The age of the world according to Protestants

[callador]

While I agree that we should challenge the theories concerning the Earth’s proper date, it seems to me that there is still a mountain of evidence that supports this claim: “The Earth is greater than 10,000yrs old.”

Again, disagreement is the point behind science. We challenge our theories to make them more exact. No one is saying that you have to accept a particular theory at face value. However, to say that ALL of the evidence is somehow flawed is a borderline conspiracy theory. There is more than just carbon dating being challenged here. Essentially, some are saying that all of our scientific measurements have zero accurancy. If that is case, what about some of our Newtonian Constants? If I say things do not fall at a constant rate, am I right? Even if science can prove otherwise? We have to have some “faith” is our skills as human beings.

PS: Sorry for the confusion, but I was just mentioning some of the ways I have heard creationists attempt to debunk science. I do not agree with the aged earth theory, I just mentioned it as something I saw. So the whole "attacking the theory / facts, were just some theories I threw out there Take Care.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So are you mad because you dont understand the methods behind the dating or because no one is willing to accept the idea of a invisible being getting bored one day and poofing existance all the while hiding false evidence to mess with us?

What do you mean “mess with us”, your a nihilist, things are going according to plan! Technically isnt your truth/desire to have a stronger being inflict pain/punishment on you?

While I agree that we should challenge the theories concerning the Earth’s proper date, it seems to me that there is still a mountain of evidence that supports this claim: “The Earth is greater than 10,000yrs old.”

Again, disagreement is the point behind science. We challenge our theories to make them more exact. No one is saying that you have to accept a particular theory at face value. However, to say that ALL of the evidence is somehow flawed is a borderline conspiracy theory. There is more than just carbon dating being challenged here. Essentially, some are saying that all of our scientific measurements have zero accurancy. If that is case, what about some of our Newtonian Constants? If I say things do not fall at a constant rate, am I right? Even if science can prove otherwise? We have to have some “faith” is our skills as human beings.

PS: Sorry for the confusion, but I was just mentioning some of the ways I have heard creationists attempt to debunk science. I do not agree with the aged earth theory, I just mentioned it as something I saw. So the whole "attacking the theory / facts, were just some theories I threw out there Take Care.

There is a big difference between the earth is greater than 4 Billion years old and the earth is greater than 10,000 years old, while the same issues regarding the extrapolation of data still exists I think they could make a far better case for a magnitude of 10k. The driving agenda behind much of that billion year old stuff is to give credence to the THEORY that we evolved from a speck to a blob to an ape to a human, the simplest way to explain all that is to say it took billions of years to happen. From this agenda they have to work backwards (ie reverse engineer) and come up with “science” to prove it.

I never said all evidence is somehow flawed, I said a certain aspect of so called “science” is flawed, specifically in regards to calculation of the earths age on outrageous magnitudes. There is tons of true science out there, and it is so because the experiments and their results are easily verifiable. For example you mentioned the fact things fall at a constant rate, true science has proven this through verifiable experimentation/results.

Again, disagreement is the point behind science. We challenge our theories to make them more exact. No one is saying that you have to accept a particular theory at face value.

This is a fair claim and I believe true science works under these conditions. However the “no one is saying that you have to accept a particular theory” sounds good on the surface but in reality those with an agenda dont operate that way, the school textbooks and media only present one very biased side of the equation…and youll have a hard time passing the class or getting a job should you voice any sort of reasonble objection.

 

[Giovanni]

I have to admit, this argument about creation, the earth’s age and all these things we don’t really have an answer for, is getting, or has gotten old, can’t anyone with a 3rd grade education, and a mustard seed worth of faith look at the big picture, and go on with life, and pursue that which is most precious to our Lord, and that is our love for Him.
The men who wrote down the story of creation in Genesis, where men of great faith, who knew only that their God, our God was and is an omnipotent God, and could only interprete creation based on the only thing they knew, God must have done it in six days, based on what must have been created each day.
That is not to say God can’t do that, but the science that God gave us and we now know, tells us that creation and evolution took many many years, with God being the architect of everything that is. So let’s just leave it at that, and stop this silly argument.

 

[runandsew]

The only thing that bothers me about all this is that people discredit and throw out perfectly good science, due their literalistic interpretation of the creation account in the Bible.

 

[Damascus]

The only thing that bothers me about all this is that people discredit and throw out perfectly good science, due their literalistic interpretation of the creation account in the Bible.

And likewise people discredit the Bible based on “perfectly good science” and make that an excuse for jettisoning the whole thing.

It is bothersome, you are right.

So what to do? Me, being a Catholic I go with what the Church says.

Thats what we do in all cases of confusion. And since the Church says who cares what science says in regard to this it wont change a thing, I say OK.

Fine with me! Saves me from tying myself up in knots trying to agonize over this whole thing and get on to something more worthwhile, like the new Bond Movie or something…

 

[runandsew]

I agree.
Both extremes are wrong in my opinion.
But since the Church doesn’t officially teach how old the earth is, I tend to go with science on this one, but I have faith that God is behind it all. If someday there is irrefutable proof on evolution, or if space aliens show up at our capital some day, what will happen to the faith of those who read the creation account in a literalistic manner?
But I still think that 6-24 hour days is a possibility, I just believe that the creation account is written to tell us why God created us, and not necessarily a scientific treatise.

 

[Loginus]

The only thing that bothers me about all this is that people discredit and throw out perfectly good science, due their literalistic interpretation of the creation account in the Bible.

Agreed.

What matter in any good book is the message. Details are to set up the msg and convey it in a coherent way. Ppl should focus on the msg of the bible instead of details.

 

[rbarcia]

Your belief is not necessary for it to be true. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Here is a good start.

talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Peace

Tim

None of these links prove anything, they make tons of assumptions to prove their theory.

God created a fully grown man in Adam. He was not a child. Let’s say Adam was created to be the equivalence of a 30 year old man. Then using this method, God took 30 years to make Adam?

No, God created the man from the dust on the ground, and Adam was already aged. As such, with the rest of the creation initially created during the 6 days. God created trees already grown and aged, elements already aged.

**

Gen 2

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

**

He created them with spoken words.

**

Psalm 33

6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deep in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

**

You can rationalize you believe in both and they do not contradict, but you are fooling yourself. One says God created the world in 6 days, with spoken words. Evolution does not.

To believe in evolution is to deny the power of the Word, which is Christ.

**

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

**

 

[Loginus]

None of these links prove anything, they make tons of assumptions to prove their theory.

God created a fully grown man in Adam. He was not a child. Let’s say Adam was created to be the equivalence of a 30 year old man. Then using this method, God took 30 years to make Adam?

No, God created the man from the dust on the ground, and Adam was already aged. As such, with the rest of the creation initially created during the 6 days. God created trees already grown and aged, elements already aged.

**

Gen 2

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

**

He created them with spoken words.

**

Psalm 33

6 By the word of the LORD** the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deep in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

You can rationalize you believe in both and they do not contradict, but you are fooling yourself. One says God created the world in 6 days, with spoken words. Evolution does not.

To believe in evolution is to deny the power of the Word, which is Christ.

**

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.**

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Thats cute and all, but how to disuade the mountains of evidence. Surely your only proof cant be because a single book written 2000-3500yrs ago says different…

 

[rbarcia]

Thats cute and all, but how to disuade the mountains of evidence. Surely your only proof cant be because a single book written 2000-3500yrs ago says different…

There is more evidence to support the world is flat. There is no mountains of evidence, just theories with mountains of assumptions.

It is like a court declaring a criminal guilty based on only an assumption that the person on trial could have been there.

Everything you read from science journals is based on faith. Even things in history books you accept by faith. You accept certain things as evidence based on someone else’s writings.

You accept scientific findings of an earth that is millions of years old from writing that are not even 100 hundred years old.

So why not accept them from a book that was inspired by God.

 

[rbarcia]

Rbarcia, you cant just disagree with evolution (of any form) just because the Bible says so. If you want to find real answers you need to assume the bible is wrong and look at scientific data objectively and come to your own conclusions accordingly.

Why do I need to assume the Bible is wrong? Why can’t I assume evolution is wrong?

As for quoting Genisis, it gets tricky understanding it. In some of the earliest renditions it seems to suggest YHWH (God) is king of other gods, the snake is just a snake, adam represents ALL of mankind and not a singular person, Eve represents life etc.

What early renditions are you talking about? Can you point me to this evidence, or do I have to take your word (about a few days old) as evidence?

For as nice as the bible may be, you need to remember it was written a long time ago and the authors were very ignorant by todays standards.

I think you need to realize the Bible is more than nice, it is the word of God.

 

[rbarcia]

There is more evidence to support the world is flat. There is no mountains of evidence, just theories with mountains of assumptions.

It is like a court declaring a criminal guilty based on only an assumption that the person on trial could have been there.

Everything you read from science journals is based on faith. Even things in history books you accept by faith. You accept certain things as evidence based on someone else’s writings.

You accept scientific findings of an earth that is millions of years old from writing that are not even 100 hundred years old.

So why not accept them from a book that was inspired by God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I just like to a comment.

A Catholic Apologetic said this once.

The Bible is not a book of science. It does explain that the universe was created by divine being, this being God.

Science itself can reveal truth but is limited to the observable material world.

IMO, I don’t think science will ever contradict the Bible since God is the truth. Truth does not contradict truth.

