Age of the Earth and universe

6,083 Views | 80 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Jabin
BartInLA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:53p, 1/30/24
Young Earth hypothesis Is 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Most scientists say 4,540,000,000 years with the universe being
13,800,000,000 years. Modern and archaic mixed feature humans at 300,000 years and modern humans expanding from Africa 70,000 years.
What's your guess?
Reply Quote
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:30p, 1/30/24
AG
I'm a believer in a young earth.
Reply Quote
6
BartInLA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:05p, 1/30/24
I majored in physics at A&M so it was a bit of a challenge to reconcile my Lutheran beliefs with mainstream science. I believe faith is required and one of the reasons I believe in a personal God is I've experienced a few miracles that I can't explain away. I believe miracles are much more common than I recognize but a few have been incredibly life-changing and I can't begin to brush them off.
I have some loose theories about the age of things but those miracles don't fit normal life explanations so I accept them as divine gifts and appreciation. It makes me realize that some mystical things aren't explained by science as I know it.
Reply Quote
4
Scotts Tot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32p, 1/30/24
AG
Once you let go of a literal interpretation of scripture, it's not that hard to reconcile creationism and a universe that's billions of years old.

I was forced to come to grips with this at A&M in my geology course load. The obvious physical evidence all over our planet leaves two options for believers in my opinion.

1. The earth is billions of years old. The time scale required in the evolution of species and aging of materials to the best of science's abilities indicates this. The Bible was not intended to serve as a technical chronology of the planet from inception.

2. The earth is tens thousands of years old based the genealogical record in the Bible. Dinosaurs couldn't have lived and things are made to look much older than they really are. God left all this evidence of an older earth scattered around the planet as some sort of deception (why else would it exist in this scenario?).

Option 2 is ridiculous, and is only required if a person insists on an incredibly narrow and unrealistic view of scripture.

I had a professor of paleontology who, at the beginning of the series on evolution, took the time to make a comment that had a real impact on me as a 19 year old. She basically said "I don't believe in God, but if I did, I think the record on evolution would only serve to make me more impressed by him, not less. I don't think this material should compromise your faith." I thought that was a cool thing for an atheist professor to say.
Reply Quote
29
2 edits
Fireman
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48p, 1/30/24
AG
Universe - 30 billion+

Earth ~ 5 billion

Humans, 2,500 years.
Reply Quote
jaborch99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:02p, 1/30/24
S
The biblical writers make no attempt to answer this question, so there is no "biblical answer." Therefore I have no problem accepting the scientific consensus, and I do not condemn my siblings in Christ who believe differently.
Reply Quote
10
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fireman • 12:53a, 1/31/24
Fireman said:
Universe - 30 billion+

Earth ~ 5 billion

Humans, 2,500 years.
Huh?
Reply Quote
23
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jaborch99 • 6:08a, 1/31/24
jaborch99 said:
The biblical writers make no attempt to answer this question, so there is no "biblical answer."
That's because it's a weird question and depends on observation vs. faith. Take the example of Adam. Say the second after he was created, someone asked you how old he was. From one perspective, he's 30 years old. From another, he's one second old. Christians should believe the narrative by faith (Heb. 11:3) and let atheists mock as they do all other miracle claims.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Scotts Tot • 7:23a, 1/31/24
AG
Scotts Tot said:
Once you let go of a literal interpretation of scripture, it's not that hard to reconcile creationism and a universe that's billions of years old.

I was forced to come to grips with this at A&M in my geology course load. The obvious physical evidence all over our planet leaves two options for believers in my opinion.

1. The earth is billions of years old. The time scale required in the evolution of species and aging of materials to the best of science's abilities indicates this. The Bible was not intended to serve as a technical chronology of the planet from inception.

2. The earth is tens thousands of years old based the genealogical record in the Bible. Dinosaurs couldn't have lived and things are made to look much older than they really are. God left all this evidence of an older earth scattered around the planet as some sort of deception (why else would it exist in this scenario?).

Option 2 is ridiculous, and is only required if a person insists on an incredibly narrow and unrealistic view of scripture.

I had a professor of paleontology who, at the beginning of the series on evolution, took the time to make a comment that had a real impact on me as a 19 year old. She basically said "I don't believe in God, but if I did, I think the record on evolution would only serve to make me more impressed by him, not less. I don't think this material should compromise your faith." I thought that was a cool thing for an atheist professor to say.

