Age Of The Earth

[Nofear]

All observations point to the earth being old... very old (some 4.5 billion years old), of which at least a billion years of its history is compatible with a human presence. Yet, the sons of Adam will only inhabit the mortal earth for some 7,000 years (after which the earth "dies" and is "resurrected").

So, the question I pose is do we have any sound speculations: Why would God use the earth for our habitation for only such a miniscule fraction of the earth's history?

[Scottie]

All observations point to the earth being old... very old (some 4.5 billion years old), of which at least a billion years of its history is compatible with a human presence. Yet, the sons of Adam will only inhabit the mortal earth for some 7,000 years (after which the earth "dies" and is "resurrected").

So, the question I pose is do we have any sound speculations: Why would God use the earth for our habitation for only such a miniscule fraction of the earth's history?

CFR.

Where does it say that we won't be inhabiting the Earth after it is resurrected??

[bluebell]

CFR.

Where does it say that we won't be inhabiting the Earth after it is resurrected??

I think you are on to something here.

The teachings of the LDS church is that the earth will become a kingdom of Glory to be inhabited long after mortality is over.

[cjcampbell]

So much for the dinosaurs and all the other flora and fauna that had to be removed to make way for Adam's posterity.

And we are told that the earth will become a sea of glass and crystal.

One thing God is not is a tree-hugger.

[Nofear]

Where does it say that we won't be inhabiting the Earth after it is resurrected??

Wasn't the question, nor do I imply such. To clarify, why such a miniscule fraction up to this point (which is the end point for the mortal earth).

[Tchild2]

Wasn't the question, nor do I imply such. To clarify, why such a miniscule fraction up to this point (which is the end point for the mortal earth).

Probably because certain portions of the Bible have been interpreted literally instead of figuratively and symbolically and the religious understanding of the age of the earth is vastly flawed and has been incorrected taught, inferred and speculated to be of a young age because of those unneccesary literal interpretations.

What is rather amazing is that for the age of the earth, humans are such a recent development in the evolutionary scheme (Homo-sapiens, about 200K years). If God creates creatures per religious belief, why did he wait until more than 3 billiion years of the earth's existance to create man?

[karl61]

Probably because certain portions of the Bible have been interpreted literally instead of figuratively and symbolically and the religious understanding of the age of the earth is vastly flawed and has been incorrected taught, inferred and speculated to be of a young age because of those unneccesary literal interpretations.

What is rather amazing is that for the age of the earth, humans are such a recent development in the evolutionary scheme (Homo-sapiens, about 200K years). If God creates creatures per religious belief, why did he wait until more than 3 billiion years of the earth's existance to create man?

my thoughts: all different areas:

land is just the crust of the earth and we are just ant shadows that pass by quickly. (my poetry for the day)

the other day I was reading the BOM and noticed Nephi talking about God creating animals and then man. People know from my other posts that I don't like it being separate as man is an animal/mammal. But then the other day I realized that animals came first then man and it maybe that man came from animal/proto human/ape type so it really does flow with the bible thoughts.

I thought that the earth was a billion years old and my friend said more like three or four billion. We bet lunch. We did a quick google search. I bought him lunch.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

Barney the lovable purple T-Rex notwithstanding. It was because the earth was not ready for Man yet.

[bluebell]

If God creates creatures per religious belief, why did he wait until more than 3 billiion years of the earth's existance to create man?

You're question assumes that God 'waited' for something while LDS theology teaches that God used the time to 'organize' things until all was in order for mankind to live and thrive.

The creation story is the answer to your question. Man wouldn't have done very well if he had been created before their was land to stand on etc.

[Nofear]

It was because the earth was not ready for Man yet.

You're question assumes that God 'waited' for something while LDS theology teaches that God used the time to organize' things until all was in order for mankind to live and thrive.

Certainly a viable statements, but they merely beg the question. What about the earth wasn't ready yet and the attendant (original?) question of why it took so long.

From a simple biological point of view, I don't see how contemporary humans could not have thrived on this planet for many millions of years now.

[thesometimesaint]

Nofear:

Eternity is a very long time. I don't know how long 4.5 Billion years compares with eternity, but it can't be very much. I don't know what purpose ALL the previous creatures had in the forming of our earth. But I do know that I wouldn't have done real well against the dinosaurs.

[Nofear]

Eternity is a very long time. I don't know how long 4.5 Billion years compares with eternity, but it can't be very much. I don't know what purpose ALL the previous creatures had in the forming of our earth. But I do know that I wouldn't have done real well against the dinosaurs.

I don't have any particular problem with our current scenario or timescale. But that it exists provides a tantalizing little mystery, at least to me.

As for eternity, the current cosmological evidence tends to suggest a universe which is only 13.7 billion years old. That is consistent with the LDS definition of eternity but not particularly relevant. We can talk about implications it has for the uncreate nature of matter, cyclical universe models and its theological implications, and much more to go along with that. I have my opinions on that, some of which I'd be happy to weigh in on in a thread sometime. Suffice it to say, 4.5 billions years is a significant fraction of 13.7 billion. But 7,000 is not much of a fraction of 4.5 or 13.7 billion.

