- Obey No1kinobe
This conversation is closed.
How old is planet Earth?
My understanding from Science is that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.
The current universe is about 13.6 Billion years.
Some claim Earth and the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.
This is not a trivial difference.
My understanding is the young earth theory is the view of some creationists. Other theists take a less literal approach to holy books and are comfortable with an older universe and even evolution.
Do YEC have it right and various radiometric dating techniques are completely flawed or are they relying on a few bogus results and ignoring what is valid science on the whole.
Is this a huge blind spot for science? Or a conspiracy? Or a bit of both?
I have to admit that it would surprise me if radiometric dating was completely misleading. I would have thought these issues would have been worked through, that there would be continuous improvements in techniques and methodology and more accurately estimating the age of the Earth.
What do you think?
Closing Statement from Obey No1kinobe
Thank you everyone who contributed. You'd think the age of the earth is something we could follow the science and agree on. Apparently not.
Science indicates 4.6 Billion years. Bible inspired young earth creationist below say between 5700 and 13000 years. This is a huge difference.
To believe this you need to ignore or disagree with the science in many fields:
Geology - plate tectonics, sedimentary rock formation,
Astronomy - star and galaxy light distances
Physics - radiometric dating
Also each different creation myth or interpretation conflict.
Some of the science is ignored based on divine intervention which could make a world that looks 4.6 billion years ago 6,000 or so years ago.
Looking into some of the Christian materials, they state up front that the bible is the truth. Any apparent conflicts between the bible stories and science, then the bible trumps.
I guess no one has changed their minds. But the discussion has helped me better understand some of the issues.
I'm going to stick with science. I see no evidence for any god or that the bible is anything special.
If Bible literalists want to stick with the apparent mythology of a post Canaanite tribe as described in the bible, that is their choice. I would suggest the bible is not a great scientific resource - it says pi is 3, bats are birds, whales are fish and that displaying striped patterns to a pregnant cow will make it give birth to striped cats. Burning bushes and talking donkey's.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. But I almost admire the creatively and arguments developed to counter the science. Although the ones I looked at appeared flawed or relied on supernatural intervention of the type we never see now that we have mobile phone cameras.
Thanks for the discussion.