Can We Determine the Age of the Universe and Earth Biblically?

[Fred]

Do you really think ONE ark was large enough to house Noah's family and....

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Genesis Chapter 7​

1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Sure.
They could have all been very young and God could have caused them to sleep most of the time.

 

[makesends]

Do you really think ONE ark was large enough to house Noah's family and....

19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female .

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Genesis Chapter 7​

1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Not that the literal 6-day'er must believe that "kind" must mean every species, but... If a donkey can be made to talk, and if a serpent can talk, and if God can bring all fact into existence with a word, how is it too hard for him to put every species onto the ark? Yes, I really believe what Genesis says is true.

BTW, I don't agree with you nor @DialecticSkeptic about the 6-day creation, but I'm not a naturalist who thinks as things are now, they have always been. God invented the laws of physics, and he can do with them as he pleases. Yet, to me, hearing what I do from modern physicists, I'm of a mind to think that BOTH can be true, that it take 6 literal days, and eons, to accomplish. Also, I don't believe that a literal rendering of Genesis 1 necessarily means that there was nothing existing but God, before that account begins.

It is one thing to hold to what makes the best logical sense to one's current view of things, but quite another to decide for oneself that it is therefore the only logical possibility. It is particularly dangerous to then teach it as God's Own Truth.

 

[Rella]

Ummmm, I am a late comer to this and have not read from the beginning, but in answer to the Title

"Can We Determine the Age of the Universe and Earth Biblically"

I say no and not because I am a science follower but because we do not know, and have no way to find out, why specifically
God created this planet we walk on.

Could it be that the earth came strictly from the "big bang" ( I am not a fan of that.)

Could it be that God actually created our Earth and solar system for a specific purpose. (I could be convinced of that )

But I also could be convinced that the actual earth and much about it came into being a long time before it was chosen
for mankind.

Now, that being said.... I think there could be a reasonable quest to know how long mankind, from Adam forward, has been on earth because there are some records that allow for some genealogy records.

What I can almost see is.... NOPE, I dare not go there cause I dont wanna be hollered at.

Just wanted my 2 cents in here

 

[EarlyActs]

Wow huh? Do you also believe like John MacArthur that God destroys the entire universe after the Millennium? What about "a day as a thousand years?" Do you really believe God created trillions of galaxies in 6 literal 24-hour days?

There is another consideration about creation, which I hold, which is to distinguish between the expression 'spreading out' or 'stretching out' and the one used about the creation week. I think the overall view of Genesis is that there were lifeless things from the 'spreading out' and randomly, while the acts of the creation week are full of life and quite deliberately placed.

Even spreading and stretching out differ slightly in usage: spreading (ie the Hebrew term) is also used of casting seed, while stretching is the same term for draping a fabric over a frame as a tent (which may have reminded them of the sky because light was coming 'through' the holes of the fabric, especially at seams).

This means there may be merit to the big bang, with answers to why any material at all was there. I recently heard a physicist say that that the interesting thing about the tiny amount of material suggested by the start of the big bang is that science 'needs' that initial miracle.

But now of course they are constructing things in other ways, like sheets of objects that collide. Very elaborate constructions, yet also evasions of the basic questions of cosmology.

 

[Musician]

Literal 6-day creationist believe that the earth is 'almost' 6,000 years old, that the dinosaurs roamed the earth while man was upon it, that the leviathan and behemoth are dinosaurs, that Noah put the dinosaurs on the ark, and that God destroys the entire universe after the earth after 7,000 years.
That is pure heresy!

Human skulls have been found that are well over 50,000 years old.

 

[Muckah]

Noah's flood was regional and not global. One ark was acceptable in size to accomplish a regional flood. A global flood would not only require over 20 arks, but the issue is how these animals would get to an ark thousands of miles away. The problem with a global flood is that miracles are scapegoated over common sense.

It's good to look at the words 'earth and world' - and especially the word ALL mostly, 'pas and holos' and how they're used.

There's evidence of civilizations that went untouched during the time period of Noah's flood.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is another consideration about creation, which I hold, which is to distinguish between the expression 'spreading out' or 'stretching out' and the one used about the creation week. I think the overall view of Genesis is that there were lifeless things from the 'spreading out' and randomly, while the acts of the creation week are full of life and quite deliberately placed.

Even spreading and stretching out differ slightly in usage: spreading (ie the Hebrew term) is also used of casting seed, while stretching is the same term for draping a fabric over a frame as a tent (which may have reminded them of the sky because light was coming 'through' the holes of the fabric, especially at seams).

