Why Do We Insist on a Young Earth?

[ddgently]

So why do you dismiss the article as "pretty subjective with teh conclusion" and "way too much subjective opinion."

Because I don't agree with its premise...that's okay isn't it?

That's fine, but I'm unsure as to what premise you're disagreeing with.

Is it the premise that we should seek to understand what the words of Scripture meant to its first hearers?
Is it the premise that the time and place in which Scripture was written is important in how we understand its meaning?
Is it the premise that we should let Scripture interpret Scripture, that is (to take one example from the article) that if the sky is described as solid in one place, then when the sky is described using identical or similar language, we should assume the author means the same thing?

I found the article to generally be complementary to what I generally believe about God's divine action in creation. Though I do believe the earth, in some form, existed before Genesis 1:1. I've never heard any argument to contrary that makes any sense.

Thanks for engaging with the author's arguments.

God created Adam as a man, not an infant. So I do think it's possible that the Earth was also created "old". That should be clear as mud!

I think you'll find this premise untenable the more you dig into it. It requires you to believe in a very deceptive deity.

 

[Izdaari]

Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older.

Sure. Scientists are not infallible, and if they're any good, they never claim to be. But they do revise their theories and estimates as they get new data. That's how they get closer and closer to being right.

 

[christundivided]

Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older.

Sure. Scientists are not infallible, and if they're any good, they never claim to be. But they do revise their theories and estimates as they get new data. That's how they get closer and closer to being right.

Who you kidding? We're not talking about horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older.

Sure. Scientists are not infallible, and if they're any good, they never claim to be. But they do revise their theories and estimates as they get new data. That's how they get closer and closer to being right.

From what I understand, the study of the age of the earth started gaining steam in the 1700s.  So in just over 300 years, the earth aged 4.5 billion years.  Why do people say God couldn't or wouldn't create an old earth?  Scientists did it.  It took more than 6 days (a lot more... 300 years), but they still did it.

 

[T-Bone]

Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older.

Sure. Scientists are not infallible, and if they're any good, they never claim to be. But they do revise their theories and estimates as they get new data. That's how they get closer and closer to being right.

From what I understand, the study of the age of the earth started gaining steam in the 1700s.  So in just over 300 years, the earth aged 4.5 billion years.  Why do people say God couldn't or wouldn't create an old earth?  Scientists did it.  It took more than 6 days (a lot more... 300 years), but they still did it.

I love it

 

[Izdaari]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

 

[T-Bone]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

 

[rsc2a]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

 

[T-Bone]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

 

[rsc2a]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

Oh,  I know.  "Literal" interpretation is the only proper hermanautic...

...except where that method disagrees with our already determined through.

 

[theophilus]

Scientific data alone can't tell us the age of the earth.  We need historical information as well.  For example, one method scientists use is radiometric dating.  Radioactive elements break down and form other elements; one example is uranium breaking down to become lead.  The rate of the process is known so by measuring the amount of uranium and lead it is possible to determine how long it would take the lead to form.  It has been determined that this process would take over 4 billion years so the earth must be that old.

That is, the earth must be that old if all of the lead that exists is the product of radioactive decay.  If God created the earth fully developed and ready to be inhabited then much of the lead was part of the creation.

Before we can use science to measure the age of the earth we must first know the answer to a historical question: did God create the earth?  Scientific methods that tell us the earth is old begin by assuming the the answer to that question is "No".  The belief that the earth is old has become so firmly embedded in our culture that even people who believe the Bible is true accept it and try to interpret the Bible to conform to it.

There is scientific evidence that the earth can't be billions of years old but most people either don't know about it or try to explain it away.  You can find some of that evidence here:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

You can find more evidence at this site:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

 

[T-Bone]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

Oh,  I know.  "Literal" interpretation is the only proper hermanautic...

...except where that method disagrees with our already determined through.

