How old do you suppose this planet really is?

[IronWing]

No one can dispute this, if you look out over the ocean you can see the edge.

Around here, the earth is quite bumpy.

 

[RandomWords]

That's fine, you can spin the bible to make creation last as long as you want. Maybe a "day" is 80 bajillion years and maybe it's 17 seconds and if you take that part of the creation myth in a vacuum it can say anything you want it to say. But the people who wrote the fairy tales couldn't leave well enough alone and the bible goes on to create a pretty good timeline from the creation of life to modern day and that's where it all crashes down. Adam and Eve to us is about 6,000 or so years by biblical reckoning and those are real years, not nebulous "time has no meaning to God" years.

And you're saying creation days have to be the same as genealogical days because? ... oh because the same word was used in the bible...as for this rant making it last billions - I wasn't saying "day" had any numerical value but could be for place value alone like bullet points on a list. As for the genealogical aspect of Genesis- that's another opinion altogether and this post is simply asking about the age of the earth in which I gave an adequate response from a two sided view.. summing it up to the age doesn't matter and can't be adequately determined. (Not from a scientific or a religious view IMO).

Well... and commenting on comments that said the bible was extremely violent.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Old enough to know better.

 

[RandomWords]

Old enough to know better.

But too young to care.

 

[RandomWords]

That's fine, you can spin the bible to make creation last as long as you want. Maybe a "day" is 80 bajillion years and maybe it's 17 seconds and if you take that part of the creation myth in a vacuum it can say anything you want it to say. But the people who wrote the fairy tales couldn't leave well enough alone and the bible goes on to create a pretty good timeline from the creation of life to modern day and that's where it all crashes down. Adam and Eve to us is about 6,000 or so years by biblical reckoning and those are real years, not nebulous "time has no meaning to God" years.

To add to my former post you can tell me how our current population makes sense with the "first of our kind" scientifically being 200000 years ago - even with plagues and war and what not considering the known ratio of growth where in 1959 world population was 3 billion... in 1987 was 5 billion... in 1995 5.7 billion... in 2016 7.4 billion... and explain if we've been around 200000 years - why the fuck is our population so low given that in a mere 60 years it has more than doubled... with families having less children but granted better healthcare. ... it's 60 years verses 200000...

Then you can ask how the bible makes sense with its genealogy and biblical creation... which it doesnt either.

 

[Humpy]

....explain if we've been around 200000 years - why the fuck is our population so low given that in a mere 60 years it has more than doubled... with families having less children but granted better healthcare. ... it's 60 years verses 200000...

Exponential population growth?

Or is this a joke?

 

[RandomWords]

Exponential population growth?

Or is this a joke?

Even averaging a .02% population growth compounded annually it would only take like 105000 years to get to 3 billion people...and .02% average is ridiculously low. ... and no... not 2% ... .02%

... but that is if the online compound calculator worked properly... you're more than welcome to crunch the numbers.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I do apologize for not placing this in the discussion club where it belongs. Could a mod please move it over there so it will be in the right place? As for the age of the earth I struggle with the concept of it being fabricated over the period of a couple of days and then given billions of years of age over the course of a day as I hear so many people spout. These are the same ones who follow every traveling evangelist who comes to town. The very fact that it took 13.7 billion years for the light of the furthest known galaxy to reach us says a lot about the age of the place if you believe that it was all created simultaneously. From all of the different answers here it's apparent that nobody agrees from the varying opinions presented.

 

[zinfamous]

And you're saying creation days have to be the same as genealogical days because? ... oh because the same word was used in the bible...as for this rant making it last billions - I wasn't saying "day" had any numerical value but could be for place value alone like bullet points on a list. As for the genealogical aspect of Genesis- that's another opinion altogether and this post is simply asking about the age of the earth in which I gave an adequate response from a two sided view.. summing it up to the age doesn't matter and can't be adequately determined. (Not from a scientific or a religious view IMO).

Well... and commenting on comments that said the bible was extremely violent.

Genealogy

 

[zinfamous]

As for the age of the earth I struggle with the concept of it being fabricated over the period of a couple of days and then given billions of years of age over the course of a day as I hear so many people spout. These are the same ones who follow every traveling evangelist who comes to town. The very fact that it took 13.7 billion years for the light of the furthest known galaxy to reach us says a lot about the age of the place if you believe that it was all created simultaneously. From all of the different answers here it's apparent that nobody agrees from the varying opinions presented.