This means there may be merit to the big bang, with answers to why any material at all was there. I recently heard a physicist say that that the interesting thing about the tiny amount of material suggested by the start of the big bang is that science 'needs' that initial miracle.

But now of course they are constructing things in other ways, like sheets of objects that collide. Very elaborate constructions, yet also evasions of the basic questions of cosmology.

To continue
Another aspect of this view that Gen 1s POV is very important. When it says there was a type of light on Day 1, it is not speaking omnisciently about everywhere in the universe, but as seen from earth at that moment, after the darkness of the previous state. It means distant starlight had arrived, Sirius’ light near Orion being the first to show and mark the evening.

This was the case for 3 days. Thus the local planets are then placed, but v16 is almost detached about the distant stars.

 

[makesends]

There is another consideration about creation, which I hold, which is to distinguish between the expression 'spreading out' or 'stretching out' and the one used about the creation week. I think the overall view of Genesis is that there were lifeless things from the 'spreading out' and randomly, while the acts of the creation week are full of life and quite deliberately placed.

Even spreading and stretching out differ slightly in usage: spreading (ie the Hebrew term) is also used of casting seed, while stretching is the same term for draping a fabric over a frame as a tent (which may have reminded them of the sky because light was coming 'through' the holes of the fabric, especially at seams).

This means there may be merit to the big bang, with answers to why any material at all was there. I recently heard a physicist say that that the interesting thing about the tiny amount of material suggested by the start of the big bang is that science 'needs' that initial miracle.

But now of course they are constructing things in other ways, like sheets of objects that collide. Very elaborate constructions, yet also evasions of the basic questions of cosmology.

Big Bang or whatever other construction they come up with, even if correct, still leaves the question unanswered. How? Why? What caused that? What did it come from? With the answer, "God", the 'buck stops here', begging the question or not, it is the only reasonable answer.

 

[EarlyActs]

Big Bang or whatever other construction they come up with, even if correct, still leaves the question unanswered. How? Why? What caused that? What did it come from? With the answer, "God", the 'buck stops here', begging the question or not, it is the only reasonable answer.

Agreed, but are you then not interested to find that there are terms in Hebrew which address the thing which a scientist discovered, and to find that Gen 1 contrasts that with 'hand-placed' local objects? I think it was Rogan (interviewing Meyer) who said that the BB probably made more people believe in God than we realize, because of the sudden supply of material.

 

[makesends]

Agreed, but are you then not interested to find that there are terms in Hebrew which address the thing which a scientist discovered, and to find that Gen 1 contrasts that with 'hand-placed' local objects? I think it was Rogan (interviewing Meyer) who said that the BB probably made more people believe in God than we realize, because of the sudden supply of material.

Yep! From a simple view of the nature of things, if the big bang was somehow its own causation, its results were necessarily homogenous, or at least, gradient, and not particular. This is part of my reason to believe in the 'personhood' of First Cause, as over against the notion that it is mere mechanical fact.

I don't know enough to prove it to anyone —it is just an observation— but it seems to me that the math of modern physics/cosmology has ascended (descended?) into a semi-metaphysics.

I think this is why they must depend so heavily on "random" and "chance" in their descriptions, as causal —to avoid attributing cause to a Willed First Cause. They assume that things can happen truly/actually randomly.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yep! From a simple view of the nature of things, if the big bang was somehow its own causation, its results were necessarily homogenous, or at least, gradient, and not particular. This is part of my reason to believe in the 'personhood' of First Cause, as over against the notion that it is mere mechanical fact.

I don't know enough to prove it to anyone —it is just an observation— but it seems to me that the math of modern physics/cosmology has ascended (descended?) into a semi-metaphysics.

I think this is why they must depend so heavily on "random" and "chance" in their descriptions, as causal —to avoid attributing cause to a Willed First Cause. They assume that things can happen truly/actually randomly.

Exactly--descended into. Check my DM for an opportunity for you. Oh, I guess I can't. Well, I don't have a way to write you then, unless you DM me. The topic cannot surface here at CCCF.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

From a simple view of the nature of things, if the Big Bang was somehow its own causation, its results were necessarily homogenous, or at least gradient, and not particular.

Here is what I think you're saying: "If the Big Bang had no external cause and somehow caused itself, then it should have resulted in a universe that was smooth and uniform—without particular, complex, or individualized structures—because self-causation wouldn't have any reason to yield specific or differentiated outcomes."