Both options are troublesome to me. Option 2, for the reasons you suggested. But option 1 suggests a God that watched for billions of years as life began, struggled, survived, reproduced, and died. 99.9% of all species going extinct. Unimaginable numbers of animals dying from starvation, disease, or being eaten. A universe unfathomably gigantic and old all so that humans might come on to the scene 250,000 years ago.

I'm not saying its wrong. . . But I imagine a universe where there is a Creator God that finds us important and special. And I ask, If an all powerful, all good God exists, what should I expect the universe to be like? If observation can be used in confirming that such a God exists, what type of observation would provide that confirmation? And I have a hard time reconciling the above with such a God.

So, old Earth and old Universe. No God, but we have eachother.
Reply Quote
4
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 7:57a, 1/31/24
AG
And that is always the question, why does a good God allow all the evil and suffering in the world?

Despite all that, I firmly believe there is a good God who loves us. And we will be rewarded with eternal life if we persevere.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:29a, 1/31/24
I've heard the idea that the theory of relativity may solve the issue here. If the universe was originally immensely dense, and if the universe is expanding at a bajillion times the speed of light, it could easily explain the oldness of our earth while also seeming to take no more than 7 days to the biblical author.

The other option to consider is that the biblical author is trying to understand the creation story of a universe created by an infinite being. Sort of like Revelations, the author may just being doing his best to explain how it all worked out. Everything in the Bible is true does not mean literally every thing we could possibly want to know is in the Bible.

I think the earth is old. I think the universe is old. I also think the Bible is correct, but we're struggling to square because of the self imposed need to believe it got done in 168 hours as we understand them here on earth.
Reply Quote
1 edit
jaborch99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 8:46a, 1/31/24
S
Martin Q. Blank said:
jaborch99 said:
The biblical writers make no attempt to answer this question, so there is no "biblical answer."
That's because it's a weird question and depends on observation vs. faith. Take the example of Adam. Say the second after he was created, someone asked you how old he was. From one perspective, he's 30 years old. From another, he's one second old. Christians should believe the narrative by faith (Heb. 11:3) and let atheists mock as they do all other miracle claims.
I don't find the apparent age theory convincing because it feels like eisegesis rather than exegesis. It is not a theory derived from the textual or scientific evidence but designed to support a pre-determined conclusion (young earth, 7 literal days).

Also, you say "Christians should believe the narrative by faith." I agree, but there are different kinds of narrative that are designed to be read and interpreted very differently. For example, fables are narratives inasmuch as they tell a story that conveys truth, but they are not historical accounts. They are true but not factual. Similarly, I don't believe the Genesis account of creation was intended to be a historical account. It conveys truth that the authors intended (as inspired by God) but was never intended to convey a historically factual retelling of events.
Reply Quote
1
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:13a, 1/31/24
AG
You have to ignore MOUNTAINS of scientific data and evidence to accept a young earth. It's a bad theory, if we can even call it that.
Reply Quote
18
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jaborch99 • 9:14a, 1/31/24
jaborch99 said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
jaborch99 said:
The biblical writers make no attempt to answer this question, so there is no "biblical answer."
That's because it's a weird question and depends on observation vs. faith. Take the example of Adam. Say the second after he was created, someone asked you how old he was. From one perspective, he's 30 years old. From another, he's one second old. Christians should believe the narrative by faith (Heb. 11:3) and let atheists mock as they do all other miracle claims.
I don't find the apparent age theory convincing because it feels like eisegesis rather than exegesis. It is not a theory derived from the textual or scientific evidence but designed to support a pre-determined conclusion (young earth, 7 literal days).

Also, you say "Christians should believe the narrative by faith." I agree, but there are different kinds of narrative that are designed to be read and interpreted very differently. For example, fables are narratives inasmuch as they tell a story that conveys truth, but they are not historical accounts. They are true but not factual. Similarly, I don't believe the Genesis account of creation was intended to be a historical account. It conveys truth that the authors intended (as inspired by God) but was never intended to convey a historically factual retelling of events.
It's not exegesis because no Israelite would have questioned Adams "true age" vs. "apparant age". Again, it's a weird question only brought up because of the big bang theory. The purpose of Genesis is to give a preface to the Israelites when they received the law. How did we get here? They received the account, including the creation narrative, as a historical factual retelling of events. Not a fable.
Reply Quote
1
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:18a, 1/31/24
AG
There is no non-religious reason to believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. I suppose there might be a young earth atheist out there somewhere, but I've never come across one. The evidence strongly supports the claim that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old and the universe itself billions of years older than that.

