How old is the universe?

[Sinai]

This Scripture written by God tells you the totol time of creation of all things.

The Bible says creation took six yoms. In Hebrew, each yom could be a period of time from a few hours to a period of time of indefinite or undetermined length. So even if you use a literal translation for the first chapter of Genesis, the time God took for creation could be from a few hours to billions of years--and that's measuring backward in time against the creative flow of events. If you measure the events as they occur and at the speed of the outward expansion (as one of the options in this poll does), a few hours of time measured at such a speed would equal billions of years looking backward toward the moment of initial creation....

Thank you for participating in the poll, Curt, and for explaining why you think each yom should be a 24-hour period of time. I presume that means you think the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. Is that correct?

 

[Mimi]

Number one.....I think the Genesis story is a simple scietific explaination for evolution.
Science has grown since that time and we now know so much more.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Mimi

 

[MaxFritz]

Hello...my first post here.

I'm a 16 year old Christian who has a lot of faith (or at least I would hope it would be judged that I do) but not all of the answers. I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. The best choice that fits my interpertation is "@11-20 billion years. Scientific evidence does not really conflict with the Bible, since the scriptures are intended to be read figuratively instead of literally. The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science book, and the purpose of its creation account is to say that Ghod created the universe and cares about our spiritual needs. Its creation story is not intended to be an accurate depiction of creation."

Recently though, a friend of mine curious about Christianity has been asking me questions that I don't know exactly how to respond to, and the Answers in Genesis site very much promoted one viewpoint that is not really mine.

How do dinosaurs fit into the bible's view of time? How can the Bible be interperted differently than the "About 6000 years" theory? Basically, what's being interperted that can lead a person to conclude that the earth could be 4.5 Billion years old or whatever? How come humans aren't 4.5 billion years old, then, or are they?

Perhaps the biggest question (and I know there's probably no short answer), how does sound scientific evidence of the earth being that old (assuming that there is sound scientific evidence which I believe there is) fit into Christianity? More simply, how do science and Christianity mesh?

And I know there are all different answers, because this is basically what this whole little section of the forum is about...but as a guy who believes the earth is billions of years old, tell me why I can believe that and why, as a Christian, it works to buy into that theory.

I'm not communicating clearly, I don't think. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you are one of those people who voted for the earth being billions of years old, tell me why and how it fits with the Bible.

And thanks in advance, of course

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Non-overlapping magisteria.

The Bible and science are not asking or answering the same questions.

Suppose I make a cup of tea - always a good idea when considering difficult topics.

Someone comes into the room and asks "Why's the kettle boiling"

One person answers "Well, electricity in the kettle element causes excitation of the metal atoms, which is transmitted to the water raising its temperature above 100C, and causing it to start to undergo a phase change. The cells of steam rise and create bubbles and noise. This is what you perceive as boiling"

Another person answers "The Backslider wanted a cup of tea"

The scientist is like the first answerer. The Bible is like the second. The scientist finds out what actually happened in a strictly factual sense. The Bible isn't interested in this; it has other fish to fry. It wants to tell you who did it and why. It wants to tell you the spiritual relationship between created things and their creator. It's happy to use ancient pre-scientific conceptions of how this happened in order to do so.

Doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that if you draw a scientific model from it, you will be.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Non-overlapping magisteria.

The Bible and science are not asking or answering the same questions.

Suppose I make a cup of tea - always a good idea when considering difficult topics.

Someone comes into the room and asks "Why's the kettle boiling"

One person answers "Well, electricity in the kettle element causes excitation of the metal atoms, which is transmitted to the water raising its temperature above 100C, and causing it to start to undergo a phase change. The cells of steam rise and create bubbles and noise. This is what you perceive as boiling"

Another person answers "The Backslider wanted a cup of tea"

The scientist is like the first answerer. The Bible is like the second. The scientist finds out what actually happened in a strictly factual sense. The Bible isn't interested in this; it has other fish to fry. It wants to tell you who did it and why. It wants to tell you the spiritual relationship between created things and their creator. It's happy to use ancient pre-scientific conceptions of how this happened in order to do so.

Doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that if you draw a scientific model from it, you will be.

Then Forgivensinner001 said unto Karl, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a TE."

 

[Sinai]

Hello...my first post here.

Welcome, Max. Thank you for honoring us with your initial comments.

I'm a 16 year old Christian who has a lot of faith (or at least I would hope it would be judged that I do) but not all of the answers. I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. The best choice that fits my interpertation is "@11-20 billion years. Scientific evidence does not really conflict with the Bible, since the scriptures are intended to be read figuratively instead of literally. The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science book, and the purpose of its creation account is to say that Ghod created the universe and cares about our spiritual needs. Its creation story is not intended to be an accurate depiction of creation."

