How old is the earth?

[EarlyActs]

Genesis 1 is the careful placement of objects and systems
The Big Bang is an explosion and was first proposed by Hawkings in 1988

Here is the formula for the Hubble Constant
equation: speed = distance divided by time.
The Hubble constant tells us the speed of an object at any distance, and since the distance between all objects in the universe before any expansion must have been zero, the time in this equation must be the age of the universe."

Big Bang Explosion
At the time of the Big Bang, a tremendous explosion, a formless ooze was hurled into space, the distance between objects would be zero.

Creation
In Genesis, the objects and systems were carefully placed, the distance would be wherever the Creator placed them.

This is information from an article in Phy Org.
The Big Surprise From Webb Telescope, Map of Early Universe (University of California, Santa Barbara)
"The best measurements from Hubble suggested that galaxies within the first 500 million years would be incredibly rare,"
Webb Telescope "we see roughly 10 times more galaxies than expected at these incredible distances. We're also seeing supermassive black holes that are not even visible with Hubble." And they're not just seeing more, they're seeing different types of galaxies and black holes."

That means the distance of objects and systems 500 million years after the theoretical Big Bang could not have been 0.

But Genesis and Peter make a consistent distinction between distant objects and our local system, even how they came about.

My view is that there was a 'spreading out' event, mentioned by Job/Psalms/Isaiah, separate from creation week's events but explaining why there is a lifeless water-covered utterly dark object, earth, to start with.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I just wanted to take a moment to highlight something Scripture often shows: that darkness frequently represents ignorance—especially ignorance of God—and light represents the knowledge and truth of God revealed.

So it’s not a stretch at all to say that when Scripture speaks of darkness covering, it can be a way of describing a state of deep spiritual ignorance, devoid of the knowledge of God—while light represents His truth revealed and received.

Just thought I’d share that observation

 

[John Bauer]

The Big Bang is an explosion and was first proposed by Hawking in 1988.

INCORRECT

1. "The Big Bang is an explosion ..." Since an explosion is a spatio-temporal phenomenon, it can't be an explosion. Rather, it was a violent expansion of space—more like a balloon inflating, not popping.

2. "... and was first proposed by Hawking in 1988." Big Bang cosmology was first discussed in the early 20th century, six decades earlier: Lemaître proposed the “primeval atom” or “cosmic egg” model in 1927, and Hubble observationally confirmed the expansion of the universe in 1929. The term "Big Bang" is a metaphor (unfortunately a misleading one); the term was originally coined sarcastically by Fred Hoyle, a critic of the idea, in a BBC radio broadcast in 1949.

Here is the formula for the Hubble Constant
equation: speed = distance divided by time.

That is the basic definition of average speed,

v = d ÷ t

not the definition of the Hubble constant, which is

v = H₀ × d

 

[QVQ]

and was first proposed by Hawking in 1988."

Yes, you are correct. It was proposed in the 1920's

it was a violent expansion of space—more like a balloon inflating, not popping.

I am correct. " the very early Universe composed primarily of a plasma of fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons.
"A very violent expansion of Space is akin to a volcanic eruption.

that is the basic definition of average speed,

"the age of the universe, the equation: speed = distance divided by time. The Hubble constant tells us the speed of an object at any distance, and since the distance between all objects in the universe before any expansion must have been zero, the time in this equation must be the age of the universe."

Now, none of this quibbling is relevant to my point that at 500 million years the distance between objects and systems were much greater than what is predicted by the Hubble Constant. The universe should still be mostly amorphous, with very few objects and systems, therefore no appreciable distance betwixt them.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is believed by many to be the pre-Adamite flood... 'The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters....

Compare Ps 104 and Gen 1. It is difficult to tell if Ps 104 is about creation or cataclysm.

 

[EarlyActs]

INCORRECT

1. "The Big Bang is an explosion ..." Since an explosion is a spatio-temporal phenomenon, it can't be an explosion. Rather, it was a violent expansion of space—more like a balloon inflating, not popping.

