Origins, Part 2
Preliminaries
In the previous article, we discussed the origin of the universe. Now we will move to a discussion of the origin of the Earth. Before we start, we need to consider the confusion that can result from any translation from one language into another. Finding exact matches between words in the two languages is difficult - especially when the words can have multiple meanings in one or both languages. Even more problematic is when the perspective differs between the writers of the original language and the readers of the new language.
We talked about some aspects of the Hebrew language in an earlier chapter. The poetic parallelism of ancient Hebrew writing can cause misinterpretation unless it is understood. Another type of parallelism that I didn't discuss is what I'd call "outline parallelism". There are passages in the Bible that follow what we'd consider an outline form. Each sub-level of the outline talks in more detail about a part of the topic than the parent level. If we don't recognize this structure, we may think that something is happening multiple times rather than understanding that we are "zooming in" on a topic. We find this is various places in the Bible, but of importance to the current topic of discussion, we find it in the first part of Genesis. Genesis 1:1 says "God created the heavens and the Earth." This is the first level of the outline structure. In Genesis 1:2 through 2:4 we have the six days of creation and the day of rest. This is the second level of the outline, where we consider the creation of the heavens and the earth in more detail. In Genesis 2:5-24, the creation of man and woman is covered in more detail - basically going back and zooming in on day 6. This is the third level of the outline, describing the events of Genesis 1:26-27 in far more detail. Thus, the creation narrative resembles the following outline structure:
I. Creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)A. The seven days of the creation week (Genesis 1:2-2:4)1. The creation of humankind (Genesis 2:5-24)
If we don't recognize this structure, we might think that there are two different creations and two different creations of humankind. In fact, some people have made this mistake. The creation of humankind is the most important part of the seven day creation week, but it is not the only part of the creation week. Though it provides more detail on day six, we don't get more detail on any of the other days. Likewise, though we get some description of the creation week, there is reason to believe that it is only a sliver of the whole creation. The phrase "God had finished the work he had been doing" in Genesis 2:2 could indicate that the creation week was the completion of the creation of the heavens and the earth, or it could mean it was the completion of Earth, since we've zoomed into the creation of Earth at this outline level.
God doesn't reveal every last detail of creation here. He reveals what is necessary, and no more. Not everything that was created is described here. For instance, when were the angels created? One can speculate or assume, but the narrative here gives us no information. Remember what I said about assumptions in the previous article. Assumptions can affect our interpretation of Genesis.
Finally, before we continue we need to recognize the problems of language change over time - words that change meaning over time in English. Of relevance to this article is the use of the word "replenish" in the King James Bible in Genesis 1:28. In modern English, "replenish" means to "refill" or "restore". But that is not what it meant 400 years ago in King James era (early modern) English. Originally, replenish came from "plenish", meaning "to fill". However, by 1611, the word had fallen out of common usage, being replaced with "replenish" meaning "be filled" or "fill". Although the "re" prefix often means to do something again (eg retry = try again), it can also mean "be". An example in modern English is the word "relax". It doesn't mean "be lax again", but to "be lax" (older definition of "lax") - it means to let go of tension (physical, emotional, etc), not "be lax again". Fortunately, modern translations use the word "fill" instead of "replenish" since it is a more accurate translation for modern English speakers.
Misinterpreting this word in the KJV (one of many examples of why modern readers should avoid the King James) has led some to believe that there were at least two creations since God wouldn't tell us to refill the Earth unless it was filled previously and needed to be refilled. Those believing in multiple creations also use Genesis 1:2 as support saying that God is a God of order and wouldn't create something chaotic, thus this verse must indicate that a previously well-ordered earth could be made chaotic, but that it wasn't that way originally. Hence, they think that there must have been a catastrophe between verses 1 and 2. There are several problems with this. First, that which you consider to be "chaotic" only appears chaotic because you can't predict it. But that doesn't mean it is chaotic to God. Being "formless and void" is not the same as being "chaotic". Water is inherently formless, taking on the form of whatever container it is in. That doesn't mean that it is chaotic. Second, the verse saying "...God is not a God of disorder but of peace..."1 has to do with human behavior, not the state of matter at the molecular scale. So, misapplying this verse, misinterpreting a word in the KJV, and making assumptions are all required to hold the view that the earth was destroyed and then recreated in the beginning of Genesis. In short, such a view has absolutely no support in scripture.
