Teaching the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old

[edwest2]

I have some issues with your statements so I cannot agree. First, you bring in the earth being flat. No one teaches that. That is introducing evidence that does not exist to try to bolster a scientific argument or belief with rhetoric or emotion.
We are talking about science here so I have to hold you to a much much stricter vocabulary than if we were just talking about principles.
It is not scientific FACT that the earth is not 6000 years old. Science does not waste it’s time with stating facts about certain years. It is not FACT that the earth is not 5,423,873,474 years old either.
Science, using the knowledge of the day has “p(name removed by moderator)ointed” an age range it believes the earth to be using the most reliable methods of the day. A rational person may take this information and apply it to the disciplines of science.

(Disclaimer. My wife and I are both scientists. While Geology is not my field, some of my earlier work involved geological expeditions for oil companies. in the western US.)
Fossils do nothing to date the world at 4.54 Billion years old. Because life did not exist at that time. Nor is the age of the earth PROVEN to be 4.5. again, you are off by millions of years. And yes, when I was in school it was " PROVEN" to be almost a Billion years less than that. So, there is some arrogance to state that it is FACT and PROVEN.

No, not agreed. It depends. IF someone believes this because of ignorance of the science or because thats what they have been told then you can tell them your evidence for the contrary. Now, when theology enters into the fold things get dicey. For instance we can scientifically prove that the bread and wine that have been consecrated are indeed bread and wine. We cannot scientifically prove they are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. (No, not talking about Eucharistic miracles here.) We can PROVE that humans do not fly. Yet we have saints that levitate. We can PROVE that one thing cannot occupy two spaces at once. Yet we have bi-location.

So if you feel that science is a theological tool to discover Truth of God. You will find it lacking. If however you wish to say that science, using it’s best information and logic has estimated the earth to be… then sure, I am with you.

Now, it is a lot like “climate change” in that it is scientific information, used by a scientific “lay” community to wield and agenda or power. Climate Change, Evolution, and the age of the earth are used not to promote scientific accuracy, but rather to defeat an ideology, which is not the purpose of such scientific information. Now, just because these are politically charged subjects does not mean they might not be true. But it does mean that the discussion of them is probably tainted with agendas and biases. (political oil in the pure water of science)

Personally. I believe the 6000 year old figure just as much as I believe the 4.54 figure in so much as to say, I don’t accept either of them. I am sure though that one is closer than the other.

The problem with this issue and the issue of evolution is that both sides overstate the case and abandon the principles of their chosen side. Theologians abandon the theology that God could have used mechanisms to create and that parts of the Bible are allegorical in nature. Scientists abandon the general principles of science to overstate a case and try to silence any dissenting voices. In the past perhaps science was stifled by religion. But now, it appears the tables have turned and science is not being led humbly but rather pridefully. It is worth noting that consistently, it is science that changes it’s numbers and conclusions more so than the other way around. So if you are instructing on Truth, I would be careful about hanging your hat on 4.54. Because that number will most likely change.

Theologically, why would it bother you that someone chooses to think the earth was 6000 years old. Actually why would that even bother you scientifically?

These are dicey waters for certain. Surly you would not advocate using science to disprove or cause doubt in something like the Eucharist or the Resurrection?

That was well stated. In the past, science class was just science class. I listened, I learned and me, and the rest of the class, went on with our lives. Today, things have changed. Instead of calmly stating what it knows, we get a constant stream of threads where we are told the same things over and over again and are berated if we don’t accept this or that. Sometimes with anger. Some individuals and religious groups have taught a young earth for a long time. So what is all this constant repetition all about?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Great question.

Answer:

It wouldn’t bother me that someone believes the earth was 6000 years old, it DOES BOTHER me though, that that same person seems to know that masturbation, contraception and gay marriage are 100% wrong and the scourge of society. And ever more so that same person tries to legislate that moral opinion, while naively believing that the earth is 6000 years old, which YES is EXACTLY the same as believing the Earth is flat, which it’s not.