I think the question regarding how old is humanity is much more interesting. What age we come up with depends pretty strongly on how we define what it means to be human which is a fascinating question.
Reply Quote
4
fredfredunderscorefred
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:21a, 1/31/24
No idea. And don't think it is a safe idea to use some "literal" meaning from within the Bible which has been translated and complied by man.

When God created the earth on day 1 and placed a full grown tree there, the age of the tree was immediately older than the age of the earth. I think that make things difficult (and interesting) in determining age.

Carbon dating requires lots of assumptions.

I have always found it intriguing that the half life of carbon is almost equal to the young earth age. Not sure why, but that's interesting to me….
Reply Quote
1
jaborch99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:34a, 1/31/24
S
Martin Q. Blank said:
jaborch99 said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
jaborch99 said:
The biblical writers make no attempt to answer this question, so there is no "biblical answer."
That's because it's a weird question and depends on observation vs. faith. Take the example of Adam. Say the second after he was created, someone asked you how old he was. From one perspective, he's 30 years old. From another, he's one second old. Christians should believe the narrative by faith (Heb. 11:3) and let atheists mock as they do all other miracle claims.
I don't find the apparent age theory convincing because it feels like eisegesis rather than exegesis. It is not a theory derived from the textual or scientific evidence but designed to support a pre-determined conclusion (young earth, 7 literal days).

Also, you say "Christians should believe the narrative by faith." I agree, but there are different kinds of narrative that are designed to be read and interpreted very differently. For example, fables are narratives inasmuch as they tell a story that conveys truth, but they are not historical accounts. They are true but not factual. Similarly, I don't believe the Genesis account of creation was intended to be a historical account. It conveys truth that the authors intended (as inspired by God) but was never intended to convey a historically factual retelling of events.
It's not exegesis because no Israelite would have questioned Adams "true age" vs. "apparant age". Again, it's a weird question only brought up because of the big bang theory. The purpose of Genesis is to give a preface to the Israelites when they received the law. How did we get here? They received the account, including the creation narrative, as a historical factual retelling of events. Not a fable.
I didn't mean to imply that the Genesis account is a fable. I was using fable as an example of a literary genre that is true but not factual. I think the Genesis account functions similarly.

Also, the ways ancient civilizations retold history are very different from modern western approaches. We try to retell the events, dates, and times in chronological order. If that standard isn't met, we consider it to be false and disposable. That is why so many westerners wholly discount the Bible when they find some inaccuracy or inconsistency in the minutiae (size of armys, conflicting chronology, etc). It is my understanding that the ancients often retold history in such a way as to highlight the bigger truths that they gleaned from stories. God's people had a great victory so that greatness of the victory may be emphasized by embellishing the sizes of the armies, etc.) By their standards, this would still be accurate retelling of the story. So when you say that the original readers received the account as a historical factual retelling of events, I wonder by whose standards? I am willing to accept that they viewed it as their history/their story. But I don't expect them to conform to modern western standards for recording history.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
BluHorseShu
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BartInLA • 9:35a, 1/31/24
AG
BartInLA said:
Young Earth hypothesis Is 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Most scientists say 4,540,000,000 years with the universe being
13,800,000,000 years. Modern and archaic mixed feature humans at 300,000 years and modern humans expanding from Africa 70,000 years.
What's your guess?
My take is that it doesn't matter unless it contradicts the message of salvation. Could it technically be only 6k years but we perceive it as millions, sure God can create reality any way he wants.

What I want to know is that for YEC....are there subsets that argue vehemently among each other whether its exactly 6k or 7552 years?

Believing whether the dinosaurs all cohabited with people during the biblical timeline doesn't move the dial on my salvation.

I believe God created the universe, earth, us. Plus, I believe Jesus said there would be no math required to follow him.
Reply Quote
4
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jaborch99 • 9:36a, 1/31/24

Quote:
Also, the ways ancient civilizations retold history is very different from modern western approaches.
Modern western approach? This is not a new debate. While Aristotle believed the earth's age to be infinite (by observation), Jerome and a host of other church fathers estimated its creation 5200-5600 years before Christ appeared. The official Byzantine (not western) calendar had the earth's creation as September 1, 5509 BC.
Reply Quote
1 edit
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BluHorseShu • 9:39a, 1/31/24
AG
BluHorseShu said:
BartInLA said:
Young Earth hypothesis Is 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Most scientists say 4,540,000,000 years with the universe being
13,800,000,000 years. Modern and archaic mixed feature humans at 300,000 years and modern humans expanding from Africa 70,000 years.
What's your guess?
My take is that it doesn't matter unless it contradicts the message of salvation. Could it technically be only 6k years but we perceive it as millions, sure God can create reality any way he wants.

