• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the earth only a few thousand years old?

nPeace

Veteran Member
@Deeje @Neuropteron @Hockeycowboy as you rightly pointed out, the scriptures do show that the day is not literal, from several angles.
Besides the ones you mentioned, there is Genesis 1:14-18 which makes a distinction between the literal day and the figurative day.

Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years.
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

So clearly, the day night cycle from the sun and moon were not connected in any way with the evening and morning.
If a person chooses to read it without taking the surrounding texts into consideration, then they will believe what they want.
I don't think there's is anything else one can do to change that.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
@Deeje @Neuropteron @Hockeycowboy as you rightly pointed out, the scriptures do show that the day is not literal, from several angles.
Besides the ones you mentioned, there is Genesis 1:14-18 which makes a distinction between the literal day and the figurative day.

Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years.
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

So clearly, the day night cycle from the sun and moon were not connected in any way with the evening and morning.
If a person chooses to read it without taking the surrounding texts into consideration, then they will believe what they want.
I don't think there's is anything else one can do to change that.

So basically what you are saying is there are biblical and scientific arguments both denying the young earther idea!
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Paraphrasing: Theists say that everything was created 6,000 years ago, but scientists say that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. If Carbon 14 didn't exist, then life didn't exist.

GOD'S TIME WAS NOT OUR TIME (TIME DEPENDS ON REFERENCE FRAMES--IT'S RELATIVE):

Time slows in strong gravitational fields (General Relativity) and at speeds close to the speed of light (Special Relativity). Thus, depending on where God was at the time of the Big Bang, and depending on how fast God was traveling, God's time and our time are different.

You should ask a physics professor (who specializes in relativity) to calculate how strong the gravity would have to have been for God to stand still and create the universe. Then ask how strong the gravity would have to have been if God was traveling at 1/10 the speed of light (then 2/10's, then 3/10's, etc).

NUCLIDES:

Elements are defined by their number of protons. Thus, hydrogen has 1, helium has 2, lithium has 3, etc.

The same element may have a variety of different numbers of neutrons (these elements are called nuclides, and may have different numbers of neutrons). Thus, carbon has 6 protons, but it may be carbon 12 (with 6 neutrons) or carbon 14 (with 8 neutrons). Atomic mass of a particular nuclide is the the sum of protons and neutrons.

When figuring the atomic mass of carbon, a weighted average is used of all of the nuclides of carbon found in nature. Thus, there is a certain amount of carbon 12, and a different amount of carbon 14 found in carbon in nature, so a weighted average is used to determine the atomic mass of carbon found in nature. Consequently, the atomic mass of carbon is 12.01 amu (not exactly 12).

YOUR CLAIM THAT LIFE WOULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT CARBON 14:

What are the Ingredients of Life? | Live Science

Life is made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus (link above). It doesn't require any particular nuclide of carbon. Thus, life could exist without carbon 14 by simply using carbon 12.

The amount of carbon 14 determines when the carbon was used in the living thing. Thus, an old piece of wood would have grown with whatever carbon nuclides were available at the time.

Once carbon bonds to a living thing, it stays put. Carbon 14 eventually breaks down (releasing radiation and two neutrons) to carbon 12. Thus, the ratio of Carbon 12 and carbon 14 determines how long ago something lived (this is carbon dating).
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
GOD'S TIME WAS NOT OUR TIME (TIME DEPENDS ON REFERENCE FRAMES--IT'S RELATIVE):

Time slows in strong gravitational fields (General Relativity) and at speeds close to the speed of light (Special Relativity). Thus, depending on where God was at the time of the Big Bang, and depending on how fast God was traveling, God's time and our time are different.

You should ask a physics professor (who specializes in relativity) to calculate how strong the gravity would have to have been for God to stand still and create the universe. Then ask how strong the gravity would have to have been if God was traveling at 1/10 the speed of light (then 2/10's, then 3/10's, etc).

NUCLIDES:

Elements are defined by their number of protons. Thus, hydrogen has 1, helium has 2, lithium has 3, etc.

The same element may have a variety of different numbers of neutrons (these elements are called nuclides, and may have different numbers of neutrons). Thus, carbon has 6 protons, but it may be carbon 12 (with 6 neutrons) or carbon 14 (with 8 neutrons). Atomic mass of a particular nuclide is the the sum of protons and neutrons.

When figuring the atomic mass of carbon, a weighted average is used of all of the nuclides of carbon found in nature. Thus, there is a certain amount of carbon 12, and a different amount of carbon 14 found in carbon in nature, so a weighted average is used to determine the atomic mass of carbon found in nature. Consequently, the atomic mass of carbon is 12.01 amu (not exactly 12).

YOUR CLAIM THAT LIFE WOULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT CARBON 14:

What are the Ingredients of Life? | Live Science

Life is made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus (link above). It doesn't require any particular nuclide of carbon. Thus, life could exist without carbon 14 by simply using carbon 12.

The amount of carbon 14 determines when the carbon was used in the living thing. Thus, an old piece of wood would have grown with whatever carbon nuclides were available at the time.

Once carbon bonds to a living thing, it stays put. Carbon 14 eventually breaks down (releasing radiation and two neutrons) to carbon 12. Thus, the ratio of Carbon 12 and carbon 14 determines how long ago something lived (this is carbon dating).
Seems as though you are describing God as a man, and needing to be inside his creation. I don't know why. Maybe you have and are describing a different God to the one refered to in the Bible, who holds the force of gravity in its place.
Job 26:7 - He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
GOD'S TIME WAS NOT OUR TIME (TIME DEPENDS ON REFERENCE FRAMES--IT'S RELATIVE):

Time slows in strong gravitational fields (General Relativity) and at speeds close to the speed of light (Special Relativity). Thus, depending on where God was at the time of the Big Bang, and depending on how fast God was traveling, God's time and our time are different.

You should ask a physics professor (who specializes in relativity) to calculate how strong the gravity would have to have been for God to stand still and create the universe. Then ask how strong the gravity would have to have been if God was traveling at 1/10 the speed of light (then 2/10's, then 3/10's, etc).

NUCLIDES:

Elements are defined by their number of protons. Thus, hydrogen has 1, helium has 2, lithium has 3, etc.

The same element may have a variety of different numbers of neutrons (these elements are called nuclides, and may have different numbers of neutrons). Thus, carbon has 6 protons, but it may be carbon 12 (with 6 neutrons) or carbon 14 (with 8 neutrons). Atomic mass of a particular nuclide is the the sum of protons and neutrons.

When figuring the atomic mass of carbon, a weighted average is used of all of the nuclides of carbon found in nature. Thus, there is a certain amount of carbon 12, and a different amount of carbon 14 found in carbon in nature, so a weighted average is used to determine the atomic mass of carbon found in nature. Consequently, the atomic mass of carbon is 12.01 amu (not exactly 12).

YOUR CLAIM THAT LIFE WOULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT CARBON 14:

What are the Ingredients of Life? | Live Science

Life is made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus (link above). It doesn't require any particular nuclide of carbon. Thus, life could exist without carbon 14 by simply using carbon 12.

The amount of carbon 14 determines when the carbon was used in the living thing. Thus, an old piece of wood would have grown with whatever carbon nuclides were available at the time.

Once carbon bonds to a living thing, it stays put. Carbon 14 eventually breaks down (releasing radiation and two neutrons) to carbon 12. Thus, the ratio of Carbon 12 and carbon 14 determines how long ago something lived (this is carbon dating).

You misunderstood the OP.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Do you use a methodological genre criticism or is it just a confirmation bias? If it is methodological, what is the method you use? What criticism do you apply? Please explain if you dont mind.
I am not so much of a scientist that I know the difference between this type of criticism and that. I basically taught science in the elementary schools, so I know what scientific method is and am familiar with the basic things that this methodology has uncovered. I try to stick to sources that are genuine science sources, such as journal articles and reputable magazines and books by scientists in their respective fields. For example, I consider the CDC a reputable source, and CRI to be a farce. If science is to be criticised, it is essentially by examining how well a study followed scientific method. Did the study use poor statistical methods for example so that their interpretation of data would not be reliable? That sort of thing.

Hope that was the sort of answer you were looking for.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I am not so much of a scientist that I know the difference between this type of criticism and that. I basically taught science in the elementary schools, so I know what scientific method is and am familiar with the basic things that this methodology has uncovered. I try to stick to sources that are genuine science sources, such as journal articles and reputable magazines and books by scientists in their respective fields. For example, I consider the CDC a reputable source, and CRI to be a farce. If science is to be criticised, it is essentially by examining how well a study followed scientific method. Did the study use poor statistical methods for example so that their interpretation of data would not be reliable? That sort of thing.

Hope that was the sort of answer you were looking for.

I did not speak of science at all.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
This came as a surprise for me, though I knew there are many people, especially Christians who believe the earth was somewhere like 6,000 years old due to the timelines provided in the Bible. The Bible does provide a time line and some have ventured to calculate the age of the earth. Well, it does seem like it is a 6000 plus year timeline. Though I know that this belief is there, unexpectedly in a conversation regarding Noah and the flood, a YEC doctrine came up again with carbon dating and the non-existence of carbon beyond a certain point. I am not a science major for sure, but as kids we all learn about carbon dating. So its pretty easy for anyone to understand it. Also, since carbon dating is extensively used in dating documents of old, it is a pretty well known subject. To make a claim like "Carbon 14 didnt exist" during a particular time (In this case 3000 years ago to be specific) one has to make the case that no living thing existed prior to that time. Wow. That was a surprise.

The method of carbon dating itself runs up to 60000 years in age. But the claim is the earth is 6000 years old. Also this is neglecting the other methodologies of radiometric dating.

Is the idea of a 6k year old earth absurd and absolutely unscientific? Or, do Christians who still have this idea have some solid foundation scientifically?
It is my belief that any Christian who claims that the Earth is only 6,000 years old is applying incorrect translation and interpretation to the Biblical text - because I don't see that when I read it.

I obviously don't get an exact number - but there is nothing that suggests that the Earth is that young.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You spoke of methodological criticism. Does that not have to do with analysis of scientific practice? If you meant something different, please elaborate.

Criticism is an enterprise. A practice. Not some scientific experiment. So dont bring red herrings like science into it.

I didnt say "methodological criticism". Please be kind enough to brush up on what New Testament criticism is.

Cheers.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
This came as a surprise for me, though I knew there are many people, especially Christians who believe the earth was somewhere like 6,000 years old due to the timelines provided in the Bible. The Bible does provide a time line and some have ventured to calculate the age of the earth. Well, it does seem like it is a 6000 plus year timeline. Though I know that this belief is there, unexpectedly in a conversation regarding Noah and the flood, a YEC doctrine came up again with carbon dating and the non-existence of carbon beyond a certain point. I am not a science major for sure, but as kids we all learn about carbon dating. So its pretty easy for anyone to understand it. Also, since carbon dating is extensively used in dating documents of old, it is a pretty well known subject. To make a claim like "Carbon 14 didnt exist" during a particular time (In this case 3000 years ago to be specific) one has to make the case that no living thing existed prior to that time. Wow. That was a surprise.

The method of carbon dating itself runs up to 60000 years in age. But the claim is the earth is 6000 years old. Also this is neglecting the other methodologies of radiometric dating.

Is the idea of a 6k year old earth absurd and absolutely unscientific? Or, do Christians who still have this idea have some solid foundation scientifically?

I believe those who believe in a recent creation are misinterpreting scripture. I believe the original creation does not have a time line or period. The creation of Adam and Eve who were not the first people on earth has a time line but it is not the original creation.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
I believe musician are not necessarily good theologians. In this case the theology is exceptionally bad.
Fair enough, ignore the video, stick to the facts. Frankly, here in 2021 I find it pathetic and rather depressing that anyone with even just a basic education believes, or even gives serious consideration to the ludicrous notion of the Earth being just a few thousand years old.
 
Last edited:

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I've never read the Christian bible, and it's irrelevant to my world view. Many young people in America are upstanding citizens, and they become doctors, honorable business folk, and more, despite the lack of guidance from some parents. In some cases, it is they who should be doing the guiding. But it's a vast diverse planet we live on, and it takes all kinds.

I wasn't sure what to make of this: "I've never read the Christian bible, and it's irrelevant to my world view." My view about books I've not read: I can't know whether one might be relevant to me until I read some of it. But perhaps you meant something else. Ok, on to the more interesting question:

I'm delighted by the good things Americans do.

But....I don't consider myself or any other American more valuable than any child in the world, from any country (all of them).... Not even when taking into account any good things any American has done....

If an American person is a wonderful doctor, for instance, universally admired by who know of him/her, generous and the salt of the Earth, I could not justify even 1 death in the world America has caused for his putative (claimed) benefit, for 'national security' or other such claims.

America of course is another nation, full of people that do some good things, and some bad things, like any other nation. We do have a wonderfully high ideal about being a nation of immigrants, or at least that was so before Trump made immigrants into a political issue by taking advantage of fear and xenophobia. Now, America no longer looks so good in that way. not anywhere nearly as good as Germany under Merkel has been in the last decade....and Biden hasn't yet reversed the American loss of ideal in that way (not yet) enough to really get back to where we were. He may though. I'll wait and see.
 
Top