Evidence for God from Science

A friend of mine who isn't atheist or theist and is still trying to figure out what he wants to believe says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (according to science) and the earth is 4.3 billion. How can I get him to understand that they were created at the same time? There is no evidence that anything exists on earth that is older than 4.3 billion years or maybe it just hasn't been discovered yet. Can scientists be that wrong on estimation of existence?

I don't see it as a problem, given that the scripture doesn't give specific dates and time spans for everything nor does it give scientifically precise methodology beyond attributing God as the cause.

That doesn't mean science is necessarily right on these time estimates. Those assumptions are only as accurate as the assumptions that underlay them and frankly, I've seen those change even in my lifetime, that I'm not going to be drawn into a false dilemma type argument as to whether science is right or scripture is right. I think the scientific argument is well founded and reasoned as far as it goes in assuming that the underlying assumptions are constant.

I accept that scripture is right, but our theology includes underlying assumptions at times as well and it's quite possible (even likely) that those understandings lead us to conclusions that are not as infallible as the source. Nature and scripture agree in this context. Science and theology often disagree as both are human efforts to understand and we are limited by our perspectives, our knowledge and at times by our presumptions and biases that we carry to the examination.

The differentiation between the age of the earth and the age of the universe is a matter of degrees and may be entirely attributable to perspective. Many suggest that the sequence in Genesis 1 is from the perspective of the surface of the earth and therefore the celestial bodies being revealed out of sequence answer that. Others use an apparent age type of argument that argues the underlying assumptions of science in drawing those conclusions are possibly wrong.

It's not a hill to die on for me. I tend to believe our interpretative approach to the text needs to ask if we're asking questions that were not in the minds of the author and original audience and thereby reading more into what is stated than what was intended and even what the language and culture of that time could reasonably address. I may be wrong however.

I hope that helps and I'm sorry if it is not a satisfying or detailed enough answer for you.

willevjas wrote:A friend of mine who isn't atheist or theist and is still trying to figure out what he wants to believe says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (according to science) and the earth is 4.3 billion. How can I get him to understand that they were created at the same time? There is no evidence that anything exists on earth that is older than 4.3 billion years or maybe it just hasn't been discovered yet. Can scientists be that wrong on estimation of existence?

The universe is older than the earth, from the scientific evidence. The earth formed later than the start of the universe.

Unless the earth spontaneous materialized when the universe was 9.4 billion years old. If the earth was formed it was formed with existing matter. That matter would 13.7 billion years old.

jlay wrote:Unless the earth spontaneous materialized when the universe was 9.4 billion years old. If the earth was formed it was formed with existing matter. That matter would 13.7 billion years old.

Not necessarily. From rudimentary reading I've done on astrophysics, galactic evolution is such that it takes 3 cycles to produce the kind of material we see today in our galaxy, each cycle being around 4 billion years. Given the age of the universe at around 13 billion years, life-sustaining stuff could only have materialized so-to-speak in a galaxy at most 4 billion years.

jlay wrote:Unless the earth spontaneous materialized when the universe was 9.4 billion years old. If the earth was formed it was formed with existing matter. That matter would 13.7 billion years old.

Scientific age measurements on earthen elements is a measurement of when they coalesced and came together in their current form and involves the use of different approaches than how the age of the universe is calculated. The age of the universe is usually an extrapolation back of the rate of expansion that is being observed now. The speed of the movement away is measured by examining the red-shift which is similar to a doppler effect in sound. The light waves coming issued from the moving object either compress or elongate fepending upon where the observer is relative to the movement.

That's a very high-level and simplistic answer and no doubt others (or even me if I took the time to do a little research) could answer in more detail, but the general observation holds true. The elements in earth rock may well have been in existence 13.7 billion years ago, but the tests used to determine the age of rock for example, would be based upon radiation type measurement that would have had their origin when the Rock formed, not when the base elements involved formed.

And, so you guys have observed this?

Kidding. I'm with you. The bottom line is all the matter that ever was and ever will be, happened at the event, big bang, creation, whatever you want to call it.

jlay wrote:And, so you guys have observed this?

Astrophysics is an observational science.

jlay wrote:And, so you guys have observed this?

Yes, it is in the background radiation.

