Teaching the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old

[theCrow]

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 absolutely agree the world would be a better place if this was true.

 

[edwest2]

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).

I agree with you Joe. I don’t understand why this is brought up so often, and the sometimes less than charitable comments that are often part of the discussion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rico_S]

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.

There are those CAFer who do think so, and have argued in earlier threads, but no, so far no takers here.

I can’t speak for the OP, it isn’t important really. However, I have had a funny experience with it. We were out with some catholic couples and, I am not sure how, some topic related to the age of the earth came up and one of the wives piped up and declared as confident as can be that the earth was only several thousand years old and science is deceiving us. I had never run across someone who held this type of belief so I asked a lot of questions. Most of the couples said nothing in sort of an awkward silence. It was uncomfortable…not just for me, but clearly for everyone.

A lot of people aren’t good at science or math. That doesn’t make them hypocrites or bad people.

Totally agree, this person who expressed this isn’t a hypocrite or a bad person b/c of this belief. She is a fantastic person…loving, kind, charitable.

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 don’t think its that. I think that most educated people of the world may not understand how or why, and don’t really care, but have accepted as a general scientific, though not terribly important truth, that the earth is really really old–bc that is what has been taught (study will confirm that ). But those who hold the view that the earth is 6000 years old don’t do so necessarily out of ignorance, but do so b/c they think that this is a truth of their faith (discerned from the bible) and to believe otherwise is a rejection of faith. Does that make sense?

 

[edwest2]

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.

To my Catholic friends, we are taught what IS literal and what is a parable, allegory and so on. Opinions are not facts.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t think its that. I think that most educated people of the world may not understand how or why, and don’t really care, but have accepted as a general scientific, though not terribly important truth, that the earth is really really old–bc that is what has been taught (study will confirm that ). But those who hold the view that the earth is 6000 years old don’t do so necessarily out of ignorance, but do so b/c they think that this is a truth of their faith (discerned from the bible) and to believe otherwise is a rejection of faith. Does that make sense?

Sure, that makes sense. There is that contingent of people that equate the age of the earth to being revealed irrefutable dogma. To them, I would just say, if you don’t call me a heretic, I won’t call you one either.

 

[The_Question_1]

Sure, that makes sense. There is that contingent of people that equate the age of the earth to being revealed irrefutable dogma. To them, I would just say, if you don’t call me a heretic, I won’t call you one either.

Agreed, until it’s a dogma I really don’t have an opinion, as I said before it has no effect on my day to day life, but I did post on here in favor of the 6000 year old argument just to make a counter point to the OP.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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… )

No I did not mispeak. I agree as do most, that the earth is older than 6000 years, but what is interesting to me is your need to make this an issue so much that you see villains in windmills. It definitely speaks to the agenda that some have.

As far as I know a 6000 year old earth is bad science. In fact rarely is it considered science at all. Now, If I die and God says, “guess what? It really was 6000 years old” I’ll say, “wow, didn’t see that coming.” And I will be judged on my faith in Jesus and my works

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

]No I did not mispeak. I agree as do most, that the earth is older than 6000 years, but what is interesting to me is your need to make this an issue so much that you see villains in windmills. It definitely speaks to the agenda that some have.

As far as I know a 6000 year old earth is bad science. In fact rarely is it considered science at all. Now, If I die and God says, “guess what? It really was 6000 years old” I’ll say, “wow, didn’t see that coming.” And I will be judged on my faith in Jesus and my works. But what is it you study or do for a living that makes this something you seem to have a cause for?

4.54 billion is only good science insofar as it is the best we can do with the data we use to find these things out. To compare someone else who is not even using scientific methods or standards for arriving at a different conclusion is futile. And 20 years ago when the “good science” said about a half billion years earlier it was wrong. And 20 years from now when the science says 20 billion or 4.54321 or 1 billion, or 3.14159, or “42” that will be the standard.

Funny, not once did I support a 6000 year earth but in fact claimed the opposite. That it is probably not true. I did this several times. yet you seem to think “I don’t want to admit it” Because you are arguing this from a bias you have and so that bias leads you to error. That is a fundamental thread in all the sciences. You should know that.

When I peer review a paper, or an experiment, or when I sit on a publishing panel as a contractor for companies, what I think of a persons religion, personal life, or beliefs have zero to do with my analysis of the content of the paper. Patent or experiment in question. I have worked with fine international scientists. Some devout Muslims, Some Hindu, some Russian orthodox. Some Mormon, some atheist. All fine scientist with logical minds who’s work is impeccable and at the top of the field they are in. Never once has evolution or 6000 year old earth or transubstantiation come up. Perhaps in water cooler talk.

I know a plant pathologist that is a genius and works for one of the “big 5” who honestly believes that she will not do a Transformation in the Lab when she is on her period. She also consults horoscopes. She is a fine and educated scientist who’s work you will probably eat today. She makes a lot of money in science.

 

[theCrow]

]
Funny, not once did I support a 6000 year earth but in fact claimed the opposite. That it is probably not true. I did this several times. yet you seem to think “I don’t want to admit it” :

So is 2+3 probably not 4?

2+3 DEFINITELY is not 4.

So a 6000 year old earth is probably not true is false, it is DEFINITELY not true.

It’s ok, you can admit it

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So is 2+3 probably not 4?

2+3 DEFINITELY is not 4.

So a 6000 year old earth is probably not true is false, it is DEFINITELY not true.

It’s ok, you can admit it

you just don’t seem to get it.

 

[theCrow]

you just don’t seem to get it.

I agree that 6000 year old earth is bad science. Again, I know you don’t want to say that, but you kind of do want to, don’t you?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I agree that 6000 year old earth is bad science. Again, I know you don’t want to say that, but you kind of do want to, don’t you?

ok. It’s your crusade…

Is this a topic that might interest you for a career?

 

[Rico_S]

]but what is interesting to me is your need to make this an issue so much that you see villains in windmills. It definitely speaks to the agenda that some have.
:

Hahahaha. You crack me up. And here I thought I was participating in a thread and sharing my opinion, and trying to clarify others’…come to find out I have an agenda I am trying to push! Doh!!

 

[TMC]

Here is what I don’t understand about biblical literalism - maybe a literalist on this thread can explain it to me.

Some people use a “literal” interpretation of Genesis to support “Young Earth” theory, but virtually no one really supports a literal reading of Genesis 1. For example, no one believes that the sky is a clear dome holding back waters above it, or that the sun, moon and stars are lights set in that dome. If everyone agrees that this was either 1) figurative language, 2) an ancient (mis)understanding of the world, or 3) both; then why insist on a “literal” reading of other parts of Genesis 1? The same could be said of many other passages throughout Scripture that support a flat earth, geocentrism, etc. Why the focus on the “literal” in some portions of Genesis 1, but not in other parts of ancient Scripture?

FYI - I understand and agree with the many posters that have said a “literal” YEC reading of Genesis 1 is not required by the Church (or even necessarily supported by the Church), but I am hoping there are some literalists on this thread that can help me with my question.

 

[edwest2]

Here is what I don’t understand about biblical literalism - maybe a literalist on this thread can explain it to me.

Some people use a “literal” interpretation of Genesis to support “Young Earth” theory, but virtually no one really supports a literal reading of Genesis 1. For example, no one believes that the sky is a clear dome holding back waters above it, or that the sun, moon and stars are lights set in that dome. If everyone agrees that this was either 1) figurative language, 2) an ancient (mis)understanding of the world, or 3) both; then why insist on a “literal” reading of other parts of Genesis 1? The same could be said of many other passages throughout Scripture that support a flat earth, geocentrism, etc. Why the focus on the “literal” in some portions of Genesis 1, but not in other parts of ancient Scripture?

FYI - I understand and agree with the many posters that have said a “literal” YEC reading of Genesis 1 is not required by the Church (or even necessarily supported by the Church), but I am hoping there are some literalists on this thread that can help me with my question.

There are plenty of people who really support a literal interpretation of Genesis as far as the age of the earth. It’s been taught in (non-Catholic) Sunday Schools for hundreds of years. What I don’t get is why is this so important? I mean, it’s not literalists pushing their agenda here, it’s the other side of the coin who asks this question endlessly. I don’t get it.

If you’d like to talk about other parts of Scripture, I suggest starting another thread.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TMC]

There are plenty of people who really support a literal interpretation of Genesis as far as the age of the earth. It’s been taught in (non-Catholic) Sunday Schools for hundreds of years. What I don’t get is why is this so important? I mean, it’s not literalists pushing their agenda here, it’s the other side of the coin who asks this question endlessly. I don’t get it.

If you’d like to talk about other parts of Scripture, I suggest starting another thread.

Peace,
Ed

That is exactly my point - why must some portions of Genesis 1 be read literally, but not others? It seems to me that the so-called literalists are not really reading Genesis literally. They are simply insisting that their own interpretation is “literal,” while overlooking the obvious inconsistencies in their own position. My question is whether any “literalist” Young Earther can explain their position on that.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

ok. It’s your crusade…

Is this a topic that might interest you for a career?

I don’t know about the OP but I certainly can’t stand Young Earth types when they put one creation myth on a pedestal all the while demeaning other mythologies. They take the most fantastic of magical beasts and equate them to the animal equivalent of a neanderthal. As a comic book geek, movie buff, and genre-savvy marketer, it’s just really, really annoying.

 

[Richca]

You misunderstand the use of the word “theory” in science. Please read this.

Quote:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

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.

Man did not evolve from apes. No scientist makes that claim.

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.

According to the merriam webster dictionary, theory has basically three meanings:

1. an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
   2.an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
   3.the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Now, in my view, there are not a few scientific theories that pertain to the second definiton of theory above such as darwinian evolution, Einstein’s general theory of relativity and the curvature of space-time, big bang theory, possibly the strong and weak forces of atomic structure, etc. Now if science or some scientists want to treat darwinian evolution for example as a fact, though I would not disagree with possibly some form of evolution within a species or something of that nature, I simply disagree with them. I’m not convinced by a long shot that a few fossils found that are supposedly millions or billions of years old as well as millions or billions of years apart amounts to a fact of how life began on earth or the evolution of species including human beings from fish, chimpanzees, gorillas or whatever is imagined. This is not science, but science fiction and uncommon sensical. It is nothing but a theory in the strong sense of the word or the second definiton of theory above.

 

[Nacho45]

I don’t know about the OP but I certainly can’t stand Young Earth types when they put one creation myth on a pedestal all the while demeaning other mythologies. They take the most fantastic of magical beasts and equate them to the animal equivalent of a neanderthal. As a comic book geek, movie buff, and genre-savvy marketer, it’s just really, really annoying.

Unlike what you just did to Creationists. What annoys me is when someone attacks a specific group for their behavior while conducting the same behavior. All anyone must do is disprove the Creation story.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

All anyone must do is disprove the Creation story.

Oh you mean like give them a standard high school biology textbook? Or would you prefer the ones they use in elementary?

 

[Nacho45]

Oh you mean like give them a standard high school biology textbook? Or would you prefer the ones they use in elementary?

They disprove the Creation story? Odd as I didn’t find that even in the college text books. Where exactly? If it is so simply disproven, perhaps you would be kind enough to place that information here. You can use the elementary biology text if you like, by I imagine that would be difficult as no text has ever disproven the creation account found in Genesis.