The Age of the Earth?


Up until the 17 and 18 hundreds most everybody believed that the earth was young. A mere 6 thousand years or so.

The Dinosaurs and many of the other large prehistoric reptiles existed in the Mesozoic era of the Phanerozoic aeon.
The Mesozoic era ran from about 250 million years ago to 65 million years ago.
Thats 185 million years of Dinosaur domination, no wonder the Mesozoic era was commonly referred to as the age of the Dinosaurs.

No where in the Bible does God tell us the exact year of Creation.
So by simply studying the scriptures we can certainly get an idea of when this took place??
Just by studying the Bible why do we think the earth is so young??
Does the Church not believe that Dinosaurs ever existed??



Just by studying the Bible why do we think the earth is so young??

WE don’t but some do because they choose to based on their faith in a literal translation of Genesis.

Does the Church not believe that Dinosaurs ever existed??

The Church has no problem with the existence of dinosaurs.




So to accept the date in which dinosaurs roamed the Earth then Neanderthal must too be accepted…
Not as an evolutionary relative but as a pre-form of man…
Does this mean that Adam and Eve was of this era??


No problem there.

Not as an evolutionary relative but as a pre-form of man…

Um, wouldn’t that make Nearderthals evolutionary relatives?

Does this mean that Adam and Eve was of this era??

Don’t know.




What i ment is like you get a lion/tiger/panther.
They are just related by genes but not necesserilty evolved…
I’m thinking Man lived along side of Neanderthal.


In a few places, (Mt Carmel in Palestine, and in Spain, among others) anatomically modern humans lived near Neandertals. Neandertals and humans seem to have had a common ancestor; early Neandertals looked a lot more like modern humans than later ones, who were very much adapted to ice age Europe and Asia.


It is important to read Genesis with an eye for what it is theologically telling us about our origins, not as a guide for the actual physical aspects of creation.


Gotcha. As Barbarian has noted, the evidence is that Neanderthals and humans lived at the same time and had a common ancestor.




So Neanderthal was here first??
Neanderthals was what God said to go and breed and Adam and Eve came after, to tend to his garden??


I believe that is what the evidence indicates.

Neanderthals was what God said to go and breed and Adam and Eve came after, to tend to his garden??

No, Neanderthals were not direct ancestors of humans.




I’m not sure about that but Scientists say Neanderthal died out 30,000 yrs ago AND co-existed alongside man but religon tells us we arent much more than 6000 or so yrs old…


Religion tells us no such thing. Some people believe that is true based on their literal reading of scripture, but that is simply their opinion. Clearly, the Church (as in Catholic Church) doesn’t teach that at all.




Ty Orogeny
I have had this convo with various people i know and they often get anoyed and start shouting that the Bible tells us the age…
I wouldnt believe anyone on it because its all based on speculation more than fact…
Its better to just say “I dont know” rather than argue over it…


What do you guys think of this?

Neanderthals: Caveman or Human?


Perhaps I am wrong, but my understanding of the Church’s teaching in this area is that the church accepts at least the possibility that God used evolution to create our bodies to such as state that they were ready to receive a soul.

Anyway, at some point, God created a literal Adam and a literal Eve who are the original ancestors of the entire human family. We inherited original sin from them. We don’t know the precise process by which God created Adam and Eve or when they were created. The important part is that God created and gave a soul to humanity, beginning with Adam and Eve.


Ummmm…This question is sticky for me. I grew up in a house with a real bona fide rocket scientist who worked for NASA most of his career. He was my dad and he passed away at the end of last year. Science in our household WAS God! My dad was atheist and left this earth denying God’s existence. My mom followed a month later. Not wanting to dis my dad’s career, his choice regarding religion effected us all and is probably the main reason I considered myself agnostic for many years. What could be seen and felt and touched and known with scientific certainty in our house was the only truth that mattered. Growing up I was awed by my dad’s mind. But as I left the nest and found a need for God in my life, my dad’s views on science and man’s ideas of truth proved to be way too narrow a viewpoint for me. I sought and found the real Truth in the Church God made for man and left behind what man made for himself. I have no more intellectualized religious concepts.

That being said, you can pitch the science - I believe the Bible and not Darwin. God made the universe and all it contains including me. He did so for a reason - so man could know Him. To contemplate the universe and not think of the greatness of our God seems rather trite to me these days.