Genesis 1:1 uses a merism "the heavens and the earth" which means the entire universe was created "In the beginning." That means stars, galaxies, earth, etc. But, the phrase "In the beginning" beresit is used only five more times in the Old Testament and always refers to a period of time. The shortest being the first fruit bearing season of a tree, the longest being 4 years of a king's 11 yr. reign. That's over 33% of the king's reign, yet it is referred to as the beginning.

"In the beginning" describes the creation period before the six ages (days) of transforming the earth. In Job 38:4-7 God tells Job that stars and angels were already there when He laid the foundation of the earth. In verses 8-9 God tells Job how the earth's original conditions (Genesis 1:2) came to be. If I were to take the flood to be global, then this would mean it took at least 40 days for the earth to be covered with water in Gen. 1:2 and Job 38:8.

The point is that millions or billions of years are not contradictions to Genesis one. Just like Gen. 1:1, all of the "days" are long periods of time. Hebrews four is another text about creation, and it says we are still in the seventh day.

Job is just one of the other creation passages that need to be read with Genesis 1 to get a fuller picture. The picture fits what science is discovering about the univers and the early earth.

The first generation of stars to form were made almost entirely of helium and hydrogen. That is about all there was after the Big Bang. As they burned and when they exploded they produced heavier elements, which made up the second generation stars. These can still be found thoughout the universe, because astronomy only observes the past. These burned and erupted to form even heavier elements which produced the third generation stars like our sun. It took all of this to get the carbon, iron, lead, etc. to make planets and life.

dayage wrote:Genesis 1:1 uses a merism "the heavens and the earth" which means the entire universe was created "In the beginning." That means stars, galaxies, earth, etc. But, the phrase "In the beginning" beresit is used only five more times in the Old Testament and always refers to a period of time. The shortest being the first fruit bearing season of a tree, the longest being 4 years of a king's 11 yr. reign. That's over 33% of the king's reign, yet it is referred to as the beginning.

"In the beginning" describes the creation period before the six ages (days) of transforming the earth. In Job 38:4-7 God tells Job that stars and angels were already there when He laid the foundation of the earth. In verses 8-9 God tells Job how the earth's original conditions (Genesis 1:2) came to be. If I were to take the flood to be global, then this would mean it took at least 40 days for the earth to be covered with water in Gen. 1:2 and Job 38:8.

The point is that millions or billions of years are not contradictions to Genesis one. Just like Gen. 1:1, all of the "days" are long periods of time. Hebrews four is another text about creation, and it says we are still in the seventh day.

Job is just one of the other creation passages that need to be read with Genesis 1 to get a fuller picture. The picture fits what science is discovering about the univers and the early earth.

It seems to me that God created the heavens and the earth- In the beginning- but the earth was uninhabitable at that time. Stephen Hawking said that "The first one or two thousand million years of the earth's existence were too hot for the development of anything complicated." So, is it right to hold that, while the earth was THERE, it was alone and void?

Hey DannyM,

It seems to me that God created the heavens and the earth- In the beginning- but the earth was uninhabitable at that time.

Yes, that is correct. The phrase is a merism as I said above.

So, is it right to hold that, while the earth was THERE, it was alone and void?

No, stars, galaxies, our sun, etc. were all there. The moon was not there quite yet. The earth was formless and void. This was changed when God gave it form by bringing up the land masses. The void was filled when God introduced plants, animals and man.

Stephen Hawking said that "The first one or two thousand million years of the earth's existence were too hot for the development of anything complicated."

He may have been referring to the heavy bombardment period 4.4-3.8 billion years ago. Asteriods and comets smashed into the earth vaporizing the oceans and melting the earth's surface.

dayage wrote:Hey DannyM,

It seems to me that God created the heavens and the earth- In the beginning- but the earth was uninhabitable at that time.

Yes, that is correct. The phrase is a merism as I said above.

So, is it right to hold that, while the earth was THERE, it was alone and void?

No, stars, galaxies, our sun, etc. were all there. The moon was not there quite yet. The earth was formless and void. This was changed when God gave it form by bringing up the land masses. The void was filled when God introduced plants, animals and man.

Stephen Hawking said that "The first one or two thousand million years of the earth's existence were too hot for the development of anything complicated."

He may have been referring to the heavy bombardment period 4.4-3.8 billion years ago. Asteriods and comets smashed into the earth vaporizing the oceans and melting the earth's surface.

Gotcha Dayage and thank you

Nice to see you back here dayage...