Recently though, a friend of mine curious about Christianity has been asking me questions that I don't know exactly how to respond to, and the Answers in Genesis site very much promoted one viewpoint that is not really mine.

The option you chose is for those who reject a literal interpretation of the Bible’s creation account, while Answers in Genesis is a “young Earth” website which insists upon only interpreting the Hebrew word yom as meaning a 24-hour day and rejects all other meanings of that word. I suggest that you search Christian Forums for posts by lucaspa, since he is very possibly the most articulate advocate of the position you have favored (at least among those that I have read here in Christian Forums).

How do dinosaurs fit into the bible's view of time?

The Bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs per se, but that should be expected since “dinosaur” is a word that was invented long after the Bible was written. However, Genesis 1:21 does say that on yom five of creation, God made various categories of animals including taninim gedolim (large or great reptiles). And the largest of the reptiles were the creatures we now call dinosaurs.

How can the Bible be interperted differently than the "About 6000 years" theory? Basically, what's being interperted that can lead a person to conclude that the earth could be 4.5 Billion years old or whatever?

I believe I have answered this in posts 116 and 121, above. Read those, respond, and then I may be able to clarify further as needed. Thanks.

How come humans aren't 4.5 billion years old, then, or are they?

Neither science nor the Bible indicate that they are that old. Although the Bible does not say why God waited until the third yom to gather liquid water together on the Earth and to allow the first life forms to appear, scientists say that the Earth had to cool sufficiently for water to be able to exist in its liquid form. Since life as we know it is water based, water was needed for life on our planet. And humans don’t show up until the sixth and final yom of creation….

Perhaps the biggest question (and I know there's probably no short answer), how does sound scientific evidence of the earth being that old (assuming that there is sound scientific evidence which I believe there is) fit into Christianity? More simply, how do science and Christianity mesh?

That is the purpose of this poll.



Some folks think that the evidence and conclusions of mainstream science are hopelessly at odds with the Bible’s account of creation. Of those in this group, some have chosen to accept what they think science says over what they think the Bible says; the first option listed in the poll should be their choice. Others in this group (generally referred to as young earth creationists or YECs) have chosen to believe what they think the Bible says and to reject the conclusions and evidence offered by mainstream science. Options 8-10 are for them.



Other folks think that the evidence and conclusions of mainstream science do not conflict with the Bible. This group generally thinks that God's word in the Bible is true and that the evidence left by God's creation is also true. Therefore, they reason, the two should not conflict. Options 2-6 are for them.



There’s also the Gap Theory, which was more popular about 50-80 years ago than it is now. But since it still has its advocates, I have included it as the 7th option.

If you are one of those people who voted for the earth being billions of years old, tell me why and how it fits with the Bible. And thanks in advance, of course

Again, options 2-7 explain why and how mainstream science does not necessarily conflict with the Bible’s account of creation. If you have additional questions regarding one of these options, I can try to explain the rationale behind it as well as I can. Hopefully, there may be other readers who can also personally advocate a particular position and help answer your questions.

 

[Sinai]

The scientist is like the first answerer. The Bible is like the second. The scientist finds out what actually happened in a strictly factual sense. The Bible isn't interested in this; it has other fish to fry. It wants to tell you who did it and why. It wants to tell you the spiritual relationship between created things and their creator. It's happy to use ancient pre-scientific conceptions of how this happened in order to do so.

Great illustration, Karl!

 

[Freedom777]

Great illustration, Karl!

But, thank God, It's just plain wrong.The Bible is not a science book, but where it addresses science its right.You use the bible to come to a correct understanding Science not the other way around.You got to build on the rock not on sand.A scientist without the bible is building on sand.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Now we come to the heart of the problem, Freedom. You do, of couse, realise that what you just said is exactly why both the Pope and Luther opposed the Copernican model of the solar system? Because it went against Scripture, taken as literal scientific truth?

 

[OneLastBreath]

I suppose that idealy, God having created science, the statements put forth in Scripture should match the scientific observations of the Universe. Unfortunately, the Bible can be misinterpreted and science can be misinterpreted, resulting in effectively trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Which interpretation needs to change in order to allow harmony between Scriptures and science depends on which one you believe to be the more reliable interpretation. I guess the words of Isaiah 40:26 are appropriate here:
Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing.
However we interpret science and the Bible, the important fact doesn't change. The two are in harmony, it's human imperfection that sometimes distorts this. It all comes out the same in the end. God created everything.

