Age of the earth: 6,000 years or 4 billion years?

Tamara:

Now swaying and debating when life starts.. thats my cup of tea

 Fair enough...I've just never heard anyone else believe this. I think I understand a little better-- although I don't think your logic totally works,  

AirForceWife&MommyX4:

god making the earth old sounds pretty out there to me...but atleast it's an attempt to try to blend creationism and evolution together where usually all I hear from religious zellots is that evolution doesn't exist, so even as wacky as it sounds to hear that god made it old I kinda like it.

I think you have to realize that some of these 'zellots' do in fact believe that life can adapt over time through survival of the fittest, but that they don't believe that man came from a bacteria and then later an ape (classic evolution theory).  This is a completely reasonable belief if you believe that God can do anything.  This is why I have no problem reconciling the two.

Danna:

but that they don't believe that man came from a bacteria and then later an ape (classic evolution theory).

Evolutionary theory does not believe that man came from an ape.  It is that apes and man have a shared ancestor and followed two different evolutionary paths.  Men have never been apes, apes have never been men.  Although some men do, in fact, act rather ape-like, what with all the scratching and inapporpriate adjusting and eating crumbs off their shirts...

where are you girl?:

although I don't think your logic totally works,  

Gee thanks

I believe in God but I believe we have evolved...my mother in law refuses to believe that there were ever cave people or neandrathal (spelling??? sorry) because she thinks they are ugly and god would not have made us ugly since she says god made us to look like him...atleast I think that's how she put it.

I think god or some higher being started the whole process billions of years ago, I don't believe in the bible, I think that was writtem by men to put women in "their place". The whole old testiment is like a comic book to me and anytime I ask my mother in law about it she says god changed his mind, like the part about women not being allowed in the house while on their cycles and things like that, it is just funny to me.

Tamara:

where are you girl?:

although I don't think your logic totally works,  

Gee thanks

I understand why you would think the earth is 100,000 years old, given your idea that he created it the same time he created humans...But, I still don't understand why it would have to be old just because the people he created were old (i.e. adults). All I'm saying...sorry it came out offensively. I really didn't mean to offend.

I apologize for making it seems that science and religion cannot both exist together.  It was not really what I meant and I can see how the 2 could be "meshed" together so that both have a place.

Say that one hour for God equals 1,000,000yrs for mankind.  So that is a lot of time that God would have to create the earth and man all in the same day (in God's time). Right?  I think it is the timeframe that is all relative. Afterall, when the earth was made I am sure that the length of a day or even what was considered a day was different than it is now.  With this theroy applied then it is completely possible for the earth to still be around 4 billion years old and for God (or a higher being) to have created it.

**I am not saying that these are my beliefs, but this is a way for me to understand both science and religion at the same time.

Tamara:

So God made man on the first day.  He didn't make them babies, but made them adults, just like he made them old he made the earth old. 

Actually God made man on the 6th day.  But that's not what we are debating.  But Adam and Eve had to be able to take care of themselves so they couldn't have been babies, but I wouldn't say they were old...probably just barely adult age. 

I think your "God made the earth old" theory goes along kind of with what I said earlier about God taking matter from other places to create the earth with.  Because the matter he took from other places had to be old it couldn't be new, and that's why it possibly had dinosaur bones and stuff in it. 

I just wanted to add one more thing I've been thinking about.  And that's that we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before they both ate the forbidden fruit and got kicked out.  They could have been in there for like 5 billion years...who knows?  Obviously you have to believe in Adam and Eve for this to even apply.

Oh and one more thing, pertaining to the comment about Cavemen.  I keep seeing these shows on the History channel or somewhere about how Cavemen and regular men existed together as two different species that had nothing to do with one another.  I don't really follow it.  But is it possible that somewhere along the way God cursed a group of regular men and made them into cavemen for disobeying?  

lissa:

Danna:

but that they don't believe that man came from a bacteria and then later an ape (classic evolution theory).

Evolutionary theory does not believe that man came from an ape.  It is that apes and man have a shared ancestor and followed two different evolutionary paths.  Men have never been apes, apes have never been men.  Although some men do, in fact, act rather ape-like, what with all the scratching and inapporpriate adjusting and eating crumbs off their shirts...

I stand corrected.....but that common ancestor I dare to debate was more apelike than manlike (IOW, less evolved).....the point I made is that classic evolutionary theory says we started out as carbon-building blocks, then bacteria......skip forward to apeish ancestor to finally man. 

To reconcile the two theories, you must first believe that a day for God isn't 24 hours and that He could have created Adam after all these other species (including the apeish ancestor), just as the Bible states it happened.  I am sure Adam had higher faculties than the apeish ancestor so therefore isn't considered 'man'.  I agree with you too that many men do act rather apeish....LOL.....not to mention wolfish.

mommyem:

Tamara:

So God made man on the first day.  He didn't make them babies, but made them adults, just like he made them old he made the earth old. 

