The age of the earth

by barry 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  barry

  Richard Bottomley, a professor of physics while speaking at an SDA Faith and Science conference said "Remember that while God has been a Physicist for nearly 14 Billion years, he has only been a theologian for the last six thousand years'. He got the biggest laugh of the day. The conference is being held at he present time in Colorado. Barry
• 

  StinkyPantz

  Hehe. . I like that!!
• 

  gaiagirl

  Currently, the universe itself is considered to be about 14 billion years old, i.e. 14 billion years since the Big Bang. However, many things contained within the universe are much younger than that figure.

  However, this planet, indeed this solar system is nowhere near that age. The best figure for this particular solar system is, as far as can be determined, about 4.6 billion years old. The reason this can be so is that the universe is not a static construction, but evolves over time. Our Sun is not a first generation star within the universe, this is shown by the presence of iron and other heavy metals in the planets surrounding it. (Iron is produced by fusion in the heart of a star, so for a planet to have iron in its crust, some star had to become a nova.) When that star died, its shockwave induced a gravitational collapse in a hydrogen cloud which became our Sun.

  Bright Blessings

  Gaiagirl
• 

  donkey

  My mother-in-law is older than that...
• 

  AlanF

  It's amazing to see an SDA say that. Since their beginnings the SDA's have been young-earth creationists, claiming that the entire universe was created by fiat just 6,000 years ago.

  A prominent SDA member, George McCready Price, wrote many books from about 1900 through the 1960s defending the YEC view. He practically invented "flood geology". Today's most prominent YEC promoters, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, borrowed heavily from Price for their seminal 1961 book "The Genesis Flood", which kicked off today's active YEC movement within the general Fundamentalist community.

  Another SDA member, Robert Gentry, got a degree in physics specifically to be able to defend YECism, and he figures prominently in today's YEC community.

  Of course, the Watchtower has used many of the ideas of the above people, never giving them any credit.

  AlanF
• 

  DanTheMan

  Of course, the Watchtower has used many of the ideas of the above people, never giving them any credit.

  I think that Watchtower Inc. borrows from fundy sources quite liberally, presents it as their own ideas and counts on the ignorance of the R&F not to know any better.
• 

  hillary_step

  An excerpt from John Whitcomb - 'Early Earth' pp156.

  "The dinosuars ( "terrible lizards") flourished especially during the period from Adam to the Flood because of the warm and humid climate that characterized the entire pre-Food world. The skeletal remains of one dinosaur ( "supersaurus") which has been discovered in Colorado suggests that they may have weighed 200,000 pounds! They did not become extinct before Adam, for he was given domain over all kinds of animals Gen 1:28"

  With such logic as this, that is, that it must be true because the Bible says it is, any fact can get bent into any shape that the imagination allows.

  Of course, the Watchtower has used many of the ideas of the above people, never giving them any credit.

  As you know Alan, many portions of the WTS 'Creation' books are written along the same style as YEC handbooks. The WTS seems to be understandably averse to identifying their sources especially when other religionists, evangelicals at that, are responsible for the research. After all, imagine the Organization that claims to be pictured by Ezekiel's Chariot, that moves at the speed of light in any direction and has wheels full of far-seeing eyes, having to rely on other religions to accomplish its research. It would in reality then resemble a bicycle with a cross-eyed, drunken Greek farmer perched on it, wobbling its way home along the cliff paths. Apologies to all drunken Greek farmers for associating you all with the Brooklyn Chariot.

  HS
• 

  barry

  Youre quite right Alanf SDAs have been traditionally of the YEC view but with the SDA view of higher learning there is allways the possibility of some dissagreements. And I can still hear my elder Dads voice ringing in my ears ' The earth is only 6 thousand years old everytime something came on the telly.'

  These meetings are not like the inquisition. From the conference 14th August 2003.

  At 8am we retreated to the chapel for morning worship, which was lead by John Brunt, the pastor of the Azure Church, in Grand Terrace, California. He set a wonderful tone for the meetings by using Paul;s experiences from Romans 14 and 15 in defining christian community.

  Brunt outlined that what is really important when bringing people with different ideas together is not to judge or look down on each other. It is legitimate for honest seekers to have different perspectives on the same issues. However we are in danger of crossing a line when we assign bad motives to the people with whom we disagree. All of us see through a glass darkly. This should give us all a degree of humility and openmindedness. God's genius may be in giving us the gift of the opposite.

  Or in other words we are having problems at our learning institutions can somebody please help. Barry
• 

  link

  Hi gaigirl,

  I know absolutely nothing about the subject but I was told that the Big Bang theory is under review.

  It appears that some of the evidence for the Big Bang was based on the fact that bodies made up of material of a higher atomic weight were found to be nearer the sun and those of lower weight furthest away.

  From the limited research that it has been possible to do into other solar systems, this does not appear to be the case with them.

  I am told that as a consequence of this the Big Bang theory is being looked at again.

  Whats your view?

  link
• 

  gaiagirl

  Hi Link

  I'm not aware of any questions concerning the Big Bang itself. Recent data such as C.O.B.E tend to lend support.

  However, there are several proposed mechanisms for how an individual solar system may form. The most widely accepted involves contraction of a rotating mass of gas and debris. One would expect the majority of the mass to eventually find its way to the center. All the planets in our own system are made of less than 1% of the total mass. Put another way, the Sun is more than 99 times as massive as all the other planets in the solar system together. And this applies in all the other systems about which anything is known. The vast majority of the mass is always at the center of gravity. So when one talks about variations in the arrangement of planets around the Sun, one is really talking about this tiny fraction, less than 1%, of the total mass in any system.

  In my view, there is bound to be a certain randomness with regard to this fraction. In some systems, large planets will be far from the Sun. In others, they may be nearer. The same mechanism could form them all, but the effects of a little bit of chaos (randomizing) with regard to this last 1% could cause systems to evolve with some variety, instead of every one being just like every other one.

  Bright Blessings

  Gaiagirl