2. "... and was first proposed by Hawking in 1988." Big Bang cosmology was first discussed in the early 20th century, six decades earlier: Lemaître proposed the “primeval atom” or “cosmic egg” model in 1927, and Hubble observationally confirmed the expansion of the universe in 1929. The term "Big Bang" is a metaphor (unfortunately a misleading one); the term was originally coined sarcastically by Fred Hoyle, a critic of the idea, in a BBC radio broadcast in 1949.




That is the basic definition of average speed,

v = d ÷ t

not the definition of the Hubble constant, which is

v = H₀ × d

The burst of air that inflates the balloon is the explosion. Compare Job/Psalms/Isaiahs ‘spreading out’ which Gen 1 is not. The English terms confuse the spreading out with Gen 1, but not the Hebrew.

There are criticisms of the constancy of movement ; the rate has changed.

 

[EarlyActs]

In case this is not clear, my view should be nonsense to both uniformitarians and YECs bc it is mostly a disconnection of distant objects from our local one. I call it YLCW—young local creation week view.

 

[CrowCross]

I just wanted to take a moment to highlight something Scripture often shows: that darkness frequently represents ignorance—especially ignorance of God—and light represents the knowledge and truth of God revealed.

So it’s not a stretch at all to say that when Scripture speaks of darkness covering, it can be a way of describing a state of deep spiritual ignorance, devoid of the knowledge of God—while light represents His truth revealed and received.

Just thought I’d share that observation

No man was around to see this darkness.

 

[John Bauer]

I am correct: "The very early universe [was] composed primarily of a plasma of fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons."

First, you were talking about the Big Bang. The "very early universe" mentioned here (quark epoch) was 10-31 seconds AFTER the Big Bang. Second, particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons didn't exist until even further along the timeline—10-12 seconds for electrons, 10-6 seconds for baryonic hadrons (protons and neutrons). Third, protons and neutrons are not fundamental particles; they are composite particles—baryonic hadrons—consisting of quarks and gluons (which are fundamental particles).

You threw quotation marks around that statement, indicating that it originated elsewhere. What was the source of that quote?

A very violent expansion of space is akin to a volcanic eruption.

That is incorrect. A volcanic eruption is an explosion in space, not an expansion of space. The Big Bang was the latter, stretching space by a factor of at least 1026 in less than 10-32 seconds. There is not one single thing about a volcanic eruption that is analogous to the Big Bang.

"the age of the universe, the equation: speed = distance divided by time. The Hubble constant tells us the speed of an object at any distance, and since the distance between all objects in the universe before any expansion must have been zero, the time in this equation must be the age of the universe."

There is a grain of truth in this series of otherwise incorrect and conceptually confused assertions. This is where Brandolini's Law comes in, where it would take significantly more time and effort to correct a false claim than it took to produce it. As just one example, the age of the universe is not exactly 1 ÷ H₀ because cosmic expansion is not constant over time. It has accelerated due to dark energy and decelerated due to gravity at earlier times. The Hubble constant H₀ describes the current rate of expansion of the universe, specifically:

• v = H₀ × d

It applies to today's universe and tells us how fast distant galaxies are receding now at a given distance. But the Hubble constant is not constant over time; it evolves as the universe evolves. In the early universe, the expansion rate—technically called the Hubble parameter, H(t)—was much larger than today's H₀.

And so on. Again, Brandolini's Law.

Another example? You said, "At 500 million years, the distance between objects and systems were much greater than what is predicted by the Hubble constant." Here, too, this is incorrect. At early times, the Hubble parameter H(t) was much larger than today's H₀. Using the current Hubble constant to extrapolate back 13.3 billion years would underestimate how fast things were separating back then, not overestimate. Therefore, if anything, distances were smaller than what a naïve backward extrapolation using today's H₀ would predict—not greater.

 

[QVQ]

This is where Brandolini's Law comes in, where it would take significantly more time and effort to correct a false claim than it took to produce it.

False. It has taken over a century to "theorize" the early universe and explain it all as "evolution."
Webb is correcting the false claims in a shorter time than it took to produce them.

This is information from an article in Phys Org.
The Big Surprise From Webb Telescope, Map of Early Universe (University of California, Santa Barbara)
"The best measurements from Hubble suggested that galaxies within the first 500 million years would be incredibly rare,"
Webb Telescope "we see roughly 10 times more galaxies than expected at these incredible distances. We're also seeing supermassive black holes that are not even visible with Hubble." And they're not just seeing more, they're seeing different types of galaxies and black holes."

 

[EarlyActs]

INCORRECT

1. "The Big Bang is an explosion ..." Since an explosion is a spatio-temporal phenomenon, it can't be an explosion. Rather, it was a violent expansion of space—more like a balloon inflating, not popping.

2. "... and was first proposed by Hawking in 1988." Big Bang cosmology was first discussed in the early 20th century, six decades earlier: Lemaître proposed the “primeval atom” or “cosmic egg” model in 1927, and Hubble observationally confirmed the expansion of the universe in 1929. The term "Big Bang" is a metaphor (unfortunately a misleading one); the term was originally coined sarcastically by Fred Hoyle, a critic of the idea, in a BBC radio broadcast in 1949.




That is the basic definition of average speed,

v = d ÷ t

not the definition of the Hubble constant, which is

v = H₀ × d

Can you rewrite the 1st sentence here, your answer about how that can't be an explosion?

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, you are correct. It was proposed in the 1920's


I am correct. " the very early Universe composed primarily of a plasma of fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons.
"A very violent expansion of Space is akin to a volcanic eruption.


"the age of the universe, the equation: speed = distance divided by time. The Hubble constant tells us the speed of an object at any distance, and since the distance between all objects in the universe before any expansion must have been zero, the time in this equation must be the age of the universe."

Now, none of this quibbling is relevant to my point that at 500 million years the distance between objects and systems were much greater than what is predicted by the Hubble Constant. The universe should still be mostly amorphous, with very few objects and systems, therefore no appreciable distance betwixt them.

QVQ:
when your last line here ('The universe should...') says it should still be amorphous, do you mean now? Or at 500MY after BB? How could there not be appreciable distance at 500MY?

 

[John Bauer]

Can you rewrite the 1st sentence here, your answer about how that can't be an explosion?

Sure. But rewrite for what purpose? What are you looking for?

 

[EarlyActs]

Sure. But rewrite for what purpose? What are you looking for?

Never mind; if you can't see the unclarity of it, what's the point? There's an old rule of communication that you can't use the term you are trying to define in the definition...

 

[CrowCross]

False. It has taken over a century to "theorize" the early universe and explain it all as "evolution."
Webb is correcting the false claims in a shorter time than it took to produce them.

This is information from an article in Phys Org.
The Big Surprise From Webb Telescope, Map of Early Universe (University of California, Santa Barbara)
"The best measurements from Hubble suggested that galaxies within the first 500 million years would be incredibly rare,"
Webb Telescope "we see roughly 10 times more galaxies than expected at these incredible distances. We're also seeing supermassive black holes that are not even visible with Hubble." And they're not just seeing more, they're seeing different types of galaxies and black holes."

How many galaxies do they "currently" estimate there are?

....any answers from anyone?

 

[John Bauer]

False. It has taken over a century to "theorize" the early universe and explain it all as "evolution."

You're right—but that is non-sequitur, because that isn't what I was talking about.

This is information from an article in Phys Org.

The Big Surprise From Webb Telescope, Map of Early Universe (University of California, Santa Barbara)

"The best measurements from Hubble suggested that galaxies within the first 500 million years would be incredibly rare," ...

It is super frustrating when people claim that something came from a specific source but fail to provide any proper citation.

I did a web search for "big surprise from webb telescope" and guess what I found?

Nothing.

There are no results for: "big surprise from webb telescope"

I had to do a search for the sentence "The best measurements from Hubble suggested that galaxies within the first 500 million years would be incredibly rare." And that produced a lot of results from Facebook and Tumblr—which, for obvious reasons, are not credible sources. (And I had no idea Tumblr was still a thing.)

