Is the bible the only reason to conclude the earth is 6,000 years old?

[steve_bakr]

I do hope that this discussion can maintain a certain respect for the persons and viewpoints involved.

The Catholic Church has had its past issues with science, but the more recent theology has been to have a greater engagement and interdisciplinary approach between religion and science.

In the Genesis narrative, the writer(s) used the literary tools and knowledge available at the time to express the truth that God originated all of existence and that there exists a continual relationship between God and man.

The understanding of the world at that time was most definitely pre-scientific and I don't think it is essential to say that the Bible is SCIENTIFICALLY exact.

For example, I learned from my Catholic Bible that the Genesis writers believed that the Earth stood on giant pillars over a great body of water. At the center of the earth was the Abyss. Above the sky, there existed a great wall with gates, above which was another great body of water. When the gates opened, the sky poured down rain. This is verifiable by a closer reading of the two creation sections in Genesis.

Christians need not be embarrased by, or defensive to, the fact that the Bible does not reflect all the scientific advancements of the subsequent ages. For knowledge of science, a person should study science. For an understanding of the ongoing relationship between God and man, a person should read the Scriptures.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What does the science say?

That the Sun predates plants and the Earth.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I must strenuously disagree with this thread. I earlier started a thread asking yec what science classes they had and I was notified that it was wrong to ask that.

This thread is similar in intent, since science is not necessary in any way to explaining the age of the earth.

It is wrong to call people out on why they think the earth is any given age. It is simply a matter of personal opinion.

We should not teach the controversy because there is no controversy when it is just opinion

 

[Erth]

Is there any reason to conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old, other than the bible? I've often said here that no one has ever examined the earth and concluded from that examination that the earth is so young.

The Bible is not a reason to believe that planet Earth is only 6000 years old. This idea comes from James Ussher, Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh, who in 1650 and 1654 published two works in which he attempted to date the events portrayed in the Bible. For example, he claimed that Jesus Christ was born in the flesh in the year 4 BC, based on the year in which Herod said that all male children in Betlehem must be killed. That is not a decisive clue, of course, and neither is it possible to tell from the Bible when the world was created. It does not say.

 

[juvenissun]

That the Sun predates plants and the Earth.

Why should that be true?

 

[juvenissun]

I must strenuously disagree with this thread. I earlier started a thread asking yec what science classes they had and I was notified that it was wrong to ask that.

This thread is similar in intent, since science is not necessary in any way to explaining the age of the earth.

It is wrong to call people out on why they think the earth is any given age. It is simply a matter of personal opinion.

We should not teach the controversy because there is no controversy when it is just opinion

Science is more than just opinions.

 

[Joshua0]

Earth is only 6000 years old. This idea comes from James Ussher, Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh,

The age of the earth has NOTHING to do with Bishop Usshers book. NOTHING<I repeat NOTHING>His OPINION about the aqe of the earth was little more then a footnote and he pretty much had nothing to say about it.

His almost 2,000 page book is a history book that covers the history of the last 6,000 years. From Adam to Jesus and the disciples. I do not have time for this stuff anymore. But if I get a chance I will pull up his exact quote so people know exactly what he said about it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Why should that be true?

You don't know?

 

[Erth]

The Bible is not a reason to believe that planet Earth is only 6000 years old.

The age of the earth has NOTHING to do with Bishop Usshers book. NOTHING<I repeat NOTHING>His OPINION about the aqe of the earth was little more then a footnote and he pretty much had nothing to say about it.

His almost 2,000 page book is a history book that covers the history of the last 6,000 years. From Adam to Jesus and the disciples. I do not have time for this stuff anymore. But if I get a chance I will pull up his exact quote so people know exactly what he said about it.

It seems to me that you intentionally quoted me as saying "Earth is only 6000 years old", when in reality that is extremely far from what I said.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why should that be true?

There's no reason why it 'should' be true, but nevertheless it is. The evidence overwhelmingly concludes that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old, while plants are around 1.2 billion years old (and land plants are only 450 million years old).

 

[juvenissun]

There's no reason why it 'should' be true, but nevertheless it is. The evidence overwhelmingly concludes that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old, while plants are around 1.2 billion years old (and land plants are only 450 million years old).

If so, why should the sun exist before the earth?

 

[quilbilly]

If so, why should the sun exist before the earth?

I don't believe science says anything about why the sun should be older than earth. It only says that the sun IS older than the earth

 

[juvenissun]

I don't believe science says anything about why the sun should be older than earth. It only says that the sun IS older than the earth

So, why should it be?

 

[quilbilly]

So, why should it be?

I see you have your 5 year pin so I'm sure you've seen this answer before. My guess is you want to get posts coming in. Ill bite.


There is no SHOULD. There is only IS.

 

[juvenissun]

I see you have your 5 year pin so I'm sure you've seen this answer before. My guess is you want to get posts coming in. Ill bite.


There is no SHOULD. There is only IS.

Science has should or should not. If you are not talking about science, then we are speaking the same language.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If so, why should the sun exist before the earth?

First: again, 'should' is the wrong question to ask; there's no reason why the Sun ought to have formed before the Earth.

Second: I never said the Sun predates the Earth. Though the Sun most likely does predate the Earth, their range of ages overlaps (the Sun formed 4.45 to 4.68 billion years ago (source), and the Earth formed 4.54 to 4.56 billion years ago (source)). So, in principle, the Earth's accretion could have essentially finished up to about a hundred million years before the Sun 'ignited'.

Science has should or should not.

No, it most certainly does not. Whoever fed you that line is lying to you. Science is description, not prescriptive. It says what is, not what ought to be (QV).

 

[juvenissun]

First: again, 'should' is the wrong question to ask; there's no reason why the Sun ought to have formed before the Earth.

Second: I never said the Sun predates the Earth. Though the Sun most likely does predate the Earth, their range of ages overlaps (the Sun formed 4.45 to 4.68 billion years ago (source), and the Earth formed 4.54 to 4.56 billion years ago (source)). So, in principle, the Earth's accretion could have essentially finished up to about a hundred million years before the Sun 'ignited'.


No, it most certainly does not. Whoever fed you that line is lying to you. Science is description, not prescriptive. It says what is, not what ought to be (QV).

The earth existed before the sun.

 

[quilbilly]

Any evidence or should I just take your word for it?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Any evidence or should I just take your word for it?

I'm guessing that he won't present any, he'll just continue to make vague statements as always and try and get everyone else to provide information he can then claim is wrong without saying why it is wrong. To be frank, until he presents some evidence of his own, it is a fruitless exercise responding to him.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The earth existed before the sun.

And I assume that, despite evidence to the contrary, you'll claim the earth existed before the stars?