 billion years old,

Don't worry.

You'll never hear me say that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Don't worry.

You'll never hear me say that.

But that is what you say. You say that God created the world 6000s years ago, but He purposefully did it in such a way that it looks magnitudes older then it actually is, just because, on no level at all can your literal reading of the Bible be contradicted by anything, not even God's own creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can try and pretend that it's the same as baking a raisin bread ...

No, it isn't the same as BAKING raisin bread.

I always stipulate God creating warm raisin bread -- in the blink of an eye.

Baking it takes time.

Speaking it into existence doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that is what you say.

Show me.

Show me ONE POST where I ever said that.