Man’s mind cannot contain the truths about God and that includes the origins of man. I will trust that what my Bible says is what God wants me to know about my own origins.

I have no problem with science. It improves countless lives, but it is limited in that it is man-made.

I really don’t care a flip anymore about dinosaurs or neanderthals or any of the other “proofs” of the origins of man and evolution. When I die there won’t be a pop-quiz on evolution. There will be God and all my answers lie in Him. Why fool yourself with scientific speculations? The danger to faith is real for some who put too much weight on scientific proofs. I’ll take God’s Word on it anyday!

So all you scientific minded folks - oh well, sue me! You may call me stupid, but you’ll still have to call me Christian! (but don’t call me late for dinner!) :smiley:



P.S. Being a true atheist, my dad didn’t approve of my Catholicism and saw it as a step into medieval superstition. May he rest in peace (thought I doubt he does.) Please pray for him and my mom.


Aren’t the terms “caveman or human” inaccurate? I think you can be a caveman AND human…in fact I believe you must be a human to be a caveman…by definition.


Boy o boy o boy! Have I known a few men who without a doubt were 100% caveman! Hope the gents in this thread aren’t such! :wink:



I’m tempted to provide photos of proof of the caveman status of some “modern” men! LOL. :stuck_out_tongue:


Gail << Boy o boy o boy! Have I known a few men who without a doubt were 100% caveman! >>

What I have on the Neanderthals (some spell it Neandertals) :

By 500,000 years ago, two distinct lineages were evolving in the west. The first was endemic to Europe, which we call the “Steinheim group” (basal Neanderthals), though it is not restricted to Europe alone because we believe that the Narmada cranium from central India and Maba from China also represent part of this lineage. The second lineage of H. heidelbergensis is endemic to Africa, later moving into Europe and even China (Dali and Jinniushan). Later, African demes of H. heidelbergensis gave rise to early H. sapiens, the initial split occurring around 300,000 years ago.

The current fossil, molecular, and archeological evidence strongly supports the specific distinction of the Neanderthals from early and modern H. sapiens. The Neanderthal lineage first appeared some 500,000 years ago, according to the molecular clock, and the fossil record suggests that the “Steinheim group” reflects a basal Neanderthal anatomical condition. This group exploited the colder conditions of an Ice Age Europe, their survival in this region enabled by the increasing development of their “cold exaptations.” This initial split between these two groups was not based on a greater ability to withstand Ice Age conditions (though ultimately this must have pushed them farther apart over time), but occurred for some other reason, perhaps cultural.

The molecular evidence shows that Neanderthal mtDNA is significantly different not only from modern humans, but also from homo sapiens dating back to 40,000 years ago. Neanderthals had a distinct pattern of resource exploitation, which includes scavenging and the hunting of large mammal herds and less likely the stalking of individual animals. They also appear to have relied on scavenging to a greater degree than do modern humans; indeed, a number of occurrences appear to be scavenging process sites, while others are associated with large mammal carcass processing. But like homo sapiens, they buried their dead, and there is some slight evidence for the production of “art.”

To a large degree, early modern H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis had managed to avoid each other. Early modern humans depended on African fauna for food resources and followed its dispersals into the Levant and southern Europe, while Neanderthals were dependent on a European arctic fauna, whose migration pattern and territorial range expanded and shrank according to the fluctuations of Ice Age Europe. Eventually, early modern people moved into Europe, beginning sometime around 40,000 years ago. And when glacial conditions returned, this time, for whatever reason, they did not disperse south but remained in the region – perhaps coming into contact with the Neanderthals for the first time.

It is with the arrival of the people from the south that we see for the first time the full-blown expression of symbolism – mobile and fixed artistic expression, and a more refined template-based tool technology. They appear to have been more mobile, hunting and gathering over a broad area, while the Neanderthals tended to remain in their well-known and long-occupied valley systems. By 30,000 years ago, increased competition, increased mortality rates, and a declining birthrate sent the Neanderthals in a downward spiral to extinction. There is no need to appeal to an argument of “prehistoric genocide” to explain their final disappearance from the earth some 27,000 years ago.

(from Bones, Stones, and Molecules by Cameron / Groves [Elsevier Academic Press, 2004], page 283-284)

Phil P

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit