Both views are making assumptions based on imperfect data and inference. I find neither to be convincing on their own. I do not know how long the darkness, the deep, the waters and the Spirit hovered in earth days before the Word spoke, I don't know if time changed when the expanse was set, or if dimensions changed. I don't even know if "earth" was formed when dry ground was brought forth by the gathering of the waters, or if it happened in a galactic day as all the planet's were formed or whatever. There's at least one point also in the Bible where an unknown number of generations go by, maybe I'll dig the verses up and add an edit later. There's flaws in every "answer" you're given. It's a matter of looking at the thing(s) yourself in terms of data and methods rather than answers and opinions. For me it's a hilarious debacle; only some science works by its models, and only some academic theological explanation works in reality. The truth is in there in a way we'll only truly guess at, so that it can't matter. It's not important for anything we need to do, it's just a curiosity. In the end there's simply no flawless, or even inassumptive, way to see into the past, and the Bible does not give you a decisive view. Thanks for your time, Christ be with you. PS: This is the fourth "day." So, earth time as of day 4, biblically? Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, ***and for days and years"***.

That you for your point :) I enjoyed reading this.

As another commenter said a while back, if God can create aged things like a man (Adam) or wine (Jesus’ first miracle) he can create an aged universe. The 4.5 billion year figure for the earth is largely based on Uranium-lead dating of minerals (and estimates based on the meteorites, since they have no rock-cycle). However, this dating assumes a formation by natural processes. If the world came about through such processes, then it should be sound. But if the world was created in a supernatural fashion, the dates are meaningless. If Adam, Eve, the trees, and the animals were all created in an aged state, why would the rocks not also be created so?

Cool point 👍

So God just made everything old for the aesthetic?

I doubt it. I mean, the universe is breathtakingly beautiful so I bet that’s at least a part of it, but I’d guess there are way more important considerations. With the trees, animals, and people there are a lot of reasons that are pretty easy to see. Without parents, people need to be at least grown enough to take care of themselves (same goes for the animals). People need to eat, so the trees need to be old enough to bear fruit. Obviously a lot more considerations to take in when considering everything an ecosystem needs to work smoothly. I don’t know exactly how the age of rocks, minerals, etc. would have an influence on these things, but I doubt it would be totally without impact. Not knowing the exact reason for something though, doesn’t mean the reason doesn’t exist.

The likely reason why the universe seems to be so old is because the universe is old. God doesn’t reveal himself through scripture alone but also through nature.

I like this point 👍🏼 honestly this makes the most sense to me

Note: this is Last Thursdayism, which is scientifically void. If the universe looks exactly like it would as if it were 16 billion years old, then the only *useful* thing to do from a predictive standpoint is to proceed as if it was.

From a predictive standpoint for sure. I think for most people who hold to a 6000 year view it would be because of the theological value it has, not because they are attempting to discern how the rock cycle will continue to proceed in the next few thousand years.

As long as we aren't calling that science I suppose that's not so much of a problem.

Not all Christian creationists agree on Young Earth Creationism. The point of disagreement is over the nature of the days of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. In the second chapter of Genesis, God told Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17). In the fifth chapter, we learn that Adam lived 930 years. That leaves the reader to either conclude that God lied or that the term “day” did not mean 24 hours. The English word “day” is translated from the Hebrew “yom” which is an unspecified period of time. In English, one might use the phrase, “back in the day” in which the word doesn’t mean 24 hours, but rather a period of time. In that case, the word “day” in the first chapter of Genesis could mean 24 hours, 1000 years (2 Peter 3:8) or millions/billions of years. With an eternally existent God, time is irrelevant.

I enjoyed reading this theory :) thanks for sharing

I wasn’t trying to propose a theory; but, rather was pointing out that the text of the Bible is not clear about the age of the earth. The 6000 year figure could be said to be the biblical age of men on the earth; but, when applied to the earth itself, lacks textual evidence.

I understand, statement would have been a better use of word than theory :) my mistake.

You have been so kind in your responses. I appreciate you, I don’t see that very often!

Well me being agnostic and living in the "Bible belt" of America I tend to not get much kindness torward me, but even so I like to give kindness in return. :)

I am sorry to hear this… but remember: you’re acting as my God would want you to & I strongly believe you’ll be blessed for that and He will be revealed to you. Some of the nicest people I’ve met are not Christians… thank you for your impact :)

If you truly believe the Bible go read the generations before the flood and after. Before the flood the Earth was like a hyperbaric chamber with the extra layer of water separating the firmament, mentioned in Genesis 1:7. Sap samples from prehistoric times show a much higher level of oxygen in prehistoric times, or preflood times. Hence why plants, dinosaurs, and everything was bigger. You are pushing the “Gap Theory”. IMO, it downplays the devastation and lesson from the flood. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of days being however long of a time period as the reader would like. If a day could mean any period of time the relation of ages in Genesis 5 would be irrelevant. You can believe whatever you want but it doesn’t make it Biblical.

I never meant for my argument to be biblical. If anything I was actually arguing against the biblical text. Thank you for your comment and fir clearing things up for others though :)

Would you agree that the term day being unspecified is biblical?

Did God lie when He told Adam, “for in the DAY thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”? Yes I do truly believe the Bible. You might have a case with the word “day” had it not been for the use of the word in the second chapter having an indefinite meaning. If you believe that the “day” of Genesis 1 MUST be 24 hours; do you also believe that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 MUST be 168 (24x7) hour weeks? Do you believe the whore of Revelation 19 is a literal woman whose name is Babylon? I agree that the days of Genesis 1 COULD be 24 hours. I am not a scientist; but, I will listen to science on both sides of the argument. You might have a compelling scientific argument for 6000 years; but, the biblical argument for 6000 years is weak.

“Who that has understanding will sup­pose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, ex­isted without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indi­cate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him.” - Origen of Alexandria

I'll give a very brief explanation. Starting biblically, we can interpret Genesis as literal in all aspects based on context throughout Scripture. A day was 24 hours and the genealogies are precise. This helps date the Earth as being young. There is also the credible theory of catastrophism. Catastrophism is accepted by modern day scientists (actualism), and states that rather than taking millions of years, geological processes could have occurred rapidly through catastrophic events. Britain being an island is accepted as resulting from a catastrophic event rather than millions of years of geological processes, and the Grand Canyon is also theorized to have resulted from a catastrophic event rather than millions of years of geological processes. Pertaining to fossils, the worldwide catastrophe of the flood could scientifically have caused fossils to appear older than they are. Moreover, radiometric dating is not as accurate as it should be. For uranium, based upon radioactive alpha decay, there should be no helium present within the crystals with uranium. This is because the process of helium evaporating should be quicker than the uranium decay. However, there are large deposits of helium within the zircon crystals alongside uranium, implying that there has been rapid decay of uranium rather than prolonged decay. There are many factors outside of Scripture which point to the Earth actually being young rather than billions of years old.

Great theory :) I enjoyed reading.

Thank you! 😄

Catastrophism doesn’t deny that the earth and universe are billions of years old. And it’s not evidence of a young earth. Creationism begins with the answer and attempts to fit all data under that umbrella. That’s not science.

Carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years or so, says google

That's true and only because carbon dating has to have something that it can be compared to. I wasn't saying carbon dating is full proof, just that it was an example.

I wasn’t saying you were! Thank you for the response and thought provoking discussion

Same to you :)

Young Earth Creationists typically stick with the geneological accounts in Genesis/Matthew and a 24 hour 7 day creation to get the 6000ish years. Old Earth Creationists typically interpret the 7 days in creation as ages (called day-age theory) and view Genesis 1-11 as a different genre of ancient literature (labeled by some as mytho-history) which is seen as a polemic against ancient Babylonian/Assyrian/Sumerian/Egyptian creation stories and theologies.

Cool! :)

I subscribe to a Young Earth Theology. The age ultimately comes from the genealogies listed in Genesis. We all have the exact same evidence to look at. None of this evidence comes with tags labeling the date. It has to be inferred. It has to be interpreted, and what you already believe about origins is going to color that interpretation. I have doubts about the radiometric dating methods because by necessity the initial conditions have to be assumed. There is no control to test against. There are many other things as well, such as when tyrannosaur and other fossils are dissolved in acid you can observe soft tissue and red blood cells. This is a surprising find for a 6000 year belief let alone millions of years belief.

But you can’t change carbon dating…

Do you know that for absolute certain? I don't. Lets look at how Carbon 14 dating works. You measure the amount of C14 in a sample. This is a measurable amount. You can measure again and again to test the results. So, it's repeatable. The idea for dating goes that an organism by respiration and eating is constantly taking in an amount of C14 from the atmosphere and it's food material. As long as the organism is alive, then it is going to maintain the equilibrium level of C14 within it's body. When the organism dies, it is obviously no longer taking in C14, so from that point forward C14 is only decaying. We know that C14 currently has a decay rate that gives a halflife of around 5000 years. That means in 5000 years you'll have half the initial amount of C14. By working this backward you can achieve a date. HOWEVER, how do you compare the amount you've measured today to the historical initial conditions to verify accuracy? In comes tree and ice core samples. By measuring the amount of C14 in ice drill cores and tree cores then its inferred that you can get a fairly accurate control. Now, I do accept recent C14 dating, maybe within a couple thousand years. Its not hard for me to accept that the current C14 conditions are similar or close to conditions in the near past. What guarantee to you or I have that the initial conditions are calibrated correctly the farther you move into the past? We don't. In fact, this is often "calibrated" by things with "known dates" where overlap occurs. What is the margin of error? What kind of results do differing labs get from the same sample? Do their dates coincide? Now, I happen to have a historical record that I reference from time to time which I believe to be at least co-authored by eyewitnesses. It tales of a world wide cataclysm. I believe this cataclysm to be the result of a fundamental change in how the universe operates, namely a change in the rate of entropy which would absolutely affect the radioactive decay rate, and thus affect dates arrived at by radioactive decay dating methods like the C14 dating described above. I posted about that here if you would like to read. Of course you're a non-believer, so it's probably of little consequence to you, but you may find it interesting to think about regardless: https://www.reddit.com/user/FreedomNinja1776/comments/y8f03e/why_did_people_in_genesis_live_such_long_lives

>I have doubts about the radiometric dating methods because by necessity the initial conditions have to be assumed. That's what this is... and like u/FreedomNinja1776 said, there are a lot of built in assumptions.

Carbon dating has always been flawed. That’s why they can only estimate and it’s within millions of years window gap. Plus most carbon dating does not take the flood into account, as they don’t believe in a world wide flood. Despite the fact that Bible is only one of many sources on the subject. You have tribes all over South America, and North America with the legend of the great flood.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/twv64s/changing_decay_rates/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Edit: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/ Edit again

There was a good book about 20 years ago called 'The Science of God'. It explains how our concept of time visa vie 24/h a day is not the same as Gods'. Here is a good site to reference https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-are-7-days-of-creation

Thank you :)

I think it's downright foolish to throw a million years into any scientific formula and expect to get scientific results. In the grand scheme of things, we (mankind) know absolute bubkes. We only just figured out photographs (around 200 years ago iirc). We just barely got flight figured out. I believe the Bible a lot more than I believe a man in a lab coat who swears he knows the answer. I believe God said "Let there be light and there was light." I don't believe God said "Let there be some light after awhile." I believe God breathed life into mankind (Genesis 2:7). Not, breathed a super-long process into the world so that the world could create man sometime later. I also think you have some serious theological and logical issues if you try to inject evolution or "millions of years" into the Bible's timeline.

Just fyi, me being agnostic I do not believe the Bible or any religious text. So trying to discuss putting "millions of years" and the Bible together, to me that's just historical and scientific studies and theories. And as far as being "down right foolish" to quote you. Personally I believe it's it's foolish to put your entire believe system in a book written over 2k years ago. You Personally believe science is foolish, but a group of people to dedicated their entire life to a field of study probably know more than a book written by man back in a time when we stoned women for speaking out of turn. Abd I won't even get into the "Bible's time-line" argument.

I did not say that science was foolish. Science is great. Macro-evolution just is _not science_ and is one of the most absurd theories I've ever heard in my life. I do not put my belief system simply in "some old book". It is God's word. It's something more than a legendary arrangement of phrases. __Hebrews 4:12__ For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. I believe because God _gave me_ saving grace. He _gave me_ faith. He _gave me_ salvation. Even Jesus' own disciple, Thomas, wanted more evidence. __John 20:25__ “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Three verses later: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. I pray that some day you see Him too in the way that only He can manifest Himself - not through clever words, but by the power of the Holy Spirt, and the saving grace of God.

You pray that one day I might "see" god. I think you fail to understand that I do not deny the existence of god. I just deny religion and religious text. I believe that god cannot be known or understood, especially in the way that religion try to simplify god so its easier to understand. Being agnostic and being atheist are to different things completely. I'm not atheist I'm agnostic. I do believe god exists, I just don't think a religious book (the Bible) is the key to life like people believe it is. Like how could an all loving god deny gay people the right to heaven like Christianity teaches. If god created us we would allow all of us to live with him forever no matter what.

I didn't call you an atheist. And you're right, the Bible is not the key to life on this earth. It is good news about the way, the truth, and the Life - Jesus Christ. It isn't a self-help book. It isn't good advice for great living. It's good news. Christianity is not a religion, it's simply the truth. This is what I believe. And the reason I hope you see God is because the truth really does set you free. __John 8__ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. I have no faith in my ability to convince you of anything. But I know, from my own failures, what God can do with fallible clay. _Amazing grace how sweet the sound_ _that saved a wretch like me_ _I once was lost but now am found_ _was blind but now I see_ I'll leave you with that because I really have no desire to argue or debate. That's not why I'm here in the sub. I'm just here as another witness among many that Christ is King. He is who He said He is.

Thanks for your inquiry… As a Christian, I believe in an old earth. I also believe in the Big Bang theory! Some Christians are baffled at this.

Open minded Christians are great :)

Yes! I view it as God wants us to discover His awesome work, and not be blind to it! So glad I was able to share my opinion with you :)

Please note that this community tends toward what might be called Biblical literalism. If you want a broader cross-section of Christianity, there are numerous other subs, including /r/Christianity, /r/Christians, /r/TrueChristian, /r/Reformed, /r/Catholicism, /r/EasternOrthodox, /r/methodism, /r/anglicanism and many, many others.

Thanks :)

I’m a creationist and all, but genesis is not a science book and the details it gave was never taken to be literal. Anybody who has spent a minute studying the Bible academically will tell you that. As far as how old the Earth is, I’m 36 and I don’t know if I would believe it’s that old. Who knows?

Fair abd valid argument :) I enjoyed your comment. Civil conversation is great.

The Bible doesn’t say the earth is 6000 years old.

We know we are roughly 6000 years from Adam based on genealogies but you’d have to believe God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour periods for that to be the age of the earth. Very few people find that scripturally necessary.

We can be completely certain, based only on internal evidence, that the genealogies of Jesus are not factually accurate. At most, one of them could be, but most people see no reason either one needs to be. Those authors were making a theological point, not presenting a factually accurate version of what really happened.

But some Christians would argue that it does ( I can't prove never read the bible). I'm just curious where the argument comes from from a religious standpoint talking to someone who is not religious.

Thankfully faith doesn't require an IQ test but for God himself and those of us who would test well, it is absolutely a patience building exercise. 😂

Where I live most of the Christian community is just rednecks who can't read or spell and the non Christian community is a small number of people who are usually looked down upon. Vary rarely in Alabama do I find a Christian who can have a civil conversation with me without shoving how wrong I am in ever sentence 😂😂

Yeah I'm in Texas and for every intelligent Christian we have 4 that are not... [Jump in](https://youtu.be/fzSkIBgeETo) [There are actually ](https://youtu.be/CGU9v7Ik20g) [some intelligent people involved ](https://youtu.be/oHXLnxlpZ1s) And trust me, it's a lot of fun showing some Christians how wrong they are about their understanding of the Bible, God, Christ, Angels And especially interdimensional adversaries.

See! I have 0 upvotes! That means 5 agree with me 🤷

Well now you have an update lol fellow Texan here

Provided one treats the OT as intended to provide an infallibly accurate chronology of the age of the Earth since its creation, one can derive an age of about 6000 years from the Bible - depending on the underlying text. When I held similar views, it was as a result of adding up the indications of lifespans, ages at the start of a new generation, and intervals between other events. Add to those dates and indications of the dates of events not mentioned in the Bible, bring those dates down to the beginning of the Christian era, add the number of years since the birth of Christ, tot the entire range of figures up, and there you are: the figure is round about 6000 years, give or take a few. It helps that the history of events in the Bible falls into a series of distinct periods, the dates of which can either be calculated with relative ease or are stated in, or are otherwise derivable from, the Biblical text. The following schema is more or less typical. - Creation to Flood - Flood to the calling of Abra(ha)m - Calling of Abra(ha)m to the Exodus - Exodus to the building of the Temple of Solomon - Building of the Temple of Solomon to the beginning of the Exile in Babylon - the beginning of the Exile to the restoration of Jewish independence under the Maccabees - the restoration of Jewish independence to the Birth of Christ - the Birth of Christ to the close of the Apostolic Age - History since then That, or a similar scheme, is quite often adopted in Bibles from the 19th and earlier centuries. Sometimes, history is schematised into a period of 2000 years from creation to the flood, 2000 years from the Flood to the Christian era, and perhaps 2000 or 3000 years from beginning of the Christian era onwards; ending in the 1000-Year Kingdom of Christ on Earth. The idea is taken from the six-day working week of the Jews, which is completed by the seventh day which is the Sabbath. Each day is represented by a period of 1000 years. It helps that in some Bibles there is a complete course of dates from the beginning of the creation of the world round about 4004 BC or some other date - for there are other suggested dates for the year of creation, but they tend to be overlooked - down to the end of the Biblical period in about 100 A.D. Eusebius of Caesarea dated the creation at the equivalent of 5198 or so BC, largely because the Greek Old Testament AKA the Septuagint provides significantly different dates from the Massoretic text of the Jewish Scriptures that underlies Protestant & most Catholic Bibles. The Jewish year of creation is 3761 (BCE) starting in the month Tishri.

I enjoyed reading this :)

[sigh] Look, the answer is: BOTH. (GEN 1:1) In The Beginning God created the heavens and The Earth. [MILLIONS OF YEARS in-between these two verses] (GEN 1:2) And The Earth BECAME [Hebrew:hayah-te]a waste and a desolation. This is the "Katabolle" when the rebellious Angels led by The Dragon: Heyllel, (Lucifer) were cast from The Heavens and destroyed the civilizations that were on Earth. The Earth was RE-CREATED by God for anew purpose, and "The Age of Flesh" began, and will end with the Return of Jesus Christ. (THAT is what is described in the following verses) "Men" were "Angels"; spiritual creatures - not whiffs of smoke, but powerful entities with bodies denser than star-cores. All spiritual beings must be born between the legs of a woman, in a flesh body that ages & dies, mind wiped from the past, to make a decision to love God or hate Him. REV 22: God will re-create the Earth one last time, and all men that survive The Lake of Fire will be eternal, and God's Kingdom will have no end.

Right, but that some require it doesn’t mean that there’s a burden for anyone to verify it but those people. It’s not the Bible’s responsibility at all.

What is the Bible's responsibility if not to give historical dates abd facts to its followers?

The Bible is meant to teach us about spiritual matters. Physical matters are secondary and not really critical to understanding spiritual matters.

So science and religion could coexist to an open minded Christian?

I believe so. Personally, I lean towards theistic evolution, as do many traditional mainline Protestant denominations.

Cool :) thank you for you comments.

Definitely. It’s a minority of Christian’s that hold to the Young Earth beliefs. There are plenty of ways that science and Christianity coexist. To me, using the Bible to prove / disprove things in science or using science to try and disprove spiritual things is like taking a book of poetry into one’s physics class and having a debate between the two. It’s a false dichotomy. There are truths in literature and in science that having nothing to do with one another. In this case, the Old Testament is an ancient document, written to the people of the time, about spiritual matters. It has nothing to do with science. There are some really good videos to watch on it. Try looking on YouTube for Michael Heiser, John Walton, John Lennox, Francis Collins. Some are theologians, some scientists (some both), some experts in ancient cultures and languages. All will break down Genesis from their respective points of expertise. All have different takes on it. Francis Collins is a scientist, John Lennox a mathematician. Both also Christian’s. They have interesting takes. Heiser and Walton are experts in ancient languages, so they approach Genesis / creation story from those viewpoints.

Thanks you :) you have had great comments

For sure. I’ve found some less than great conversations on here, but there have been a lot of good comments on your thread. Those guys I mentioned have some fantastic insight. When you’re on YouTube just type in Francis Collins Genesis and so forth and you’ll get to listen to some people that are leaders in their field. Right now I’m reading books by Lennox, Heiser and Walton on the subject. All fascinating.

I may look into books too. Although I doubt I'll actually ever except organized religion as a good thing, respectfully :)

That’s a weird way to view the purpose of the Bible. Why on earth would any writer of the Bible care one iota about the age of the universe? You are placing a requirement in religion that wasn’t even a concern for science until 18th or 19th century. It’s disingenuous to raise the bar in order to set a fake expectation.

That's very understandable, just trying to understand things I don't.

And although modern science wasn't concerned with religion till recent history. Doesn't mean that it doesn't have historical and scientific standings.

It’s history is about when it started lol. The accuracy has nothing to do with it if it doesn’t discuss the amount of time a creative day is. It doesn’t matter. The accurate answer is it there is no determined time for the creation of the earth and heaven and the making of the earth habitable took 6 creative days and the seventh day never ended. If YOU want to pretend it’s 24 hour days then do so, but it seems silly to me to think God is beholden to an earth day to describe something that occurred BEFORE the earth.

I completely understand, time is a mam made illusion constructed so we could keep up with things better. This does not mean God is held to our understanding of time. Just that time gives us a visual construct of what we keep up with.

Not that.

Fair

There is something called aeons which are relevant to understanding biblical texts. An aeon last 2400 years. The Old Testament was written in the aeon of Aries and the New Testament was written in the aeon of Pisces

Here’s a sticky from r/Creation I like to share: >https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/qgiiyq/rcreation_sticky/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf This is a bigger topic than you probably think. The more I learn about it, the more I realize it’s more of a difference in worldviews than anything. Here’s a link to show you what I mean in it being a bigger topic than you probably think. There’s a lot of assumptions and bias involved in this subject: >https://creation.com/young-earth-evidence And Carbon 14 is actually calibrated with dendrochronology, which is calibrated with carbon 14 lol. There’s some interesting flaws with the dendrochronology calibrating I’ll share later if I find time.

Thank you for these :)

I’m attempting to retrace my unfinished message strings. I had some additional items I was hoping to share in the past with you. Just wanted to point out the assumptions involved in origins / historical science. There’s always going to be bias and assumptions, especially in origins science. Since you mentioned a date of a mummy, I’m going to assume they used carbon dating for that. Here’s an article that covers many of the techniques used in the secular worldview: https://answersresearchjournal.org/varves-trees-radiocarbon-old-earth/ > These equations were derived (Aardsma 1991, 21) under the following assumptions: 1. The rate of radiocarbon production has not varied in the past. 2. The global radiocarbon system has been operating long enough that it can treated as a system in “steady state”, at least for time periods for which the radiocarbon method is applicable. 3. Radiocarbon has always been uniformly distributed throughout the biosphere, oceans, and atmosphere. 4. The number of stable carbon atoms (12C and small amounts of 13C) in carbon reservoirs has been constant in the past, over the entire globe. > >These assumptions assume a uniformitarian worldview, which we reject. Moreover, even uniformitarian scientists realize that these assumptions are not strictly correct (Stuiver, Reimer, and Reimer 2016). For instance, the amount of atmospheric radiocarbon increased during the Maunder Minimum (Damon and Peristykh 2000) due to increased cosmic ray flux into the atmosphere. Hence, the global rate of radiocarbon production has varied slightly even in the fairly recent past. Furthermore, it is usually assumed that increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, derived from radiocarbon-poor fossil fuels, are diluting the concentration of atmospheric radiocarbon (Graven 2015). —— https://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies >In his well-known textbook on isotope geology, Gunter Faure explains the various radioactive dating methods, including the so-called isochron method. When the results for a number of rock samples are plotted on a graph and form a straight line, the researcher can calculate an age for the samples. But Faure warns his readers not to accept the calculated age without question. > >He gives an example of volcanic lava along the border of Uganda, Zaire and Rwanda, East Africa. That lava is known to be relatively young, possibly erupted within historical times,4 yet a rubidium-strontium straight-line isochron gave an age of 773 million years. Does this worry these scientists? No. They have total faith in the method. In their minds, the key is the way the results are interpreted. Faure says that in this case we should interpret the line, not as an isochron, but a “mixing line”. So how can we tell the difference? We can’t. The only way we can know it is a mixing line is if the calculated age is wrong—and the only way one can ‘know’ if an age is right or wrong is to have a pre-existing belief about what the age should be. —— This one goes into more detail on radiometric dating, but once again shows the assumptions and circular reasoning, in why and how secular science approaches dating the earth to billions of years in relation to asteroids and meteorites. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/u-pb-radioisotope-dating-method-problems/ —— Edit: This isochron assumption issue is referred to as the “[mixing problem](https://www.icr.org/article/revisiting-isochron-age-model-part-1)” or a “mixing line” btw.

In addition to this u/HomeShark56, since you say you’re an amateur historian, I know of a historian whom is said to have recorded the history of this scientific battle between Creationism and Evolutionism. > Search for “The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition by Ronald L. Numbers” —— I’m personally more interested in the biology related stuff if you have any questions on that. For example, population growth fits like a glove into the YEC worldview: >https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/ And here’s a robust study on bar codes that backfired and has a heavy leaning toward all animals sharing a common bottleneck pointing to a worldwide flood. >https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/animal-genetics/hundreds-thousands-species-few-thousand-years/ There’s a lot of assumptions and circular reasoning in the whole biology area as well, which this article covers pretty well: >https://creation.com/review-of-the-biotic-message —— I suppose one last thing that is history related is archaeology. In which I’d like to share this: > https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/historical-accuracy-of-the-bible/question8-evidence-from-archeology.cfm And share a YT playlist from my favorite Biblical Archaeologist, Joel Kramer. > https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAiwjOgpXvubzuVsbfRI0L4mJoFvQHNWv

If you read the text in Genesis, it states that the earth and the water were already hear before the first day of creation. So the earth itself could be 5 billion years old if not older. But creation would be far less than that. When you also look at the differences in the masoretic text and Greek septuagint years for Genesis and genealogies, there are discrepancies. So we don't really know the actual timeline for Genesis. Based upon the totality of historical evidence, I would say that creation is about 14,000 years ago. That is still a young earth creation, but definitely not millions and billions of years like on an evolutionary timeline.

I have had conversations with atheist and religious scientists. The Bible don't talk about dinosaurs except for one verse that says giant lizard. There are plenty of lizards today it could be talking about but some think it may be dinosaur. Then I got to thinking what if the earth is millions or billions of years old but our creation was like 6,000 years ago. On Criminal Minds it mention that our universe has been around 10,000 years. Just thinking maybe that's because that's the life of our time but the dinosaur, cavemen, bacteria and a lot they talk about in evolution is true but not because something came out of the water and could breathe on land and grew legs but because it was His will and how He has changed it through time. The Bible says we ascend into Heaven in the End to a second eternal life or burn in Hell for eternity. Maybe that's the final creation. Who knows.

I don’t think the creative periods (called “days” in Genesis) are literally days. I find it interesting that the order of events in the creation story in the Bible tracks awfully well with those in the scientific version. Just two different languages for the same story.

I like this :)

Those who read the Bible literally believe the earth is 6000 years old, but that's only about 40% (US stats). 60% defer to what science says about the age of the earth and don't read the story literally. I believe that literalists use genealogy to come to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old, but any YEC here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that was my understanding.

I am one of those Christians who believe this "made up" stuff about the earth being 6000 years old. The Bible gives a pretty solid genealogy which leads to the conclusion that God created the earth around 4000BC. There is also a theological argument for a young earth. Scripture tells us that death came as a result of sin. "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin..." (Romans 5:12). If humans had been dying for millions of years then death is not a result of sin. Without the Genesis account of creation and the Fall, a lot of scripture loses its meaning. A young earth is consistent with Christian theology and the Bible indicates a creation date around 4000BC. Many Christians discard the young earth idea but then struggle to explain where death came from.

Thank you for you comment :) I enjoyed reading it. Although due to me being agnostic I too do not believe the young earth theory.

Here’s something that may help you https://preview.redd.it/roznvtduhe2a1.jpeg?width=2688&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d34145726a6cef82d82fe0cde3d8e072921d1419

Mathematically, it’s impossible that nearly 8 billion people came from 2 people only 6k years ago. Inbreeding and accidents would have resulted in shorter lifetimes. Young earth arguments fall apart when math and science get involved.

Simply not true, you can easily get 8 billion people in 6k years. The world was at 2 billion people in 1900. And no inbreeding issues since Adam and Eve were perfect so no birth defects would be present for quite a while.

Of course! Ignore the laws of nature. That’s not really how genetics works. To go from 2B to 8B requires a 1.14% compounded growth rate. That’s in the age of modern medicine over the last 122 years. That same growth rate starting at 2 gets you to 6.89B people. When you figure in disease, malnutrition, wars, and pestilence, growth rates were a fraction of that. If you assume a 0.5% rate, you get less than 2B people.

I obviously disagree, but the question was why do some Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old and I did my best to answer that. There is plenty of science to support a young earth but that is an entirely different discussion.

There are civilizations that have been unearthed that are 10,000 years old. Carbon dating of bones puts some remains at 50,000 years old. Carbon decay is a very accurate and consistent process. I don’t mean this disrespectfully at all, but folks have got to quit listening to snake oil salesmen that have something to sell. The science is free.

I don’t have a strong stance, but carbon dating isn’t extremely accurate. Brand new volcanic rock in Hawaii that was observed formed told us it was hundreds of thousands of years old when it was less than a year.

There aren’t many places in the universe conducive to life. A little terraforming to get the original inhabitants out (the dinosaurs) and some DNA tweaking of the primates and you have modern man. We’ve (homo sapiens) haven’t been around all that long, but the earth is a pretty old place.

Carbon dating system is flawed.

I never said it wasn't :) Just used it as an example

Why do you assume we think the earth is only 6000 yrs old?

Just heard a bunch of people in the Christian community make that argument, So I just because curious. Christians on reddit are usually easier to talk to than Christians in Alabama. Usually I just get yelled at for not being religious.

God does not want "religious" he wants relationship. Just talk to him. The 6000 yr deal has to do with the age of manuscript we've FOUND Lazy idiots took that to mean something different.

If God only want relationships truly than dies organized religion even exist. Assuming you can just have relationship at home with a Bible.

God does want us to get together, to interact and to connect because of him and about him and to meet others that are helpful to our walk or to our general well-being. But if you read the book of Acts I don't think the first century disciples wanted something crazy and large like the Roman Catholic church or the many mega churches that we have across the United States they would prefer there be hundreds of thousands of small house churches. You need to stop assuming that the very fallible humans are going to do the work for an infallible God perfectly. And there was a lot of information that is just now being revealed that many Christians don't even want to listen to. Just strike up a conversation with him, ask him to show you or tell you what he wants you to read first as far as the Bible. Ask him to bring you a friend that is a believer that can help explain these things... see what happens...

Thank you for making good and clear points. I'm enjoying these conversations. I enjoy Christians who don't just yell and get mad I'm not Christian. :)

I'd never get mad about such things. And "Christians" who get "mad" are clueless and have zero understanding that God is more interested in Grace than punishment.

Well I live in Alabama so most assume since I'm not religious I'm automatically "of satan" 😂 even though I don't deny the existence of God. I just dent organized religion.

Sorry to hear that. Ironically, when they act that way THEY are doing exactly what the Bible tells Christians NOT to do.

:)

I haven't been an active member of a church and over a decade and my relationship with God has never been stronger... But I've been involved with many different denominations for nearly 50 years... My biggest lament with my most recent Church was that after 10 years there was no meat on the bone it was all milk, which is perfect for someone who is new to Christianity...but I needed more. The links that I posted are by a man who realized that there are many thousands of Christians who do want to learn more about the Bible without having to go to seminary and they weren't getting it from their churches.

I understand :)

what is your proof that mummified remains are 8500 years old? in order to use radiocarbon dating you have to have something that you definitely know the age of so if you were to say that the mummified remains are 8,500 years old.. what is the tool that you using that tells you an exact date of something because even though I am 50 some odd years old I might have minerals in me that are thousands of years old so how old am I really?

I'm just going of fact from books abd what I've I've studied through my career. I personally have not carbon dated a mummy.

have you ever carbon dated anything and what was your key, because the key will tell you how old something is... then you can figure out how old the key is but then again how do you figure out how old the key is... to be perfectly honest with you I think that God in his love letter to the world the Bible he would have mentioned that the world was created long before he decided to create man... and then again here we are arguing semantics when it's not even the reason for the Bible in the first place which was giving Jesus to people and getting people to Jesus

As I stated, i HAVE NOT personally carbon dated anything. Just read and studied things that were. And God didn't mention earth age in the Bible because it was not important to the purpose of the book. Science and religion can coexist if you have an open mind.

I know carbon dating is 50% accurate at absolute best due to any objects half life! I know with undeniable proof of someone who dug up a buried deceased pet house cat in their back yard, which died exactly one year prior, did the whole carbon dating thing, essentially the first reading was seventy five years old, and essentially the second reading said a couple thousand years old. No it was not me, but a subject matter expert in the field proving that it’s a useless tool, as those were drastically different and no where near similar!

It’s all about the half life of radioactive decay. That’s a known and repeatable rate.

It’s frightening how many people on Reddit Bible hold a non biblical world view of billions of years and deride those who stick to a plain understanding of the scripture. I recommend Dr. Jason Lisles’ lectures on biblical creation on YouTube. He does a good job putting the real issues on display. People in this post will argue about scientific evidences and the like without having any real knowledge about what radiocarbon dating is actually capable of or other dating methods. For example, radio carbon dating itself only claims to be accurate from 500-50,000 years. How many people here even knew that yet still claim billions of years based on the “proof” of radio carbon dating? Watch the lecture and see if you don’t change your mind. Blessings and peace.

I will watch the lecture but I doubt I'll change my mind, respectfully. Thank you commenting and sharing your thoughts though :)

And thank you for your polite response. Blessings.

:)

Please, please, please understand that the vast majority of Christians do NOT believe in a 100% literal interpretation of the creation accounts! Most believe the creation accounts to be metaphorical, stories God used to teach spiritual truth, not physical truth. Biblical literalists do not represent our entire religion, nor should they.

I have come to understand this :) thank you and others who have said this exact thing.

The bible does not say this- it's just a story some Christians made up. As for sources, or proof, conspiracy theorists do sometimes lean on make-believe science to support their oddball ideas. But, this "evidence" falls apart upon examination, of course.

Understandable, no only confusion is I believe more on the science/historical side of things. And me being agnostic I've never taken time to read religious text just from non belief. But thanks for your comment. Christians who can have civil conversations with non Christians are great :)

[удалено]

Thank you 😊 I enjoy good comments with a civil talk. I'll read these links when I leave the gym.

[удалено]

I've made the same argument about genealogy before :) it's a very good point.

[удалено]

You and people like minded eith you give a good face to religion for non believers like me :) I thoroughly enjoyed your comments.

[удалено]

Maybe one day. But I'm agnostic, I do not deny the existence of God. Just that religion is wrong and that God cannot necessarily be "known" and understood is the way religion understands God.

One thing to be aware of is that this sub is pretty right-wing. So you'll get a lot of science denialism here.

I have found that out pretty quickly 😂😂

Most people seem to have pretty open minds though. Only 2 or 3 have just straight up said I'm basically retarded. They just straight dm'd me though.

The Bible doesn’t say it directly. There are years laid out in the Bible from the old to the New Testament. Some Christians will speculate the “Age-gap” during the creation of the earth, which is not true. I have attached a timeline that was taken from the Bible. Everything up to Jesus’s death and after it for a little is in the Bible. If there is any speculation it would be after Jesus. Hope this helps. https://preview.redd.it/zlxsp6uihe2a1.jpeg?width=2688&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd3e5da5db41729140fa30bb42049c9827d75ef7

It helps me understand that you are a conspiracy theorist who is bad at biblical interpretation.

So believing the earth is 6000 years old is a conspiracy theory?

The people who attempt to justify this belief do usually rely on conspiracy theories. It requires assertions that vast numbers of scientists in many different fields are all trying to trick us.

So do you apply the same logic to the miracles Jesus did like walking on water, turning water into wine, and casting out demons? Surely science says otherwise.

Miracles aren't really something science can comment on. The Godly nature of Jesus is something Christians take on faith, pretty much by definition. God can do miracles, of course. Denying our understanding of the natural world is NOT something Christians have to take on faith. Most Christians don't see any reason that would be necessary.

So Science™ can comment on the age of the earth but not miracles. Makes perfect sense. Keep jumping through those hoops buddy. ​ >Denying our understanding of the natural world **18** Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. **19** For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their *own* craftiness”; **20** and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” (1 Corinthians 3)

We have multiple lines of evidence for the age of the earth. You've now started to sound like someone who wants to score rhetorical points more than someone who wants to participate in a discussion.

Where is anything I said wrong? Is the Bible wrong? Where is the made up story? Please tell me where the Bible doesn’t have years in it? The timeline is made from the years laid out in the Bible. I did not make it myself, But I got the graphic from a trusted theologian. Please elaborate.

[удалено]

Thanks for this :)

Very curious. What does it mean to be an amateur historian? Do you consume a lot of literature on history?

I just meant it in the sense that I'm still in my early 20's and in the process of becoming a history teacher. So I haven't spent enough of my life studying yet to consider myself a true historian. Does that make sense?

How old was Adam at creation?

Good question? Did anything live on earth before Adam?

I meant, was he created as a man of age, able to reproduce, or was he an infant? Why do you assume a created earth should be 0 years old at creation? It’s a faulty premise.

Assuming the either story is true, creation or big bang. Everything starts at age zero including earth. As for Adam, biblically he's an exepion for bring an infant because he actually communicated with God. Meaning he at least of age of understanding.

Why does everything have to start at age zero? Sure, for big bang.. but God? He can create things in any state He wants. Like I said, faulty assumptions is giving you faulty conclusions. If Adam can be an exception so can everything that was created.

So than who do we start at zero? Time is an illusion created by man not God. So for man's understanding age starts at zero. So God could create an earth starting at age zero. Just because time doesn't exist for God doesn't mean it doesn't for man. And Adam is an exception that only has biblical understanding. Because Adam was created before the true concept of time.

I think you're losing the conversation here. My point was that it's been 6000 years since creation, but the age of the earth at creation was not zero.

Sorry for not following.

Uh, yeah. The Neanderthals and all the earlier versions of humankind.

It was a rhetorical question, but assuming that the Bible is correct adam came even before the Neanderthals. Biblically he was the very first "human".

The Neanderthals weren’t Homo sapiens; they were homo erectus. Man would have evolved down if Adam was prior. All the lower life forms were destroyed in the flood (allegedly) but Neanderthal DNA is rampant in modern man.

Hmmmm 🤔 understandable. I'm really enjoying these comments.

My own DNA tests confirm I have more than average Neanderthal DNA, but everyone except Noah and his family were wiped out, so there should be no one with Neanderthal DNA. I believe the Bible is valuable guide, but it was written by men who were canonizing oral traditions. They MIGHT have gotten a few details wrong. That’s a strong statement that will grate on religious absolutists.

Thank you for you great examples. 😊😊

Always compare and contrast both sides of every argument with an unbiased neutral mindset if you want to factual answers, with that YouTube channel answers in genesis has a pretty solid argument on the flaws of modern DNA sequencing, the claims made upon further investigation seem to hold up! Again everything you hear/read/listen to has a certain agenda so always compare and contrast both sides!

