jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (26 posts)

Do you believe the Earth is young, i.e. 6 or 7 thousand years? I would like to h

  1. cam8510 profile image97
    cam8510posted 2 years ago

    Do you believe the Earth is young, i.e. 6 or 7 thousand years? I would like to hear your reasons.

    I would like to write a hub about the young Earth concept.  I already understand quite a bit, but want to get more input from those who hold this view.  My hub will not be critical of the young Earth view.  It will be solely descriptive of that viewpoint.  I've done this on some other topics which I don't necessarily believe and it works well.  I feel that when there is a debate, people should understand the opposing side well.  I will not be debating you here when you share, but I can't guarantee others won't.  Try to keep your answers succinct.  You don't have to convince me, just explain.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image95
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    Young-Earth Creationism is the exact same thing as Last Thursdayism, but you'll never see Creationists call their belief "Last Thursdayism" because they can't bear to acknowledge the ridiculousness of it, and so they shut it out and deny it.

    So if you're going to cover Young-Earth Creationism in a hub, then that means covering Last Thursdayism, too. If you haven't already, you'll come to appreciate the silliness of the whole idea during your research. Laughs will be had.

    1. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I'll check out Last Thursdayism as well, Thanks for the tip.

    2. lawrence01 profile image81
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Zelkiro
      Before you say such things it might pay to actually look at the research. You'll be surprised.

    3. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I'm staying neutral, so I'm looking into everything that is suggested.  I appreciate both of you taking part. I found the Last Thursdayism idea to be interesting and humorous.  Lawrence's comments here and in his hubs are worth reading.

  3. Akriti Mattu profile image76
    Akriti Mattuposted 2 years ago

    No the Earth is not 6-7 thousand years old. This is just a view point of some religions especially Christianity. Now i won't get into the details of that here (it's a whole new debate). Let's talk facts here. The Earth is 4.5 million years old and this is based on scientific evidence.

    Three basic approaches are used to determine the age of the Earth. The first is to search for and date the oldest rocks exposed on the surface of the Earth. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks with earlier but now erased histories, so the ages obtained in this way are minimum ages for the Earth. Because the Earth formed as part of the Solar System, a second approach is to date extraterrestrial objects, i.e., meteorites and samples from the Moon. Many of these samples have not had so intense nor so complex histories as the oldest Earth rocks, and they commonly record events nearer or equal to the time of formation of the planets. The third approach, and the one that scientists think gives the most accurate age for the Earth, the other planets, and the Solar System, is to determine model lead ages for the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites. This method is thought to represent the time when lead isotopes were last homogeneously distributed throughout the Solar System and, thus, the time that the planetary bodies were segregated into discrete chemical systems. The results from these methods indicate that the Earth, meteorites, the Moon, and, by inference, the entire Solar System are 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.

    1. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the explanation.   Im hoping that those who believe in a young earth will come and explain why they believe this.  I'm simply looking for that information.

    2. lawrence01 profile image81
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Akriti
      You do raise some good points that have value. Metamorphic rock are rocks that started as something else but chemical processes or radiation changed the composition. We don't know when this happened hence its not a good method.

  4. Rod Marsden profile image74
    Rod Marsdenposted 2 years ago

    Sorry but I do not believe the Earth is that young. 6 or 7 thousand years old? That goes back to a time when the Catholic Church thought the sun circled our planet. Not good science. Maybe try a Creationist for opposing views. They're not into real science so maybe they might come up with some reason why the earth could possibly be that young. Hey! Ancient Egypt is older than THAT.

    1. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks , Rod.  Actually that is exactly what I asked.   I'm looking for those who believe in a young earth to explain why they believe this.  The only people I know who would believe it are creationists.

  5. Michele Rubatino profile image61
    Michele Rubatinoposted 2 years ago

    I view the bible literature as a stage of human imagination. I see the word earth is used for literal earth and the mind process, or thoughts, also being an "earth." We see this clearly in Genesis 6 where the main character God declares it takes place in imagination + thoughts + heart. With that being said, the creation story would be more understood when relating to the womb of life. That being the child leaves the father (semen) and the child leaves the mother (egg) and the two become one flesh.