Science is ok by mean as long as it does not deny that the world was a created world by a divine being, and it was not created out of nothing from nothing.

God created the world from nothing.

 

[PaulDupre]

My son and I were discussing this on Sunday. We both allow for evolution so long as it does not deny God as creator.

He reminded me that Genesis tells us that we are made from dirt (Gen 2:7). So why is it that people get upset that we could have come from monkeys? Once you’ve been dirt, there’s very little else to get insulted about.

God bless,
Paul

 

[Catholic_Dude]

My son and I were discussing this on Sunday. We both allow for evolution so long as it does not deny God as creator.

He reminded me that Genesis tells us that we are made from dirt (Gen 2:7). So why is it that people get upset that we could have come from monkeys? Once you’ve been dirt, there’s very little else to get insulted about.

God bless,
Paul

Thats because the monkey theory is pure invention, it was invented to undermine the concept God created man and rather we evolved from a blob to a monkey to man. We cant look today and come up with this theory from observation, this was a pure invention that found its way into the fact section of the textbooks.

Also it undermines the fact God created a human soul in His image…if people claim we came from monkeys (which dont have the same soul as humans and are not created in God’s image) what they are saying is that there were semi evolved men who didnt quite have souls either, infact at that point where do we draw the line between full human and half human half monkey? Also the same evolutionary theory states even man must evlove, further undermining God’s creation of man and plan of salvation.

The funny thing is monkeys are still around and there isnt any half-evolved monkey-men around so its like the evolution stopped and split into two categories of monkey and men.

Man being created from dirt simply means he was made from the earthly elements.

 

[catholic2]

There is more evidence to support the world is flat. There is no mountains of evidence, just theories with mountains of assumptions.

It is like a court declaring a criminal guilty based on only an assumption that the person on trial could have been there.

Everything you read from science journals is based on faith. Even things in history books you accept by faith. You accept certain things as evidence based on someone else’s writings.

You accept scientific findings of an earth that is millions of years old from writing that are not even 100 hundred years old.

So why not accept them from a book that was inspired by God.

This deserves an Amen!

 

[rbarcia]

There is more evidence to support the world is flat. There is no mountains of evidence, just theories with mountains of assumptions.

It is like a court declaring a criminal guilty based on only an assumption that the person on trial could have been there.

Everything you read from science journals is based on faith. Even things in history books you accept by faith. You accept certain things as evidence based on someone else’s writings.

You accept scientific findings of an earth that is millions of years old from writing that are not even 100 hundred years old.

So why not accept them from a book that was inspired by God.

I just like to a comment.

A Catholic Apologetic said this once.

The Bible is not a book of science. It does explain that the universe was created by divine being, this being God.

Science itself can reveal truth but is limited to the observable material world.

IMO, I don’t think science will ever contradict the Bible since God is the truth. Truth does not contradict truth.

Science is ok by mean as long as it does not deny that the world was a created world by a divine being, and it was not created out of nothing from nothing.

God created the world from nothing.

I am not against science. The word science means knowledge. God made science. But not all that man categorizes as science is science.

The Bible is a book of science:

http://home.nj.rr.com/rbarcia/images/ScienceBaby.jpg

 

[rbarcia]

1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).
4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).
5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).
6. Job 38:19 asks, “Where is the way where light dwells?” Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a “way,” traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: “When the morning stars sang together…”
8. “Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth” (Time, Dec. 1976).
9. Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: “In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.” The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.

 

[rbarcia]

1. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled,” and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”
2. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called “behemoth.” Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, “He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.” In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.
3. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean” (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.”
4. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
5. “During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine).” Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, “Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” (11:3 continued)

 

[PaulDupre]

Thats because the monkey theory is pure invention, it was invented to undermine the concept God created man and rather we evolved from a blob to a monkey to man. We cant look today and come up with this theory from observation, this was a pure invention that found its way into the fact section of the textbooks.

Also it undermines the fact God created a human soul in His image…if people claim we came from monkeys (which dont have the same soul as humans and are not created in God’s image) what they are saying is that there were semi evolved men who didnt quite have souls either.

It means no such thing. The way that God created our physical bodies has nothing to do with the way He created our immortal spirits. The catechism says that so long as we do not deny that God created both our bodies and our immortal spirits, the method He used to create our physical bodies is open to scientific inquiry.

Pope John Paul II stated that, within the context of evolution, the account of Adam and Eve represents “an actual ontological event”. That is, that Adam and Eve were two real people who were the first to be created in the image and likeness of God - that is, the first to be truly human with free will instead of mere instinct. If Pope John Paul II accepted the possibility of evolution as the means by which God created our bodies (but not our spirits), I don’t see how anyone can cast dispersions on my Catholicity for also acknowledging the same possibility.

God bless,
Paul