How old is the universe?

[Sinai]

CHRISTIANS: What do you believe regarding the age of our universe?

I have asked this question in a prior poll. The responses of Christians in that poll suggest that certain modifications should probably be made in the earlier groupings to more accurately reflect the beliefs of the respondents.

If you are not a Christian, please do not vote in this poll. Whether or not you are a Christian, you may vote in the other poll, which is located here.

”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless, void and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit or Wind of God hovered over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2 gives an overview of the beginning of God’s creation of the universe. Verses 3-31 complete the story of creation, which the Bible sets out as occurring on six days. Did God create the universe in a total of 144 hours of our time, or are other interpretations more likely? Judging from the discussions of this and related questions on various threads on both the CF and other Christian message boards I have seen thus far, there seems to be a split of opinion among the following major lines:

1. Those who think mainstream scientific evidence conflicts with the Bible, ignore what the Bible says with regard to creation or disbelieve it or discount it, and support mainstream scientific theory and evidence regarding the forming of the universe, including our planet and the life found on planet Earth;

2. Those who reconcile scientific evidence with the Bible by considering the biblical scriptures regarding creation as a figurative or nonliteral story that is intended to teach spiritual truths rather than to give a scientifically accurate account of creation.

3-6. Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who also believe mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation;


7. Those who believe the gap theory; To the extent scientific evidence is inconsistent with that theory, such scientific evidence should be disregarded.

8-10. Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who disbelieve or discount mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation.


What is your belief? Please vote in the poll, and then tell us your reasons. Thank you.

 

[Bushido216]

Forgot the poll part mate.

 

[jimigold]

I believe that Genesis is more symbolic than anything, what was a day before the earth was created??

Also, although i dont have a clue who wrote Genesis, surely it would have been someone a very long time ago who wouldnt have any grasp about anything scientific. Indeed this person might not even be able to imagine that such a large period of time like 10 million years, could even exist.

So as far as i am concerned Genesis is a generalisation, in very simple terms about how God created the universe, roughly split into 6 of the biggest events that would have occured along the way.

But i am open to persuasion

 

[MDTyKe]

You didn't give much option here. You can believe it took 6000 years, but still take into account science. What's to say that everything wasn't created already at age.. like the Sun was put into place, at an age. They've already proved carbon dating isn't accurate, and is a total messup anyway, since the carbon in things has been altered with catostraphic and world events.

Matt

 

[ThePhoenix]

You didn't give much option here. You can believe it took 6000 years, but still take into account science. What's to say that everything wasn't created already at age.. like the Sun was put into place, at an age. They've already proved carbon dating isn't accurate, and is a total messup anyway, since the carbon in things has been altered with catostraphic and world events.

Matt

Well that and carbon dating is completely worthless for objects over 50,000 years, so it can't date the earth anyway...

 

[Bushido216]

You didn't give much option here. You can believe it took 6000 years, but still take into account science. What's to say that everything wasn't created already at age.. like the Sun was put into place, at an age. They've already proved carbon dating isn't accurate, and is a total messup anyway, since the carbon in things has been altered with catostraphic and world events.

Matt

C14 dating is, actually, very accurate when used appropriately. If you tried to use a cutting knife as a wrench and it didn't work, would you blame the knife or your own usage of the knife? Exactly.

As well, you're referring to the Appearance of Age arguement. That boils down to "God is a liar". That's not a good thing.

 

[billwald]

If the universe isn't billions of years old then we are living on some sort of movie set created by God to appear old. If we can't trust God to make an honest universe how can we trust him with anything else?

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings All,

I would like to add to this topic some ideas that I have formulated in the last year or so.

A long time ago now, I heard of Pan Gaea, or the "super continent" that once, many scientists believe, existed before its break up into the continents we have now.

As I have studied Genesis, I saw in my mind's eye, that in the beginning the whole world was once completely covered by water. Then the Lord separated the waters from the land. Scientifically, I see that due to subterranean activity, a large land mass was shoved up and raised above the waters. I do not see any mountains on Pan Gaea, or if there were some, they were not very large.

