Age of the World

[Chalnoth]

So, the timing on earth could be different to observers in space who has different moving (traveling) history. Your argument to the 6000 years time is that this is the time period to people live on earth. But why should this be necessary the case? Could this 6000 years be the time for a particular space traveler? Then the "equivalent" or correspondent time interval on earth relative to people on earth could be any period of time depends on the moving history of the traveler. Most likely it will be a much longer time period.

No. The Bible never ever says 6000 years. That age was calculated by adding up the genealogies in the Bible. It is, therefore by definition, an age defined on Earth. Relativity doesn't enter into it.

 

[juvenissun]

No. The Bible never ever says 6000 years. That age was calculated by adding up the genealogies in the Bible. It is, therefore by definition, an age defined on Earth. Relativity doesn't enter into it.

Fine. It does not have to be 6000 years. How about 60,000 years or even 6 million years? The argument is the same.

If we want to consider the relationships among the Bible, the creation, the time, AND the SCIENCE, then I will call the consideration of the Relativity (and more, if necessary). If you put the science aside, I can live with that too.

 

[Chalnoth]

Fine. It does not have to be 6000 years. How about 60,000 years or even 6 million years? The argument is the same.

If we want to consider the relationships among the Bible, the creation, the time, AND the SCIENCE, then I will call the consideration of the Relativity (and more, if necessary). If you put the science aside, I can live with that too.

Considering it is fine. In relativity, the passage of time depends upon the observer. The time described in the Bible takes place on Earth, thus the correct observer is one on Earth, thus the passage of time is what we would normally consider it to be.

There, considered. What's your point?

 

[juvenissun]

Considering it is fine. In relativity, the passage of time depends upon the observer. The time described in the Bible takes place on Earth, thus the correct observer is one on Earth, thus the passage of time is what we would normally consider it to be.

There, considered. What's your point?

Not really. Time described in the Bible includes at places where are NOT on the earth.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not really. Time described in the Bible includes at places where are NOT on the earth.

What, are you going to now attempt to claim that creation week was over a different span of time than six days? Because that is the only hope of any leeway you have. Of course, it doesn't work, as the order is all wrong too.

 

[juvenissun]

What, are you going to now attempt to claim that creation week was over a different span of time than six days? Because that is the only hope of any leeway you have. Of course, it doesn't work, as the order is all wrong too.

Yes, the six-day creation does not use the earth as the reference point of time. This is just one of the pages in the Bible with such situation. There are a number of ways to interpret it scientifically.

I can see the focus is shifting in this debate. But, yes, the sequence of creation could be (is) CORRECT. It is one of the most amazing records in the Bible.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, the six-day creation does not use the earth as the reference point of time. This is just one of the pages in the Bible with such situation. There are a number of ways to interpret it scientifically.

Well, given a vague myth, you can "interpret" it any way you see fit. It won't make it anything more than a myth.

I can see the focus is shifting in this debate. But, yes, the sequence of creation could be (is) CORRECT. It is one of the most amazing records in the Bible.

Hah! You honestly think the sequence is in any way correct? Lovely. Since when did birds come before land animals?

 

[juvenissun]

Well, given a vague myth, you can "interpret" it any way you see fit. It won't make it anything more than a myth.


Hah! You honestly think the sequence is in any way correct? Lovely. Since when did birds come before land animals?

Yes, I believe so. Even I do not understand why. (another one you may question is plants before the sun)

The reason that I can do this comfortably is because I established my faith from many other similar, but non-biological verses in the Bible. Compare to the nature of Paleontology, I rather believe what the Bible says. It is not just a blind faith (I don't do that). I have a lot of proofs.They are much better than those conclusions derived from simple logic used by paleontology.

 

[Skaloop]

The reason that I can do this comfortably is because I established my faith from many other similar, but non-biological verses in the Bible. Compare to the nature of Paleontology, I rather believe what the Bible says. It is not just a blind faith (I don't do that). I have a lot of proofs.They are much better than those conclusions derived from simple logic used by paleontology.

