How old is the earth?

[tonychanyt]

Occam's razor is not an absolute rule and does not guarantee that the simplest explanation is always the correct one. Scientific inquiry often involves balancing simplicity with other factors, such as explanatory power, predictive ability, and empirical evidence. Scientists must consider multiple criteria and evaluate the overall coherence and fit of an explanation to the available evidence.

Therefore, while Occam's razor is commonly employed in scientific reasoning, it is not solely based on science itself, but rather it reflects a broader philosophical and logical principle that is widely applied in various fields of inquiry, including science.

My basic approach is to use the Scientific method to show that the Bible is true and accurate. Of course, not everything can be proven true. We accept some things by faith. There is nothing in the Bible that can be shown not to be true when properly understood. Science can help us in our translation and interpretation of the Bible.

Right.

Do you put any weight on Occam's Razor?

 

[Diamond7]

I think he did.

You do not think the earth has circled the sun 4.5 billion times?

We are told that God "declares the end from the beginning, and ancient times from what is still to come." Isaiah 46:10. Our perspective is different. We are told time is relative and based on our viewpoint. I know at 71 looking back is a lot different than life was at 7 looking forward.

Most everything is an object lesson with something to be learned from it.

A parable is a type of storytelling used to convey moral or spiritual lessons or to illustrate a specific point. While parables may contain elements that are inspired by real-life situations or observations, they are generally not intended to be understood as literal or historically accurate accounts. Instead, parables use fictional or hypothetical scenarios to communicate deeper truths or teachings.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The point is not whether or not God could create the earth to look thousands, millions or billions of years old. The question is whether or not he did. He could also have perhaps covered the earth with water, and then a year later evaporated it all into space. The question is whether he did. Looking for a natural cause of existence or other Biblical miracles (like the many theories about the plagues of Egypt) is folly if they are truly supernatural miracles.

However; logic would tell you that if you did something miraculous, why would you want to remove, alter or otherwise obscure the evidence to deliberately confuse your creation. Therefore, the focus on proving the Bible is not the determination of what natural phenomena caused the miracle, but what evidence was left behind.

To understand the evidence, you need to understand the Bible, and the Bible leaves many clues about things that aren't stated directly. Is a creative day 24 hours long? Was the seventh day of rest 24 hours long?

Genesis 2:2,3 - "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

If it was a single day, then why do we read in Psalms 95:11 regarding the generation of the Israelites that left Egypt.

"So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’”

This is over 2500 years after the time that God rested. If this rest was still happening then the day of rest had not ended yet. You may argue that the "rest" in this verse is different from Genesis, but this is elaborated on in most of Hebrews 4 (after quoting Psalms in chapter 3). The entire chapter is a good read on the subject, but here's a snippet from verse 9-11:

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience."

Now we are 4000+ years from creation. If God's "day" of rest is over 4000 years long, then it is logical to conclude that the "days" of creation are longer than 24 hours, as is the "day" that God made the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 2:4)

Entering into God’s rest is referring to resting from our toils and struggles, basically it’s a reference to entering into heaven. I would also point out that the verses that refer to God’s rest at creation refer to His rest in the past tense not the present tense as if He is still resting.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You do not think the earth has circled the sun 4.5 billion times?

We are told that God "declares the end from the beginning, and ancient times from what is still to come." Isaiah 46:10. Our perspective is different. We are told time is relative and based on our viewpoint. I know at 71 looking back is a lot different than life was at 7 looking forward.

Most everything is an object lesson with something to be learned from it.

A parable is a type of storytelling used to convey moral or spiritual lessons or to illustrate a specific point. While parables may contain elements that are inspired by real-life situations or observations, they are generally not intended to be understood as literal or historically accurate accounts. Instead, parables use fictional or hypothetical scenarios to communicate deeper truths or teachings.

The creation account in Genesis isn’t a parable, it’s a record of a miraculous event. We have no way of knowing how many times the earth has circled the sun.

 

[Diamond7]

Do you put any weight on Occam's Razor?

My doctors tell me I am a complicated and complex person.

The use of probability and probabilistic statements is fundamental to fields such as statistics, physics, biology, and many other scientific disciplines. It allows scientists to quantify uncertainty, make predictions based on available data, and evaluate the strength of evidence.

 

[Diamond7]

We have no way of knowing how many times the earth has circled the sun.

What we know is based on Radiometric & Zircon Dating, which has to be calibrated. I can understand why people have a problem with that. But they are not able to come up with anything any better. We do deal with probability and possibility.

The length of the day is more complicated because the Earth is slowing down in direct proportion to the moon moving away from the earth. There is also a wobble effect when the Earth comes close enough to another planet to be affected by its gravity.

 

[tonychanyt]

You do not think the earth has circled the sun 4.5 billion times?

I don't know. What do the scientists say?

 

[tonychanyt]

My doctors tell me I am a complicated and complex person.

The use of probability and probabilistic statements is fundamental to fields such as statistics, physics, biology, and many other scientific disciplines. It allows scientists to quantify uncertainty, make predictions based on available data, and evaluate the strength of evidence.

I weigh everything. See A Denomination-Free, Disciplined, Logical, and Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

 

[BNR32FAN]

What we know is based on Radiometric & Zircon Dating, which has to be calibrated. I can understand why people have a problem with that. But they are not able to come up with anything any better. We do deal with probability and possibility.

The length of the day is more complicated because the Earth is slowing down in direct proportion to the moon moving away from the earth. There is also a wobble effect when the Earth comes close enough to another planet to be affected by its gravity.

Ok but we don’t know what the earth was subjected to during the creation process. So it’s still plausible that their data is incorrect. They’re limited to assuming that certain conditions either remained constant or changing conditions remained changing at a constant rate. There’s a ton of speculation that goes into those predictions and they’re hypothetical in the sense that they have to base those predictions on if X, Y, and Z remained constant then we can conclude that the earth is X amount of years old. If X, Y, or Z did not remain constant then it can throw
off their predictions dramatically. They’re always based on “if what we believe is true then according to this information the earth is X amount of years old.”

 

[Diamond7]

Ok but we don’t know what the earth was subjected to during the creation process.

When I was a child I had a dream where God showed me the universe is expanding. The age of the universe is based on the speed of light and how far that light has traveled. They use the same math they use for GPS today.

The people who do not accept a 14 billion year old universe still say that God must have created the Universe with an appearance of age.

 

[Diamond7]

So it’s still plausible that their data is incorrect.

The half-life of facts is around 50 years. Something new comes along to give us a better understanding.

Proverbs 3:19 The LORD by His wisdom has founded the earth; By His understanding, He has established the heavens.

We are given wisdom and understanding so we can know what God has done. Even if "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3)

 

[BNR32FAN]

When I was a child I had a dream where God showed me the universe is expanding. The age of the universe is based on the speed of light and how far that light has traveled. They use the same math they use for GPS today.

The people who do not accept a 14 billion year old universe still say that God must have created the Universe with an appearance of age.

But the distance we can see is much farther than how old they predict the universe is. They predict the universe is 13 billion years old but we can see 46 billion light years away.

 

[Diamond7]

But the distance we can see is much farther than how old they predict the universe is. They predict the universe is 13 billion years old but we can see 46 billion light years away.

According to our current understanding of the universe, the expansion of space itself can cause objects to move away from each other at speeds greater than the speed of light. This phenomenon is known as the expansion of the universe.

It's important to note that this expansion does not violate the fundamental principle of special relativity, which states that no object with mass can travel through space faster than the speed of light. However, the expansion of space is a different concept. It refers to the stretching of the fabric of space itself, causing galaxies and other cosmic structures to move away from each other.

 

[tonychanyt]

According to our current understanding of the universe, the expansion of space itself can cause objects to move away from each other at speeds greater than the speed of light. This phenomenon is known as the expansion of the universe.

It's important to note that this expansion does not violate the fundamental principle of special relativity, which states that no object with mass can travel through space faster than the speed of light. However, the expansion of space is a different concept. It refers to the stretching of the fabric of space itself, causing galaxies and other cosmic structures to move away from each other.

Right. In fact, 1 second after the big bang, the universe expanded to be about 50 light-years in size.

 

[Diamond7]

Right. In fact, 1 second after the big bang, the universe expanded to be about 50 light-years in size.

Max Planck divides that first second into one ten-million-trillion-trillion-trillioneths of a second. During the Planck era, the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state, where the four fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) were believed to be unified.

 

[Diamond7]

There’s a ton of speculation that goes into those predictions and they’re hypothetical in the sense that they have to base those predictions

There is a difference between science and science fiction. My son is a computer engineer and he is very good at creating a formula to take something complex and make it easy to understand.

Science relies on rigorous methodology, peer review, and evidence-based reasoning to make predictions and advance our understanding of the natural world. Scientific predictions are based on empirical data, mathematical models, and the best available evidence at a given time. While scientific predictions may not always be perfect, the scientific process allows for continual refinement and improvement based on new data and discoveries.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 1:1 says the heavens and the earth. Some people think that the creative days began on verse 2 and others on verse 1. If it is verse 1, then the rocks on earth cannot be older than the heavens. If it is verse 2, the earth could be much older than the life on it. Either way it is reasonable to conclude that the earth's creation included the rocks on it.

Vs 1 is a summary of all of it.
Vs 2 is intro to the back ground conditions here - just before day 1.
vs 3 is the start of day 1 - and begins with "an God said"...

So this leaves the universe being older than life on earth and it may also lead to the rocks on Earth being older than life on Earth.

Of course they are not embryonic, but they don't have to be the equivalent of a biological 24 year old either.

They have to be biologically as tall as an adult.
They have to be mentally as capable as an adult because in the text of Gen 3 - they are left alone on this planet and expected to 'Behave themselves" as man and wife. That is a rather mature human, not two infants laying in a pool of water.
If you met them you would not say "you look like you are biologically 2 days old"

Just accepting the text on the face of it.

It could be a "Blue Lagoon" age scenario meaning 14-16. People are attracted sexually to potential partners much earlier than 24, and can have children.

They are one or two days old when left alone on the planet and expected to behave well as man and wife alone on planet Earth. Trying to stretch the story against the natural reading of the text is not logical. Moses is writing the text for the Hebrews at the foot of Sinai and it is pretty clear as to the intent he is giving his readers.

Regardless of what age Adam and Eve looked, they, for all intents and purposes, their experience was no more than an infant

Not true. They had language, they had the ability to relate as husband and wife, they could worship God etc.
You are forcing your views into the text that is written to be accepted as it is and not bent to some unworkable oddity.

, and their mental development is not demonstrated in the narrative to be anything beyond juvenile.

Not true. Not only are the capable but you seem them in argument with Satan himself in Gen 3.

bending the text to the oddity of your scenario does not fit the text. Too much eisegesis in your suggestions.

Seth was born when they were at a documented age of 130, so they had definitely enough time to mature before having children.

More than enough time ... 130 years.

It's based on mathematical modeling, and known scientific principles. The modeling is very accurate, but what is not clear is the beginning state of most of these processes.

models are just that... models and faulty assumptions used for the baseline is the old "garbage-in, garbage-out" problem so well defined and proven in real life,

As tonychanyt demonstrated, they can plot a course to Mars remotely using known mathematics. They can work backwards with similar models, but eventually you get to a singularity state

too many assumptions in "working backwards".

IT is like saying I see you driving west -- if I work that backwards you started your trip in China.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a difference between science and science fiction. My son is a computer engineer and he is very good at creating a formula to take something complex and make it easy to understand.

Science relies on rigorous methodology, peer review, and evidence-based reasoning to make predictions and advance our understanding of the natural world. Scientific predictions are based on empirical data, mathematical models, and the best available evidence at a given time. While scientific predictions may not always be perfect, the scientific process allows for continual refinement and improvement based on new data and discoveries.

real science is based on the ability to reproduce something and to test it where it can be reproduced in any location on planet Earth.

There is NO real science showing that bacteria turn into eukaryote amoebas given enough time and chance... no not even with over 80,000 generations of direct observation in the case of the long running evolution experiment.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is a difference between science and science fiction. My son is a computer engineer and he is very good at creating a formula to take something complex and make it easy to understand.

Science relies on rigorous methodology, peer review, and evidence-based reasoning to make predictions and advance our understanding of the natural world. Scientific predictions are based on empirical data, mathematical models, and the best available evidence at a given time. While scientific predictions may not always be perfect, the scientific process allows for continual refinement and improvement based on new data and discoveries.

Ok but my point was that a young earth is still plausible.

 

[GenemZ]

How old is the earth?​

No one knows..... But some can know how old it is not.

Young earth creationists are their own worst enemy.

They fail to terribly understand the Hebrew of Genesis in depth which allows those who oppose the Word of God to feel free to declare open season for making up high sounding stuff about the fossil evidence that they have to be subjective and clever with...