Old Earth vs. Young Earth

[prodigalson2011]

Anachronism. The concept of second as a time unit was first introduced in Arabia in 1000AD.

That doesn’t matter. The measure of a day is still the same, so it doesn’t change anything.

 

[aux1]

Truth is not flawed, but present scientific (science is a tool/method) theory is flawed. A couple of guys GUESSED from radiation that the universe is billions of years old, now everybody else thinks the same with their own little twists to it.

There are TWO OTHER, INDEPENDENT methods of establishing the age of universe – redshift and globular clusters: starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question28.html With these methods, the result also comes up in the 10-15 billion years range. Physicts love CMBR because this method is more precise than others, nevertheless, you do not need CMBR to prove that the universe is old.

The age of Earth has been estimated using several methods of isotope dating and it consistenly comes out as 4.5 billion years. (And forget C-14 – real men use K/Ar dating).

 

[aux1]

As far as 12-14 billion years in the universe, they say our own star will burn out in something like 4 billion years. In 12-14 billion years, most of the stars would have burnt out by now.

Yes indeed! Earth is formed from a residue of a star… Several stars in fact.

The magic phrase you are looking for is: stellar nucleosynthesis

http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Images/Nucleosynthesis.jpg

 

[Della]

as regarding what a day means in Genesis, we read " Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day.". A day is a day in Genesis, evening and morning. It’s not a reinterpretation or other meaning of the Hebrew word “yom”.

No, it’s not literal nor is a “reinterpretation” of anything. It’s simply what it means. Perhaps you need to re-read the CCC on the topic of biblical interpretation:

The four ways of interpreting Scripture: #s 115-119.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
   118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
   The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
   The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

It is the Church that decides what the Bible means, not you or I. And the Church most emphatically does not say that Gen. 1 is to be read in the literal sense. If you want to believe it’s literal, you certainly can, but it’s not a matter of doctrine or dogma. We are to believe that God created the universe and that he created man and woman, Adam and Eve, as our first ancestors who fell from his grace. Anything else is saying more than the Church says. In order to be saved we don’t need to believe in a “6 days/24 hours” creation.

 

[bsroufek]

No, it’s not literal nor is a “reinterpretation” of anything. It’s simply what it means. Perhaps you need to re-read the CCC on the topic of biblical interpretation:
…
It is the Church that decides what the Bible means, not you or I. And the Church most emphatically does not say that Gen. 1 is to be read in the literal sense. If you want to believe it’s literal, you certainly can, but it’s not a matter of doctrine or dogma. We are to believe that God created the universe and that he created man and woman, Adam and Eve, as our first ancestors who fell from his grace. Anything else is saying more than the Church says. In order to be saved we don’t need to believe in a “6 days/24 hours” creation.

We are not discussing Church doctrine or dogma here, but whether the Earth is Old or Young. Now, because the creation story says evening followed and morning came, the first day, I believe that the first Six Days were normal days, not billion year days.

In the Six Day creation, also, the universe was created AFTER the earth, not before. Even though the Church says it’s allegory, it also says it’s true and unerring.

 

[Aloysium]

We are not discussing Church doctrine or dogma here, but whether the Earth is Old or Young. Now, ecause the creation story says evening followed and morning came, the first day, I believe that the first Six Days were normal days, not billion year days.

In the Six Day creation, also, the universe was created AFTER the earth, not before. Even though the Church says it’s allegory, it also says it’s true and unerring.

what i consider true and unerring is that God created everything, and not how people 5000 yrs ago understood the world
how science views the universe currently will be superseded, so does it really matter?

 

[bsroufek]

what i consider true and unerring is that God created everything, and not how people 5000 yrs ago understood the world
how science views the universe currently will be superseded, so does it really matter?

I have heard some say about this topic, “Does it really matter?” Well, it’s not that important to Faith as to whether the Earth is Old or Young. That God created the Earth, Heavens and Man is important to Faith. But, whether or not we believe Moses’s creation story, including Adam’s age at death and those of his successors, is an issue of debate.

Some dismiss it, saying “it’s allegory” and so they think it is unfactual. I believe that we should believe in Moses’s creation story and, especially in all the ages given for Adam down to Joseph son of Israel. It is for a reason that their ages are consistently given from the beginning, I think. I think we should believe it, rather than dismiss it and accept science’s claims.

 

[Della]

I have heard some say about this topic, “Does it really matter?” Well, it’s not that important to Faith as to whether the Earth is Old or Young. That God created the Earth, Heavens and Man is important to Faith. But, whether or not we believe Moses’s creation story, including Adam’s age at death and those of his successors, is an issue of debate.

Some dismiss it, saying “it’s allegory” and so they think it is unfactual. I believe that we should believe in Moses’s creation story and, especially in all the ages given for Adam down to Joseph son of Israel. It is for a reason that their ages are consistently given from the beginning, I think. I think we should believe it, rather than dismiss it and accept science’s claims.

Exactly. YOU believe this is what we should do, but is it what the Church says we should do? And the answer, for the last time is–NO.

If it helps YOUR faith, that’s fine, but it’s NOT Church teaching and that’s all there is to it.

 

[bsroufek]

Exactly. YOU believe this is what we should do, but is it what the Church says we should do? And the answer, for the last time is–NO.

If it helps YOUR faith, that’s fine, but it’s NOT Church teaching and that’s all there is to it.

Is it Church teaching that we should debate in online forums? No, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. We are stating opinions here, mostly, sometimes we quote Church teaching. There’s nothing wrong with that is there?

 

[Della]

Is it Church teaching that we should debate in online forums? No, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. We are stating opinions here, mostly, sometimes we quote Church teaching. There’s nothing wrong with that is there?

Don’t you think you are taking this a bit too far? C’mon. If you don’t want to believe in an Old Earth scenario, that’s one thing, but please let’s not be ridiculous about this. I’m done here.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Scripture likewise says, “With the Lord, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day.”

The 6000 year figure is from the Fall, not from Creation. No one knows how long Adam and Eve were in Paradise before they fell.

The Jews do. Chabad holds to the 6000 years theory, and it’s built into their calendar.

 

[bsroufek]

The Jews do. Chabad holds to the 6000 years theory, and it’s built into their calendar.

We know how old Adam was when he died. It’s stated in Genesis. It’s true that we don’t know how many years he was in Paradise, but we know from he death (age) and the ages in Genesis and the Bible since how old the Earth is.

 

[snarflemike]

Truth is not a democracy.

And neither is God the Father of Lies, which one would just about have to believe to believe that ALL the scientific evidence pointing to and old universe and an old earth were deliberately put there by God to deceive us.

Jesus said that many follow the road to Hell while few find the road to life.

Your point being? That all scientists are going to hell? Or what, exactly?

As far as 12-14 billion years in the universe, they say our own star will burn out in something like 4 billion years. In 12-14 billion years, most of the stars would have burnt out by now.

Umm, new stars are continually forming. As long as there is sufficient hydrogen and gravity keeps working, new stars will form. True, that will not go on forever, but it is happening right now.

nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_768.html

 

[bsroufek]

And neither is God the Father of Lies, which one would just about have to believe to believe that ALL the scientific evidence pointing to and old universe and an old earth were deliberately put there by God to deceive us.

Why couldn’t the expanding universe, which was created by the outstretched arm of God, have begun expanding from a point about 6000 years ago?

Your point being? That all scientists are going to hell? Or what, exactly?

The point made to me was that most scientific sources point to an old Earth. My point was that truth is not a democracy, not that scientists (esp. your claim that I mean ALL scientists) are going to Hell.

Umm, new stars are continually forming. As long as there is sufficient hydrogen and gravity keeps working, new stars will form. True, that will not go on forever, but it is happening right now.

nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_768.html

In 12-14 billion years, my point was, most stars would have burned out. New stars are supposedly forming, but ALL the billions being replaced by gravity? I doubt it.

 

[ngill09]

bsroufek, do you have any reason to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old apart from the Bible?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Why couldn’t the expanding universe, which was created by the outstretched arm of God, have begun expanding from a point about 6000 years ago?

First, I suspect that one of the main problems you’re having with seeing beyond the literal sense of a text is that you don’t appear to grasp the idea of metaphor. For example, you’ve now repeated several times this idea of God stretching his arm out to expand the universe. In the context of your statements, you appear to take this literally. But you do realize that God is immaterial and does not have a body, and therefore no arm? This is a very (beautiful) poetic metaphor for God’s creative power.