Why would anyone, especially some learned men, make such a serious mistake? I believe it is because they are trying to square a literal six day creation with the old earth/evolution view supported by most scientists. This is a form of "Gap Creationism" or the "Gap theory". However, not all who believe in Gap theory think that the earth was destroyed prior to day 1 of creation week; some simply think that there was a large expanse of time between verse 1 and 2. Since I see three overlapping passages rather than a sequential series of passages, I do not subscribe to the Gap theory, but I do think there could be a large amount of time prior to the creation of planet Earth.
Age of the Earth According to Old Earth Scientists
Logically, the earth cannot be older than the universe, since it exists within the universe. Thus, an old earth requires an old universe - but an old universe does not imply an old earth. Nor does a young earth require a young universe. They are related, but different, issues. So let us now explore the two major views in opposition. First, the old (ancient) earth view.
How do old earth scientists calculate that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old? First, one has to believe in the theory of Uniformatarianism (also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity, the Uniformitarian Principle, or Gradualism). This line of thought started a few hundred years ago. In 1748, Benonit de Maillet asserted that the Earth was 2 billion years old. In 1785, Jame Hutton described "immense time" and said that no deluge was needed. Then in the 1830s, Charles Lyell published "Principles of Geology", which defined uniformatarian thought. He said the earth was profoundly old. The idea was to divorce science from the idea of a young Earth and explain things differently than the idea of catastrophism, which said that the geologic features we see are the result of Noah's flood. The assertion is that everything we see in geology is the result of slow, mostly steady processes consistent with what we observe today. That is, we see very little deposition of sediment in lakes or on land each year, so the hundreds of feet of sediment seen in layers around the world (such as the Grand Canyon) must have taken millions of years to accumulate. Likewise, ice cores taken in Greenland and other places have visible layers, each of which represent a year's worth of accumulation of snow, which is compacted into ice. These layers can be counted to determine that the ice was deposited hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Another method for determining the age of the Earth is based on determining the age for rocks at different depths in the earth. This is done via Radiometric Dating. There are many types of this kind of measurement. The general idea is to measure the ratio of two different radioisotopes (slightly radioactive elements). Since each radioactive element has a different known half-life (the amount of time for half of the element to decay into another element), the ratio of the elements can tell us how old the sample is. The main assumptions are that half-lives of elements cannot be altered, and that we know the initial ratio of the elements at the point that the sample formed.
The most famous type of radiometric dating is Carbon 14 dating. This measures the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 in the sample. The idea is that living creatures ingest carbon from the environment with a given ratio of the two types of carbon. But when the organism dies, the ratio begins to change as no new carbon is ingested. Carbon 12 is normal (non-radioactive) carbon, so it remains constant. Since carbon 14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, that means that after 5,700 years, half of the carbon 14 will have decayed away. After another 5,700 years, half the remaining carbon 14 will have decayed, and so forth. This allows us to determine how long ago a living thing died. However, because of the short half-life of carbon 14, this method can only be reliably used back to about 50,000 years ago.
To date further back, or to date inorganic materials, other radiometric dating methods must be used. There are more of these than I can cover here, but I'll mention one for the sake of illustration. Potassum/Argon dating uses the decay of a radioactive potassium isotope into argon to determine how hold a rock is. This particular dating method allows dating of things between 20,000 and 4 billion years, so long as they contain a sufficient amount of potassium (other dating methods are used for non-potassium-bearing rocks). Using these various dating methods, the oldest rocks found on Earth are about 4.6 billion years, hence the calculated age of the Earth.
