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.
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.
I'll check out Last Thursdayism as well, Thanks for the tip.
Before you say such things it might pay to actually look at the research. You'll be surprised.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A hubber by the name of lawrence01 just published an interesting hub on this very topic nine days ago. Check it out.
Thanks Faith. I'll check it out. I know lawrence01, but I haven't seen his hub yet. I appreciate the heads up.
It is very well written. I'm sure you will find it interesting, possibly.
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.
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.
Sorry Cam. It did take me a while to find this question. Hope the input has helped.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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
by jerami 14 years ago
The saints reign with Christ on earth for a thousand years, while Satan is bound in the pit. Is that statement scriptual? What do you think? I think NOT !!
by Troy Wilkerson 12 years ago
If you cant prove that the Bible is false, how can you call it lies. That is irrational, for to call someone a liar you must have proof to the contrary to what they are saying. Anything else is personal opinion and mere speculation.
by Emile R 9 years ago
I've just been reading about 'out of place' artifacts. Oddities which are dated way, way way outside of the parameters of the currently accepted assumptions on human development on this planet. It appears a lot of these artifacts are exhibited in a creation museum. I'm curious as to why. If things...
by TMMason 13 years ago
I enjoy this video so very much.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1Abaa.. ah... ah... aba... what?I love that video... not to mention the fact that he never answered the question. Yes, I have read his letter to his fans as to his answer. And it is almost as funny as the video.The...
by Prakash RnP 6 years ago
Do you know and care how much the nearest relations of an FBI cop or a US army man or warplane pilot killed in a firefight with a gang of Mafiosi or terrorists are paid in recompense for the loss of their beloved one ? Do you think that sum of money deserves to be reckoned the RIGHT price of human...
by Kadmiels 13 years ago
How much time actually passes on earth for a day in heaven?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|