I did eventually find the article—on the second page of the search results and with a different title:

• Sonia Fernandez, "Largest Map of the Universe Announced Revealing 800,000 Galaxies, Challenging Early Cosmos Theories," Phys.org, June 5, 2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-06-largest-universe-revealing-galaxies-early.html

So, what was QVQ on about? Here is the quote in its entirety:

"The big surprise is that, with the JWST, we see roughly 10 times more galaxies than expected at these incredible distances," said Caitlin Casey, a physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She also co-leads the major astronomical survey program COSMOS-Web, which uses the JWST to map a large area of the sky in infrared wavelengths. "We are also seeing supermassive black holes that are not even visible with Hubble," she added. The author of the article, Fernandez, added that they're "not just seeing more, they're seeing different types of galaxies and black holes."

Okay, so what's the problem? Well, QVQ helpfully specified that by including the fact that "the best measurements from Hubble suggested that galaxies within the first 500 million years would be incredibly rare," Casey said. "It makes sense. The Big Bang happens and things take time to gravitationally collapse and form, and for stars to turn on. There's a timescale associated with that."

In other words, what the JWST was showing us defied their predictions and expectations. Why?

Part of the answer is in the quoted material. The problem was the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). You see, their predictions were drawn from modeling that was based on a synthesis of HST deep fields (e.g., HUDF) which showed "nearly 10,000 galaxies" in a tiny patch of sky. So, that many galaxies of that luminosity at that early age of the universe means a certain rate of star formation. (Caution: I am really, really oversimplifying things here.)

But the HST data provided only a partial picture. One of its earlier instruments, NICMOS, reached up to 2.5 μm—a remarkable capability for its time—but this was the upper limit imposed by Hubble’s warm optics. In reality, its deep-field surveys like the HUDF relied on WFC3/IR, which never went beyond 1.7 μm. The HST could cover ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared wavelengths but never further than 2.5 μm into the infrared spectrum (and only with NICMOS). The JWST, by contrast—with a mirror almost three times the diameter, and a suite of cryogenically cooled instruments (NIRCam and MIRI)—can observe from about 0.6 μm to 28 μm, extending much further into the infrared than HST ever could. (One should also keep in mind that the JWST was looking at a patch of sky 300 times larger than what the HST did, which was 2.6 arcminutes2.)

That is the reason for the surprise. It's not because Big Bang cosmology is all wrong (it's not), but that there were far more stars and galaxies in the early universe than the HST had led us to believe (due to its instrument limitations). The JWST has allowed scientists to refine their calculations for star formation rates, now that they have more accurate data. In other words,

• this is an observational bias correction, not a failure of Big Bang cosmology.

The theory is fine. It is the math that needed work.

The results were also overblown in the media with exaggerated reporting aimed at getting clicks, with no follow-up reporting on better data that changed the analysis. They often relied upon preliminary, non-peer-reviewed photometric redshift estimates that were often overestimated due to calibration uncertainties in the JWST's early data. Subsequent spectroscopic follow-ups have clarified that many galaxies are less distant or massive than initially thought. For example, the galaxy AzTECC71, initially thought to be at z ≈ 10, was confirmed at z ≈ 5, fitting ΛCDM expectations.

Summary: The Big Bang theory holds that the universe began in a hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Over time, matter coalesced under gravity to form stars and galaxies hundreds of millions of years later—including our own galaxy. Both the HST and the JWST have seen galaxies from when the universe was very young—even 500 million years old or less. Using deep-field observations, the HST identified around 10,000 galaxies, including only a few dozen from within the first 600 million years after the Big Bang. The JWST, by contrast, has dramatically expanded our view: The COSMOS-Web survey alone has cataloged nearly 800,000 galaxies, including about 717 at z > 8—almost 50 times more early galaxies than Hubble detected—and it's requiring scientists to refine their calculations. But it's not undermining the Big Bang model itself, which remains robust as the foundation of modern cosmology.

Edited to add:

Paul Sutter, "No, the Big Bang Theory Is Not ‘Broken’ -- Here’s How We Know," Space.com, January 30, 2023.

For the record-breaking galaxies that could be tension with cosmological models, the researchers relied on something called a photometric redshift, which fits a rough light spectrum of a galaxy to a model to estimate a distance.

That method is notoriously unreliable, with simple effects—like excess dust surrounding the galaxies—making them appear more distant than they really are.

 

[QVQ]

The theory is fine. It is the math that needed work.

That is Funny! As I said evolution is my favorite joke.
There is an article posted on the Mitochondrial Eve Thread.
It notes that Chimps are not 1% genetically different from Man.
Chimps are 15% genetically different from Man
According to the Theory, chimps and Men evolved from a common ancestor 7 million years
1% mutation difference between humans and apes =35 million mutation @ 7 million years
15% = 525 million mutation @ 7million years
OK, so we have 535 million mutations, not 35 million.

The evolutionist can either
change the rate
535 million divided by 7 million = mutation rate per yr = 76 mutations for year (1% = 5 mutations per year)
OR
increase the time
15 x 7 million
1% would take 7 million yrs
15% would take 105 million yrs

 

[John Bauer]

That is Funny! As I said evolution is my favorite joke.
There is an article posted on the Mitochondrial Eve Thread.
It notes that Chimps are not 1% genetically different from Man.
Chimps are 15% genetically different from Man
Chimps and Men evolved from a common ancestor 7 million years ago., according to the theory.
1% mutation difference between humans and apes =35 million mutation @ 7 million years
15% = 525 million mutation @ 7million years
OK, so we have 535 million mutations, not 35 million.

The evolutionist can either
change the rate
535 million divided by 7 million = mutation rate per yr = 76 mutations for year (1% = 5 mutations per year)

OR

increase the time
15 x 7 million
1% would take 7 million yrs
15% would take 105 million yrs

What is a few million years or a few million more mutations per year in the larger scheme of evolution?

This post displays a misunderstanding of the issues, especially as this is not an either–or thing (i.e., a 1% difference and a 15% difference are BOTH true). It all comes down to what is being examined. If you examine this here, it's a 1% difference. If you examine that there, it's a 15% difference. Anti-evolutionists conflate the two (fallacious category error) and pretend there is a conflict.

 

[Rella]

INCORRECT

1. "The Big Bang is an explosion ..." Since an explosion is a spatio-temporal phenomenon, it can't be an explosion. Rather, it was a violent expansion of space—more like a balloon inflating, not popping.

2. "... and was first proposed by Hawking in 1988." Big Bang cosmology was first discussed in the early 20th century, six decades earlier: Lemaître proposed the “primeval atom” or “cosmic egg” model in 1927, and Hubble observationally confirmed the expansion of the universe in 1929. The term "Big Bang" is a metaphor (unfortunately a misleading one); the term was originally coined sarcastically by Fred Hoyle, a critic of the idea, in a BBC radio broadcast in 1949.




That is the basic definition of average speed,

v = d ÷ t

not the definition of the Hubble constant, which is

v = H₀ × d

I studied Lemaitre a bit a couple years ago and I remember well..... "It was Lemaître's firm belief that scientific endeavour should stand isolated from the religious realm. With specific regard to his Big Bang theory, he commented: 'As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question.'

Albeit he was a Catholic Priest... and Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two: “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

 

[QVQ]

It all comes down to what is being examined.

Yes, obviously there would be a very large number of different genetic mutations given the anatomical differences between chimps and man.
However, if there are 35 million mutation (1%) or 535 million (15%) those mutations take time or a high rate of mutation per year.
So just add a few more million or billion years. Problem solved, no problem
You would assert, that !% is what makes monkeys of us all.
As you will.
My point is the evolutionist twiddle the math and deny the evidence, any fiddling to assure the theory is fine.
And if I can't laugh at the absurdities of Darwinism; question its most basics principles and doubt its every proof, just as we have done every other discredited science of yesteryear, then the theory of darwinist evolution is not science.
I am not anti_evolution. It is my favorite joke.