Oh the Irony.....
- Started
- Last post
- 176 Responses
- Mimio0
Actually main stream science says the Universe is about 14 billion years old. Someone should tell Dr. Dan to get with it.
Sorry Discipler, but you;re just simply mistaken and parading pseudo-science around like it's actually credible.
- spiralstarez0
discipler:
Explain to me, (or find another religiously influenced source online)
how light from stars millions of light years away from us (or is that distance in pseudo-religious-scientific refute as well?) has reached us already if the universe is not as old as those light-years it would take for that light to reach us?
- brtman0
the bible is a conflicting mish-mash so vague and ambiguous one can find any message one wants to in it if they look hard enough.
scarabin
(Mar 16 05, 13:08)that's why they invented hermeneutics!
christian folks had 2000+ years for difficult questions. which gives them quite a headstart in answering this stuff.
what i think: i don't think everything can be explained with religion, but i also do not think it can be explained (eventually) with science. some things just are. period.
does that leave me unsatisfied? yeah, sometimes. but then i get a snack.
- discipler0
Mimio, no dishonesty. My belief on this issue is and has been the same as that of many... including Physicist, Dr. Dan Faulkner (B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. & Ph.D. (Astronomy). He expresses it well in this interview excerpt:
Genesis teaches that the earth was created first and then the sun, moon and the stars were created three days later. Is there any observation in your field of astronomy which would disprove this, or make it difficult to believe?
----------------------------
No. Most astronomers as well as geologists argue that the universe is aged 20 billion years, and the earth ‘scarcely’ 4.5 billion years old. All that’s really built upon a lot of indirect evidence and arguments—evidence that could very easily be interpreted other ways, and there are some other astronomical suggestions that the solar system and the earth and the rest of the universe are not really that old at all.
----------------------------
Can you give us some of these?
----------------------------
First, comets disintegrate too rapidly to have been in their present orbits for all those billions of years. So evolutionists theorise about a shell of comets, an ‘Oort cloud’ too far out to see, to act as a way to ‘restock’ the inner solar system with comets every so often.However, there’s no scientific reason to believe that there really is an Oort cloud. The so-called Kuiper belt, closer in, has been put forward as a theoretical source of shorter period comets. However, even if there are comets in this region, it doesn’t solve the problem for the evolutionists, because the Oort cloud would still be needed to resupply the Kuiper belt after a while. [For more information, see Dr Faulkner’s detailed technical article Comets and the age of the solar system.]
Then there is the moon—due to tidal friction, this is slowly spiraling away from the earth, which is slowing down its rotation. If you calculate back a billion and a half years ago, the moon would have been in direct contact with the earth. So that is a very strong indicator that the moon can’t be even a third as old as the claimed 4.5 billion years, and it is probably vastly less than that. [See The Moon: the light that rules the night.]
Also, theory suggests we should find plenty of, say, million-year-old supernova remnants, but we don’t find any—though there are many that are thousands of years old. And that is a very startling result if you really believe in a universe that’s millions of years old [see Exploding stars point to a young universe, Creation 19(3):46–48, June–August 1997 and Q&A: ‘Young’ age of the earth & universe.]
- scarabin0
the bible is a conflicting mish-mash so vague and ambiguous one can find any message one wants to in it if they look hard enough.
and you don't have to swear on the bible in court anymore.
- Mimio0
Discipler once again you're being intellectually dishonest. There is no scientific debate whether there are stars and planets that far predate the existence of the Earth. It is a long established fact. There is no logical doubt that the Genesis account is cleary unscientific and false.
- discipler0
No, I wouldn't agree. This is exactly why we have the principles of hermeneutics. The Bible contains many different literary styels. The literary approach to the writing in the creation account of Genesis is as literal history. Not to be interpereted allegorically. As for the sun's age, what you believe about that depends on your view of the entire framework of origins. Certainly the evolutionist claims it existed well before the earth. Creationists and ID do not share that belief. There's too little concrete evidence to support such a claim.