Well, you shouldn't struggle with that concept, because it's obviously bullshit. Plenty of people in this world know that and live perfectly happy lives while not desperately clinging to such utter bollocks.

 

[vi edit]

Older than dirt. That's my final answer.

 

[Paratus]

Even averaging a .02% population growth compounded annually it would only take like 105000 years to get to 3 billion people...and .02% average is ridiculously low. ... and no... not 2% ... .02%

... but that is if the online compound calculator worked properly... you're more than welcome to crunch the numbers.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You do realize that "days" in genesis doesn't mean 24 hour days right?

BTW the Earth isn't really old, it doesn't exist at all. We're all part of a simulation. If BoA says it is must be gospel.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-wonders-about-the-matrix-2016-9

 

[BurnItDwn]

Earth is potato

 

[GagHalfrunt]

To add to my former post you can tell me how our current population makes sense with the "first of our kind" scientifically being 200000 years ago - even with plagues and war and what not considering the known ratio of growth where in 1959 world population was 3 billion... in 1987 was 5 billion... in 1995 5.7 billion... in 2016 7.4 billion... and explain if we've been around 200000 years - why the fuck is our population so low given that in a mere 60 years it has more than doubled... with families having less children but granted better healthcare. ... it's 60 years verses 200000...

Then you can ask how the bible makes sense with its genealogy and biblical creation... which it doesnt either.

How can you be that monumentally stupid and still be able to use a keyboard?

For about a million years the population was limited by the ability to gather food. There was little agriculture and tribes survived by what they could scrape off the land. The population couldn't grow because if it did it would starve. It was the ability to grow and distribute food in bulk that triggered population growth, the graph Paratus posted shows it perfectly and I would have assumed that every person on Earth would have the single brain cell necessary to understand what forces determine whether population increases or declines. Thanks for being the exception, even one brain cell can be tough to muster. Keep working at it, you might get there someday.

 

[jwhorfin]

Older than dirt. That's my final answer.

Christ, Jesus Mary & Joseph ! I had to read two pages of this shit to see you took my answer...

 

[Tweak155]

How can you be that monumentally stupid and still be able to use a keyboard?

For about a million years the population was limited by the ability to gather food. There was little agriculture and tribes survived by what they could scrape off the land. The population couldn't grow because if it did it would starve. It was the ability to grow and distribute food in bulk that triggered population growth, the graph Paratus posted shows it perfectly and I would have assumed that every person on Earth would have the single brain cell necessary to understand what forces determine whether population increases or declines. Thanks for being the exception, even one brain cell can be tough to muster. Keep working at it, you might get there someday.

Well if you're the epitome of where we are in the current stage of evolution, seems like we're on the decline. Any reason to be such a dick?

 

[RandomWords]

How can you be that monumentally stupid and still be able to use a keyboard?

For about a million years the population was limited by the ability to gather food. There was little agriculture and tribes survived by what they could scrape off the land. The population couldn't grow because if it did it would starve. It was the ability to grow and distribute food in bulk that triggered population growth, the graph Paratus posted shows it perfectly and I would have assumed that every person on Earth would have the single brain cell necessary to understand what forces determine whether population increases or declines. Thanks for being the exception, even one brain cell can be tough to muster. Keep working at it, you might get there someday.

OR you are buying into a very stupid theory that for 190000 years the population couldn't possibly have increased by .02% because we didn't cultivate plants... even though most animal populations grow at such rates (likely at higher rates). Are you saying they lacked all skill at hunting and foraging too? ... actually 198000 years.

And are we to assume American Indian population grew at a very low rate because they didn't have agriculture (many tribes anyways)? So their numbers stayed pretty much zilch that with 2 people they couldnt produce 2.0002 people and in 2000 years have almost 3 people... in 5000 have a whole 5 people... whatever you want to believe.

... in 10000 have 15 people... man the population is booming

 

[MrDudeMan]

How can you be that monumentally stupid and still be able to use a keyboard?

