Teaching the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCrow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SuperLuigi said:
It’s a useful theory. “It is what it is” as my former director of graduate studies would say.
Click to expand...
So, its a theory? If it is a theory, then science or the science textbooks should not say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, this is misleading. But they should say, we theorize the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.
 
Usagi said:
Actually, you don’t “prove” anything in science. You can arrive at an explanation that seems to fit the current data best, but with the full understanding that you (or a future generation) might have to revise that explanation if more data comes in that makes it no longer the best.

On the other hand, if a particular claim doesn’t fit even the currently available data at all, that claim is highly likely to be false (unless we are very, very wrong about the currently available data). As ages for the Earth go, 4.5 billion fits the available data far better than six thousand. There’s some wiggle room around 4.5 billion, but not so much wiggle room that 6000 is a reasonable estimate.

Usagi
Click to expand...
Science has proven all sorts of things, but it also has failed miserably in many things as well. The fault; however, doesn’t rest in science rather the way science is used and viewed. There is no way we can know how old the earth really is, but we can reasonably guess how long it has been since God created humanity.

Either way, to claim one thing as false in science, the one claiming it as false should be prepared to prove it false instead of just saying as much and equally prepared to prove their claim as factual. This rarely happens anymore, sadly.
 
theCrow said:
I was talking to some Junior High kids the other day and they were talking about science class and how the Earth is 4.54 BILLION years old. I do know a few other kids though who were (falsely) taught the Earth was much less, and I’m assuming they were taught 6000 years by some extreme religious groups. Can we as Catholics all agree on the former?
Click to expand...
There is no need for us to agree. That’s something good about the Catholic faith, something that separates it from groups that demand that all aspects of the Bible be taken literally. The age of the Earth isn’t important. It’s not going to determine anybody’s salvation.

I was taught the literal creation story, and the theory of evolution was presented as a false religion that would lead to hell (it sounds silly, but there are a lot of people who see it that way!). So for me, “it doesn’t matter, as far as salvation goes” is a very comforting answer. We should never drive anyone away from the faith over issues that are ultimately inconsequential. That goes both ways- if a Catholic wants to believe in young-earth creationism, that doesn’t make them any less Catholic.

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? I’ve seen all kinds of explanations, ranging from a much faster speed of light on the fourth day to light being created “on its way”, but they all seemed implausible to me. But again, if someone wants to accept them, I’m fairly certain it’s not going to affect the state of their soul. 🤷
 
Richca said:
So, its a theory? If it is a theory, then science or the science textbooks should not say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, this is misleading. But they should say, we theorize the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:

If they want the exact language, that would literally apply to everything. Textbooks, for better or worse, are much more simple especially in secondary education.

That kind of confusion can be reduced if not altogether eliminated if students understood what science is. :yup:
 
Richca said:
The point is, science says a lot of things that are based on theories and not facts
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the use of the word “theory” in science. Please read this.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Click to expand...
The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Click to expand...
such as the darwinian evolution of man from primates, apes, or whatever which we know is false.
Click to expand...
Man did not evolve from apes. No scientist makes that claim.
40.png
Richca:
So, its a theory? If it is a theory, then science or the science textbooks should not say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, this is misleading.
Click to expand...
If you gain no other benefit from this conversation, then please at least try to understand the meaning of the word “theory.” It does not mean what you are suggesting it means.
 
mdgspencer said:
I think Catholics can agree to earth is so ancient. Some Protestants came up with the idea the earth is thousands of years old, so I consider this a purely Protestant invention.
Actually, how old the earth is has nothing to do with Catholicism, which has never passed on the age of the earth. This question is irrelevant to the faith. So if I was teaching CCD to children, I wouldn’t see any basis for talking about this.
But where did fossils of dinasaurs and other species come from, which predate humans and even are show to be millions of years old? So I think the earth is much more than a few thousand years old (though this is not my judgment as a Catholic).
Click to expand...
Protestants? Others think of this today who are not Protestants.

Peace,
Ed
 
SuperLuigi said:
:hmmm:

If they want the exact language, that would literally apply to everything. Textbooks, for better or worse, are much more simple especially in secondary education.

That kind of confusion can be reduced if not altogether eliminated if students understood what science is. :yup:
Click to expand...
Nope. Not going to happen. Even those considered uneducated can think well enough on their own. That’s why threads like this pop up all the time.

Peace,
Ed
 
Neofight said:
In the grander scheme of things, it doesn’t matter. Nowhere in scripture are we told that salvation is dependent on believing what the age of the earth is, nor is there any church dogma that dictates such.
Click to expand...
It matters alright, otherwise, we’d see none of this. It’s all about getting people to “accept” an ideology. This has nothing to do with science.

Peace,
Ed
 
wmw said:
The Bible was written by God. People have taken this and tried to extract non-theological information from it, like mining for data. God knows this and has written it specifically not to be used as a scientifically useful text. God is respectful of good science. He reserved that information for the discovery of man and intentionally did not reveal scientific things; any but the most minor things.

The wonders of such a vast and continually expanding universe. Speaks to His power and glory. It is expanding ever faster and still growing and young. It is giving birth to new stars at an astounding rate. Just a decade ago they thought that the universe was slowing to a crawl and going to cool into darkness or begin to collapse back into itself. Wrong again, it is alive and growing even greater! Billions or more old and still young as a two month pup.

Don’t let the nay sayers bog you down in their depressing visions of doom and gloom. See the greatness that God has made and get excited!
Click to expand...
God has nothing to do with this. It’s Accept it, now! Ideology, not science.

Ed
 
Well it is a scientific FACT that the Earth is NOT 6000 years old, (nor is flat)

With carbon dating, geology of fossils, sedimentary rock study, etc, the age of Earth is PROVEN to be 4.5 Billion.

“The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4]”

This isn’t global warming we are talking about, this is scientific fact. If anyone truly believes the Earth is only 6000 years old, they are false and should be told so. Agreed?
 
Richca said:
…as the darwinian evolution of man from primates, apes, or whatever which we know is false.
Click to expand...
We didn’t evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor. VeritasLuxMea quite rightly rebutted this.

And why is this discussion in the Family section? :confused:
 
The earth is a certain age, possibly billions of years, and the bible contains about 6000 years of history.

Are these at odds with each other? Are they really competing ideas?
 
PaulinVA said:
The earth is a certain age, possibly billions of years, and the bible contains about 6000 years of history.

Are these at odds with each other? Are they really competing ideas?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they are for some Christians.
 
theCrow said:
Well it is a scientific FACT that the Earth is NOT 6000 years old, (nor is flat)

With carbon dating, geology of fossils, sedimentary rock study, etc, the age of Earth is PROVEN to be 4.5 Billion.

“The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4]”

This isn’t global warming we are talking about, this is scientific fact. If anyone truly believes the Earth is only 6000 years old, they are false and should be told so. Agreed?
Click to expand...
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.
With carbon dating, geology of fossils, sedimentary rock study, etc, the age of Earth is PROVEN to be 4.5 Billion.
Click to expand...
(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.
This isn’t global warming we are talking about, this is scientific fact. If anyone truly believes the Earth is only 6000 years old, they are false and should be told so. Agreed?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
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?
Click to expand...
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. 🤷
 
Richca said:
So, its a theory? If it is a theory, then science or the science textbooks should not say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, this is misleading. But they should say, we theorize the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.
Click to expand...
That would be appropriate.

Best,
Ed
 
theCrow said:
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. 🤷
Click to expand...
Ok, so we have left the realm of science. Honestly I cannot address your objections because they are not related. If you wish to discuss masturbation I suppose the age of the earth is irrelevant.
As I suspected the issue was not about the science, but rather just a way to use science to attack a faith. It is too bad you have to pit one against the other. I think that is making the same mistake you accuse others of. Science is not my god. God is my God. And His Church. Similarly theology is not my science. Though they can compliment each other nicely. But you have taken my God and my science and used them and distorted them for something they are not to be used for.🤷

The OP was an example of what children are taught about the earth. Now we are bringing an attack on religion about gay marriage and masturbation. :rolleyes:

Your agenda is showing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top