Old Earth vs. Young Earth

[bsroufek]

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.

We are made in His image, so He has a form, which Moses beheld. So, you might say, “Physical or spiritual form?” Remember, the transfiguration of Christ, where Moses and Elijah appeared? They were recognized by the Apostles, and they had forms.

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.

God defies the physical laws often in what are called miracles. You speak as if the universe HAD to develop for 14 billion years, rather than God creating it above 6000 years
ago.

 

[Gricken]

I always felt that one must disregard most science in order to think the world is only 6000 years old.

 

[ngill09]

We are made in His image, so He has a form, which Moses beheld. So, you might say, “Physical or spiritual form?” Remember, the transfiguration of Christ, where Moses and Elijah appeared? They were recognized by the Apostles, and they had forms.

God defies the physical laws often in what are called miracles. You speak as if the universe HAD to develop for 14 billion years, rather than God creating it above 6000 years
ago.

Again, outside of your interpretation of the Bible, where else is there evidence that the universe is 6,000 years old?

I stress again that it is not just the expansion of the universe that is used to determine the age of the universe. In order to shrink everything down below 6,000 years you must deny:

All of paleontology
A lot of archeology
Pretty much all of biology
Pretty much all of genetics
Pretty much all of astronomy
All of geology
And so on.

Now, you do have a way of avoiding all this. You can say “Well, God just made everything look like it was older”. But then God is a Great Deceiver.

It should also be noted that while evolution or creationism played no role in my estrangement from Christianity, atheists like Richard Dawkins use the fact that many religious people are “inspired” to deny reality by their religions as an argument against religion in general.

And it’s not even very hard for Christians to accommodate the age of the universe and modern cosmology. Genesis 1 uses fairly poetic language and evolution doesn’t clash that much with Christian theology, given a few religious twists. I think Christians have much more problems dealing with Genesis 2, 6-8, and 11. But even those can be reconciled with enough imagination.

 

[edwest2]

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.

No. I recommend the following:

bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-date-1440bc.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[aux1]

I stress again that it is not just the expansion of the universe that is used to determine the age of the universe. In order to shrink everything down below 6,000 years you must deny:

All of paleontology
A lot of archeology
Pretty much all of biology
Pretty much all of genetics
Pretty much all of astronomy
All of geology
And so on.

Also, you’d have to deny the law of radioactive decay… which would mean that nuclear weapons can’t work… which means that nuclear weapons are a fraud… I suggest you discuss that with the people of Hiroshima…

 

[aux1]

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?

Because certain structures in the universe and on Earth take more than 6000 years to form.

Also, if the universe started expanding 6000 years ago, then it would have to expand much faster than it currently is – which would mean that the universal expansion is slowing down… But the supernova measurements show that the expansion is actually SPEEDING UP…

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No. I recommend the following:

bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-date-1440bc.htm

Peace,
Ed

I’m still going through it, but this is spurious :

The Amarna Tablets which chronicle the conquest of Joshua in the promised land in 1400 BC

cojs.org/cojswiki/The_Amarna_Letters,_14th_century_BCE

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters

They are correspondence between Egyptians. They do mention Jerusalem but not Joshua.

He seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[snarflemike]

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?

Again, if God created the universe 6000 years ago, but planted countless pieces of evidence everywhere we look that all point to a starting point billions of years ago, what is God if not The Great Deceiver?

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.

Have you published a paper showing the math by which you doubt this? According to the NASA website,
“Only a few percent of the original hydrogen and helium in the Universe has been burned this way. Most of it is still around, and so the elemental matter of the Universe is still about three quarters hydrogen, which is primarily in the form of clouds of gas and stars.”

I repeat, only a few percent of the original hydrogen has been “burned” (that is, transmuted into higher elements). ONLY A FEW PERCENT.

 

[edwest2]

Because certain structures in the universe and on Earth take more than 6000 years to form.

Also, if the universe started expanding 6000 years ago, then it would have to expand much faster than it currently is – which would mean that the universal expansion is slowing down… But the supernova measurements show that the expansion is actually SPEEDING UP…

haltonarp.com/bio

You are referring to objects moving faster than the speed of light (superluminal)?

ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Kellermann2/Kellermann3_6.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[prodigalson2011]

We are made in His image, so He has a form, which Moses beheld. So, you might say, “Physical or spiritual form?” Remember, the transfiguration of Christ, where Moses and Elijah appeared? They were recognized by the Apostles, and they had forms.

Our being made in the image of God does not refer to our physical frames, which are essentially similar to other primates, but to our intellectual souls. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”

God defies the physical laws often in what are called miracles. You speak as if the universe HAD to develop for 14 billion years, rather than God creating it above 6000 years ago.

Miracles are called miracles precisely because they are the exception to the rule. Since its beginning, Christianity has rested upon the belief that God created a universe whose workings can be uncovered and understood by man, because our God is a God of supreme wisdom and order, not a God of confusion. So there is absolutely no reason for us to think that the overwhelming evidence from every imaginable branch of the sciences is wrong on this issue.

Even St. Augustine, in the 400s, wrote that God created the universe in seed form, giving it potentialities which would unfold over time. That’s exactly what modern science has discovered. The Jewish Talmud states that the creation days are a paradox, in that they are literally 6 24 hour days, yet at the same time containing “all the ages and mysteries of the universe.” This paradox has been confirmed and resolved by the theory of relativity.

 

[buffalo]

which of the two conflicting genesis creation stories are you backing?

The two creation stories are complementary. One gives the order of creation, the other the importance of man.

 

[buffalo]

Consider that Gen 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective. Imagine a rolled up tape measure - God sees 7 layers rolled up, we live on the tape and have to look back past the graduations.

 

[buffalo]

So do you think that basically all science is a giant conspiracy against God?

By its own definition it excludes the supernatural. Methodological naturalism rules the day.

 

[buffalo]

I support Old Earth.

The Church doesn’t say we can’t support evolution, as long as we believe that the soul of man was created by God,

We cannot support polygenism.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. Words like figurative mean that it’s allegory. It’s the fall that’s actual. Adam and Eve are just a story to give context.

Magisterial source?

 

[buffalo]

Posted By Roscoe Turner
Re: Old Earth vs. Young Earth

*How about the DNA evidence that puts the Y chromosome “Mitochondrial Eve” 200,000 years ago. One estimate has it 338 K years ago. Really tough to square with a young Earth. I look at A&E as…
*

In order for DNA to be used for historical reading, it would have to lengthen or keep history for each parent from the beginning. DNA is not that long. I believe historical reading of DNA, beyond that of your immediate parents, is false. It’s a nice idea, but it doesn’t work.

There are some issues with this. An underlying assumption is that the mutational clock is constant. But now we know it isn’t. You can find some stuff on this here - Reason Resources

 

[buffalo]

Moses and the Plagues, the Exodus aren’t supported by archeology, and secondary sources. They are generally thought of as Mythical in academic circles as well.

You may want to look here:

 

[buffalo]

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).

Redshift? Redshift also shows that earth is in a special place, as galaxies form concentric circles around the earth.

Radioactive decay rate has changed over time.

What are the top three assumptions in dating methods?

 

[snarflemike]

By its own definition it excludes the supernatural. Methodological naturalism rules the day.

That seems to this Catholic like a non-answer. Can science tell us true things about the natural world, or not? Has God deliberately rigged creation so that science gives consistent-yet-totally-wrong answers about the creation of the universe and our planet? If so, why?

 

[buffalo]

That seems to this Catholic like a non-answer. Can science tell us true things about the natural world, or not? Has God deliberately rigged creation so that science gives consistent-yet-totally-wrong answers about the creation of the universe and our planet? If so, why?

If one is walking down the beach and sees left footprints as far as he can see should he conclude a deceiver is at work?

God has no obligation to reveal all of His creation to man.

Human reasoning of our observations is the weak point. Science is provisional and is ever changing.

There are several problems right in out own solar system.