Now move ahead to the Noahic flood. Since all the land mass was one large continent, it was then conceivable that Noah was able to take animals from every part of the continent, from Koala Bears to Pandas to Buffalo and Polar Bears. At God's beckoning, they all came to the ark over the period of time Noah was preparing it. Noah did not have to go collect all the animals from all the continents. Then when the FLOOD began, the RAINS came down, and the WATERS came up. Again, scientifically, I see a terrible time of geophyisical activity. Massive earthquakes, terrible volcanic action, huge floods. This is where the continents had their beginning. During the ensuing time to now, we have what is known as "continental drift". If anyone is familiar with centrifugal and centrepital forces, then you know that this continental drift has continued because as the earth spins on its axis, the mass tends to move toward a point of equal stasis so that all parts of the globe balance the rotation of the earth so that it does not rotate in a lopsided manner.

So once again I found that science only substantiates what the scriptures say happened. I am sure there are many other scriptures as well that if viewed as the truth, science is a tool by which we can gain even more insight into the wonderful wor(l)d of God.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[lucaspa]

Greetings All,

I would like to add to this topic some ideas that I have formulated in the last year or so.

A long time ago now, I heard of Pan Gaea, or the "super continent" that once, many scientists believe, existed before its break up into the continents we have now.

It's Pangea. One word.

Scientifically, I see that due to subterranean activity, a large land mass was shoved up and raised above the waters. I do not see any mountains on Pan Gaea, or if there were some, they were not very large.

Do you know that for a fact about the mountains? I suggest you look into it in more detail. For instance, I think the Appalachians were part of Pangea and they were taller than the Himlayas at the time.

Now move ahead to the Noahic flood. Since all the land mass was one large continent, it was then conceivable that Noah was able to take animals from every part of the continent, from Koala Bears to Pandas to Buffalo and Polar Bears. At God's beckoning, they all came to the ark over the period of time Noah was preparing it. Noah did not have to go collect all the animals from all the continents. Then when the FLOOD began, the RAINS came down, and the WATERS came up. Again, scientifically, I see a terrible time of geophyisical activity. Massive earthquakes, terrible volcanic action, huge floods.

But where do you see this Biblically? The Genesis 6-8 Flood story doesn't have any of this in it. What's worse, Genesis was written post-Flood and uses post-Flood rivers to identify the location of pre-Flood Eden. If the Bible is accurate, then the Flood could not have changed geography like you are saying.

Now, have you tested this idea of yours? Specifically, if the continents formed during the Flood, then how did the plants and animals get their present distribution? The kangaroos and koalas may have come from part of a single continent, but how is it that only kangaroos and koalas got to Australia after the Flood? Deer and antelope move just as fast as kangaroos and eat much of the same food. Why didn't they make it to Australia? And why would the very slow-moving koala or marsupial mole make it there ahead of the deer and antelope?

This is where the continents had their beginning. During the ensuing time to now, we have what is known as "continental drift".

How much did the continents drift during the Flood? How much post-Flood? Asia and N. America have to move a combined 3,000 miles since the Flood. Do you have any idea of the frequency of earthquakes for that movement? It works out at about 1 earthquake every minute for the past 4,000 years! Don't you think people would have noticed?

If anyone is familiar with centrifugal and centrepital forces, then you know that this continental drift has continued because as the earth spins on its axis, the mass tends to move toward a point of equal stasis so that all parts of the globe balance the rotation of the earth so that it does not rotate in a lopsided manner.

I think you need to check plate tectonics, because this is not what I have seen being the cause of continental drift.

So once again I found that science only substantiates what the scriptures say happened.

Not really. You took a very few data and said those data fit your idea of scriptures. But to do that you ignored a lot of other data that falsifies your idea. Can't do that.

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Lucaspa,

You seem mighty sure of yourself, did you know that Pangea, as you spell it, is actually Pangaea or Pan'Gaea?

Regardless, I see that you "think" too much, (Oh, but isn't this what you are accusing me of?) and you tend toward reliance on secular science for interpretation of the Bible, instead of vice versa. In the event you haven't noticed, I make observations of the condition of the world, then I go to God for what HIS "spin" on it. You asked a bunch of questions, but as for "proof" you can offer NONE, just MORE speculation. I turn to the Word of God because of Romans 1:20, and you almost call me a heretic.

Well, I pray you receive satisfaction from your views how-be-they far from provable, and I shall receive my "peace" from God in whom I trust completely.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[lucaspa]

Greetings Lucaspa,

You seem mighty sure of yourself, did you know that Pangea, as you spell it, is actually Pangaea or Pan'Gaea?

http://geology.com/pangea.htm

Regardless, I see that you "think" too much, (Oh, but isn't this what you are accusing me of?) and you tend toward reliance on secular science for interpretation of the Bible, instead of vice versa.

This is what Christianity has done for centuries. Let's review:
1. Luke 2:1. Do you believe that the "whole" world was taxed or do you accept "secular science" that Japanese, Eskimos, and Zulus were not taxed?
2. Christians took their interpretation of the Bible to decide the earth was flat. Cosmas Indicopleustes even published Christian Topography that explicitly spelled out a flat earth. Now, do you accept "secular science" that earth is round instead?
3. The Bible states in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable. Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. These Biblical verses were used in Galileo and Copernicus' day to deny that the earth orbits the sun (and thus moves). Now, do you accept "secular science" that the earth really does move?

4. I'm not accusing you of thinking too much. I'm saying that you did not adequately test your theory and that there is data that falsifies it.

In the event you haven't noticed, I make observations of the condition of the world, then I go to God for what HIS "spin" on it.

You didn't go to God, you went to your interpretation of the Bible. Not the same thing at all. Remember, God created. That means that the world is made by God. So, looking at the world is going to God. By going to your interpretation of the Bible, you are actually turning your back on God and denying that God created.

You asked a bunch of questions, but as for "proof" you can offer NONE, just MORE speculation.

(sad smile). The proof is embedded in the questions. First, there are no deer or antelope in Australia. If your theory was true, there should be. So, the presence of only marsupials in Australia is proof that your theory is wrong.

Also, 1) there are no records of continuous earthquakes in historical documents from around the world and 2) there are huge buildings that are intact from that long ago. If your theory was true, the earthquakes would have destroyed those buildings.

I also referenced you back to the Bible to show that it disproves your theory of a violent Flood. You don't respond.

I turn to the Word of God because of Romans 1:20, and you almost call me a heretic.

Romans 1:20 had nothing to do with that. I pointed out that your attempt at typology and equating the sun to God, the moon to Jesus, and the stars to angels is paganism where gods are material objects. Is this equation heresy? I didn't use the word, but you must think your idea is heresy to use it. Now, do you want to be a heretic? If not, give up the typology.

 

[lucaspa]

I do not see any mountains on Pan Gaea, or if there were some, they were not very large.

Fact: The Appalachians were formed before Pangea was formed and were in the middle of Pangea. http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/province/appalach.html
At that time, before erosion, the Appalachians were taller than the Himalayas.

 

[lucaspa]

You asked a bunch of questions, but as for "proof" you can offer NONE, just MORE speculation.

We need to discuss this for the benefit of others on the board. Embedded in the questions is deductive logic at work. And deductive logic is the basis of critical thinking, whether it is about religion or science.

When you make a theory -- as you did -- you make statements about the physical universe. Deductive logic has you deduce consequences from those statements. Consequences are things you should see if the statements are true. If instead you make observations opposite of the consequences, then you know the statements -- theory -- is false. Because true statements can't have false consequences.

Now, let's go back to your theory:
I would like to add to this topic some ideas that I have formulated in the last year or so.