Could you provide those proofs?

 

[Paulos23]

They are much better than those conclusions derived from simple logic used by paleontology.

Just because that simple logic does not match with the Bible is not a good reason to throw it out. If anything, the twisting logic and ignoring of evidence you have to do to match the Bible should make you question the Bible's version of events.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just because that simple logic does not match with the Bible is not a good reason to throw it out. If anything, the twisting logic and ignoring of evidence you have to do to match the Bible should make you question the Bible's version of events.

Twist and ignore this.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, I believe so. Even I do not understand why. (another one you may question is plants before the sun)

More to the point you don't understand how. How is it that the Bible can say that plants were created before the Sun? how is it that the Bible can say that birds were created before land animals? These statements make no sense whatsoever.

I have a lot of proofs.They are much better than those conclusions derived from simple logic used by paleontology.

You have yet to show any such proofs. And how, pray tell, are they better?

 

[juvenissun]

Just because that simple logic does not match with the Bible is not a good reason to throw it out. If anything, the twisting logic and ignoring of evidence you have to do to match the Bible should make you question the Bible's version of events.

No. Nobody is throwing any logic conclusion out. All logic conclusions demonstrate the wisdom of God. This includes all evidences presented by paleontology. The only thing wrong with paleontology is its "interpretation" which is, sometimes, not logical. One such example is the idea of evolution.

But what the Bible says are much superior than any logic conclusions (those seemingly illogical part. Noticed that the Bible never says the evolutional origin of human being). Of course, some Bible verses verify many logic conclusions as we know them.

 

[juvenissun]

More to the point you don't understand how. How is it that the Bible can say that plants were created before the Sun? how is it that the Bible can say that birds were created before land animals? These statements make no sense whatsoever.


You have yet to show any such proofs. And how, pray tell, are they better?

I don't think you really want to know them. Since you do not believe whatever said in the Bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think you really want to know them. Since you do not believe whatever said in the Bible.

Actually, we suspect that there aren't any and that you will never produce them. Let's see what happens.

For starters, show us why evolution is not logical. Then show us how the Bible explains the twin nested hierarchy better than evolution. Also explain to us why the Bible explains distant galaxies better than modern astrophysics. Then explain to us why we find fish with legs, dinosaurs with feathers, and apes with human pelvises.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't think you really want to know them. Since you do not believe whatever said in the Bible.

But you specifically said your proofs don't rely on faith, so whether we believe the Bible or not shouldn't matter. If your proofs rely on belief in and/or interpretation of the Bible, then they are not proofs.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't think you really want to know them. Since you do not believe whatever said in the Bible.

Oh, so your "proofs" are arguments from scripture? Let me guess. You start with the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. Then you go on to show how using that assumption, clearly God exists. Forgive me if I don't buy into your circular reasoning.

Oh, and I'm going to second Loudmouth: show us how the Bible explains the twin nested hierarchy of life. What is a twin nested hierarchy? Unique traits exist only in lines of descent: you don't get crossover between different lineages. For example, you will never find an animal that has both feathers an mammary glands. Why is this?

While you're at it, why not explain why the nerves that go to two of the bones in our inner ear take an entirely different path from the brain than the nerve that goes to the third bone?

 

[MoonLancer]

Twist and ignore this.

hmmm tastes like peaches.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, so your "proofs" are arguments from scripture? Let me guess. You start with the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. Then you go on to show how using that assumption, clearly God exists. Forgive me if I don't buy into your circular reasoning.

Not at all. I am talking about science in the Bible, not faith in the Bible.

If I illustrated:

The Bible says this and this.
Now the current science says that and that.
And "this" is obviously related to "that".
So, what said in the Bible is scientific.

Do you buy the argument?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Twist and ignore this.

Why bother -- again?