As to the question posed, think about it this way, we could have had an entire 7,000 lifespan for an Adamic family 100,000 years ago (no dinosaurs, no ecological obstacles, etc.) but (as far as we know) this is not the case.

For all of recorded history God seems to be a remarkably industrious and efficient and an effective multitasker. And yet we have a planet which has an immense amount of time which seems to have done little but let nature "run its course" - presumably all in preparation for the tiny lifespan of the sons of Adam on this planet. On the surface of it, it doesn't seem very efficient. Seems to me that there is some missing pieces to the story which God hasn't deigned to tell us. Doesn't stop me from wondering and I wondered if others had wondered.

[Tarski]

So much for the dinosaurs and all the other flora and fauna that had to be removed to make way for Adam's posterity.

And we are told that the earth will become a sea of glass and crystal.

One thing God is not is a tree-hugger.

Maybe "sea of glass" is figurative.

Maybe it will really be one giant transparent ice cube.

Either way, I'd rather go where the trees are.

[thesometimesaint]

Nofear:

I like scientific mysteries too. I want to know EVERYTHING.

I don't know as we can limit Eternity to just our known universe from the time of the Big Bang.

The "Terror Birds" of South America, and the saber tooth cats of North America were nothing to sneeze at. Plus a host of other large carnivores world wide would have made life very problematic for man. The general ecology of Northern Europe of 10,000 years ago was not terribly conducive to large scale Homo Sapiens Sapiens habitation.

I think that God works with what He has, and with all the time there is, it is only our narrow perspective of what time is that prevents us from enjoying the full majesty of Gods works.

[Nofear]

The "Terror Birds" of South America, and the saber tooth cats of North America were nothing to sneeze at. Plus a host of other large carnivores world wide would have made life very problematic for man. The general ecology of Northern Europe of 10,000 years ago was not terribly conducive to large scale Homo Sapiens Sapiens habitation.

At least its a theory. Not sure how sound it is (man has to deal with lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) for a long time). But I don't have any better ideas. And if, hypothetically, the Lord had chosen to place Adam on the earth earlier in time, he certainly would have enabled us with the tools to deal with the wilderness much as he did for the real time-frame. That is, the question is a big bigger than specific details about viability to me. I can be content with a bit of mystery, however.

[Severian]

All observations point to the earth being old... very old (some 4.5 billion years old), of which at least a billion years of its history is compatible with a human presence. Yet, the sons of Adam will only inhabit the mortal earth for some 7,000 years (after which the earth "dies" and is "resurrected").

So, the question I pose is do we have any sound speculations: Why would God use the earth for our habitation for only such a miniscule fraction of the earth's history?

Evolution takes time...

[bluebell]

This is all such grey area.

What about the garden of eden and teaching that everything was in a state of perfection before the Fall? Who knows how that fits in with the knowledge that science has put forth about evolution and our earth.

And how long was adam and eve in the garden anyway and what was the rest of the earth doing during that time?

who knows but it's fun to wonder.

[jadams_4242]

CFR.

Where does it say that we won't be inhabiting the Earth after it is resurrected??

Hey! thats not fair, I was going to ask that question first. {thief!}

[Nofear]

And how long was adam and eve in the garden anyway and what was the rest of the earth doing during that time?

Personally I'm skeptical that Adam and Eve were in the Garden a couple billion years before Satan finally figured out a way to attempt his disruption.

Evolution takes time...

Meh, why not simply take pre-evolved structures from another planet and tweak their genetic code to be viable for this particular planet/sun. Maybe God simply wants to see what happens, what fun creatures result?

Sorry, just trying to be difficult. But sometimes good ideas result from such antagonism.

[bluebell]

Personally I'm skeptical that Adam and Eve were in the Garden a couple billion years before Satan finally figured out a way to attempt his disruption.

that timeline assumes that adam and eve were placed in the garden of eden very early in the earth's history.

If we go off of the creation story though-they would not have been placed there until much later in the earth's timeline.

[Lightbearer]

All observations point to the earth being old... very old (some 4.5 billion years old), of which at least a billion years of its history is compatible with a human presence. Yet, the sons of Adam will only inhabit the mortal earth for some 7,000 years (after which the earth "dies" and is "resurrected").

So, the question I pose is do we have any sound speculations: Why would God use the earth for our habitation for only such a miniscule fraction of the earth's history?

As far as the age of the earth goes it is difficult to estimate. Speculation can be had on the part of the scientists as well as the religionists, and I am not convinced that they "know" as much as they claim they do. When you start from preconcived ideas (that death has always existed and that things just happen by random chance) then I think you can come up with pretty flawed theories at best. But taking for granted that the age of the earth as they define it is correct, we must take into account our own preconcieved ideas from the revelations. First we know that the Lord organized the earth from existant elements over seven major time periods.