 

[Freedom777]

Hi, i would like to vote, but you do not have.
@6,000 years. Creation took 144 hours, and any scientific facts interpeted through the framework of millions of years,and the big bang cosmology,should be examined in the light of the bible. And reinterpreted in a Creation framework and a cosmology with edges and a center.

 

[Sinai]

Hi, i would like to vote, but you do not have.
@6,000 years. Creation took 144 hours, and any scientific facts interpeted through the framework of millions of years,and the big bang cosmology,should be examined in the light of the bible. And reinterpreted in a Creation framework and a cosmology with edges and a center.

Thanks for your input. As I understand your statement, you are in basic agreement with the option that reads: "@6,000 years. Creation took 144 hours, and any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disregarded and not believed" except that you would prefer replacing the phrase "any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disregarded and not believed" with language to the effect that "any scientific facts interpeted through the framework of millions of years,and the big bang cosmology,should be examined in the light of the bible. And reinterpreted in a Creation framework and a cosmology with edges and a center."

I appreciate your suggestion. Again, Christian Forums limits polls to a maximum of ten options. I therefore sought to set forth the ten major distinct positions I have seen deliniated on this and similar forums. All except the first option claim to accept the Bible as being true--and it can be argued that options 3-10 are "examined in the light of the bible."

Thanks for participating--and for sharing your ideas with us....

 

[L'Anatra]

scientific facts interpeted through the framework of millions of years, and the big bang cosmology, should be examined in the light of the bible

Scientific facts are not "interpreted" through any preconceived framework. Scientific theories are built upon falsifiable statements about how facets of the universe work. They are not simply wild hypotheses, but well-founded structures that describe nature. As lucaspa says, "True statements can not have false consequences." This means that if a scientific theory makes a statement about nature that is wrong, the theory can not be true. In other words, if evidence (fact) is found that contradicts the theory, it is thrown out.

It is a scientific fact that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. Interpretation is irrelevant. Everyone can go to the Earth and measure its age. The same measurement (provided the user knows how to use the measuring device) will be made each and every time.

The Big Bang Theory is a set of statements describing how the universe began. No evidence has yet been found to falsify it, though there are other (perhaps viable) scientific theories. Curiously, I've never seen a Young-Earth Creationist actually attack the Big Bang Theory in any way other than to say that it seems implausible. This is an exceedingly misinformed point of view.

I feel the need to express to the readers of this thread that the Big Bang Theory (with all due respect to Aleksandr Friedmann) was actually proposed by the Christian clergyman Georges-Henri Lemaître. The prevailing cosmology at the time (1927) was a steady-state universe, one that has no beginning or end. This unChristian concept was squashed by the Big Bang Theory...

Now YECs all over America (and elsewhere) dispute what in some ways would be the last bastion of hope for their theology that exists in mainstream science. I find that to be rather ironic.

 

[Asar'el]

Scientific facts are not "interpreted" through any preconceived framework. Scientific theories are built upon falsifiable statements about how facets of the universe work. They are not simply wild hypotheses, but well-founded structures that describe nature. As lucaspa says, "True statements can not have false consequences." This means that if a scientific theory makes a statement about nature that is wrong, the theory can not be true. In other words, if evidence (fact) is found that contradicts the theory, it is thrown out.

It is a scientific fact that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. Interpretation is irrelevant. Everyone can go to the Earth and measure its age. The same measurement (provided the user knows how to use the measuring device) will be made each and every time.

Perhaps we have a different interpretation (pun intended) about what scientific fact is. The Earth is about 6000 years old. But interpretation is exactly what allows different opinions (and the 6000 years one is one I share). Evidence is indeed interpreted; not everyone agrees with the interpretation. I do not doubt you can 'measure the age of the Earth' as you probably have in mind - but you have to accept the interpretation of those measurements, and the assumptions you make about them, to accept the results. Not everyone does.

You point at something and say, 'This means the Earth is 4.55 billions of years old'; I don't disagree with what you point at; only with your conclusion - and the 'This means ' part of that sentence.

 

[L'Anatra]

Perhaps we have a different interpretation (pun intended) about what scientific fact is. The Earth is about 6000 years old. But interpretation is exactly what allows different opinions (and the 6000 years one is one I share). Evidence is indeed interpreted; not everyone agrees with the interpretation. I do not doubt you can 'measure the age of the Earth' as you probably have in mind - but you have to accept the interpretation of those measurements, and the assumptions you make about them, to accept the results. Not everyone does.

You point at something and say, 'This means the Earth is 4.55 billions of years old'; I don't disagree with what you point at; only with your conclusion - and the 'This means ' part of that sentence.

I agree that evidence is interpreted. However, interpretation in science is not to be done until after data is gathered. If you go into dating a rock hypothesizing that the Earth is 6,000 years old and you perform the measurement correctly only to find out that the rock you dated is several billion years old you must throw out your hypothesis.

It would seem that you are unwilling to learn about the processes that allow these measurements to be made. Assumption has nothing to do with the issue. Ignoring the data, on the other hand, has everything to do with it. This is blatantly unscientific.

Not to say that you can't believe whatever you want, but ignoring data to fit your particular worldview is irrational.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Perhaps we have a different interpretation (pun intended) about what scientific fact is. The Earth is about 6000 years old. But interpretation is exactly what allows different opinions (and the 6000 years one is one I share). Evidence is indeed interpreted; not everyone agrees with the interpretation. I do not doubt you can 'measure the age of the Earth' as you probably have in mind - but you have to accept the interpretation of those measurements, and the assumptions you make about them, to accept the results. Not everyone does.

You point at something and say, 'This means the Earth is 4.55 billions of years old'; I don't disagree with what you point at; only with your conclusion - and the 'This means ' part of that sentence.

I'm sorry you just don't understand science.

How often does it have to be spelled out - some things are not matters of opinion.

The Earth being 6000 vs approx. 4.5 billion years old is not the same as 'Hmm do I like strawberry or chocolate ice cream the best?'

That is an opinion.

6000 vs. 4.5 billion is not an opinion. Approx. 4.5 billion is real data, 6000 is the junking of scientifc data to fit several thousand year old mythology from a bunch of nomadic goatherders.

 

[Ave Maria]

(KJV) Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God said it, that settles it! The universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days! I personally believe Creation Science like those at AIG. But then again, I realize that science is not perfect. All I know is that according to Genesis Chapter 1 in the KJV it says that the evening and the morning was each day and I believe it!

 

[Chi_Cygni]

No the Bible says that. I have never heard the Lord's voice so until then.....

By the way which order of Creation in Genesis do you subscribe to?
Which one is wrong, since they differ?

The Bible is often wrong - science can be wrong but usually corrects itself something Scripture cannot do.

Ironic how folks reject science as they are tapping away on a computer that contains a CPU that relies on quantum mechanics of PN junctions - science that has direct links to radioactive dating that directly shows 4.5 billion year ages for meteorites.

Mmm - funny that isn't it?

 

[L'Anatra]

Ironic how folks reject science as they are tapping away on a computer that contains a CPU that relies on quantum mechanics of PN junctions - science that has direct links to radioactive dating that directly shows 4.5 billion year ages for meteorites.

Mmm - funny that isn't it?

Indeed.

 

[OneLastBreath]

God said it, that settles it! The universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days! I personally believe Creation Science like those at AIG. But then again, I realize that science is not perfect. All I know is that according to Genesis Chapter 1 in the KJV it says that the evening and the morning was each day and I believe it!

Remember Holly, what you just posted is the English translation of the original Scriptures. There are a number of Hebrew words which can be translated as day, yom being the one present in the originals. Yom can mean any period of time. The plural can be used to denote centuries. And there were days of such and such. The most important thing you have to remember is that Genesis is not intended to be a literal account of Creation. In the English language, we often repeat sounds in poetry. In Hebrew, they repeat ideas in poetry. The repeated, "On the...day" "And it was good" and just the constantly repeated structuring of the Creation account shows that its poetry. It's designed to show why God created the Universe (because it was good), not how, and certainly not when. If it were as clear as simply reading the verses of Genesis as you did, there wouldn't be any arguments about origins. The Bible is not a Science textbook.

Chi_Cygi, correct me if I'm wrong here (and I very well could be), but I was under impression that the only useful form of radioactive dating is carbon-14 dating, since measuring the number of half-lives that have passed requires comparing it to another element/isotope that was found in equal amounts as the radioactive element/isotope in the thing being studied. Carbon-14 dating is can only be used to date the age of carbon-based lifeforms that obviously had to be living at some point, not meteors. And also, any form of radioactive dating, if there are others, tends to lose its accuracy as you start measuring things older than around 50 000 years, as measuring 0.00002% compared to the non-radioactive element is extremely difficult. Though by the way, I do agree with the idea of Old Earth Creationism, so I'm not being ambivalent in this issue.

edited to add context