Age of the Earth According to Creationists
Young Earth creationists take a literal, sequential, view of Genesis 1, which indicates to them that the age of the universe and, thus, the age of the Earth is about 6,000 years. This can be calculated by using the recorded ages of people in the Bible (usually indicated as someone being born when the parent was a given age), from the garden of Eden up until historical events that have established dates, leading to 6,000 years (give or take a few decades). The geologic features we see are attributed mostly to Noah's flood, about 4,500 years ago.
Some Christians believe in Old Earth Creationism, either through Gap Theory or the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis. This latter theory assumes that the six days of creation do not refer to literal 24-hour days, but to indefinite periods of time. To consider this, we have to look at the definition of the Hebrew word "yom" which is translated "day" in English. yom can indicate one of three possible things just as "day" can. "Day" can mean 1) a 24-hour period, 2) the period of daylight, or 3) some indefinite period of time. The usage determines the meaning. For instance, if I say "back in my father's day", I am referring to some indefinite period of time while my father was alive. So how do we determine which definition is meant by "yom" in Genesis 1? The usage of an ordinal ("first day", "second day", etc) means that it should be interpreted as a 24-hour period. However, Hebrews measured a 24-hour day as the period of time between sunset and sunset. The problem is that the sun isn't created until day 3. So how would one measure the length of time for day 1 and 2? Are they indefinite periods or literal 24-hour days? However, things are often explained from a human-perspective in scripture. So, perhaps the sun wasn't literally created on day 3, but became visible to anything on the surface of the Earth at that point. Or maybe it was created on day 3 and the first two days are still 24-hour periods. That is an assumption, but seems logical to me. So then, what is the reality of what Genesis is saying? Personally, I'm inclined to think that all 6 days are each literal 24-hour periods, all things considered. However, there is enough wiggle room for me to hold to this somewhat lightly. It really isn't that important to me one way or the other. It certainly isn't an essential doctrine of Christianity. It is a point of interest, however, that Christians of all ages until very recently have believed in a literal six-day creation.
It seems to me that many young earth creationists don't want even admit to the possibility of an old Earth lest it give any credence to Evolutionists. But as I keep saying, we must keep these different issues separate. Evolution may need an old Earth, but an old Earth does not prove Evolution. Even though I accept a literal six day interpretation of Genesis 1:3-2:4, I don't have to believe that the creation of the Earth was on that first day - remember the outline structure. We have an indeterminate amount of time when it says "God created the heavens and the Earth". The six days is a six-day period within that overall creation. There is no requirement that day 1 mentioned in verse 3 is also day 1 of verse 1. For that matter, creation of the angels may have happened before creation of the universe in verse 1. So I interpret day 1 as being the first day of God's special creation within the greater general creation. The Earth may very well be much older than 6,000 years, even if biological life is not.
Some young earth Christians refer to Christ's statement:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'"
They think it means that the creation dates from day 1. But man wasn't created until day 6. So, contextually Jesus meant "at the beginning of mankind", not "at the very beginning of creation". Could God have created the Earth from nothing in a period of six days? Of course He could! He could have done it in six nanoseconds. But did He? I don't really have a problem with either an age of 6,000 years for the planet or with a much older planet. The scripture doesn't seem clear enough to me to be dogmatic either way. Given the fact that God often acts with agency, I'm inclined to believe that the Earth formed through naturalistic means over some unknown period that amounted to much more than 6,000 years. At the perfect time, when Earth reached the conditions God had planned for it, He then began the six day (one week) special creation. But this is an assumption on my part and neither my view nor that of young Earth creationists is unequivocally provable through scripture. And there simply is no way to prove, scientifically, any of the foregoing views.
Can Old/Young Earth Viewpoints be Reconciled?
We must recognize that the whole point of Uniformatarianism is to contradict the long-accepted young earth viewpoint. The fact that there is a definite agenda doesn't disprove it, of course, but it begs us to be critical. So let's look at the claims of the Old Earth viewpoint.