What I want to know is that for YEC....are there subsets that argue vehemently among each other whether its exactly 6k or 7552 years?

Believing whether the dinosaurs all cohabited with people during the biblical timeline doesn't move the dial on my salvation.

I believe God created the universe, earth, us. Plus, I believe Jesus said there would be no math required to follow him.
Agree. But I have met people who believe you are hell bound if you do not believe in a literal 7 day creation and young Earth.

I do not remember Jesus or the apostles ever mentioning those things as a basis for salvation.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 9:39a, 1/31/24

Quote:
I do not remember Jesus or the apostles ever mentioning those things as a basis for salvation.
They did believe it though.
Reply Quote
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:44a, 1/31/24
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:
I do not remember Jesus or the apostles ever mentioning those things as a basis for salvation.
They did believe it though.
Actually I do also. Did not in the past, but do now. But I am not going to argue with fellow Christians or anyone about it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
jaborch99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:59a, 1/31/24
S
Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:
Also, the ways ancient civilizations retold history is very different from modern western approaches.
Modern western approach? This is not a new debate. While Aristotle believed the earth's age to be infinite (by observation), Jerome and a host of other church fathers estimated its creation 5200-5600 years before Christ appeared. The official Byzantine (not western) calendar had the earth's creation as September 1, 5509 BC.
I'm not sure how your reply serves as a counterpoint to what I said. I am not denying that this is a very old debate. I am simply saying that we shouldn't read Genesis the same way we do a modern history textbook. It simply wasn't intended to be read that way.
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jaborch99 • 10:12a, 1/31/24
jaborch99 said:
Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:
Also, the ways ancient civilizations retold history is very different from modern western approaches.
Modern western approach? This is not a new debate. While Aristotle believed the earth's age to be infinite (by observation), Jerome and a host of other church fathers estimated its creation 5200-5600 years before Christ appeared. The official Byzantine (not western) calendar had the earth's creation as September 1, 5509 BC.
I'm not sure how your reply serves as a counterpoint to what I said. I am not denying that this is a very old debate. I am simply saying that we shouldn't read Genesis the same way we do a modern history textbook. It simply wasn't intended to be read that way.
It serves as a counterpoint that dating the earth's creation based on the genealogies in Genesis is not exclusive to modernity nor western civilization.
Reply Quote
Howdy Dammit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:34a, 1/31/24
AG
Isn't a day one rotation on the earths axis relative to the sun? And the earth or sun wasn't created on the first "day". I can't understand how anyone doesn't interpret this figuratively.
Reply Quote
4
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Howdy Dammit • 10:43a, 1/31/24
AG
Howdy Dammit said:
Isn't a day one rotation on the earths axis relative to the sun? And the earth or sun wasn't created on the first "day". I can't understand how anyone doesn't interpret this figuratively.
And that is the question, what time frame was meant by the term "day"?


No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Howdy Dammit • 10:45a, 1/31/24
Howdy Dammit said:
Isn't a day one rotation on the earths axis relative to the sun? And the earth or sun wasn't created on the first "day". I can't understand how anyone doesn't interpret this figuratively.
We have several ways to mark time intervals, but it doesn't mean those intervals are meaningless without the markers. We still have a concept of a second, minute, hour, and day with or without the earth or sun rotating.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
jaborch99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 11:09a, 1/31/24
S
Martin Q. Blank said:
jaborch99 said:
Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:
Also, the ways ancient civilizations retold history is very different from modern western approaches.
Modern western approach? This is not a new debate. While Aristotle believed the earth's age to be infinite (by observation), Jerome and a host of other church fathers estimated its creation 5200-5600 years before Christ appeared. The official Byzantine (not western) calendar had the earth's creation as September 1, 5509 BC.
I'm not sure how your reply serves as a counterpoint to what I said. I am not denying that this is a very old debate. I am simply saying that we shouldn't read Genesis the same way we do a modern history textbook. It simply wasn't intended to be read that way.
It serves as a counterpoint that dating the earth's creation based on the genealogies in Genesis is not exclusive to modernity nor western civilization.
I never said it was.
Reply Quote
BluHorseShu
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 1:18p, 1/31/24
AG
dermdoc said:
BluHorseShu said:
BartInLA said:
Young Earth hypothesis Is 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Most scientists say 4,540,000,000 years with the universe being
13,800,000,000 years. Modern and archaic mixed feature humans at 300,000 years and modern humans expanding from Africa 70,000 years.
What's your guess?
My take is that it doesn't matter unless it contradicts the message of salvation. Could it technically be only 6k years but we perceive it as millions, sure God can create reality any way he wants.