Clearly you & I have a different view of literal...the text needs to be read, understood & applied as it is originally written... And it is pretty clear when that needs to bee done, Peter was not a rock nor are you to eat Jesus' body... But Adam was a man and Jesus did rise from the dead... See it's not that hard except for those who want to make it so.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Before we can use science to measure the age of the earth we must first know the answer to a historical question: did God create the earth?  Scientific methods that tell us the earth is old begin by assuming the the answer to that question is "No". 

Richard Lewontin (evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator) put it this way (emphasis mine):

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

In other words, the first assumption for scientists like Lewontin and countless others (although there are a few who remain objective) is that everything has a material cause.  When you start with that assumption, you can't even entertain the thought of a young earth -- not even as young as 500 million years old. 

If everything has a material cause, then evolution is true.  And if evolution is true, it couldn't have happened quickly -- it must have taken billions of years.  And if it must have taken billions of years, then the earth must be billions of years old.  THEN you start looking for evidence that it's billions of years old, and of course you're going to find it, since you will interpret all the evidence you find through the prior assumption that everything has a material cause. 

And you do this even when the evidence contradicts your assumption.  THAT contradictory evidence has some other explanation.  The sample was contaminated is a popular one.  "The reason we find C14 in coal and petroleum is because it must have been contaminated by some bacteria or other radioactive source underground."  They can't even entertain the possibility that the oil or coal simply isn't millions of years old. 

In short, scientists are guilty of the very thing they accuse religious/Christian people of doing.  If the evidence doesn't support their prior commitment to materialism, they make up fairy tales to explain away the contradiction.  Dark matter and dark energy are such fairy tales. 

Or confront one of the scientists with the question, "If those are galaxies as far as 13 billion light years away from us, meaning we're looking at space very near the time of the big bang, then how come those galaxies look just like the nearby galaxies we see?  How come it only took 0.X billion years for that galactic space to look like ours does after 13.X billion years?  Or, the reverse question, why does OUR space still look like it's only 0.X billion years old?" 

Uh, it's a  mystery. 

 

[ChuckBob]

I just have one question. Why do we care one way or the other?

ChuckBob

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I just have one question. Why do we care one way or the other?

ChuckBob

I don't particularly care, but I have heard someone make a good case for caring.  If ALL men evolved, then there was no original sin.  We simply evolved the way we are.  This makes God guilty of creating (evolving) sinful human beings, since sin didn't really enter the world through the first innocent man, Adam.  That throws a monkey wrench into the whole plan of sin and salvation. 

Now there are various scenarios that allow for evolution.  Perhaps men evolved, but Adam was a special case.  He was created and placed in a special garden.  That makes the plan of salvation a bit messy, since you now have two different "races" from different origins.  But I don't believe in macro-evolution, anyway. 

 

[rsc2a]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

Oh,  I know.  "Literal" interpretation is the only proper hermanautic...

...except where that method disagrees with our already determined through.

Clearly you & I have a different view of literal...the text needs to be read, understood & applied as it is originally written... And it is pretty clear when that needs to bee done, Peter was not a rock nor are you to eat Jesus' body... But Adam was a man and Jesus did rise from the dead... See it's not that hard except for those who want to make it so.

Right. So you should probably familiarize yourself with other ANE creation myths and ask the most important question one can consider, "What was the reason for writing this particular passage?" Looking at the cultural and historical context of the writing, it is evident that Gen 1-11 was not written to answer questions about the scientific basis for creation.

The reason I cite the particular example of John 6 is because of how often I hear YECers say you have to accept the plain meaning of the text...and how quickly they retreat from it when it becomes convenient for their own views. I am more than willing to be wrong on this and a host of other matters, but at least I'm striving for consistency in my hermeneutic, striving to change my own ideas when they are challenged by that hermeneutic instead of forcing changes in the meaning of Scripture, letting it mold me instead of the other way around.

 

[rsc2a]

I just have one question. Why do we care one way or the other?

