Age Of Earth: Fossil Evidence Versus Religion

[Jim]

Jim,

One issue I find fascinating, is if you engage in discussion with one or more folks who have, a 'fundamental' religious belief based on ancient writings, or a derivative of same.

I ask the question: "Did dinosaurs exist, or not"?

Because... you can't have it both ways - either, there is indisputable evidence that dinosaurs existed and your religious beliefs are scrambled, or they never existed at all.

It tends to be a short conversation...

I devoted considerable time in pursuing this situation. Read the Bible 2ce and scanned biblical "Catholic, protestant and fundamentalist" based commentaries. It's very highly unlikely that the earth is 6 thousand years old. This manmade timeline was established by Bishop Ussher in the 1700's (not by the Bible). He based this rational on literal genealogies (he begat and he then lived this long, then the his son begat, etc., etc.). The trouble is these people don't accept that the ancient original Hebrew world for begat simply means "the seed of". Well were all the seeds of our great, great, great ….. grandfathers. This makes this whole artificial - outdated timeline useful only to those believing in the very young earth, Kinda like "the Flat-earth" group". These theories and timelines were also calculated prior to existence of any science to the contrary. Bottom line the Bible is not a scientific book and doesn't provide the exact age of the earth. Another fly in the ointment is the earth being created in 7 literal days. Well the Bible states "a day is like a thousand years".
Interestingly enough dinosaur like creatures "Behemoth and Leviathan" are mentioned in the book of Job. Upon reading the text they were likely vision or enlightenments the Lord provided to Job. Not beast living contemporary with Job. Hard to wrap your head around and I don't have all the answers.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I devoted considerable time in pursuing this situation.,.

Same dilemma, mate. Many of us are still left here, concluding it's all, relentlessly and quite annoyingly, somewhat perplexing and damn well frustrating...

You struggling to reconcile how old the Earth is?

 

[INT21]

....Agafia Karpovna Lykova is a Russian Old Believer, ...

She is one of the group of people who uses the date of creation as a starting point for her counting of the age of the Earth. The documentary of her life in the Taiga shows she believes the age to be around 8000 years.

INT21.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

...Interestingly enough dinosaur like creatures "Behemoth and Leviathan" are mentioned in the book of Job. Upon reading the text they were likely vision or enlightenments the Lord provided to Job. Not beast living contemporary with Job.

Surely you have to accept this is, proverbially, 'clutching at straws', if that's your only evidence of the Bible referencing the rich history of dinosaurs over so many million years?

Surely, same is a actually not mentioned in the Bible at all, because those responsible for writing the Bible had no idea about this factual legacy.

Again, you can't have it both ways; if dinosaurs existed, that's the Bible blatantly exposed for what it is.

 

[GNC]

The only reason dinosaurs aren't mentioned in The Bible is that the authors hadn't heard of them. There's no woolly mammoths mentioned in it either, and they were far more recent to the authors.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The only reason dinosaurs aren't mentioned in The Bible is that the authors hadn't heard of them. There's no woolly mammoths mentioned in it either, and they were far more recent to the authors.

...and as for Noah's Ark - how all living species (was that the claim?l) were saved from 'God's Wrath'...

 

[Jim]

Same dilemma, mate. Many of us are still left here, concluding it's all, relentlessly and quite annoyingly, somewhat perplexing and damn well frustrating...

You struggling to reconcile how old the Earth is?

At this pint I believe the fossil evidence and the radiometric dating methods which point towards billions of years. I won't say how many billions since I've seen this number change over the years.

 

[Jim]

The only reason dinosaurs aren't mentioned in The Bible is that the authors hadn't heard of them. There's no woolly mammoths mentioned in it either, and they were far more recent to the authors.

See post #35. Or perhaps read Job for yourself.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

See post #35. Or perhaps read Job for yourself.

Jim, you are proclaiming that the Bible acknowledges the true age of our planet and it's evolution.

No it doesn't..

The earth was created by God in a week or so. That's the literal truth from the Bible.