What I want to know is that for YEC....are there subsets that argue vehemently among each other whether its exactly 6k or 7552 years?

Believing whether the dinosaurs all cohabited with people during the biblical timeline doesn't move the dial on my salvation.

I believe God created the universe, earth, us. Plus, I believe Jesus said there would be no math required to follow him.
Agree. But I have met people who believe you are hell bound if you do not believe in a literal 7 day creation and young Earth.

I do not remember Jesus or the apostles ever mentioning those things as a basis for salvation.
I tend to agree when we try to force the term 'day' into our perceived notion of time. God didn't even create day/night until the 4th 'day'. And the hebrew word for day in Genesis can mean a different period of time. Getting into the day/age interpretation, or framework interpretation or ordinary week interpretation just by themselves doesn't necessarily resolve it. I think we look at the Church Fathers and how they interpreted it. Even then the Church (RCC) tends to fall in the 6 days framework but consideration of the others is permissible.

Bottom line is God created the earth and heavens.
Reply Quote
5
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 1:24p, 1/31/24
AG
dermdoc said:
And that is always the question, why does a good God allow all the evil and suffering in the world.

I imagine some poor animal that lived millions of years ago that watched its offspring get eaten by a predator and then itself starved to death. . . . and then I imagine billions of events like this playing out over hundreds of millions of years and I don't get the point of that? This feels to me like a big problem with a good God and an 'old' Earth and the only way around it, I think, is to a priori decide that none of it matters.
Reply Quote
88Warrior
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 2:21p, 1/31/24
As a believer I doubt God worried too much over one dinosaur eating another as it was man that was created in his image a not T-Rex etc.... He also gave man dominion over the animals and plants…Again..from this believer's perspective…As far as how old earth and the rest of the universe I have no idea…mystery to me…
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 2:21p, 1/31/24
AG
I also think this is particularly problematic for a number of theistic viewpoints that try and lay suffering at the feet of mankind for "bringing sin and death into the world. There is no sensible way to blame mankind for billions of years of death and suffering we didn't even exist for.


Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 88Warrior • 2:26p, 1/31/24
AG
88Warrior said:
As a believer I doubt God worried too much over one dinosaur eating another as it was man that was created in his image a not T-Rex etc.... He also gave man dominion over the animals and plants…Again..from this believer's perspective…As far as how old earth and the rest of the universe I have no idea…mystery to me…


As a society we punish people who abuse dogs for a reason
Reply Quote
3
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 2:49p, 1/31/24
AG
kurt vonnegut said:
dermdoc said:
And that is always the question, why does a good God allow all the evil and suffering in the world.

I imagine some poor animal that lived millions of years ago that watched its offspring get eaten by a predator and then itself starved to death. . . . and then I imagine billions of events like this playing out over hundreds of millions of years and I don't get the point of that? This feels to me like a big problem with a good God and an 'old' Earth and the only way around it, I think, is to a priori decide that none of it matters.
and it still happens today. it's easy to forget how brutal nature is.
Reply Quote
2
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 88Warrior • 2:50p, 1/31/24
AG
88Warrior said:
As a believer I doubt God worried too much over one dinosaur eating another as it was man that was created in his image a not T-Rex etc.... He also gave man dominion over the animals and plants…Again..from this believer's perspective…As far as how old earth and the rest of the universe I have no idea…mystery to me…

How did we go from billions of events of animal suffering over hundreds of billions of years to 'one dinosaur eating another'? If we accept that animals feel pain, can suffer, and can grieve (some of them), then to what purpose do you attribute animal suffering over 'old' Earth time periods?

What does it mean that we have dominion over animals? Does it mean that their pain and suffering has no value as they have zero inherent value?
Reply Quote
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.