A long time ago now, I heard of Pan Gaea, or the "super continent" that once, many scientists believe, existed before its break up into the continents we have now. ... Now move ahead to the Noahic flood. Since all the land mass was one large continent, it was then conceivable that Noah was able to take animals from every part of the continent, from Koala Bears to Pandas to Buffalo and Polar Bears. At God's beckoning, they all came to the ark over the period of time Noah was preparing it. Noah did not have to go collect all the animals from all the continents. Then when the FLOOD began, the RAINS came down, and the WATERS came up. Again, scientifically, I see a terrible time of geophyisical activity. Massive earthquakes, terrible volcanic action, huge floods. This is where the continents had their beginning. During the ensuing time to now, we have what is known as "continental drift".

Now, let me reduce that to a few statements:
1. All the continents were together in one large land mass before Noah's Flood.
2. The Flood was a period of geophysical activity. Not only was the world flooded, but the single continent broke up and pieces of it drifted apart.
3. The continents have been drifting apart since then, until they have reached their current position.
4. Representative animals were drawn to the Ark, and all other animals drowned in the Flood. The Ark grounds in a single place and the animals debark.

I have tried to state your theory accurately. How have I done?

Now we come to my questions where I was deducing consequences of your theory.
1. The animals are initially located at one place when they debark from the Ark.
2. The animals spread out from the Ark to repopulate the earth. This spreading out has to be the way the distribution of animals on the earth is the way it is.
3. The continents are already separated to some extent (statement #2) so Australia and the Americas are already separated from Eurasia.
4. Deer and antelope travel as fast as kangaroos and faster than koalas or marsupial moles. Deduction: deer, antelope, and kangaroos should all be in Australia and the Americas since they spread from the Ark. Deduction: both marsupial and placental moles should be in Eurasia and Australia since they are the same size and travel at the same rate.
5. Fact: crustal movements of a few inches cause large earthquakes that knock down buildings. Fact: the continents were in their present position before 1500 AD when Columbus discovered the Americas. Deduction: if the Flood happened about 4000 BC (the normal time given for it), that means the Americas drifted 3,000 miles in 5,500 years. That is 2,880 feet per year or 7.89 feet per day or 3.95 inches per hour. That means a major earthquake per hour.

Now, let's compare the deductions to the facts.
1. Fact: there are no deer, antelope, or any other placental mammals in Australia. No placental moles. There are only marsupial mammals there.
2. Fact: there are no records in the world recording several earthquakes per day. Or even one earthquake per day. Instead, the records are of earthquakes every several years or decades for any given location.
3. Fact: Mexico, Central America, and the Andes are along the zone of contact between the American plate and the Pacific plate -- where earthquakes occur.
4. Fact: We have buildings of the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas several hundred or a thousand years old in this zone. The buildings could not have resisted an earthquake per year, much less several earthquakes per day.

Since the facts contradict the deduced consequences, your "some ideas I have formulated" is false.

Below are my questions. As you can see, they were simply shorthand for the process described in more detail above. I'm sorry you didn't understand the process. I strongly urge you to understand and learn the process, then do the process formally before you post your ideas. Testing should start with you and you should be eliminating those ideas that have false consequences. When you have ideas that you have failed to eliminate, then post those and we'll take a crack at them. But don't be disappointed if we are able to falsify them. That's the way it works. 99.99% of the ideas anyone comes up with turn out to be wrong. It's just that the famous people -- Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. -- catch their wrong ones before they make them public.

"Specifically, if the continents formed during the Flood, then how did the plants and animals get their present distribution? The kangaroos and koalas may have come from part of a single continent, but how is it that only kangaroos and koalas got to Australia after the Flood? Deer and antelope move just as fast as kangaroos and eat much of the same food. Why didn't they make it to Australia? And why would the very slow-moving koala or marsupial mole make it there ahead of the deer and antelope?


How much did the continents drift during the Flood? How much post-Flood? Asia and N. America have to move a combined 3,000 miles since the Flood. Do you have any idea of the frequency of earthquakes for that movement? It works out at about 1 earthquake every minute for the past 4,000 years! Don't you think people would have noticed?"