You simply can't interpret it otherwise, to acquisce your dilemma.

The Bible is, 'All or Nothing'.

There can be no conciliatory interpretations.

 

[ramonmercado]

There can be no conciliatory interpretations.

Oh yes there may be! With The New Covenant Jesus repealed any parts of the Old Testament which conflicted with his teachings.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Oh yes there may be! With The New Covenant Jesus repealed any parts of the Old Testament which conflicted with his teachings.

Would that be related to the, 'Containment', when the Church, all those years ago, decided what should go into the Bible and what was inherently, 'problematic'.

 

[ramonmercado]

Would that related to the, 'Containment', when the Church, all those years ago, decided what should go into the Bible and what was inherently, 'problematic'.

The old stuff is still trumped by The New Covenant, at least that's what Christians say, many fundamentalists don't act as if they accept TNC.

 

[GNC]

See post #35. Or perhaps read Job for yourself.

I have read Job, but never thought Behemoth and Leviathan were dinosaurs, I interpreted them as gods that the religion in question had no use for anymore.

 

[Amoradala]

If God made man in his own image . . . What did he create dinosaurs first for ?
An experiment ? Was he just having fun ? Because he gave them a damn good run.

 

[GNC]

If God made man in his own image . . . What did he create dinosaurs first for ?
An experiment ? Was he just having fun ? Because he gave them a damn good run.

To give little kids the only bit of history they can be truly interested in.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Gezzus wept...

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproj...2016/06/26/us/noahs-ark-creationism-ken-ham.h

 

[Jim]

I have read Job, but never thought Behemoth and Leviathan were dinosaurs, I interpreted them as gods that the religion in question had no use for anymore.

Not one to quote or preach scriptures but image an uneducated man 4 - 5 thousand years ago attempting to describe a dinosaur? And as mentioned in #35, it appears to be a vision.

"Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox (plant eater). What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar (very long tail) ; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron (powerful legs needed to support the weight of a sauropod)."

Interpretations vary GNC, just a possible interpretation?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Not one to quote or preach scriptures...
but image an uneducated Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox (plant eater). What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar (very long tail) ; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron (powerful legs needed to support the weight of a sauropod)."

Interpretations vary GNC, just a possible interpretation?

Jim, you remind myself of where I was, so many years ago, now...

As I did, you are struggling to f&%k,... trying to convince yourself that all those years of faith were not indisputably bollocks...

Some cheer for you though! When one eventually accepts the facts, it's something of s catharsis... One simply understands that, no matter how much we try, there's ultimately no escaping the blatant truth.

It's actually quite cool...



Naw, it's a pure bastard of a thing to realise!

You wrote: 'Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox (plant eater). What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar (very long tail) ; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron (powerful legs needed to support the weight of a sauropod)."


Jim, if that's your best shout for the Bible acknowledging the earth's evolution... Seriously...

And anyway, thought it was made perfectly clear from the outset - all created in 7 days, then Adam and Eve followed...

It is, quite simply, not permissible for anyone to put their own spin on the Bible.

It exists as a fundamental religious truth - all of it, including Noah saving two of...

 

[Jim]

Jim, you remind myself of where I was, so many years ago, now...

As I did, you are struggling to f&%k,... trying to convince yourself that all those years of faith were not indisputably bollocks...

Some cheer for you though! When one eventually accepts the facts, it's something of s catharsis... One simply understands that, no matter how much we try, there's ultimately no escaping the blatant truth.

It's actually quite cool...



Naw, it's a pure bastard of a thing to realise!

You wrote: 'Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox (plant eater). What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar (very long tail) ; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron (powerful legs needed to support the weight of a sauropod)."


Jim, if that's your best shout for the Bible acknowledging the earth's evolution... Seriously...

And anyway, thought it was made perfectly clear from the outset - all created in 7 days, then Adam and Eve followed...

It is, quite simply, not permissible for anyone to put their own spin on the Bible.

It exists as a fundamental religious truth - all of it, including Noah saving two of...