Actually God made man on the 6th day

Whoops!  What I meant to say was God made man in a day, not on day one.  Yikes, better get my facts strait lol.

mommyem:

just wanted to add one more thing I've been thinking about.  And that's that we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before they both ate the forbidden fruit and got kicked out.  They could have been in there for like 5 billion years...who knows?  Obviously you have to believe in Adam and Eve for this to even apply.

There is actually a time line in Genesis which is an account of the geneology from Adam to Noah which states that Adam lived on earth a total of 930 years, i beleive time has remained constant throughout history. It is this time line that lays the foundation for the young world beleif. But again i don't think God is going to be too caught up in whether we take the time frame literally or figuratively.

If science did hold all the answers to the creation of the world and evolution, wouldn't all studies and theories support each other? This is clearly not the case as to date there is no one clear and concise scientific theory on either. There have in fact been countless scientists convert to christianity after researching the bible in an attempt to disprove its theories.   

Science has brought us many wonderful advancements but it still falls short in explaining the miracle of the world and of man.

BTW the link to creation ministeries in my last post was wrong it is

www.creationontheweb.com

nearlyasoccerteam:

mommyem:

just wanted to add one more thing I've been thinking about.  And that's that we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before they both ate the forbidden fruit and got kicked out.  They could have been in there for like 5 billion years...who knows?  Obviously you have to believe in Adam and Eve for this to even apply.

 

There is actually a time line in Genesis which is an account of the geneology from Adam to Noah which states that Adam lived on earth a total of 930 years, i beleive time has remained constant throughout history. It is this time line that lays the foundation for the young world beleif. But again i don't think God is going to be too caught up in whether we take the time frame literally or figuratively.

If science did hold all the answers to the creation of the world and evolution, wouldn't all studies and theories support each other? This is clearly not the case as to date there is no one clear and concise scientific theory on either. There have in fact been countless scientists convert to christianity after researching the bible in an attempt to disprove its theories.   

Science has brought us many wonderful advancements but it still falls short in explaining the miracle of the world and of man.

BTW the link to creation ministeries in my last post was wrong it is www.creationontheweb.com 

I checked out that site and found a GREAT article that explained some of my questions on how to reconcile certain inconsistencies in science with Bible doctrine.....the main one being the dinosaurs......this article gave a very believable argument:

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter19.pdf 

nearlyasoccerteam:

There is actually a time line in Genesis which is an account of the geneology from Adam to Noah which states that Adam lived on earth a total of 930 years

But how do you know that that time line is counting the time from Adam was first created on the Earth?  Or from the time that he partook of the fruit and became a mortal and able to die?  I'm not saying I'm right, just throwing that out there.  I have no idea what is right about any of this! 

Danna:

I checked out that site and found a GREAT article that explained some of my questions on how to reconcile certain inconsistencies in science with Bible doctrine.....the main one being the dinosaurs......this article gave a very believable argument:

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter19.pdf 

I agree that is a really good article.  Really makes a person think.  I'll say the jury is still out for me on the age of the Earth.

Tamara:

off topic, but what do they use to date things past 50,000 years since carbon dating only goes that far?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

If no one knows thats fine, I'm sure I can google it

Both Uranium and Rhenium are used.  They both have very long half-lives for their radioactive decay so they can be used for the oldest of all objects.  You're right, Carbon-14's half life is quite short, so it used to date "newer" objects.  Also, the object itself (rock, in the case of the earth) would have to contain the element in question.  Thus, carbon dating on a rock couldn't be used since there is no carbon in it.  Only carbon-containing stuff (bones, wood, cloth, etc.) can be dated with carbon. 

Further, the reason why different studies come up with slightly different ages is due to error in each of the measurements.  This is not uncommon in science.  We always report our answer with the amount of error that is possible.  The fact that several measurements have been independently been made and have had similar results is amazing, and lends credibility to the 4 billion number, IMO. 

Nice debate, ladies!  I've gotta check out that dinosaur article...

HOLT:

Both Uranium and Rhenium are used.  They both have very long half-lives for their radioactive decay so they can be used for the oldest of all objects.  You're right, Carbon-14's half life is quite short, so it used to date "newer" objects.  Also, the object itself (rock, in the case of the earth) would have to contain the element in question.  Thus, carbon dating on a rock couldn't be used since there is no carbon in it.  Only carbon-containing stuff (bones, wood, cloth, etc.) can be dated with carbon. 

I'd like to ask.....is it the dinosaur bones or the rocks/sediment through the uranium and rhenium dating that are 4 million years old?  The reason being if it is dinosaur bones (which came from a living entity) versus the rock which is nonliving.....well...the former would prove a different point than the latter.  Just curious :0).  thanks for your expertise.