Old Earth? Young Earth?

Thailand
March 9, 2012 8:57pm CST
Three hundred and fifty years ago James Ussher the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland calculated the age of the earth using the Bible as his reference. He established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC and his calculations became accepted as fact. Any one who disputed this facts was guilty of heresies. In the mid 1800 hundreds a new breed of thinkers started to examine the earth and found that the physical evidence supported a much earlier date for the origin of the earth and the science of geology was born. Which of these schools of thought do you think is correct? Was the earth created relatively recently in fixed unchanging perfection or is the earth much older and in a state of constant, dynamic change?
1 person likes this
9 responses
@peavey (16936)
• United States
11 Mar 12
Neither one is correct. Since carbon dating isn't reliable and much of what is thought to be true about the origin of the earth can't be proved (skipping huge areas of time and progress) and since James Ussher's calculation isn't even spoken of today, you're comparing apples to oranges. A general thought in Christianity is that 1) God actually created the earth in 6 real days and 2) God created the earth over a period of time that was called "days" by the historians. Either of those could be true. Which one is the right one doesn't really matter in the end. God was there and He's here now and that's all that's important.
2 people like this
@peavey (16936)
• United States
11 Mar 12
His calculation is that the earth is around 6,000 years old, and many believe this, yes. They do not use his exact calculation, though, and as you said, they don't credit him for it. There is nothing to prove the earth is either young or old. Our scientific methods are not reliable. If they were, every scientist would agree on specific ages... they do not.
1 person likes this
• Thailand
11 Mar 12
Visit any "Young Earth Creationist" website and you will find there is still a great deal of weight given to Bishop Ussher's calculation even though most do not credit him. You are correct in saying that radio carbon dating is not usable in dating the earth but wrong in saying that it isn't reliable. There are many other radiometric dating techniques that are applicable to igneous rock and allow a clear picture of the age of the earth.
• Mojave, California
11 Mar 12
The problem with your point is they know its a lot older than 6000 years. They have a good idea of how old the earth is and the universe. No, its not an exact science yet but you have to understand how hard it is to find facts in an ever changing world when everything just turns to dust. The thing that is on their side are the the catastrophic events that can freeze things in time. Plus they have carbon dating and not even religion can mess with that.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Mar 12
Since I don't know how God measured time back then, or if time even existed, I have no idea how old the earth is. However, we know the earth did not begin with unchanging perfection because the Bible says, "Now the earth was formless and empty..." Genesis 1:2.
2 people like this
@urbandekay (18278)
10 Mar 12
I am confused, thought I had already answered this? all the best urban
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
10 Mar 12
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
10 Mar 12
Yes we already know you are a heretic.
1 person likes this
@bird123 (10632)
• United States
10 Mar 12
Hmmm?? Let's think for a moment. Correct me if I'm wrong. The carbon test dating used by science today is based on the radioactive decay of a carbon isotope. Hmmm??? That makes the Earth much much older. Maybe we should ask: Has God been messing with those carbon isotopes in order to make that bible story fit??? nah! I don't buy that one. Science will cause the stories to fall by the wayside. The good news is that Reality is so much better than all those stories anyway.
1 person likes this
• Thailand
10 Mar 12
But radiometric dating is used.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
10 Mar 12
Radiometric dating means nothing and they can be very far from the truth.It`s pretty sad to see that someone who pretends to be intelligent doesn`t realize this.If you can find some rocks with some labels on them telling you : I`m 3 billions years old, I`m 10 billions years old that will be great, then you can tell very accurate what is the age of the world.When you know almost nothing then radiometric dating works only inside a theory.So the earth being 4.5 billions old is an estimation based on evolutionary model and it can be very far from the truth.
1 person likes this
• Thailand
11 Mar 12
iuliuxd your statement "Radiometric dating means nothing and they can be very far from the truth. It has no substance to it. There is nothing that substantiates this other than some failed attempts to discredit it by some young earth creationists.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
10 Mar 12
Any one who disputed this facts was guilty of heresies. What do you want to say with that ? Is this a fact or you added it to make religious people look stupid ? To be guilty of heresy it means there is a dogma inside a church.Even if it`s accepted as a dogma inside a church that means nothing for people outside that church. There was such a book written in the byzantine world in the 11th century, and the result was something like around 7000 years since Adam was thrown away from the Garden of Eden because it seems like there was no notion of time in the Garden of Eden.How can someone say how much Adam lived in paradise ? So if one thinks he can calculate the age of the earth based on genealogy written in the bible he can only calculate how much is it since Adam was thrown away from the Garden of Eden. How old did they thought the Earth was in the mid 18th century ?
• Thailand
11 Mar 12
"What do you want to say with that ? Is this a fact or you added it to make religious people look stupid ?" It is a historical fact. It was added only to show how a straightjacket has in the past been imposed on the quest for knowledge.
• Thailand
11 Mar 12
Since the Church of England is not catholic the rest of your statement is without merit.
• Thailand
11 Mar 12
So you are the judge of who is Christian and who is not. I guess maybe a god gave you the authority to make these judgments as to is part of the club and who isn't or do you speak directly for god?
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
That is one question we may not answer for sure since we werent there. I think that earth is much older than the prescribed above. Why? Because by studying the bible it says there that a single day to the Lord is just a thousand years. Therefore, one single day in the creation might mean thousand years. Anyway, i'm confused so i don't know much. Thanks for the post and letting us share. Have a great day.
1 person likes this
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
16 Mar 12
Hi Chiang, This is something that I had never heard off but I do find it interesting. Not only is it a known fact today, that the earth and the universe are many millions of years old, but I see nowhere on the Bible where the age of the earth is mentioned. I have heard that many Christians today claim that the earth is only six thousand years old, but of course such a claim is ridiculous. I guess that in the Archbishop's time they had nothing to go on but the Bible but people today should know better. Blessings.
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
17 Mar 12
Hi jyuuken, I agree, it has no real importance so let's all believe as we want. I see nothing wrong with thinking for yourself though, if we just accepted what others told us we'd still be living in the middle ages. Blessings.
• Thailand
18 Mar 12
jyuuken "but i see nowhere on the bible where the age of the earth is meantioned" There are a lot of things that are not mentioned in the Bible which are never the less important to understanding the universe and our place in it. Pose123 it is important if we want to understand how the world works.
• Thailand
18 Mar 12
jyuuken this discussion is not about faith or salvation, it is about the age of the earth. If the Bible does not discuss the age of the earth then it has no significance to this discussion since it can not add to it.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
16 Mar 12
Many men have claimed to have the correct interpretation of what the Bible teaches. Many have been wrong. Does that make God a liar, because men are wrong? Many atheists are wife beaters, does that make you a wife beater? I see the same logic in many atheists way of thinking about religion and religious teachings. The Bible says; seek and you will find. It also says; be followers of Christ, not man. If more did this, there would be fewer misconceptions about what God really says.
• Thailand
16 Mar 12
I guess I get a double pass on this one since I am neither a wife beater or an atheist. I did not think that not being a young earth creationist automatically made me an atheist.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
16 Mar 12
Oh, ok. My mistake. I seem to remember from previous discussions that you doubted the reality of God. Maybe it's another atheist I'm thinking of. So sorry. The point I made is still valid. Just because one man says something wrong, and others believe him, does not mean everyone believes him.
@lazybum5 (51)
• United States
10 Mar 12
Well this one is a hard one to answer. On one hand I would say based upon the most recent scientific research that the Earth is a very old ball of dirt floating through the Universe. However, as others have already said, we can never know what one day for God was, relative to our own perception of a day. So in that manner of speaking a "young Earth" could be feasible if one of God's days were compared to our own day.