I don't hold an all or nothing belief, being an agnostic. I respect anyone of faith (unless they preach vs. discuss). However over the years engineering - science, seeing those disabled while in service, etc.. made it hard - impossible to accept.

The present discussion concerned dinosaurs in the Bible and I simply wanted to point an interpretation in Job. No intention to complicated things.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I don't hold an all or nothing belief, being an agnostic. I respect anyone of faith.. The present discussion concerned dinosaurs in the Bible and I simply wanted to point an interpretation in Job. No intention to complicated things.

Split the difference with you... It is indeed, all rather complicated...

As for an interpretation that Job was referencing a knowledge of dinosaurs... No, he wasn't.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I don't hold an all or nothing belief, being an agnostic. I respect anyone of faith (unless they preach vs. discuss). However over the years engineering - science, seeing those disabled while in service, etc.. made it hard - impossible to accept....

I wrote this some years ago..

'Ants and the New Offside Law'

So... we're having a barbeque and this ant starts crawling up my leg.

Thought occurs.. Do you know,, unfathomably intelligent little creature, that you are presently residing on another live being?

Who can say...,?

Patio doors are open and football on the TV. Dad and his mates vocally outraged about an offside decision under the new rules.

Just one of those moments when you comfortably reconcile, 'Know what... I beat myself up trying to make sense of life, the universe and everything and there's as much chance of doing so as that ant has making sense of the new offside rules...'.

It was a realisation of how preposterously enormous the distance from our understanding was.

An old Scottish, 'granny saying' has just there sprung to mind re our given capacity to unravel these perpetual enigmas...

'Aye... mind you... that's no for the likes of us...'.

 

[GNC]

Not one to quote or preach scriptures but image an uneducated man 4 - 5 thousand years ago attempting to describe a dinosaur? And as mentioned in #35, it appears to be a vision.

"Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox (plant eater). What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar (very long tail) ; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron (powerful legs needed to support the weight of a sauropod)."

Interpretations vary GNC, just a possible interpretation?

Could just be an elephant - or a woolly mammoth!

 

[Mikefule]

Basically, an argument I have, which may well be flawed this is why I ask, is that surely the discovery of dinosaur bones disproves the existence of God?

Purely addressing whether the argument is valid or flawed: it's flawed.

A religious believer might conceivably argue that God has made the bones appear older than they are for His own ineffable purpose — for example, to test mankind's faith in Him.

After adding up the elapsed time in the Old Testament, new Earth creationists calculate that the Earth to be around 6,000 years old.

Carbon dating (and other techniques) suggest that tyrannosaurus lived around 66 million years ago.

Therefore, even allowing for a substantial margin for error, science suggests that the dinosaur bones are many millions of years older than **a literal interpretation of the Old Testament** would suggest.

Therefore, logically, either:
(a) the dinosaur bones have been inaccurately dated, or
(b) the Earth is very substantially older than the Bible suggests.

Given that the dating techniques have a demonstrable and tested scientific basis, and the Bible does not, most of us (but not all) would say that the age of the dinosaur bones disproves "young Earth creation theory" and a **literal interpretation** of the Old Testament.

However, none of this is evidence for or against the existence of God per se. It only disproves one very specific view of God, as the supreme being who created the Earth around 6,000 years ago.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Could just be an elephant - or a woolly mammoth!

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Jim]

Purely addressing whether the argument is valid or flawed: it's flawed.

A religious believer might conceivably argue that God has made the bones appear older than they are for His own ineffable purpose — for example, to test mankind's faith in Him.

After adding up the elapsed time in the Old Testament, new Earth creationists calculate that the Earth to be around 6,000 years old.

Carbon dating (and other techniques) suggest that tyrannosaurus lived around 66 million years ago.

Therefore, even allowing for a substantial margin for error, science suggests that the dinosaur bones are many millions of years older than **a literal interpretation of the Old Testament** would suggest.

