6,000 year old Earth theory...?

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by Rulkiewicz
reply to post by BlastedCaddy

 

... I don't know.

I can't say for certain that the earth is 6,000 years old and I'm open to the idea that it might be millions of years old. It seems that anyone who doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old is automatically categorized as an unbeliever.

Why the fuss over thousands of years verse millions/billions of years? I think it boils down to agenda. The majority of evolutionists believe that the earth is mil/billions of years old, whereas the majority of Christians/Creationist believe the world is ~6,000 years old. People love to prove other people wrong.

The majority of Christains do not believe in the 6000 year earth theory nor in in a 100% literal intepretation of the Bible. The people who do are the new versions of Christianity like the Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses and such. Mostly its an American thing in the fundamentalists South. Jewish tradition was to teach lessons through parables, a tradition Jesus also followed. These storys were to teach not to be taken a literal events. Most people simply believe in evolution sparked a supreme being as a way to address both science and faith.

Not singling you or any one out here, but does it not follow that if most Christians don't believe in
the 6 thousand year old Earth , then fundamentally they don't believe in the bible as it is a corner stone of the faith.

Seems to me that picking and choosing is much the same as making it up.

Originally posted by cry93
We know from human and other animal remains that earth is far older than 6k.

Even man himself is older than that.

The Great Pyramid is older than 4,000 BC. Some archaelogists date it around 12,000 BC according to alignment with star systems.

reply to post by rigel4


Not really.

The 6000 year old earth theory is a literal interpretation of Genesis.....keyword: interpretation.

Nothing in the bible tells us how to interpret it's passages....

Again, understanding the communication vessel used to interpret and record the knowledge given to ancient man can shed some light on this. Whoever wrote Genesis was using an ancient science to convey what they understood. Just as we use modern science to convey what we understand today....And the beauty of the whole scenario is that science is by nature tentative.....So what is being told has to be taken in reference with what they knew at the time....Just as anything we say today....

We can talk about how gravity helped mould our Universe all day...and to us it's pretty well established fact.....until new information comes out that makes us conform our belief to fit the new data-set....It's the same thing....Ancient science, modern science....It's just our way of interpreting and communicationg data...and invariably it changes...

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by rigel4

 

Not really.

The 6000 year old earth theory is a literal interpretation of Genesis.....keyword: interpretation.

Nothing in the bible tells us how to interpret it's passages....

Again, understanding the communication vessel used to interpret and record the knowledge given to ancient man can shed some light on this. Whoever wrote Genesis was using an ancient science to convey what they understood. Just as we use modern science to convey what we understand today....And the beauty of the whole scenario is that science is by nature tentative.....So what is being told has to be taken in reference with what they knew at the time....Just as anything we say today....

We can talk about how gravity helped mould our Universe all day...and to us it's pretty well established fact.....until new information comes out that makes us conform our belief to fit the new data-set....It's the same thing....Ancient science, modern science....It's just our way of interpreting and communicationg data...and invariably it changes...

A2D

edit on 10-6-2013 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)

Of course I don't agree with everything you say but, you are doing a great job at defending yourself as well as others (this includes me). Keep up the great work!

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Well I disregard the notion simply because out of all the evolutionary processes I do believe in....nothing has demonstrated the intellectual "evolutionary" process like humans from apes...Nothing else even comes close to the evolutionary leap that would take....nothing at all...

Which evolutionary leap are you referring to? From Ardipithicus Ramidus to Australopitheucs Afarenisis? Homo rudolfensis to Homo ergaster? Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal? Habilis to sapien? Where is this really big leap? All I see is intelligence slightly increasing over time. Nothing comes close, except for the fact that's it's happened in multiple species of hominid, for example homo erectus. He was not a direct ancestor of homo sapiens yet the most recently dated fossils had a comparable brain size to modern humans.

There are evolutionary processes that require much longer time frames to accomplish than what is speculated with the apes to humans process, and yet we still so no significant intellectual change(like that of humans) accomplished via evolution....

By all means, elaborate on these time frames, that makes 7 million years too quick for evolution. I've heard that argument before but haven't seen any scientifically valid numbers or figures to back it up.

reply to post by babybunnies


Actually, I recently looked into the ages for Egyptian pyramids for another reason. It was a topic here on ATS where I wanted to share info. I chose to eventually share said info elsewhere (another non-related site) but I alluded to it here.