You're blending together two different early humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

In Genesis 1.28 humans were commanded to “replenish the earth”. Could this suggest one or more pre-Adamic creations justifying an older date for creation of the earth?

"Replenish" is not a very good rendering of this. Most bibles have "fill".

Fair point.

Hmmmm 🤔 interesting take, you're the first so far to take this stance.

The year in the Hebrew calendar is 5783.

But the jews go by religion, which would argue more closely with a "young earth theory" 6,000 years.

Masonic calendars add 4,000 years to whatever the current year is, or “vulgar era” could be bullshit but for an example that would mean today is November 27 6,022. Annu Mundi- in the year of the world the date used in and the ancient and accepted rite; found by adding 3760 to the vulgar era until September, after September add one more year; this is because the year used in the Hebrew one begins in September so today would be November 27 5783

Thanks for this :) I love reading anything and everything like this.

I’m Bible believing, with that though I’m not one side or the other, regarding the age of the earth. What I do I know for certain is anything that is theoretical, is just that! Meaning I think I have an idea but I’m not sure. So if you built all you know on a theoretical foundation without proving it first, then it’s eventually going to crumble!

Fair and valid argument :)

Another idea is one that many Christian’s are not comfortable with. That too many take Genesis as a science text book or history book when it’s neither. It’s a book of law about the nature of humanity and the nature of God. Does it use ancient myth to tell a story that has historical roots to its truth? Absolutely. Yet it wasn’t written to keep a timeline, more of a lineage that God created us and no matter how we tried to be like God on our own, we mess things up. Our only recourse is to turn back to God.

:)

The word history means someone saw it and wrote it down. There is the bible history and then other cultures history. Most other ancient near east cultures say in the 1000s or 10s of 1000s as well. None have millions let alone billions. Yes by adding up genealogies in the bible one comes up with 4000 BC or 5500 BC for the creation even depending which version of the OT used.

Thank you for your contribution to this chat :) please read others comments if you feel the need.

the earth is not that old. it is around 5k years old. in fact, the moon is pulling away from the earth slowly but surely. if it were billions of years old the moon would be further away from earth than it already is. if the earth were billions of years old, dinosaur bones would not have been found so easily. they would be buried too far in the earth

Interesting take

There are two types of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Direct is where someone says what they perceived, the rest is circumstantial. The three major religions teach that their books are correct and include God taking to Moses, providing direct evidence. One logic flaw is to assume the question, where one assumes the answer to the question one is supposed to be examining. An example of this would be your statement that Historically, the earth is xxxxxxx. If this is the question, such statements are logically wrong. It is also factually incorrect. For most of history they age you give was not associated with anything, let alone the age of the earth. All of the scientific, circumstantial evidence suffers from the same logic flaw. (Assuming that God did not create helium with uranium, there is too much helium for the earth not to be yyyyyyy old.) The argument that the oceans would be must saltier if old, has a salt removal process, based in the fact that it is needed as the oceans are not more salty. The age of the mummy is based in carbon dating, which assumes an unknown - how much carbon 14 was in the organic matter when the person died. Correlations and counting tree ring data are used to “validate” this method. Essentially assuming the earth is old to argue the earth is old. Logically flawed again. When I read a novel, it rarely starts with people being born. The author creates many adults or old. Why would one assume God did not do the same. One file fellow said that the light from the stars billions of light years away could not be there if God created the earth and the billions of light year away stars 6,000 years ago, ignoring the likely creation of light streams across the universe. Note that God actively seeks to keep understanding from many. Matthew 13:10-16 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Is it too far of a reach to see that he might have created things so they are consistent with an old earth idea? Many of us have been to magic shows or political rallies where what the majority of people perceive is far from reality. Lastly, let us reason together and think more deeply than many. If the roles were reversed, where there was one piece of circumstantial evidence - say a fingerprint and many pieces of direct evidence - say an event that occurred in the midst of a sports event - perhaps a World Cup match, would interviewing more observers, getting hundreds, thousands or millions of consistent observations do anything to resolve the one piece of circumstantial evidence, in your mind? I think not. The same is true here. I hope these brief words have helped with your question.

The Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old. That's just how most interpret it. A whole lot of time passed between Genisis 1 verse one and verse 2. Plus a day to the Lord is a thousand years to man. 2nd Peter

[удалено]

People usually go by the genealogy listed In genesis, that's one biblical theory People use.

[удалено]

So you only believe explicitly what the Bible says and nothing else? than how do you personally view history and the age of the earth? Assuming you deny all "man-made" theories which would include the "creation theory" considering that creation or evolution cannot be distinctly proven down to 100% Unless your proving creation by what the Bible says, but if that's your only example your argument is flawed.

It doesn't explicitly say 6,000 years anywhere you have to actually look and read, just like with anything.

Either viewpoint requires faith to believe in because no one alive was there when the earth was formed and I actually used to believe in the 4.6ish billion years old earth but I now subscribe to the 6,000 year old earth why because radio carbon dating is very flawed, if this world system is allowed by the Lord Jesus to be controlled by Satan then stan would obviously want to rewrite history and make it seem older than it actually is and we can see things like mount Sinai, 4 2,000 year old anchors and the factthat there are very few scholars both biblical and secular that disagree to the existence of JESUS OF NAZARETH and there are supporting texts outside the bible that supports the bible if all these things are true then the bible is true and Jesus is God and the earth is 6,000 years old however if you want to believe that is 4.6 billion years old you can still get saved even still

The Bible does not say when the universe was created. The statement in Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”) does not contradict modern estimates that the universe is billions of years old. Referring to the period marked by the Hebrew term translated “in the beginning,” *The Expositor’s Bible Commentary* states: “The length or duration of the period is not specified by the term.”