So let me get this strait. It is your duty to instruct the ignorant on the age of the earth, but not their duty to instruct the ignorant on the Truth of the immorality of masturbation?
Weird.

 

[ProVobis]

Now, aside from that, the thing that always tripped me up as a YEC was starlight. If the earth (and, presumably, the universe, since the stars were created on the fourth day) was only 6000 years old, then how can we see stars that are further than 6000 light years away?

Exactly. The Andromeda Galaxy is visible to the naked eye and it’s approximately 1.2 million light years away. That means we see it as it was 1.2 million years ago. If something happens out of the ordinary there today, it would take us that long to find out about it.

 

[theCrow]

No agenda. I’m just pointing out and asking if all of us here can
agree in the scientific fact that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

It’s just very hard to debate other issues with someone who thinks
the Earth is literally 6000 years old, because it’s not.

I’m just pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of such people who believe this and
yes also believe in:

choose your moral/Catholic/Christian/Muslim religious belief.

I also agree Science and Religion can co exist, but I also believe in teaching
the scientific truth to children in the (public) classroom, which is what the original topic was about.

So the question I ask, does anyone here personally believe the Earth is 6000 years old?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No agenda. I’m just pointing out and asking if all of us here can
agree in the scientific fact that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

It’s just very hard to debate other issues with someone who thinks
the Earth is literally 6000 years old, because it’s not.

I’m just pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of such people who believe this and
yes also believe in:

choose your moral/Catholic/Christian/Muslim religious belief.

I also agree Science and Religion can co exist, but I also believe in teaching
the scientific truth to children in the (public) classroom, which is what the original topic was about.

So the question I ask, does anyone here personally believe the Earth is 6000 years old?

You have been answered scientifically and theologically.

I have not seen anyone defending 6000 year old earth. But honestly, not because of the science because like I stated before. Ask us all about the Eucharist, or miracles or resurrection or the like and the “science” Will not be adequate.

What you have shown is hypocrisy. Though probably not the kind you intended.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

We are talking about science here so I have to hold you to a much much stricter vocabulary than if we were just talking about principles.
It is not scientific FACT that the earth is not 6000 years old.

It’s true that this is not known with 100% certainty, in the same way that historians do not know with 100% certainty that the holocaust happened. But in both cases, the probability so rapidly approaches 1 that it does not make sense to quibble about it.

No, not agreed. It depends. IF someone believes this because of ignorance of the science or because thats what they have been told then you can tell them your evidence for the contrary.

Which is overwhelming.

Personally. I believe the 6000 year old figure just as much as I believe the 4.54 figure in so much as to say, I don’t accept either of them. I am sure though that one is closer than the other.

One of them is much closer than the other.

Theologically, why would it bother you that someone chooses to think the earth was 6000 years old. Actually why would that even bother you scientifically?

You said you were a scientist. It would bother me because it is false. And I cannot understand why someone like yourself, claiming to be a scientist, would not also be bothered by bad science.

These are dicey waters for certain. Surly you would not advocate using science to disprove or cause doubt in something like the Eucharist or the Resurrection?

These acts are miracles* because *of their scientific improbability. One major difference between these two examples and the age of the Earth is that the Church has no teaching on the age of the Earth. So any belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old must be based on… well, I don’t know what. Not science. Not Church teaching. Perhaps some other “faith.” Surely you would not concede that we must accept statements made by other faiths merely because they are made by other faiths. Otherwise, you would be incapable of being a scientist and incapable of being a Catholic.

Of course, we must have a basis in order to accept that these miracles did/do happen, but that’s for another time, I suppose.

 

[on_the_hill]

agree in the scientific fact that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

If we’re getting to this level, I’d say no. It’s not a fact. It’s our best generalized agreed to estimate.
If an 8 year old were to ask me, I’d answer, “It’s about four and a half billion years old.”