Do you care to share how and why you referenced my quoted info with me?

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

nothing has demonstrated the intellectual "evolutionary" process like humans from apes...

No? Read this.

Much more here if you want it: Stone Tools & the Evolution of Hominin & Human Intelligence. Go to p.194 if you want to cut to the chase.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Well I disregard the notion simply because out of all the evolutionary processes I do believe in....nothing has demonstrated the intellectual "evolutionary" process like humans from apes...Nothing else even comes close to the evolutionary leap that would take....nothing at all...

Which evolutionary leap are you referring to? From Ardipithicus Ramidus to Australopitheucs Afarenisis? Homo rudolfensis to Homo ergaster? Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal? Habilis to sapien? Where is this really big leap? All I see is intelligence slightly increasing over time. Nothing comes close, except for the fact that's it's happened in multiple species of hominid, for example homo erectus. He was not a direct ancestor of homo sapiens yet the most recently dated fossils had a comparable brain size to modern humans.

There are evolutionary processes that require much longer time frames to accomplish than what is speculated with the apes to humans process, and yet we still so no significant intellectual change(like that of humans) accomplished via evolution....

By all means, elaborate on these time frames, that makes 7 million years too quick for evolution. I've heard that argument before but haven't seen any scientifically valid numbers or figures to back it up.

edit on 10-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Clearly you misunderstood my statement...because not once did you even attempt to compare the intellectual capacity of apes to modern man.....
A2D

reply to post by Astyanax


What I'm saying is that NO OTHER EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has been as dramatic as the supposed ape-to-man process......If evolution can achieve such work...Why have the evolutionary processes that take LONGER than the ape-human process not created something much more intelligent than ourselves? Why are we still at the top of the intellectual ladder? Why are we the kings of evolution?

A2D

"one day to GOD is as one thousand years to man"


this is NOT a literal statement

science says otherwise contradictory to the 6000 yr theory


I take it as this...that statement was just a saying mankind used in that day and age

remember when you were a child and wanted to go somewhere,
and you parents said "not until next week" ( or something similar)
and you respond with...."that's gonna take FOREVER"

it was just a saying.

the real timeframe is unknown to mankind
and the bible does NOT mention how much time passed in its early beginnings.
EONS could have passed between days one and six.

reply to post by infinitymindbox


True. Too many times people misinterpret the intended usage of particular bible passages.....
It was never meant to be a timeline of events...Or God's secret diary of how everything works....
Humans are just too arrogant to recognize that what we WANT and what we GET aren't always the same things....

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Astyanax

 

What I'm saying is that NO OTHER EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has been as dramatic as the supposed ape-to-man process......If evolution can achieve such work...Why have the evolutionary processes that take LONGER than the ape-human process not created something much more intelligent than ourselves? Why are we still at the top of the intellectual ladder? Why are we the kings of evolution?

A2D

Who is to say we are the kings of evolution? Evolution isn't linear. There is no timetable for species to split. Dolphins have developed a very complex intelligence and communication system. They may not have the capability to manipulate their environment like humans can but they definitely don't lack a complex intelligence. Just because we have evolved to have the brain capacity we have doesn't mean it isn't natural.

reply to post by Cypress


but what I'm saying is....evolution has theoretically been taking place since the very initial big bang...and only now, however many billion u want to call it, modern-man has emerged...yet humans are relatively new on the evolutionary timeline....Also, some geneticists seem to think the evolution of man has come to a standstill.....just google it....

(pssst, maybe that's because the evolution of man never started to begin with....)

But it's all neither here nor there....I have my beliefs and the reasons that support them. You have yours and the reasons that support them. That's life eh.

A2D

(Also, my intitial statement still stands. That is, "No other evolutionary process has been as dramatic as the ape-man concept")

reply to post by Rulkiewicz


Even bishops discussing these matters with evolutionists do not actually believe this anymore (google some of richard dawkins discussions).

This "theory" is based on nothing but dates and timelines in the bible.

The first point that comes to mind is: What about dates and timelines of other religious texts? Are they all fiction, and only the bible is the true word of god?

The much, much more logical point is that we have MOUNTAINS of undeniable (and yes in this context we can actually use that word) evidence that the earth is much older.

I won´t bother to name everything, but fossils, sediment studies, the whole field of archaeology and astronomy, chemistry and sooooo much more.

I honestly can not understand how an educated mind in this day and age can sincerely hang on to the young earth theory. Only the ones can do that who´s faith is dependent on the validity of this story. When accepting facts for an older earth would mean "abandoning" your faith, then you´ll do almost anything to hang on to it.

That is why so many "modern" christians pretty much turned around and away from the bible. They say genesis is obviously not a literal story, that evolution is just gods way of creating the earth and so on and so forth (actual words of a bishop! in a discussion about this topic).

Only the hardcore christians, who haven´t heard the latest statements from the church about this still believe in a young earth. This however has nothing to do with a rational analysis of the facts presented to anyone. Nothing.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

What I'm saying is that NO OTHER EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has been as dramatic as the supposed ape-to-man process......If evolution can achieve such work...Why have the evolutionary processes that take LONGER than the ape-human process not created something much more intelligent than ourselves? Why are we still at the top of the intellectual ladder? Why are we the kings of evolution?

Dramatic? The genetic difference between us and chimpanzees is about 1.2%. Between us and other great apes, about 3%. It took between five and seven million years to evolve that very modest difference. Can you support your claim that it was an unusually short time?

evolution has theoretically been taking place since the very initial big bang...and only now, however many billion u want to call it, modern-man has emerged...yet humans are relatively new on the evolutionary timeline....

The evolution of life doesn't go back to the Big Bang, it goes back to the emergence of the first living organism. The evolution of human beings began at that same moment. No organism can boast an evolutionary timeline longer than ours. Of course, every other living thing on this planet today can say the same.

Some geneticists seem to think the evolution of man has come to a standstill.....just google it....

I happen to think otherwise, but so what?

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Astyanax

 

What I'm saying is that NO OTHER EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has been as dramatic as the supposed ape-to-man process......If evolution can achieve such work...Why have the evolutionary processes that take LONGER than the ape-human process not created something much more intelligent than ourselves? Why are we still at the top of the intellectual ladder? Why are we the kings of evolution?

A2D

What processes are you talking about? Genetic mutations? Natural selection? You consider the transition from sea to air breathing land dweller less "dramatic" than a slow increase in intellect over 7 million years? Sexual dimorphism, single cell to multi cell, land to avian life? What makes human intellect so much different or faster? You are comparing evolution with a conscious entity. Why would you ask it why? Do you ask gravity why 2 objects of different weights fall at the same rate? Evolution does not follow time limits or have goals. Creatures experience genetic mutations and adapt to environmental changes. Ape to man, fish to amphibian, reptile to mammal. It's all the same process, there isn't separate ones for ape to man. It's about genetic mutations and adaptation to the environment. Sounds like you are making judgments about evolution without having a firm understanding of natural selection. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's why I responded above and here.

Also, we are not the kings of evolution. Being on top is incredibly temporary. We've been on top for what, 200,000 years out of the 3 billion + that life has been on the planet? In comparison, dinosaurs ruled the earth for hundreds of millions of years, which would make something like a T-Rex much more successful than humans.

Wow....clearly we pick and choose what we want to discuss around here....

Not once did I "claim" that the evolutionary timeline for humans is/was short...
Also, I clearly stated, multiple times, that I'm discussing the INTELLECTUAL evolution....

Give me anything...anything at all that even closely resembles the intellectual evolution of the purported ape-man theory on a similar timeline.....Even evolutionary processes that take millions more years than what it took for humans to appear haven't accomplished anything even remotely close in INTELLECTUAL terms....

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Please try to read this to the end.

Asian sons african sons etc....Ever heard of Pangaea? Supercontinent...These lands could have theoretically all been populated before the landmass known as Pangaea broke apart...

But how do you account for the difference in the timing? Homo Sapiens and his human (not simian) ancestors have been in existence for only three million years. Pangaea began breaking up 175 million years ago! And the first big split was into Laurasia (basically Asia, North America and Europe) and Gondwana (Africa, South America, Australia and Antarctica). The pattern of human emergence and distribution out of Africa – which we can trace by examining the genes of modern humans from around the world – does not fit this picture.

What happened to all the water? It went back inside the earth? Huge Ocean Discovered Inside Earth

That 'huge ocean' is only the size of the Arctic Ocean – which is neither very wide nor very deep. And it's water soaked into rock, not an underground reservoir. There are plenty of those, but not nearly enough to account for the water that would have been needed to cover Earth to the height of Everest. Think about it – the whole Earth would have to be sodden with water to a depth about twice the height of Everest! That's impossible.

Also, the landmasses and oceans would not need to switch places....Psalms 104 states that the topography of the Earth changed dramatically AFTER the flood...

As I said in my first post on this thread, you cannot match the details of evolution to the Creation story in the Bible. The details of geology and cosmology don't, I'm sorry to say, fit any better. There is really no point in trying.

*

I am no longer a Christian, but I have a great deal of sympathy, believe it or not, for Christianity. It seems to me to have been a great force for good in the world. I think it is still possible to be a Christian even in our scientific age, but one has to accept that some things in the Bible – certainly the extraordinary stories in the Old Testament – are simply not factual. They are not even metaphorical in the crude way we've been discussing on this thread – 'a thousand ages in Thy sight are like an evening gone.' They can, perhaps, be read as myths or spiritual metaphors, though I suspect it is simply best to accept them as part of the historical baggage of Christianity and move on to the core of what makes the faith, which is belief in the possibility of personal and universal redemption through Christ's sacrifice and his teachings.

Such is the form that Christianity has largely assumed among the more intellectual circles of the Anglican (to Americans, Episcopalian) Church to which I once belonged. You could accuse me, perhaps, of proselytising a faith I no longer hold. But it seems to me that in deposing any kind of terrestrial intermediary or authority between the individual and God, the more individualistic forms of Protestant faith (read: those born in and propagated out of North America) have simply put the Bible in place of the Pope, the Grand Metropolitan or the Archbishop of Canterbury. I think that is far more dangerous in the long run, because you can appeal to a human being for justice and mercy, but you can't appeal to a book. By making an idol of the Bible these forms of 'Christianity' become rigid, tyrannical and ever more out of touch with modern reality. The words of Bible atually get in the way of direct spiritual experience, what you might call your relationship with Christ.

*

Be that as it may, I salute you for your acceptance of reality – that is, the theory of evolution by natural selection – even though you seem to be hazy on some of the details. I urge you to learn a little more about it. The best book I've ever read on the subject (and I've read many, including Darwin's own works) is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's old and it's not exactly Evolution for Dummies but it gives a very clear, concise yet often awe-inspiring and poetic account of the theory in its present-day form – the so-called Modern Synthesis. Its main insight, now generally accepted in biology, is that evolution is ultimately something that happens to genes, not to the organisms in which they are carried or the groups into which those organisms collect themselves.

Another very good book, much more recently published, is The Ancestor's Tale, also by Dawkins. This is aimed at a less scientifically-educated reader. It explains evolution by tracing the line of human descent all the way back, species by species, to the very first living things. It is very easy to read and, like all Dawkins's non-technical works, very beautifully and evocatively written.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Please try to read this to the end.

I always read to the end.

But how do you account for the difference in the timing? Homo Sapiens and his human (not simian) ancestors have been in existence for only three million years. Pangaea began breaking up 175 million years ago! And the first big split was into Laurasia (basically Asia, North America and Europe) and Gondwana (Africa, South America, Australia and Antarctica). The pattern of human emergence and distribution out of Africa – which we can trace by examining the genes of modern humans from around the world – does not fit this picture.

I don't account for the difference in timing. Science is tentative. That means that for all we know Pangaea broke up 175 million years ago....and humans and their ancestors have only been in existence for three million years.....of course that's barring any further discoveries...

That 'huge ocean' is only the size of the Arctic Ocean – which is neither very wide nor very deep. And it's water soaked into rock, not an underground reservoir. There are plenty of those, but not nearly enough to account for the water that would have been needed to cover Earth to the height of Everest. Think about it – the whole Earth would have to be sodden with water to a depth about twice the height of Everest! That's impossible.

Impossible is not a word I use....ever. We don't know what is or isn't possible....That's the nature of the beast. Also, again, science is tentative. This discovery only SUGGESTS that it's theoretically possible for the water to have gone inside the Earth....further discoveries could shed more light.

As I said in my first post on this thread, you cannot match the details of evolution to the Creation story in the Bible. The details of geology and cosmology don't, I'm sorry to say, fit any better. There is really no point in trying.

Debateable....and I'll leave it at that.


Also, I've read a lot on evolution believe it or not....and that's one of the reasons I really don't like debating against it. However, as with most science, there are gaps that leave me unfulfilled, because of course, science is tentative. If we WERE to come across new information I'd more than likely be the first Christian to examine it very thoroughly and incorporate it into my not-so-common belief system.....And, as much as I would love to have more scientific information to fill in the gaps...I just don't have it at the moment....I don't revert back to the "I don't know so God must have done it" routine because that's just ridiculous....I do however take into consideration the biblical account and think in scientific terms, with consideration to the ancient science used to communicate the information there-in to try to better understand what may or may not have happened...If I'm wrong, no big deal....Plenty of very intelligent people were/are/will be wrong....

Thank you for the thoughtful discussion though!
A2D

Also, in response to:

I think it is still possible to be a Christian even in our scientific age, but one has to accept that much of the Bible – and certainly the extraordinary stories in the Old Testament – are simply not factual. They are not even metaphorical in the crude way we've been discussing on this thread – 'a thousand ages in Thy sight are like an evening gone.' They can, perhaps, be read as myths or metaphors, though I suspect it is simply best to accept them as part of the historical baggage of Christianity and move on to the core of what makes the faith, which is belief in the possibility of personal and universal redemption through Christ's sacrifice and his teachings.

I agree, for the most part.
I really don't like discussing what typically is pulled out of the bag of tricks to slander the name of Christianity i.e. incest, murder, homosexuality, creationism, etc etc....The reason being is that these are not central points within the faith. When put side by side with the core teachings of Christianity, these stories just seem ridiculously out of place.....and I rarely see the point in arguing pro/con for either side when in all actuality, it doesn't even affect the teachings of Christianity.....The only reason I do, is mainly because there is such a ridiculous amount of nonsense being thrown around that I feel compelled to defend myself and my belief.....

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Not once did I "claim" that the evolutionary timeline for humans is/was short... Also, I clearly stated, multiple times, that I'm discussing the INTELLECTUAL evolution...

An understandable misunderstanding then, since you haven't made your terms clear. Do you mean (1) the evolution of the brain, (2) the evolution of mind, or (3) the evolution of culture?

• The evolution of the human brain is the result of natural selective processes. As we have seen, there was nothing particularly radical about the genetic modification involved, and it took a long time to complete.
  
  
• The evolution of mind is tricky, because mind is a tricky subject. It is more the province of philosophers than scientists. Let's simplify matters by assuming that what we mean by the evolution of mind is simply the acquisition of ever greater powers of abstract thought – including such things as mathematical ability – and linguistic expression. Taking that definition, we can move mind back into the province of science. Yes, the human 'mind' did undergo an astonishingly rapid process of evolution and development in a relatively short time. Part of this probably was physical and there is indeed disagreement among evolutionists as to how that part came about – but that does not mean it is miraculous. In fact, Darwin's suggestion, made in The Descent of Man, that it resulted from sexual selection, is very probable. Sexual selection, especially in its runaway form, makes living things change their forms very rapidly, in just a few generations. All that would have been needed was for cavewomen to prefer smart cavemen to dumb ones.
  
  
• It strikes me, though, that what you are really talking about is the evolution of culture – the ever-increasing sophistication of our ideas, our ways of living, and the things we make. Well, cultural evolution can proceed at an explosive pace compared with physical evolution by natural selection as soon as language is invented, because intellectual material can be shared and propagated immediately, unlike genetic material, whose transfer and expression takes an entire generation. And of course, when writing and, later, printing are invented, the process takes off exponentially. And of course, it has nothing at all to do with genetic evolution.

Perhaps you won't mind answering a question for me. Underlying all that you have posted in this thread is an insistence that human beings are somehow set apart from the animals. I have never been able to understand why this is so important to some people, and I'm curious about it. Would you care to explain?