For about a million years the population was limited by the ability to gather food. There was little agriculture and tribes survived by what they could scrape off the land. The population couldn't grow because if it did it would starve. It was the ability to grow and distribute food in bulk that triggered population growth, the graph Paratus posted shows it perfectly and I would have assumed that every person on Earth would have the single brain cell necessary to understand what forces determine whether population increases or declines. Thanks for being the exception, even one brain cell can be tough to muster. Keep working at it, you might get there someday.

In addition to what was said above, just because something is alive doesn't mean it will automatically reproduce to enormous quantities. Following his logic, why aren't there currently 20 billion tigers? The answer is incredibly simple: the environmental conditions have to be right for a species to proliferate.

Several species of hominids went extinct in the time it took modern humans to become dominant. Our species was almost wiped out multiple times just like other animals face extinction today. The difference is we are now in a position to prevent our own extinction more readily than any other species. Once that became true, it was easier for us to expand our population.

There are many other extremely obvious reasons why population growth was stifled for so long. Tons of babies and mothers died during childbirth, some diseases spread very quickly and practically dismantled local population centers, war, malnutrition, and, most significantly, the inability to effectively cultivate the land and produce massive quantities of food. Our population explosion is very obviously a direct result of our technological and sociological superiority, which includes agriculture. It took time for us to develop what we take for granted today because we're now smart enough to innovate with a much shorter time constant.

 

[WHAMPOM]

You know the bible book of Genesis chapter one says that creation took place over 6 days and on the 7th God rested. The earth was created and then given form over several days and by the time the 6th day rolled around we had people, animals and foliage. I know that the furthest known galaxy is 13.7 billion lights years away hence it took at least that long for its light to reach us here.

So my question is simple. How old do you suppose this planet really is? If God created it did he work in some aging in the process as he was giving it form? Could the aging be enough to stabilize the land masses in order for people to safely inhabit the planet?

The past is gone and the future does not exist yet, so in every present moment the whole universe is destroyed and created. Blow your mind with that thought!

 

[MrDudeMan]

The past is gone and the future does not exist yet, so in every present moment the whole universe is destroyed and created. Blow your mind with that thought!

That's not a mind-blowing thought in any capacity. All it shows is an extreme lack of understanding of science, logic, and probably the entirety of the world around you. As an aside, you also don't know that the past is actually gone or that the future doesn't exist yet. Time travel forward is already possible, which renders your comment null and void.

 

[Linux23]

Wow, this thread surely escalated.

 

[BoomerD]

Older than dirt. That's my final answer.

Well...older than me, anyway...and that's fucking old.

 

[RandomWords]

In addition to what was said above, just because something is alive doesn't mean it will automatically reproduce to enormous quantities. Following his logic, why aren't there currently 20 billion tigers? The answer is incredibly simple: the environmental conditions have to be right for a species to proliferate.

Several species of hominids went extinct in the time it took modern humans to become dominant. Our species was almost wiped out multiple times just like other animals face extinction today. The difference is we are now in a position to prevent our own extinction more readily than any other species. Once that became true, it was easier for us to expand our population.

There are many other extremely obvious reasons why population growth was stifled for so long. Tons of babies and mothers died during childbirth, some diseases spread very quickly and practically dismantled local population centers, war, malnutrition, and, most significantly, the inability to effectively cultivate the land and produce massive quantities of food. Our population explosion is very obviously a direct result of our technological and sociological superiority, which includes agriculture. It took time for us to develop what we take for granted today because we're now smart enough to innovate with a much shorter time constant.

I can tell you why animals don't have large numbers... because we hunt them. Have for eons. It's why deer, wolves, Tigers, buffalo, elephants, whales and various other animals have been near wiped off the face of the planet before regulations... or I'm sure their population would have been much larger and was at one point... but look at dogs and cats... their numbers are booming greatly way above the .02% mark I think.

 

[SSSnail]

And you're saying creation days have to be the same as genealogical days because? ... oh because the same word was used in the bible...as for this rant making it last billions - I wasn't saying "day" had any numerical value but could be for place value alone like bullet points on a list. As for the genealogical aspect of Genesis- that's another opinion altogether and this post is simply asking about the age of the earth in which I gave an adequate response from a two sided view.. summing it up to the age doesn't matter and can't be adequately determined. (Not from a scientific or a religious view IMO).

Well... and commenting on comments that said the bible was extremely violent.

So, is the Bible the words of God, or is it up to interpretation? Because you can only claim one, or the other.