- Mimio0
Discipler that is the main problem with the bible's veracity. I'm sure you would agree that the Genesis creation account uses similar language yet people have taken it literally for 4000+ years. Let's face it the Earth is not older than the Sun. It's time for people to move on.
- discipler0
Mimio all you are doing is demonstrating how not to read the Bible. A fractured hermeneutic, if you will. Look...
Job 9:6 - "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble."
A literal reference to literal pillars or anthropomorphic language describing God's immeasurable might? I think most people would agree, the latter. Just as God is described in the Psalms as providing shelter under his wing... I don't think he's a cosmic chicken though. Its an Anthropomorphism. God revealed himself to a rather primitive Hebrew culture and used expressions they could relate to.
Daniel's Dreams & Visions - These are prophetic writings to be interpreted as such. He was not suggesting there is or was literally a giant tree that all could see.
Luke's account - I have never heard the Holy Spirit compared to anything but "the wind" or "breath" (Hebrew: Nephesh). Bottom line is that the conception of Christ is a miracle of God in scipture, regardless of what manifestation the Holy Spirit took on. I wouldn't care if He had taken on the form of a ray of light. So, I'm not sure what your point was or how it invalidates the reliability of the Bible.
- Mimio0
The pillars comment was in reference Job 9:6. Where the god is rattling off his resume.
- Mimio0
It says the "holy spirit" in Luke Discipler, which is often illustrated as being a ray of light. In Daniel, he claims to have envisioned a tree so tall that people all over the earth could see it. Obviously impossible on a spherical earth.
- discipler0
And is usually the case, Mimio, you've ripped passages out of their context and even said things that do not appear anywhere in the text. Why not go ahead and share the actual references for all to see?
1. Job 26:7 teaches that the Earth ‘hangs upon nothing’. So, it supports that the earth is suspended in space. Isaiah 40:22 refers to ‘the circle of the earth’, as well.
2. Luke's account of the conception of Christ says nothing of light impregnating her. The Holy Spirit is said indwell and conceive Christ.
3. I THINK your pillars reference is to 1 Sam 2:8: 'for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them'. Doesn't take a scholar to understand it is speaking of the power and providence of God; otherwise the earth is hung upon nothing, in the open circumambient air.
- GeorgiePorgie0
Not sure if it's been said, but shouldn't ALL religion therefore fall under this arguement.
hearsay as opposed to fact. i mean, they're all hundreds upon thousands of years old right?
- mogwai0
i love how theres always this really serious thread going with like a zillion posts, and its Discipler vs. NT.
- Mimio0
Discipler,
Job is where the pillars comments comes from. Genesis the is where the human lineage comment came from.Gospel of Luke has the account of the immacualte conception.The bible basically says the earth is flat in one of Daniels "visions" too.
- CaP0
discipler, man... i respect your thoughts for the sake that i do respect other people's point of view.
but man... you are standing on the wrong side of argumentation: every single thing you are saying is based on the "prove me wrong" idea (when you asked "prove that insects cannot live over carcasses").
based on that, please e-mail me proving me wrong that unicorns don't exist or didn't ever existed. please do. or giants. or dragons that breathe fire. or fairies. or... you name it.
i'm sorry man, but these are bad, very bad arguments. what can you say about evolution? that it's an evil story made up? how would you genetically explain (if you believe in genes, i mean) that ALL of mankind comes from one single cuople?
- fawn0
lets try to guess who disipler really is. i am sure he is a regular here under a different name
- discipler0
Mimio, what book says those things and where?
- Mimio0
Any book the claims the earth rests upon pillars, homosapiens are less than 6000 years old, and that light can impregate a woman shouldn't be held up as a scientific text.
End of story.
- Beach_Boy0
discipler - my comment was in relation to the fact that you believe, even to that level of detail in the good book
anyway, i'm with fawn - long live the king