"If the Big Bang was somehow its own causation ..." This, as we probably both know, is not a coherent assertion. For something to be its own causation, it would have to pre-exist its own existence—a logical contradiction (A and ¬A).

"... its results were necessarily homogenous, or at least gradient, and not particular." As far as I can tell, this doesn't follow from the premise that the universe had no external cause. Whether or not it had an external cause, according to standard cosmology the Big Bang led to a period in which particles and antiparticles were created in near-equal amounts. And that is a key consideration: "near-equal." There is nothing about this premise that entails they were necessarily in equal amounts.

And this very slight degree of asymmetry—even just one particle more of matter than antimatter—resulted in a brief period of mutual annihilation that left behind a cosmic flood of gamma radiation and a disproportionate amount of matter. This leftover matter formed protons and neutrons which, in turn, formed hydrogen and helium and so on, and eventually neutral atoms. (And with most electrons now bound to nuclei, photons could finally travel unimpeded through space, which is what we now detect as the Cosmic Microwave Background—the "afterglow" of the Big Bang.)

Whether that initial asymmetry was due to some deeper physical mechanism or points beyond physics is certainly open to interpretation—we are not yet dealing with metaphysics but we're knocking on its door—either way, it is clear that particularity, not uniformity, is embedded in the origin of the universe.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, it

Here is what I think you're saying: "If the Big Bang had no external cause and somehow caused itself, then it should have resulted in a universe that was smooth and uniform—without particular, complex, or individualized structures—because self-causation wouldn't have any reason to yield specific or differentiated outcomes."

"If the Big Bang was somehow its own causation ..." This, as we probably both know, is not a coherent assertion. For something to be its own causation, it would have to pre-exist its own existence—a logical contradiction (A and ¬A).

"... its results were necessarily homogenous, or at least gradient, and not particular." As far as I can tell, this doesn't follow from the premise that the universe had no external cause. Whether or not it had an external cause, according to standard cosmology, the Big Bang led to a period in which particles and antiparticles were created in near-equal amounts. And that is a key consideration: "near-equal." There is nothing about this premise that entails they were necessarily in equal amounts.

And this very slight degree of asymmetry—even just one particle more of matter than antimatter—resulted in a brief period of mutual annihilation that left behind a cosmic flood of gamma radiation and a disproportionate amount of matter. This leftover matter formed protons and neutrons which, in turn, formed hydrogen and helium and so on, and eventually neutral atoms. (And with most electrons now bound to nuclei, photons could finally travel unimpeded through space, which is what we now detect as the Cosmic Microwave Background—the "afterglow" of the Big Bang.)

Whether that initial asymmetry was due to some deeper physical mechanism or points beyond physics is certainly open to interpretation—we are not yet dealing with metaphysics but we're knocking on its door—either way, it is clear that particularity, not uniformity, is embedded in the origin of the universe.

Yes, it's knocking on the door, even begging.

He was summarizing what he hears in the stream of material coming at us.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

He was summarizing what he hears in the stream of material coming at us.

I understand that. But his summary didn't logically follow. There is nothing inherent in the premise ("the universe had no external cause") that necessitates the Big Bang produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. That is what's required to result in a universe that is smooth and uniform. Even the absolute slightest asymmetry between matter and antimatter results in particular, individualized structures.

 

[makesends]

Here is what I think you're saying: "If the Big Bang had no external cause and somehow caused itself, then it should have resulted in a universe that was smooth and uniform—without particular, complex, or individualized structures—because self-causation wouldn't have any reason to yield specific or differentiated outcomes."

"If the Big Bang was somehow its own causation ..." This, as we probably both know, is not a coherent assertion. For something to be its own causation, it would have to pre-exist its own existence—a logical contradiction (A and ¬A).

"... its results were necessarily homogenous, or at least gradient, and not particular." As far as I can tell, this doesn't follow from the premise that the universe had no external cause. Whether or not it had an external cause, according to standard cosmology the Big Bang led to a period in which particles and antiparticles were created in near-equal amounts. And that is a key consideration: "near-equal." There is nothing about this premise that entails they were necessarily in equal amounts.

And this very slight degree of asymmetry—even just one particle more of matter than antimatter—resulted in a brief period of mutual annihilation that left behind a cosmic flood of gamma radiation and a disproportionate amount of matter. This leftover matter formed protons and neutrons which, in turn, formed hydrogen and helium and so on, and eventually neutral atoms. (And with most electrons now bound to nuclei, photons could finally travel unimpeded through space, which is what we now detect as the Cosmic Microwave Background—the "afterglow" of the Big Bang.)