“Why don’t we know for sure?”

“Because no one was alive back then.”

“What about God?”

“Yes, God was alive.”

“Why don’t we ask him?”

“Because he’s busy. Hand me that wrench.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It’s true that this is not known with 100% certainty, in the same way that historians do not know with 100% certainty that the holocaust happened. But in both cases, the probability so rapidly approaches 1 that it does not make sense to quibble about it.

Which is overwhelming.

It’s true that this is not known with 100% certainty, in the same way that historians do not know with 100% certainty that the holocaust happened. But in both cases, the probability so rapidly approaches 1 that it does not make sense to quibble about it.

yes. Except for the idea of 4.54 being a hard number. But yes. And to your (overused) holocaust example. The Number of victims is not known with exact accuracy either.

Which is overwhelming.

Scientifically speaking, yes.

One of them is much closer than the other.

yes

You said you were a scientist. It would bother me because it is false. And I cannot understand why someone like yourself, claiming to be a scientist, would not also be bothered by bad science.

In my experience bad science is practiced by many scientists or people with political or ideological views. ON BOTH SIDES. It bothers me not at all if someone wan’t to believe in a 6000 year old earth. It would bother me if they were a geologist, or a paleontologist. But if they want to believe 6000 years it is no skin off my nose. My wife works with genetically modified crops. I don’t feel it my mission to be annoyed by anti GMO people who don’t like the idea of genetic modification of plants. They rarely understand the science and often hold false understandings. And that holds no theological weight with me. But again, it does not bother me if some stay at home mom thinks GMO corn is responsible for autism and so, buys organic. Claiming that science is ultimate Truth and we are at the height of understanding of the physical universe is a common belief by some. As a scientist I am much more bothered by the OPs bias and use of science for an agenda than I am if somebody wan’t to believe the earth is 6000 years old. It does not affect their life at all as long as they are not in the field of science in question. Lots of people are ignorant about science fields or specialties. Ever watch NAT Geo? Or TWC? Tons of bad science there.
In the field of biology, the academic theory of evolution that is most recent is not widely known nor believed outside of academia. Evolution as a concept is generally accepted but it does not play out in real science or corporate science. Because it is not necessary for many uses of science. Even biology.

What bothers me, is bad science. A person claiming a scientific fact without want of questioning, or other beliefs. That is bad science. From the time we are kids we are drilled with the “greatest commandment” of science. Question. Then we make sure that we shut that down to serve an agenda. That bothers me. Not some kid who’s dad told him the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old.

These acts are miracles* because *of their scientific improbability. One major difference between these two examples and the age of the Earth is that the Church has no teaching on the age of the Earth. So any belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old must be based on… well, I don’t know what. Not science. Not Church teaching. Perhaps some other “faith.” Surely you would not concede that we must accept statements made by other faiths merely because they are made by other faiths. Otherwise, you would be incapable of being a scientist and incapable of being a Catholic.

I don’t understand what you are saying here at all. But I can tell you this. A Catholic can hold either view or even a completely different view. 6000, 4.54 Billion, 7 Trillion, etc. What a Catholic is bound to is that God created it. He created it good, It did not always exist. and that it will end. And somehow that because of when it was created that masturbation is wrong.

I don’t support a 6000 year old earth but don’t question my science just because I won’t guarantee 4.54 is more gospel than well, the Gospel…

 

[edwest2]

Well stated.

Thank you,
Ed

 

[Rico_S]

In my experience bad science is practiced by many scientists or people with political or ideological views. ON BOTH SIDES. It bothers me not at all if someone wan’t to believe in a 6000 year old earth. It would bother me if they were a geologist, or a paleontologist.

Can you expound a bit on why it would bother you if a geologist or paleontologist believed in the 6000 year old earth?

What bothers me, is bad science. A person claiming a scientific fact without want of questioning, or other beliefs. That is bad science

Then why wouldn’t young earth advocates bother you? Isn’t arguing in a 6000 year old earth bad science?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Can you expound a bit on why it would bother you if a geologist or paleontologist believed in the 6000 year old earth?