    1. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Very interesting thoughts, Michele.  Thanks for sharing them.  It's interesting that no one has shown up yet who actually believes in a young earth.  I know they are here on HP.  I was hoping to get their input for my hub.  Thanks for sharing here.

  6. Faith Reaper profile image86
    Faith Reaperposted 2 years ago

    Actually, Chris,

    A hubber by the name of lawrence01 just published an interesting hub on this very topic nine days ago.  Check it out.

    1. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Faith.  I'll check it out.  I know lawrence01, but I haven't seen his hub yet.  I appreciate the heads up.

    2. Faith Reaper profile image86
      Faith Reaperposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It is very well written.  I'm sure you will find it interesting, possibly.

    3. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Faith, yes it is very interesting.  I left a comment that I hope was not taking his discussion in a direction he hadn't intended.   I brought up the Bible, but he only mentioned creation in his hub.

    4. Faith Reaper profile image86
      Faith Reaperposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I saw, Chris. And I see you more clearly too. I get you now. Faith, it seems, is a difficult thing for so many to grasp, and it really seems to bother those who have none, that others do possess it, oddly enough. God bless you in your move.

    5. lawrence01 profile image81
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry Cam. It did take me a while to find this question. Hope the input has helped.

    6. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Lawrence, I'm very glad you are taking part in this discussion.  I've read some of your hubs on the subject, and know you have quite a bit to say.

  7. lawrence01 profile image81
    lawrence01posted 2 years ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12326581_f260.jpg

    Cam
    Interesting question. I'm working through a series of hubs on this question at the moment. I'm not however a scientist so for the science I'm usually using second hand material for my arguments.
    Personally I do think that the earth is younger than the four and a half billion years we are told primarily because reading what science says about its formation and how life came about its just too well organized to be accidental!
    I do believe the Bible's account but I sometimes wonder if we might be missing parts of the "puzzle" in figuring it out.
    One major thing that's often quoted about the age of the universe is light from distant stars taking so long to get to earth (eg the crab nebula is 70,000 light years away) but recent research shows that the speed of light has varied over time and has been slowing down. Every astronomer agrees about this but the discussion is how much it has varied.
    The main method used for dating the earth is uranium 238 and potassium argon dating because of the long 'half life' of the material but not enough is known about the materials to make sure of this (the half life of uranium 238 is supposed to be four and a half billion years but no one has observed that) and there is evidence that it decays much faster than that. Using metamorphic rock has its own problems as samples sent to various labs from eruptions at Mount St Helens and Ngarohe (both erupted in the last thirty years and the rocks were less than thirty five years old) were dated at ten to thirty million years!!!
    Hope this helps
    Blessings
    Lawrence

    1. Link10103 profile image74
      Link10103posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Don't really see anything on google about the speed of light slowing down...

      And besides, if it is slower than originally thought, wouldn't that make the age even older?

    2. lawrence01 profile image81
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Look under "variable light speed theory"
      I just found an article at BBC.com about an experiment two years ago where scientists did slow lightspeed down.
      Also live science.com has info on it

    3. Link10103 profile image74
      Link10103posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I saw the story. The speed of light was slowed in a controlled experiment. Now I really don't see how that states the speed as a whole is slowing down like you said when we had to actively make an alteration to how it traveled.

    4. lawrence01 profile image81
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      At the moment it's only a hypothesis. But what it means is that if light was once much faster then the objects we think are far away are actually much closer and we see them multiple times. Both creationists and Big Bang believers accept the theory

    5. cam8510 profile image97
      cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Lawrence, how would this affect the general and special theories of relativity? If we can't be certain that the speed of light has always been constant, can we really say we know anything?   I'm not debating you.  Theseare sincere questions.

    6. lawrence01 profile image81
      lawrence01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Chris
      From what I've read it doesn't as the theory of relativity says the speed of light cannot be broken but nothing about it being constant. Lightspeed is still not exceeded.
      Hope this helps

 
working