Whether that initial asymmetry was due to some deeper physical mechanism or points beyond physics is certainly open to interpretation—we are not yet dealing with metaphysics but we're knocking on its door—either way, it is clear that particularity, not uniformity, is embedded in the origin of the universe.

In a way, you have affirmed what I was trying to say. The BB rather obviously had to have been caused. One way we know it is so, is because its nature of particularity could not arise AFTER, but, as we see, the specifics of its nature are caused to be so. It is ontologically particular in some way. If the BB is first cause, then it is ontologically not mere mechanical fact, but willed. But all the 'scientific' descriptions and pursuits are about mechanical fact. They don't seem interested in looking farther back.

But I can understand that —after all, whether the BB is willed, or caused by a willed cause, what are they supposed to do with that?

I can also understand to some degree the notion that nature itself is willed, as pantheism likes, because that removes the implied ownership of willed first cause over all its effects.

To me, it seems ironic that 'modern science' and pantheism have this in common.

 

[makesends]

Exactly--descended into. Check my DM for an opportunity for you. Oh, I guess I can't. Well, I don't have a way to write you then, unless you DM me. The topic cannot surface here at CCCF.

I'm not going there. I have more 'opportunities' than I can deal with now, even about this very subject.

And I don't like the sound of "opportunity". Sounds like sales and self-promotion or something of that sort prohibited by the rules.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

... its nature of particularity could not arise AFTER ...

Why not?

But, as we see, the specifics of its nature are caused to be so.

What do you mean by see? How do we see this?

If the BB is first cause, then it is ontologically not mere mechanical fact, but willed.

That does not follow. First, a contingent fact cannot be ontologically necessary. That would be a logical contradiction. [Therefore, something must explain its existence.] Second, it doesn't follow that a first cause must be willed—except by a hidden presupposition, that all first causes are necessarily personal. By definition, that is not a conclusion drawn from logic or observation but an assumption brought to the inquiry.

By the way, I am likewise in that camp. I agree with John Henry Newman, who said, "I believe in design because I believe in God; not in a God because I see design."

But all the 'scientific' descriptions and pursuits are about mechanical fact. They don't seem interested in looking farther back.

In fact, scientific curiosity is constantly pushing us to look further back and deeper, even to the very origin of matter itself. To probe even further still, we need a new model of physics. The Big Bang represents a point of infinite density, energies, and curvature. General relativity leads us there but then breaks down; it can't explain what happens "at" or "before" that point. And the Standard Model provides no insight into gravity, and its particle-based framework assumes the existence of spacetime. We have no unified description of what happened at t=0, only extrapolations that stop being valid before we get there. At singularities like the Big Bang our mathematical tools (e.g., differential equations) no longer produce intelligible results. How do you calculate time intervals, lengths, or trajectories when the geometry has become undefined? This is why the pursuit of a unified theory of quantum gravity is essential.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
... its nature of particularity could not arise AFTER ...

Why not?

Maybe I should ask how anything's particularity could arise after its beginning. Whatever happens is caused to happen by what came before it, except for first cause, before which nothing existed. Or maybe you think I meant, by 'arise', that it demonstrated that it was caused after it was caused? That's not what I meant.

makesends said:
But, as we see, the specifics of its nature are caused to be so.

What do you mean by see? How do we see this?

'As is obvious.' 'As is assumed by any good scientific pursuit.' Can you show me otherwise? Does science actually assume that any fact springs into being on its own?

makesends said:
If the BB is first cause, then it is ontologically not mere mechanical fact, but willed.

That does not follow. First, a contingent fact cannot be ontologically necessary. That would be a logical contradiction.

What is the contingent fact in my statement?

Second, it doesn't follow that a first cause must be willed—except by a hidden presupposition, that all first causes are necessarily personal.

There can be only one first cause. More than one implies pre-existing principle(s).

By definition, that is not a conclusion drawn from logic or observation but an assumption brought to the inquiry.

FWIW, I have yet to hear anyone do better than to posit the assertion that there can be more than one first cause. In fact, most with whom I have disagreed on the matter don't even try —they only assert that I can't prove there can be only one.

By the way, I am likewise in that camp. I agree with John Henry Newman, who said, "I believe in design because I believe in God; not in a God because I see design."

makesends said:
But all the 'scientific' descriptions and pursuits are about mechanical fact. They don't seem interested in looking farther back.