ChuckBob

[size=12pt]good question...... but i think it;s because.... ultimately... those who claim the earth is billions of years old ... while claiming to be christian....and working hard to get christians in step with them.... usually end up turning that agreement around.. once it is made... and using it to discredit not only Genesis but all other parts of the bible as well...... what they bring to christianity is not truth or scientific discovery but a type of trojan horse.... it;s the old tactic of if you can;t beat them from the outside then join them... and do your work from the inside to weaken and destroy them......

Ah...the old lesbian, atheist, pagan deep-conditioned covert Satanists who only say that they believe the earth is old to turn everyone into pawns of the dark side explanation.

 

[T-Bone]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

Oh,  I know.  "Literal" interpretation is the only proper hermanautic...

...except where that method disagrees with our already determined through.

Clearly you & I have a different view of literal...the text needs to be read, understood & applied as it is originally written... And it is pretty clear when that needs to bee done, Peter was not a rock nor are you to eat Jesus' body... But Adam was a man and Jesus did rise from the dead... See it's not that hard except for those who want to make it so.

Right. So you should probably familiarize yourself with other ANE creation myths and ask the most important question one can consider, "What was the reason for writing this particular passage?" Looking at the cultural and historical context of the writing, it is evident that Gen 1-11 was not written to answer questions about the scientific basis for creation.

The reason I cite the particular example of John 6 is because of how often I hear YECers say you have to accept the plain meaning of the text...and how quickly they retreat from it when it becomes convenient for their own views. I am more than willing to be wrong on this and a host of other matters, but at least I'm striving for consistency in my hermeneutic, striving to change my own ideas when they are challenged by that hermeneutic instead of forcing changes in the meaning of Scripture, letting it mold me instead of the other way around.

I appreciate that...those who require literal in the sense that one must read everything according to the hard meaning of the word, when it is clear it is poetic or a metaphor...end up in the ridiculous.  I just don't believe the creation account reads or even infers that it is meant as a metaphor.

 

[christundivided]

Well, I do think God could have made it all in 6 literal 24hr. days. I just don't think He did. The Creation story has the feel of something that's meant to be metaphorical rather than literal.
'

Interesting verbiage "feels like a metaphor"...when does the feeling stop, and why does the feeling stop & where does the feeling come from.

See also John 6.

The two passages are hardly comparable...In John 6 Jesus is clearly using metaphorical language to describe His body & blood; not so clear in Genesis that is more a narrative.

Oh,  I know.  "Literal" interpretation is the only proper hermanautic...

...except where that method disagrees with our already determined through.

Clearly you & I have a different view of literal...the text needs to be read, understood & applied as it is originally written... And it is pretty clear when that needs to bee done, Peter was not a rock nor are you to eat Jesus' body... But Adam was a man and Jesus did rise from the dead... See it's not that hard except for those who want to make it so.

Right. So you should probably familiarize yourself with other ANE creation myths and ask the most important question one can consider, "What was the reason for writing this particular passage?" Looking at the cultural and historical context of the writing, it is evident that Gen 1-11 was not written to answer questions about the scientific basis for creation.

The reason I cite the particular example of John 6 is because of how often I hear YECers say you have to accept the plain meaning of the text...and how quickly they retreat from it when it becomes convenient for their own views. I am more than willing to be wrong on this and a host of other matters, but at least I'm striving for consistency in my hermeneutic, striving to change my own ideas when they are challenged by that hermeneutic instead of forcing changes in the meaning of Scripture, letting it mold me instead of the other way around.

I appreciate that...those who require literal in the sense that one must read everything according to the hard meaning of the word, when it is clear it is poetic or a metaphor...end up in the ridiculous.  I just don't believe the creation account reads or even infers that it is meant as a metaphor.

Metaphorical and allegorical speaks is rather easy to detect in the Scriptures. There is nothing in Gen1-11 that even gives a "hint' of allegorical or "metaphorical" speech. Those that heard it and passed it down through generation took it a literal fact. No prophet or apostle saw fit to correct their belief. That's good enough for me.

 

[wtyson]

Genesis 1 very clearly describes the creation. Six days, it is very simple. If you teach otherwise you are in error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk