Bible says science cannot possibly know how many years since creation

[dad]

Because it didn't happen.

The beginning or the end never happened? We'll check back with you to find out what happened I guess. Ha.

You have a claim in an old text and no way to independently verify it

Great so forget about it. Concentrate on independently verifying your claims. We wait.

. Thus the claim should be treated as a story, not a fact.

Guess I can believe either you or Jesus...Hmm, sorry, I'll go with the Almighty, thanks.

 

[usexpat97]

Ecc 3: 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end

Anyone who has even attempted to study astrophysics at all knows there is zero chance that we will ever fathom what happened at the beginning or the makings of this universe. Doesn't even take a belief in God to know that.

Also, God could have easily created the universe 6000 years ago with an initial condition as if the universe was 6 billion years old. That is called a warm start. That alone shows how we really have no idea. A scientist can observe red shift and conclude the big bang happened billions of years ago, but he will never be able to rule out that a Creator might have created it with a red shift 6,000 years ago.

 

[Speedwell]

At least I know what truth is.

An allegory can be truth as well.

 

[dad]

An allegory can be truth as well.

Yes, a truth hidden from unbelievers.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, a truth hidden from unbelievers.

The truth of an allegory is not necessarily "hidden."

 

[dad]

The truth of an allegory is not necessarily "hidden."

A parable is not either. It is only opened to His sheep though. For people to try and use the word 'allegory' to diminish the power and meaning of the bible is wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

A parable is not either. It is only opened to His sheep though. For people to try and use the word 'allegory' to diminish the power and meaning of the bible is wrong.

No, they're just using the word "allegory." The authority of scripture rests on its divine authorship, not on it adherence to any particular literary genre.

 

[dad]

No, they're just using the word "allegory." The authority of scripture rests on its divine authorship, not on it adherence to any particular literary genre.

The way it was used was to rob reality from Scripture. If one chooses to interpret the bible as a pack of foolish lying stories, fine. Don't preach that nonsense to me though, without expecting some response.

 

[Speedwell]

The way it was used was to rob reality from Scripture. If one chooses to interpret the bible as a pack of foolish lying stories, fine. Don't preach that nonsense to me though, without expecting some response.

Do you really think that a story written by God would be a "foolish lying story?"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Anyone who has even attempted to study astrophysics at all knows there is zero chance that we will ever fathom what happened at the beginning or the makings of this universe. Doesn't even take a belief in God to know that.

Also, God could have easily created the universe 6000 years ago with an initial condition as if the universe was 6 billion years old. That is called a warm start. That alone shows how we really have no idea. A scientist can observe red shift and conclude the big bang happened billions of years ago, but he will never be able to rule out that a Creator might have created it with a red shift 6,000 years ago.

No need to try to inject an initial condition of age....

Just to understand “God stretched out the heavens” what they call expansion.

During acceleration clocks and decay rates slow. But since they use the slower decay rate today and calculate a uniform rate backwards, they get the wrong age for the earth.

Just as if we had a pipe with a decreasing water flow over time. Looking at the amount of water in the pool, and calculating backwards with the rate now observed, one would need to increase the amount of time that actually happened to match the amount of water in the pool. All because they used a constant rate instead of an increasing rate as they calculated backwards.

The same with radioactive decay. They see the amount of water in the pool (parent and daughter isotopes) then calculate a constant rate backwards instead of an increasing rate as they go backwards. This causes an age error since the rate was not constant but has decreased due to time dilation.....

The corrections must be exponential since by their own claim the universe expanded at faster than c and has only continued to increase....

 

[Kylie]

Not at all. Just people’s refusal to account for time dilation in an accelerating universe as one calculates backwards in time to when clocks and decay rates happened faster.

Time dilation happens when objects move through space. My understanding is that the expansion of the universe is an expansion of spacetime itself, and since the space isn't moving through space, the time dilation wouldn't happen.

It's the difference between an ant crawling on the surface of a balloon and inflating the balloon.

 

[Kylie]

The beginning or the end never happened?

The sun frozen in the sky and many of the other stories told in the Bible never happened.

We'll check back with you to find out what happened I guess. Ha.

So you're going to come back to me with evidence? That will be a pleasant surprise.

Great so forget about it. Concentrate on independently verifying your claims. We wait.

At least I actually make the attempt to independently verify what I accept as true.

Guess I can believe either you or Jesus...Hmm, sorry, I'll go with the Almighty, thanks.

I'll go with the evidence. I don't know why you wouldn't do the same.

I mean, if your position is correct, that's what the evidence is going to show, isn't it?

 

[dad]

Anyone who has even attempted to study astrophysics at all knows there is zero chance that we will ever fathom what happened at the beginning or the makings of this universe. Doesn't even take a belief in God to know that.

More specifically the beginning refers to this world.

Also, God could have easily created the universe 6000 years ago with an initial condition as if the universe was 6 billion years old. That is called a warm start. That alone shows how we really have no idea. A scientist can observe red shift and conclude the big bang happened billions of years ago, but he will never be able to rule out that a Creator might have created it with a red shift 6,000 years ago.

True. But unless time was the same out in the far universe, that redshift would lose meaning.

 

[dad]

Do you really think that a story written by God would be a "foolish lying story?"

Yes. If the story said He formed man from dust, and actually man came from animals, that would be a foolish lying story.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

At least I know what truth is.

Ok, we have an admission that you don't know what allegory is but you still want to argue against it.

Lol

 

[dad]

The sun frozen in the sky and many of the other stories told in the Bible never happened.

Tell us why in a the future when the sun is no longer needed, and time will be a little lap dog of us Royals, why the sun could not do what it is told?? The only issue is whether a small area could have been brought into the future or not. On that issue you have nothing you could say.

At least I actually make the attempt to independently verify what I accept as true.

Looking at this and other posts of yours, I don't see any meat to that claim.

I'll go with the evidence. I don't know why you wouldn't do the same.

Go where you like. However talking about evidence is not the same as producing it.

I mean, if your position is correct, that's what the evidence is going to show, isn't it?

In science, evidence is just a canvas on which beliefs are painted.

 

[dad]

Ok, we have an admission that you don't know what allegory is but you still want to argue against it.

Lol

Name what you consider an allegory in the bible on any important creation issue and we will see how you fare.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actual evidence please.....

Don't be so coy. Somebody like you who knows so much more than everyone else must know there are hundreds of passages in the Bible where science doesn't support the claims. Most of Genesis, much of Exodus or any miracle are obvious examples.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. If the story said He formed man from dust, and actually man came from animals, that would be a foolish lying story.

Thank you, dad (and I mean that sincerely) for putting it so clearly. Do you believe, then, that the authority of Scripture depends on its verifiable historicity, rather than its divine authorship?

 

[dad]

Thank you, dad (and I mean that sincerely) for putting it so clearly. Do you believe, then, that the authority of Scripture depends on its verifiable historicity, rather than its divine authorship?

Since you can't de verify that Adam was real or creation as per Scripture, we have a situation of believe it or not. There is no history for that time. History started after Babel.