(Abraham 3:24) "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;"

Now we have no idea how long this took and for that matter if those "materials" were from "recycled" planets or not. We do infer that this earth was not subject to death:

(2 Nephi 2:22-25) "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

This indicates that all things were created in a different sphere than which we live. (No death and no birth) It did not become subject to death until after the fall. In the Garden of Eden Adam did not live by the same reckoning of time as we do now:

(Abraham 5:13) "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lordâ??s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning."

So the only thing we can be sure of is the length of this earth's temporal existance according to the following:

D&C 77:6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

[thesometimesaint]

Lightbearer:

"that is my opinion of course and that of other members of the Church such as Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and others. So I feel like I am in good company."

And that others of equally "good company" have other ideas.

[jadams_4242]

All observations point to the earth being old... very old (some 4.5 billion years old), of which at least a billion years of its history is compatible with a human presence. Yet, the sons of Adam will only inhabit the mortal earth for some 7,000 years (after which the earth "dies" and is "resurrected").

So, the question I pose is do we have any sound speculations: Why would God use the earth for our habitation for only such a miniscule fraction of the earth's history?

Well one thing we all agree on is that the earth is very,very,old And it will be changed.

[Nofear]

So the model I gather you subscribe to based on your interpretations of the revelations:

1. Earth forms from parts of previous planets.
   
2. Long time ensues as things are prepared (no "death" during this phase)
   
3. Garden is formed and Adam and Eve placed in the Garden (still no "death")
   
4. Adam exits Garden after a long time... starts 7,000 year count down.
   

For clarity, let me similarly delineate the model assumed in the original question:

1. Earth forms from parts of previous stellar systems (several cycles of star birth down), approximately 4.5 billion years ago, soon after the birth of our sun.
   
2. Long time (billions of years) ensues as earth is prepared. Life starts to populate the planet. Biological bodies procreate and perish.
   
3. Garden is formed and Adam and Even placed in Garden. Life outside Garden continues as before.
   
4. Adam exits Garden after a relatively short stay in the Garden... starts 7,000 year count down.
   

In the first model, the time frame between steps 1 and 3 and 3 and 4 are left wide open. In the second model, the steps between 1 and 3 and 3 and 4 are explicitly long and short respectively. Otherwise, they are largely similar and fairly compatible.

The first model ignores and sets aside temporal understanding, content with the "mysteries" (attempts to clarify or expound upon the various steps without temporal observation have all been disastrous).

The second model attempts to reconcile temporal observation with revelations. Both must be correctly interpreted. Details will vary. Anyway, seems many are largely ignorant (not necessarily a bad thing) of the observations which lead to the second model. I welcome and encourage posters to poke at the two models. Probe their strengths/weaknesses.

[Lightbearer]

So the model I gather you subscribe to based on your interpretations of the revelations:

1. Earth forms from parts of previous planets.
   
2. Long time ensues as things are prepared (no "death" during this phase)
   
3. Garden is formed and Adam and Eve placed in the Garden (still no "death")
   
4. Adam exits Garden after a long time... starts 7,000 year count down.
   

For clarity, let me similarly delineate the model assumed in the original question:

1. Earth forms from parts of previous stellar systems (several cycles of star birth down), approximately 4.5 billion years ago, soon after the birth of our sun.
   
2. Long time (billions of years) ensues as earth is prepared. Life starts to populate the planet. Biological bodies procreate and perish.
   
3. Garden is formed and Adam and Even placed in Garden. Life outside Garden continues as before.
   
4. Adam exits Garden after a relatively short stay in the Garden... starts 7,000 year count down.
   

In the first model, the time frame between steps 1 and 3 and 3 and 4 are left wide open. In the second model, the steps between 1 and 3 and 3 and 4 are explicitly long and short respectively. Otherwise, they are largely similar and fairly compatible.

The first model ignores and sets aside temporal understanding, content with the "mysteries" (attempts to clarify or expound upon the various steps without temporal observation have all been disastrous).

The second model attempts to reconcile temporal observation with revelations. Both must be correctly interpreted. Details will vary. Anyway, seems many are largely ignorant (not necessarily a bad thing) of the observations which lead to the second model. I welcome and encourage posters to poke at the two models. Probe their strengths/weaknesses.

The biggest problem I have with the second model is in point 2:"Life starts to populate the planet. Biological bodies procreate and perish." and also in point 3:"Life outside Garden continues as before." Both of these points are problematic for me when reconciling them to the revelations. If the fall of Adam was only confined to the garden (a small section of the earth) then does that imply that the atonement is confined to that small area and not the entire earth? Does the atonement confine itself to just the race of Adam and Eve? I believe that the atonement includes all God's creations. Would life forms outside the garden be resurrected? I reject the Darwinian theory because it seems to be hostile to the doctrines of the fall and the atonement. Until there is more revelation on this matter I believe there will always be an argument. As far as temporal observations I believe they are just that observations made on a telestial world about a process (the creation) that was done in a terrestrial world and so I believe that is where the "false readings" come from. I believe there is a correct answer to the evidence of temporal observations but I believe that it will take more than mortal reasoning to find it out. Perhaps in the Millennium when all things are to be revealed we may receive the correct answers if revelation on the subject does not come forth before that time.