Therefore, logically, either:
(a) the dinosaur bones have been inaccurately dated, or
(b) the Earth is very substantially older than the Bible suggests.

Given that the dating techniques have a demonstrable and tested scientific basis, and the Bible does not, most of us (but not all) would say that the age of the dinosaur bones disproves "young Earth creation theory" and a **literal interpretation** of the Old Testament.

However, none of this is evidence for or against the existence of God per se. It only disproves one very specific view of God, as the supreme being who created the Earth around 6,000 years ago.

Excuse some repetition concerning post #35. Such literal dates simply aren't in the Bible, They're the result of Bishops Ullser's 1700's chronology.

"In this work Bishop Ullser, calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC. (Other scholars, such as Cambridge academic, John Lightfoot, calculated their own dates for the Creation.) The time of the Ussher".

The Bishop determined this date without available science. He used one possible interpretation of Biblical genealogies based on his definition of the length of a day and the word begat. The lynchpin here is if the Bible is: literal, figurative or historical, all viewpoint's are open to some interpretation. Biblical scholars (which I'm not) continue to argue - debate this and likely will for....

Interesting note Fundamentalist I've met stated that if one didn't accept the ~ 6000 YOA of the earth you were a heretic - blasphemer and doomed to hell. No perfect answer here (IMO).

Lets move things back a bit further and use Dimetrodon from the Permian period for an example. This early mammal like carnivore is dated back ~ 290 million years ago. Even if given some wiggle room that's quite ancient. The radiometric dating proves this out. It was a common species at the time and many nearly complete specimens have been unearthed - dated with similar results. Like the T-Rex such fossil evidence is hard to refute, but is it entirely unbiblical? That' answer is personal and not for me to answer.

Not to get to far off the treat tract but I do believe new and fascinating discoveries are lurking in Paleontology. This could even involve dating methodology's.

 

[Bad Bungle]

I would like to acknowledge the scholaristic efforts and research Bishop Ussher put into his calculations. The genealogy of the Bible is not linear, the length of the reign of some Kings not stated, there are different Bibles and there is at least a 500 year gap between the end of the Old Testament and the New. His figure of 4004 BC matched very closely the calculations of Bede, Kepler and Isaac Newton amongst others.
I know this thread is about the age of Earth but I contend that the Date of Creation and the Dawn of Human Civilisation would appear pretty much synonymous to the writers in the 17th cent. Yes the Earth is considerably older than 6,000 years but can you find proof of human Civilisation, writing, language, structure before the Sumerians (~4000 BC).

 

[Mikefule]

Excuse some repetition concerning post #35. Such literal dates simply aren't in the Bible, They're the result of Bishops Ullser's 1700's chronology.
etc.

For the sake of addressing whether the age of the dinosaur bones conflicts with the "Biblical" age of the Earth, it is irrelevant whether the "Biblical" age is 6,000 years or any other figure either side, allowing for a substantial margin for error — even a 100% margin. It doesn't really matter whether it was calculated by one individual or another, or what precise method they used.

The point is that the people who believe the result believe that the Earth is in the region of 6,000 years old, give or take a bit, and that the evidence for this can be derived from written sources.

As the difference between 6,000 ish years for the Earth and 66 million ish years for T rex, is so great, there is no way of reconciling the difference. Either the science is wrong or the 6,000 year figure is wrong. (Or, of course, logically, both could be wrong.)

People can believe what they choose to believe, and their faith may give them comfort and strength. My primary point was that the discrepancy between the scientific evidence and the Biblical view does not disprove the existence of God; it only casts substantial doubt on one very specific view of God.

Illustration: Did Robin Hood exist? Historians have found references to Robert Hod of York (1226) who was an outlaw. However, proving that Robert Hod existed, and speculating that a range of stories and characters later became attached to him does not prove the existence of Robin Hood, the legendary outlaw.

The Robin Hood we all know was the enemy of the Sherif of Nottingham, the friend of Little John, Will Scarlet, and Much the miller's son. He was the lover of Maid Marian. He was the outlaw who stole from the rich and gave to the poor, and who won an archery competition by splitting his first arrow with his second.

Evidence of Robert Hod proves only that there was a mediaeval outlaw with a similar name to Robin Hood. Evidence that stories attached to him after his death is only evidence of how the folk process works.

In this thread, I am arguing in a similar way, but in the opposite direction. God who made the Earth in 6 days around 6,000 years ago cannot exist if the scientific evidence is correct. However, the scientific evidence sheds no light on whether a God who created all things in the universe, over a much longer period, exists, or not.

For the avoidance of confusion: I am an atheist, and not arguing for the existence of god(s) or in favour of any particular theological point of view. I am only arguing that fossils of dinosaurs do not disprove the existence of God.

 

[Anome]

The only reason dinosaurs aren't mentioned in The Bible is that the authors hadn't heard of them. There's no woolly mammoths mentioned in it either, and they were far more recent to the authors.

More to the point, they don't mention contemporary animals outside their experience. No kangaroos, no pandas, no capybaras. Basically nothing from too far away.

Jim, you are proclaiming that the Bible acknowledges the true age of our planet and it's evolution.

No it doesn't..

The earth was created by God in a week or so. That's the literal truth from the Bible.

You simply can't interpret it otherwise, to acquisce your dilemma.

The Bible is, 'All or Nothing'.

There can be no conciliatory interpretations.

Which version of the creation are you referring to? There are two separate stories in Genesis Chapters 1-3, and they frequently get confounded. Then there's a whole heap of non-Biblical accounts of the creation and embellishments that are often accepted as true. Plus centuries of religious scholarship reconciling all the different stories.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

"can you find proof of human Civilisation, writing, language, structure before the Sumerians (~4000 BC)."

How about Göbekli Tepe at around 10,000 BC?

As for writing, the Vinca script and the unnamed script on the Dispilio tablet from Greece significantly predate the Sumerians.

 

[Jim]

For the sake of addressing whether the age of the dinosaur bones conflicts with the "Biblical" age of the Earth, it is irrelevant whether the "Biblical" age is 6,000 years or any other figure either side, allowing for a substantial margin for error — even a 100% margin. It doesn't really matter whether it was calculated by one individual or another, or what precise method they used.

The point is that the people who believe the result believe that the Earth is in the region of 6,000 years old, give or take a bit, and that the evidence for this can be derived from written sources.

As the difference between 6,000 ish years for the Earth and 66 million ish years for T rex, is so great, there is no way of reconciling the difference. Either the science is wrong or the 6,000 year figure is wrong. (Or, of course, logically, both could be wrong.)

People can believe what they choose to believe, and their faith may give them comfort and strength. My primary point was that the discrepancy between the scientific evidence and the Biblical view does not disprove the existence of God; it only casts substantial doubt on one very specific view of God.

Illustration: Did Robin Hood exist? Historians have found references to Robert Hod of York (1226) who was an outlaw. However, proving that Robert Hod existed, and speculating that a range of stories and characters later became attached to him does not prove the existence of Robin Hood, the legendary outlaw.

The Robin Hood we all know was the enemy of the Sherif of Nottingham, the friend of Little John, Will Scarlet, and Much the miller's son. He was the lover of Maid Marian. He was the outlaw who stole from the rich and gave to the poor, and who won an archery competition by splitting his first arrow with his second.

Evidence of Robert Hod proves only that there was a mediaeval outlaw with a similar name to Robin Hood. Evidence that stories attached to him after his death is only evidence of how the folk process works.

In this thread, I am arguing in a similar way, but in the opposite direction. God who made the Earth in 6 days around 6,000 years ago cannot exist if the scientific evidence is correct. However, the scientific evidence sheds no light on whether a God who created all things in the universe, over a much longer period, exists, or not.

For the avoidance of confusion: I am an atheist, and not arguing for the existence of god(s) or in favour of any particular theological point of view. I am only arguing that fossils of dinosaurs do not disprove the existence of God.

Never said they did?