To answer your question though, because the physics don’t line up. If we’re going to speak in terms of time as we perceive it now (again, I stress the fact that the flow of time is not constant… neither in time nor space), all the evidence points to a beginning about 14 billion years ago. Had it begun expanding only 6000 years ago, we would not be here because the universe would not have developed to the point where we would even be possible.

It is a fundamental belief of Christianity that God is a God of Reason and that He built an orderly universe that functions according to laws. Science (which grew out of this Christian belief) has allowed us to uncover many of those laws. Understanding how those laws operate, we can look back in time to deduce how they have unfolded over time.

In 12-14 billion years, my point was, most stars would have burned out. New stars are supposedly forming, but ALL the billions being replaced by gravity? I doubt it.

Why do you say “supposedly”? We know that new stars are forming.

You doubt it, eh? There’s a cure for that: it’s called education. Since you obviously want to talk about the universe, why don’t you read up on it and actually learn something about the astronomical sciences? Here, I’ll get you started:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

 

[edwest2]

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

Bibliography at bottom.

Thanks for the article. I entirely disagree. Here’s why:

biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/

Best,
Ed

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Thanks for the article. I entirely disagree. Here’s why:

biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/

Best,
Ed

I am unable to access the articles without paying. Could you summarize the evidence for Exodus?

Here is another article against -

nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?_r=0

 

[edwest2]

From your source:
"Egyptian record keepingIt is unlikely that the 603,550 adult males plus women and children mentioned in the Exodus story would have gone unremarked by contemporary Egyptian records. That’s easily 2 million people (assuming one man, one woman, 1.5 children, which is very conservative[11]). But no Egyptian account mentions them. Or the plagues, which would be similarly unlikely not to have been recorded. There is no evidence of any of this. Given the standard of Egyptian record keeping of the time, this is an absence that would require explanation.

Bible literalists claim that it did happen, but that the Egyptians destroyed all the records, for reasons unspecified. This is contrary to the normal archaeological practice of testing a theory against the evidence, rather than the evidence against the theory. "

There are proven attempt of destroying evidence of historical facts made by the egiptians!
How comes you literats don’t know anything about them?

"When new kings ascended the throne, they naturally wanted to be seen in the best light. So in many nations they covered up or destroyed monuments and records of previous monarchs. This pattern of expunging earlier historical evidence can be repeatedly seen in Egyptian monuments and historical records. For example, after the Hyksos rulers were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians erased the records of that humiliating period so thoroughly that some of the names and the order of the Hyksos kings remain uncertain.

“Some time later Pharaoh Thutmosis III destroyed virtually all records relating to Queen Hatshepsut, the previous ruler, whom he despised. Visitors to her famous temple can still see where Thutmosis’s workmen carefully chiseled away her image from the walls of the structure. A few decades afterwards, the ruling priests eliminated virtually all possible traces of the teachings of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who had introduced what they considered to be heretical Egyptian religious reforms.”

Source: biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/09/The-Exodus-Controversy.aspx

Peace,
Ed

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

"When new kings ascended the throne, they naturally wanted to be seen in the best light. So in many nations they covered up or destroyed monuments and records of previous monarchs. This pattern of expunging earlier historical evidence can be repeatedly seen in Egyptian monuments and historical records. For example, after the Hyksos rulers were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians erased the records of that humiliating period so thoroughly that some of the names and the order of the Hyksos kings remain uncertain.

“Some time later Pharaoh Thutmosis III destroyed virtually all records relating to Queen Hatshepsut, the previous ruler, whom he despised. Visitors to her famous temple can still see where Thutmosis’s workmen carefully chiseled away her image from the walls of the structure. A few decades afterwards, the ruling priests eliminated virtually all possible traces of the teachings of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who had introduced what they considered to be heretical Egyptian religious reforms.”

Source: biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/09/The-Exodus-Controversy.aspx

Peace,
Ed

I had read that explanation elsewhere - the question that came to my mind was:

With Queen Hatshepsut there is evidence of her removal. Is there evidence of the removal of the Hebrew enslavement / Exodus? Or is lack of evidence being provided as evidence.