 

[Bushido216]

Greetings Lucaspa,

You seem mighty sure of yourself, did you know that Pangea, as you spell it, is actually Pangaea or Pan'Gaea?

Regardless, I see that you "think" too much, (Oh, but isn't this what you are accusing me of?) and you tend toward reliance on secular science for interpretation of the Bible, instead of vice versa. In the event you haven't noticed, I make observations of the condition of the world, then I go to God for what HIS "spin" on it. You asked a bunch of questions, but as for "proof" you can offer NONE, just MORE speculation. I turn to the Word of God because of Romans 1:20, and you almost call me a heretic.

Well, I pray you receive satisfaction from your views how-be-they far from provable, and I shall receive my "peace" from God in whom I trust completely.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

Never occured to you that the usage of a theological text to interpret what is essentially a scientific question was a little off the rocker?

 

[Dedicated]

First of all if your a christian and you bieleive everything you hear or read your crazy. If you take science and compare it to god instead of the other way around, it will never work. Science in fact does prove God, you can find numerous quotes from evolutionist including Charles Darwin stating that evolution just seems impossible, which means the age of the earth can not possibly be millions and billions of ywaers old. C-14 dating proved evolution werong, archeapteryox proved it wrong as well as Java man, piltdown man, Nebraska man, taung skull, turkana child and a host of other fakes, data corruptions and such, i can say with 100% scientific coifnidence that 6,000 year creation is entirly scientific.

 

[Bushido216]

Could you please provide those quotes? I'm almost positive that they were taken out of context.

As well, C14 dating is used to date things less than 10,000 years old. I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion. If you mean other radiometric dating methods, then they haven't been proven false.

Those fakes you're talking about were found fake by the evolutionary scientists. And even if those evidences are fake, how do you explain the thousands of others?

And you can say whatever you want. But people alot older than you and who are alot smarter than you disagree.

 

[lucaspa]

First of all if your a christian and you bieleive everything you hear or read your crazy.

Which is why I'm not crazy enough to believe everything on creationist websites or people posting here. For instance,

you can find numerous quotes from evolutionist including Charles Darwin stating that evolution just seems impossible, which means the age of the earth can not possibly be millions and billions of ywaers old.

There are several quotes where Darwin does say it seems that the ability of natural selection to make a particular organ is impossible. Yet every one is followed by an explanation of why it is not impossible. Now, if I believed everything I read, I would believe what you said was correct. That would be crazy.

If you take science and compare it to god instead of the other way around, it will never work. Science in fact does prove God,

A little contradictory here, aren't we? The second sentence contradicts the first. Could you make up your mind, please?

C-14 dating proved evolution werong, archeapteryox proved it wrong as well as Java man, piltdown man, Nebraska man, taung skull, turkana child and a host of other fakes, data corruptions and such, i can say with 100% scientific coifnidence that 6,000 year creation is entirly scientific.

A 6,000 year creation is indeed "scientific". But that is because it is a theory that can be tested and falsified. It has been tested and it has been shown to be wrong.

Now, C14 dating has not falsified evolution. Archie showed evolution to be correct because it is an animals that shows features of two "kinds" -- reptiles and birds. According to creationism, such a creature cannot exist. So Archie actually shows creationism to be wrong.

Turkana Boy is not a fake, neither is the Taung skull or Java man. All are examples of H. erectus. All show evolution in the hominid lineage.

BTW, a 6,000 year creation was already falsified long before Charles Darwin discovered evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

 

[Henhouse]

How about:

6000 years. Creation took 144 hours, and there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

Lots of theories, no evidence.

 

[Bushido216]

Haha... and you didn't post any of YOUR evidence... why?

 

[Henhouse]

Haha... and you didn't post any of YOUR evidence... why?

Meaning me?

I didn't think the OP was asking for evidence one way or the other. A poll was started, and I think the results will be skewed because the questions were slanted toward the notion that scientific study shows 'millions of years.' I intended to make the point that there wasn't a viable option for YECers, nothing more (or less).