Starting with radiometric dating, things aren't quite as cut and dried as they are typically presented to the public. I have no problem believing that the planet is quite old, but radiometric dating is seriously suspect. It makes assumptions about original conditions that are simply unknowable. Worse, when rocks of a known age are dated, the results are plainly incorrect. One example are the rocks from Mt. St. Helens in Washington state. After the 1980 explosive eruption, new rock has been pushed up, slowing rebuilding the destroyed summit. Essentially, this is a slow-motion eruption of new material. Therefore, we know the age of the rock (the point at which it lithified). But when sent to laboratories for dating, the results come back as between 200,000 and 2 million years old. We see similar problems with dating of rocks from Hawaii eruptions. Ancient lava flows have to be measured in several different places and averaged together because the dates are all different. The explanation from old earth scientists is that some samples of rocks can be enriched in Potassium or Argon and give wrong dates. This begs the question: if we don't know what conditions the rock has been subjected to over millions of years, how can we trust any age measurement? Usually when submitting rock samples for analysis, an expected age range is supplied to help the laboratory calibrate the results so as to not return a wildly different date. But that means that scientists are simply getting confirmations of the dates they expect.
Carbon 14 dating is more accurate because we've been able to calibrate the results with historical (first-hand witness) records. As it turns out, the measurements are not linear and getting proper results requires fitting measurements against a model that accounts for that non-linear nature. For instance, results are quite different for anything that died since the 1950s due to radioactive fallout from nuclear tests that has changed the ratio of carbon isotopes in the environment. Then there is the Hallstatt plateau (also called the "first millennium BC radiocarbon disaster"), which is a period when the graph is flat when plotting radiocarbon dating against calendar dates for a period about 2,500 years ago. Dating is valid just before and after this plateau, but not during it. It is impossible to sensibly radiocarbon date any samples whose true ages lie between 400 and 800 BC. No one knows why this is. But there are also discrepancies during other periods. For instance, viking remains tend to date incorrectly because their diet of seafood altered the carbon isotope ratio their bodies contained. Measuring that ratio then alters the dating. These issues call into question any measurements that are before recorded history, since there is no means of validating or calibrating results. One might conclude that any biological samples that have no measurable carbon 14 are over 50,000 years old, and any with measurable carbon 14 are less than 50,000 years old. However, given the aforementioned issues, we cannot even assume this. In conclusion, radiocarbon dating is pretty good at fitting dates within recorded history, with some amount of error under certain circumstances. Beyond that, it is based on assumptions that may not be valid.
What about rock strata that is used to date fossils it contains? Without reliable radiometric measurements, we are left with the conclusions of Uniformatarian scientists. Supposedly the steady rate of sediment accumulation can be used to determine the length of time represented by the various layers we find worldwide. The assumptions here are that the rate doesn't change and there aren't any catastrophic events that could alter that. These assumptions have been challenged by discoveries and observations of catastrophes such as the Chicxulub impact in central America, volcanic eruptions, and watching comets impact Jupiter. The fact is that there are plenty of catastrophes throughout history that show that both sediment layering and erosion can happen very quickly. The Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 deposited sediment that was tens of meters deep within a single day. A later eruption melted snow and ice, which then carved a 30-foot deep canyon through this sediment in a matter of hours. This is sometimes called the Little Grand Canyon and it revealed several visible layers that were laid down in a single day. Using the same methodology of uniformatarians, the interpretation would have been that the layers were laid down over millions of years and then eroded over millions of years - if not for the fact that we observed both the laying down and eroding of the sediment in "real time".
But surely those are only local exceptions to the rule that cannot account for the layers we find around the world, right? True, unless we consider the possibility of a world-wide catastrophic flood event that could have lay down thick layers of sediment and later eroded large canyons through it. Something like Noah's flood from about 4,500 years ago. The flood lasted a full year (not just the 40 days of rain that it started with), which is plenty of time to have laid down multiple layers of sediment that totals hundreds of feet of thickness. But how do we determine if the layers were laid down in a single year or over millions of years, since we can't really trust radiometric dating? There are several evidences of quick deposits. One is what creationists call "polystrate" fossils - that is, fossils that stretch across multiple layers (strata). These are found around the world. Are we to believe that a tree remained upright and in-tact for millions of years as layers slowly accumulated around it? Another is the fact that the interfaces between the layers (where the two layers meet each other) - as observed around the world - are perfectly flat. It is impossible for there to have been no erosion and no disturbance by roots or animals for millions of years as another layer is laid down on top of the previous one. Yet that is what we see. The only erosion we see is that which came from above and cut through the layers (such as we see in the Grand Canyon). Despite finding fossils in the layers, we find no indication of disturbances by animals where the layers meet. Even if you could imagine some condition that would preserve a layer interface for a long time, weather and climatic conditions are not going to allow for that. Wind or moving water is always going to leave tell-tale signs - not a perfect cake-like structure of layers.
Other measures of an old Earth, such as ice cores are also problematic. The layers visible an ice core are each counted as one year. By counting these layers, one can count back many years. However, the farther down the core, the more the layers are compressed by the weight of the ice above until they can only be detected with microscopic examination. And eventually not even then. But making an assumption that the layers are laid down at a regular intervals and interpolating from parts of the core that can be visually counted, they calculate the age of the oldest ice at hundreds of thousands of years. The problem here is that we've seen cases when multiple layers are laid down in a single year, so we cannot reliably assume that one layer equals one year. Worse, assumptions about ice accumulation in the distant past are almost certainly wrong. Maybe it accumulated more slowly, meaning that the bottom of the ice core is even older. Or maybe it accumulated much faster, meaning that the bottom of the ice core is nowhere as old as they assume. Any attempts to adjust for possible past conditions is also based on assumptions and assertions that cannot be proven. So, for those of us who require a higher standard of proof, there is simply no way to know how old the lowest sections of the ice core are.
Yet another measure of old Earth has to do with the number of craters on the moon. The idea is that the more craters there are, the older the surface. Using guesstimates about the rate of meteor bombardment, one can calculate backwards to a date when there were no craters, and thus when the surface was brand new. As you might have recognized, this requires assumptions about the rate of bombardment being constant and/or relying on an unproven theory of solar system origins. Yet, these theories are based on the idea of an old Earth, so using the cratering as a measurement is a kind of circular reasoning: we assume the surface of the moon is old because our theory of solar system origins requires "deep time", but our theory is premised upon evidence of an old Earth, which is supported by things like the assumed age of the moon. As we will see in the future, there is plenty of circular reasoning in the secular theories of origins.
I'll conclude with one more issue, out of the many that I could present. Diamonds are supposed to have been formed millions of years ago and brought up from the depths over time until they are near the surface where we can mine them. However, diamonds contain detectable amounts of carbon 14. That would imply that they are less than 50,000 years old. Again, we cannot know their true age without knowing the initial conditions they formed under as well as conditions they have been subjected to during the intervening time. But the implication is that the Earth is nowhere as old as the current scientific consensus says. We will talk more about this topic in future articles.
In summary, we do not know how old the earth is. Uniformatarian views do not seem to match the observable facts and have no reliable methods of measuring ages beyond historical records. Maybe the planet really is 4.6 billion years old. But they cannot prove it. On the other hand, young earth creationists make assumptions which may also be wrong. Maybe they are correct. Maybe the planet didn't exist more than 6,000 years ago. But I don't think they can prove that from scripture. So, my view is that we don't know how old the planet is. But I also don't think it is highly important. Interesting, yes. Essential, no. Modern scientific consensus on this matter doesn't disprove the Bible. At worst, it might "disprove" one particular interpretation of Genesis 1:1-1:2, if it could prove anything. But since it can't prove anything, it also cannot disprove anything. However, nothing in this article, or the previous one, tells us anything about biological life. I will address that in the next article.