In fact, scientific curiosity is constantly pushing us to look further back and deeper, even to the very origin of the matter itself.

By that are you referring to the fact that they are looking for the origin of matter itself, as produced by the BB, or as what came before the BB, or, by "the matter itself" you mean, the BB itself —I.e. scientific curiosity is pushing us to look back to the very origin of the BB? All I even hear, which, granted, isn't much, has to do with figuring out what the BB is —not quite the same thing as to assume that something caused it.

To probe even further still, we need a new model of physics. The Big Bang represents a point of infinite density, energies, and curvature. General relativity leads us there but then breaks down; it can't explain what happens "at" or "before" that point. And the Standard Model provides no insight into gravity, and its particle-based framework assumes the existence of spacetime. We have no unified description of what happened at t=0, only extrapolations that stop being valid before we get there. At singularities like the Big Bang our mathematical tools (e.g., differential equations) no longer produce intelligible results. How do you calculate time intervals, lengths, or trajectories when the geometry has become undefined? This is why the pursuit of a unified theory of quantum gravity is essential.

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone will find that unified theory if they assume causation by mere chance. They will only find conjecture.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Maybe I should ask how anything's particularity could arise after its beginning.

I already described that (but admittedly in very simplistic terms). Approximately 10⁻⁴³ seconds after its beginning, when quantum gravity effects would have begun to dominate, matter and antimatter started annihilating each other in a blaze of gamma radiation. A tiny surplus of matter was left behind, about one extra baryon for every billion matter-antimatter pairs. As the universe expanded and cooled, quarks combined into protons and neutrons, which later fused into light nuclei (nucleosynthesis), producing mostly hydrogen and helium. Matter eventually came to dominate the gravitational dynamics—when the energy density of matter surpassed that of radiation—allowing tiny primordial density fluctuations to start collapsing under gravity, matter that would come to shape the universe's large-scale structure (i.e., the kind of "particularity" that eventually became the galaxies, stars, and planets that fill the universe today), all according to the fundamental laws of physics.

As you noted, "Whatever happens is caused to happen by what came before it"—a trajectory from quarks to planets.

... except for first cause, before which nothing existed.

Well, that's the question. Can the first cause be the singularity out of which sprang the Big Bang and our universe? I don't think so, personally, because that singularity would be ontologically contingent, not necessary, and would therefore require an explanation. That explanation would be the candidate for the first cause—namely, God, who is necessary being.

"As is obvious," or "as is assumed by any good scientific pursuit." Can you show me otherwise? Does science actually assume that any fact springs into being on its own?

Based on countless observations, science assumes that facts spring into being according to the fundamental laws of physics, and not randomly but deterministically (at least on the macroscopic scale). That assumption is one of the essential drivers of scientific investigation. The evolutionary history of nature, for example, is a voluminous testimony to that trajectory—if individuals and populations are "facts" (and I would say they are).

Of course, this raises interesting questions, like whether the fundamental laws of physics are ontologically prior to the reality they govern. Now that is one serious can of worms.

What is the contingent fact in my statement?

The universe.

There can be only one first cause. More than one implies pre-existing principle(s).

You misunderstood. Let me try to be more clear: The idea that a first cause must be willed is fueled by "a hidden presupposition, that any first cause is necessarily personal." Again, an assumption by definition is not a conclusion drawn either from logic or observation.

By that, are you referring to the fact that they are looking for the origin of matter itself, as produced by the BB or as what came before the BB?

Both. We have pushed back to the origin of matter itself, but to go even further back—into the Planck epoch—requires a new model of physics, something like a quantum theory of gravity (e.g., loop quantum gravity). We're not there yet, and that doesn't mean we never will be.

(So, the word "the" was a typo—it should have said "the very origin of matter itself." You had already started your response when I edited that typo.)

All I ever hear—which, granted, isn't much—has to do with figuring out what the BB is, [which is] not quite the same thing as to assume that something caused it.

However, before we can figure out what caused a thing, we first need to somewhat understand what the thing is. So, that is an appropriate line of inquiry.

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone will find that unified theory if they assume causation by mere chance. They will only find conjecture.

Chance is not a necessary or even requisite component. For example, a loop quantum gravity theory has a more natural fit with deterministic or realist interpretations of quantum theory—which see the universe as fundamentally determined rather than random—such as de Broglie–Bohm (pilot wave theory), or even the relational quantum mechanics of Carlo Rovelli himself, one of the founders of LQG.