Then why wouldn’t young earth advocates bother you? Isn’t arguing in a 6000 year old earth bad science?

I have never personally met a scientist that holds this view. So it does not bother me. On the spectrum of bad science it is given more attention than it deserves. Bad science is driving political powers, governmental decisions that affect lives, From what food pyramid out kids can have at school, to what fad diet is next. To what corporations get taxed for emissions that “cause” climate change, to the wording of the scientific concepts themselves. Warming Vs Change. etc. Bad science is at the heart of bad technology. Goverments, industries, and even little families. Bad science is at the heart of life issues in the medical industry.
If someone wants to believe in Jesus, live a Holy life and think the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, that does not bother me.

6000 or 4.54 Billion. Either way it was a long time ago before you or I lived. I honestly have always wondered at the level of focus these issues are debated.

It does not pay my mortgage, create energy, help the sick, or feed the hungry. In my opinion it is a waste of science to devote such effort to the concept. The evidence should be presented period.

I remember in a science class in College. The professor on the first day got up and said this:

“I respect any religion or personal belief one has. (this was proven false a few seconds later) But if you do not believe in evolution the way it is presented in your text you are a fool and have no place in this class or in science.”

This caused the expected uproar. Anyone who disagreed was foolish.

Out of the entire text evolution was not even given a whole chapter. But to the professor it was the single largest scale on which someone’s worth as a scientist was measured.

I might also add that the text would have to be rewritten today to accommodate changes in the overall “theory” of evolution. (I used quotation marks to illustrate that the “theory” of evolution is a catch-all phrase used commonly, not to discount or mock the actual theory)

That is the exact opposite of science, where people have died for the right to think differently or to hold unpopular beliefs that seem to contradict the current accepted thought. It is an insult to those who died for Science many of those that died were Catholic. For modern science to have no room for dissent, well that is BAD science and that is what bothers me more than a few billion years of lifeless rock in space.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Can you expound a bit on why it would bother you if a geologist or paleontologist believed in the 6000 year old earth?

Then why wouldn’t young earth advocates bother you? Isn’t arguing in a 6000 year old earth bad science?

If a paleontologist believed in a 6000 year old earth it would bother me well, if you can’t figure that out… I don’t know what to say except that one should not draw a paycheck from something they believe to be false.

It would bother me the same if a televangelist was just in it for the money and did not even believe in God.

 

[Rico_S]

I have never personally met a scientist that holds this view. So it does not bother me.

So you misspoke earlier? I took your statement to mean that if man of science, particularly someone whose field of study is intimately linked with ancient earth its creation and history, were to believe that the earth was 6000 years old, that would be problematic since the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a 4+billion year old earth. I didn’t want to put words in your mouth, so I asked for clarification.

6000 year old earth is bad science. I know you don’t want to say that, but you kind of do want to, don’t you? I certainly acknowledge your claim that bad science can be used to push an agenda. Absolutely agree. It can be by fueled by political goals, economic motives, or as in the case of 6000 year old earth, religious goals. (clearly some feel that the 4+ billion year old earth is somehow a threat to the truth of the Bible… )

For modern science to have no room for dissent, well that is BAD science

Agree. Fortunately, that isn’t how real science works (“modern” or otherwise).

 

[Rico_S]

It would bother me the same if a televangelist was just in it for the money and did not even believe in God.

Then be bothered.

 

[Joe_5859]

No agenda. I’m just pointing out and asking if all of us here can
agree in the scientific fact that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

It’s just very hard to debate other issues with someone who thinks
the Earth is literally 6000 years old, because it’s not.

I’m just pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of such people who believe this and
yes also believe in:

choose your moral/Catholic/Christian/Muslim religious belief.

I also agree Science and Religion can co exist, but I also believe in teaching
the scientific truth to children in the (public) classroom, which is what the original topic was about.

So the question I ask, does anyone here personally believe the Earth is 6000 years old?

So far, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone say they believe the world is only 6,000 years old.

I am not sure why you are ascribing such importance to this issue. I took Astronomy in college. We went through the data and I performed the calculation myself that arrives at the 4.54 billion year number. It made sense to me at the time and I am still inclined to find it probable, but I couldn’t tell you how I arrived at that anymore as I have forgotten.

I think it’s a bit elitist to expect every person on the planet to arrive at this number and profess their belief in it else they be deemed hypocrites. A lot of people aren’t good at science or math. That doesn’t make them hypocrites or bad people. You are basically asking all the people of the world who are not educated on the matter to take it on blind faith that the scientists have it all figured out for them. I certainly wouldn’t fault a person for being reticent about making that leap (even though I agree with the scientists in this instance).

 

[The_Question_1]

If God could create from nothing, inventing the very laws by which a scientist is to test the age of the Earth, then what’s to stop Him from creating an Earth that appears old but is new? When He created Adam He didn’t make him a child, but a grown adult. I’m just saying that God made the rules so who’s to say the Earth isn’t 6000 years old with the appearance of 4.54 billion years old? Just saying, when it comes to God, He can change the rules. In the end it really doesn’t matter much in my daily life so…

 

[theCrow]

If God could create from nothing, inventing the very laws by which a scientist is to test the age of the Earth, then what’s to stop Him from creating an Earth that appears old but is new? When He created Adam He didn’t make him a child, but a grown adult. I’m just saying that God made the rules so who’s to say the Earth isn’t 6000 years old with the appearance of 4.54 billion years old? Just saying, when it comes to God, He can change the rules. In the end it really doesn’t matter much in my daily life so…

Ok now you’re just being silly and this is why a lot of people say Science and Religion are NOT compatible.

This is what’s dangerous about taking the BIBLE LITERALLY. It’s NOT literal.

 

[Joe_5859]

If God could create from nothing, inventing the very laws by which a scientist is to test the age of the Earth, then what’s to stop Him from creating an Earth that appears old but is new? When He created Adam He didn’t make him a child, but a grown adult. I’m just saying that God made the rules so who’s to say the Earth isn’t 6000 years old with the appearance of 4.54 billion years old? Just saying, when it comes to God, He can change the rules. In the end it really doesn’t matter much in my daily life so…

Right. This is why no amount of spelling out the evidence is going to necessarily convince someone that believes the world is 6,000 years old. And, ultimately, it’s not that important. As far as litmus tests go, this one kind of puzzles me.

 

[Joe_5859]

Ok now you’re just being silly and this is why a lot of people say Science and Religion are NOT compatible.

This is what’s dangerous about taking the BIBLE LITERALLY. It’s NOT literal.

I hope you don’t talk to actual “Young Earthers” like this.

You realize that calling people “silly” and basically saying “You’re wrong, wrong, wrong!” is only going to get them to dig in their heels even more, right? You are coming across as combative and condescending. I agree with the 4.54 billion year number and yet your approach is making me want to disagree with you just on general principle.

 

[The_Question_1]

Ok now you’re just being silly and this is why a lot of people say Science and Religion are NOT compatible.

This is what’s dangerous about taking the BIBLE LITERALLY. It’s NOT literal.

Perhaps I am being silly but why not take the Bible literally? It seems to me that if we can doubt the story of the beginning there is nothing to stop us from picking what’s literal and what’s just a story to the point of making the Bible no more valuable than Grimm’s Fairytales. A big book with lots of nice little stories that teaches us moral values. I prefer to take it literal on the majority and have faith that God did things the way He did for a reason. I mean, if Genesis’ account of the first human’s (Adam and Eve) is just a story then the whole “original sin” thing kind of goes out the window. I will choose to believe in God’s unlimited power over man’s limited understanding.