How old is the world?

[Upisoft]

The entire concept of this decay timeline is an assumption that the current state of the Earth is the result. If that were true, then the original state of the Earth would have to be known...it is not. I have never even heard a theory that would accurately describe this original state...have you?

You're wrong. Initial state is not nessesary required to be known. At least when you're using isochron dating.
That means - using 2 isotopes instead one to eliminate some unknown values(initial state) from the equation.
Then one can perform many isochron dating measurements using different pairs of isotopes. When all those measurements give the same date then we have evidence.

As one example, lead is apparently the product of the decay of uranium. I can accept that this may be true, but by what means is it known that some lead didn't already exist in the beginning of the Earth's history? Since the decay of this element is effected by outside factors, how can this process be considered constant over eons of time...assuming that there were eons of time?

Observing spectrum of far away stars show no changes to the rate of decay. Apparently the physical laws were pretty much the same long-long ago.

 

[Calminian]

What makes theism "infinitely more rational"? And unbiased observer will say that chances are 50/50. There are no undeniable proof that God exists, neither there is for the opposite assertion.

Actually one would have to be bias even to give atheism a 50% chance. The idea of something from nothing uncaused simply pushes the outer limits of rationality. And I think there is undeniable proof for the existence of God in the form of logic. Aristotle reasoned back to this unmovable Mover apart from any biblical presuppositions. It's actually a very natural inference, which would explain why the number of theists in the world dwarf the number of atheists.

Also an omnipotent God should be able to create the universe in an instant. Why should He create first light(or perhaps first time), then earth, water, stars, animals etc.?

There's nothing in scripture suggesting that 6 days was the fasted God could accomplished it. God does things for various reasons and many numerical literary messages can be seen in the 6 day creation. And one reason is explicitly revealed by Moses.

Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: .... 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Creation was to serve as a model for our work week—six days of work, one day of rest.

You perhaps know that stars and galaxies are very far away from us. Even our own galaxy is big enough that the light of its center have to travel more than 30000 years to come to us. There are galaxies more than 4.5 billion of light years away from us. It's not only in the rocks. Everything point to very old universe. Did God tampered with it to look that way? Why?

It's not that God tampered with it to change its appearance, rather we are approaching the issue with false presuppositions. Seventeen times in scripture we are told that God stretched out the heavens.

Is. 45:12 I have made the earth, And created man on it. I — My hands — stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

That really is quite an amazing thought. This would be a miracle of such magnitude and scope, it's hard to really fathom. How would something like this affect the evidence we now observe, with naturalistic presuppositions? Perhaps we'll never know.

 

[Key]

To answer this question, as best I can.

There is a current Theory that the universe is 13.4 billion years old. The universe was formed with an amazing amount of force, and lead to the form and creation of all matter.

As such, I would have to say, the matter that makes up our Earth, should be around 13.4 billion years old, roughly.

But that is what I have to work with, as far as science Goes.

God says days... but then again.. what is a day to God? I still have not settled into that one well as well.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Seekermeister]

Upisoft,

You're wrong. Initial state is not nessesary required to be known. At least when you're using isochron dating.
That means - using 2 isotopes instead one to eliminate some unknown values(initial state) from the equation.
Then one can perform many isochron dating measurements using different pairs of isotopes. When all those measurements give the same date then we have evidence.

From what I have read, isochron dating is not as reliable as other forms of dating, and they are not reliable at all:

Potential problems for generic dating

Some assumptions have been made in the discussion of generic dating, for the sake of keeping the computation simple. Such assumptions will not always be accurate in the real world. These include:


The amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample is zero (or known independently and can be compensated for).
No parent isotope or daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation.



If one of these assumptions has been violated, the simple computation above yields an incorrect age.

Note that the mere existence of these assumptions do not render the simpler dating methods entirely useless. In many cases, there are independent cues (such as geologic setting or the chemistry of the specimen) which can suggest that such assumptions are entirely reasonable. However, the methods must be used with care -- and one should be cautious about investing much confidence in the resulting age... especially in absence of cross-checks by different methods, or if presented without sufficient information to judge the context in which it was obtained.

Isochron methods avoid the problems which can potentially result from both of the above assumptions.

 

[Upisoft]

Actually one would have to be bias even to give atheism a 50% chance. The idea of something from nothing uncaused simply pushes the outer limits of rationality.

You simply mistake rationality with intuition. Yes, I agree that "something from nothing" is not intuitive. However it happens uncountable times per second. Just read some quantum mechanics if you don't believe me. BTW don't bother to disprove quantum mechanics. Your computer works, because of it.

And I think there is undeniable proof for the existence of God in the form of logic. Aristotle reasoned back to this unmovable Mover apart from any biblical presuppositions.

Its in form of philosophy, not logic. There is no such thing as "undeniable proof" in philosophy.

It's actually a very natural inference, which would explain why the number of theists in the world dwarf the number of atheists.

This is not democracy. We're not going to vote to decide which one is right.

Creation was to serve as a model for our work week—six days of work, one day of rest.

Well in this case, yes. We have to model our behaviour according His example.
But it's not the same about killing.... We must not kill, but He is mass murderer. (Noah's flood)
So, my question still stands. Why should He spend 6+1 days to create Earth and then rest, and give it as example? Instead He could just create everithing in an instant and just command us to do 6+1 days week cycle... And BTW, omnipotent being in need of rest? Come on!

It's not that God tampered with it to change its appearance, rather we are approaching the issue with false presuppositions. Seventeen times in scripture we are told that God stretched out the heavens.

OK. Why then we see that light as it has been traveling for billions of years?

 

[Upisoft]

Upisoft,
From what I have read, isochron dating is not as reliable as other forms of dating, and they are not reliable at all:

Potential problems for generic dating

You disprove reliability of isochron dating using the potential problems of generic dating? How did that come?:o

 

[Key]

Gentile Men... Please take a moment to look at the Topic of this Forum. This is not a debate forum, and if what you two are exchanging is a debate, or debate like discussion, it would not belong in this forum.

I am not saying you are debating, nor am I saying you are breaking any forum rules, I am just putting something out that you both might want to take into consideration.

Upisoft, if you have a question, please start a new thread, and ask it it, I think you may have lost sight of the OP, and as it stands, I am at a loss as to how to respond to your posts, as I can not see the actual question in them, and how it relates to the OP, I may have missed something, or not taken your posts correctly, that is why I am saying what I am saying.

If everything is as it should be, and you are following the forum rules, then, I am just not seeing what you are asking, and that is a personal fault on my part, and I ask for you to please state your question, or questions, in a manner that I might understand and grasp. Thank you.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Rafael]

I need to dig out my String theory books again, but recent science is showing us that time is probably much more flexible than we know. Being relative to God's will would be my good guess, as He is the One who set all these things in motion and in order. We should admit, scientificaly that there is nearly unbelieveable precision shown in the planets and their operations. The book "Rare Earth" shows just how many thousands to the tenth power these measurements are in just the earth being a habitable planet, and this is not a Christian handbook. Time is linear and very two dimensional when we know that the universe has much more to reveal to us about the dimensions that remain unseen and only known by theoretical mathematics. Never count God out with narrow vision, as science seems to be proving Him and His words true with each new discovery we make in science.

 

[Calminian]

You simply mistake rationality with intuition. Yes, I agree that "something from nothing" is not intuitive. However it happens uncountable times per second. Just read some quantum mechanics if you don't believe me. BTW don't bother to disprove quantum mechanics. Your computer works, because of it.

I had a feeling the particles in the vacuum argument would come into play at this point. I can tell you that most QM'ers actually disagree that this is analogous to the universe popping into existence. According to them, even space is a thing. Thus particles from space is not the same as a universe (time, space, matter) from nothing. So we currently have no analogous experiments. Trust me on this one. Then of course you have the problem of it coming from nothing uncaused. You can believe this if you want, but please don't use QM as an excuse. It's nothing but pure blind faith.

Its in form of philosophy, not logic. There is no such thing as "undeniable proof" in philosophy.

Huh?

This is not democracy. We're not going to vote to decide which one is right.

But of course. God gave men the freedom even to deny the obvious.

Well in this case, yes. We have to model our behaviour according His example.
But it's not the same about killing.... We must not kill, but He is mass murderer. (Noah's flood)
So, my question still stands. Why should He spend 6+1 days to create Earth and then rest, and give it as example? Instead He could just create everithing in an instant and just command us to do 6+1 days week cycle... And BTW, omnipotent being in need of rest? Come on!

Generally most arguments against God come to this. "If I were God, I would have done things differently. Therefore He must not exist." I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. It only shows me the depths people will go to, to deny Him.

OK. Why then we see that light as it has been traveling for billions of years?

Has it? Relative to what? Time is one slippery subject, even for scientists. They tell me it stops at event horizons. Can you imagine the warping that would have occured if the Bible is correct about God stretching out the heavens?

I have very little faith in the ability of science to tell us about origins. Its naturalistic presuppositions prevent it from understanding anything beyond the natural. All it does is discover current regularities or natural processes. But is it rational to believe these processes created themselves? Again, logic tells us it's irrational to believe something created itself. To do this it would have to be prior to itself. In my mind this renders science pretty much useless in questions of ontology.

 

[eddie123]

As the original poster can I ask that we get back to my question. I think the arguments here are covered in other posts and forums. What I'm interested in is what the Christian viewpoints are. I think the posts by non-Christians, while I'm sure you're just trying to be helpful, only serve to deflect this thread from that which I intended - hence why I said in the OP.....

while not wishing to get involved in the wider debate

 

[Seekermeister]

eddie123,

I think that the problem is that since evolution is not a biblical subject, that it difficult to discuss it without referencing science itself. Obviously, that is going to provoke debate from others with nonChristian views. If you have a suggestion on how to focus this discussion better, then please give it.

 

[eddie123]

Well my question wasn't really to do with Evolution. What I'm asking is.. if you believe in the creation as per Genesis, how old do you believe the Earth to be.

For instance I could envisage some saying a few thousand years taking the answer from the OT. I can also envisage some saying that they agree with scientific theories from Astrophysics or Geology about the Earth being Billions of years old and that the OT is not to be read literally, or that a day to God is not the same as a day to mankind. It's these views that I'm interested in, how people come to these conclusions, and the debate within the Christian world on this subject.

Responses by other non-Christians seem to be off the point. I doubt that they're going to tell me anything I hadn't heard before, and I doubt they're going to change what you believe. They certainly don't seem best placed to answer my question and tell me what Christians believe ;-)

 

[Seekermeister]

eddie123,

I can't speak for all of Christianity about this, because this is not a biblical doctrine. You are already aware of what most Christians and nonChristians believe, all that I can do is say what I believe.

I do not know how old the Earth is, only how old this Earth age is. The time since Adam and Eve, which were the first people of this age, has only been a few thousand years. I very seriously doubt the billions of years given as the age of the Earth and universe by science, but even if it were true, it would have no impact on the validity of the Bible, because the Bible does not say anything about this.