Can we take Genesis Seriously

[6 000]

With carbon dating and such, how can anyone take the story of genesis literally. If you do i would love to hear your opinions.
Thanks..

 

[catzrfluffy]

I find both creation and evolution interesting, but I don't know enough about both. Perhaps I just find nature as a whole interesting anyway.
It'd be useful to understand how carbon dating worked, is there an easy way to explain it?

 

[judechild]

With carbon dating and such, how can anyone take the story of genesis literally. If you do i would love to hear your opinions.
Thanks..

Not everyone believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

 

[6 000]

Basically Carbon dating is a way of seeing how old something is. Firstly we must realise that atoms can decay over time, the time taken for it too decay in half, is called the half-life.

Each atom has a individual half-life. In this example we shall take carbon to have a half-life of 900 years.

For example if there is a box and we no there should be 100 atoms in it then, but when we open it we only find 50 then from this we can work backwards to find out how old it is.

We can see that there is exactly half the amount of atoms there should be. So from this we can deduce that this particular box is 900 years old.

In reality carbon does not have such a short half-life is more in the range of 5730 years.

So with this information we can see that the earth is much older than the figure set in the bible (6,000 years).
Sorry if this not the best explanation but it is hard to articulate.

 

[6 000]

I do know not everyone believes in the literal interpretation of genesis. This is a question to people who do, Because I think this view harms Christianity.

 

[tpk]

~Mod Hat On~​

Just to remind you, only users between the ages of 15 and 19 are permitted to post in this section of the forum. As such, all posts made by overage users, as well as posts referring to said posts, have been deleted. Please keep in mind where you are before posting to avoid any further trouble or confusion. Thanks!

~Mod Hat Off~​

 

[tpk]

Anyway, to add my thoughts, I would like to refer you to the website answersingenesis.org. Here is an article explaining Carbon dating in and how it does or does not disprove the Bible.

I've heard of cases where one leg of a mammoth dated (I forget, but an estimate) let say, 50,000 years old, but another leg dated 80,000 years old. Now either that's a slow birth, or carbon dating doesn't work.

You see, it's based on the concept of uniformitarianism, aka "the way things are now is the way things were before". So it would work, assuming that there has always been the same level of carbon 14 present in all matter since the dawn of time. However, I don't believe there was. Scientific data is provided in the link I provided.

Thoughts?

 

[pianomaster42]

Jeez, tpk, getting a little big for our mod-selves? I kid, I kid.

Anyhoo, I believe in the theory called evolutionary creationism. This is a belief where the Creation story is a metaphor/basically true but not precise retelling of what really happened. I believe this is supported by the presence of multiple words for time in some translations of the Bible (Greek, specifically). One of these words is "Chronos," the Greek word for "one time," or time as we perceive it. Seconds, minutes, hours. Measurable time. "Kyros," the other Greek word for time used here, talks about time in the metaphorical sense. Time as God sees it. As God created the universe, and the mechanics that governed it (time included), he is not subject to these laws (again, time included.).
Basically, this boils down to God created the universe and set in motion all of the scientific events we have seen ourselves, such as evolution and radioactive decay (what we use carbon dating for, for those of you who don't know).
Please ask me to further explain if there is anything I didn't make clear.

 

[liesje]

I do know not everyone believes in the literal interpretation of genesis. This is a question to people who do, Because I think this view harms Christianity.

How so? (I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis) I get your point, and I think that believing in it literally all boils down to trust that God can do things how he wants. He made the rules so he can break them. If you're going to say that the creation story was imagery, you can just as well say that any of the rest of Genesis is imagery.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

How so? (I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis) I get your point, and I think that believing in it literally all boils down to trust that God can do things how he wants. He made the rules so he can break them. If you're going to say that the creation story was imagery, you can just as well say that any of the rest of Genesis is imagery.

It is harmful to Christian faith because it puts stress on somebody's choice between science and religion, where as OEC and/or a metaphorical enterpretation of the bible can strengthen one's faith by having science be compatible with it

 

[liesje]

Is it impossible to have both and believe in creation?

 

[wannabeswat]

I love this topic.

I find it interesting (read: extremely frustrating) when Christians say science is wrong because God created etc, it makes my head implode. Shutup! evidance is evidance.
If its right it's right. yes people could be mistaken, but they're not trying to disprove anything, they just want to find the answers. I love scientific exploration, i'm a little freaked by some of the findings but just makes it all the more incredible, praise God!

 

[liesje]

I love this topic.

I find it interesting (read: extremely frustrating) when Christians say science is wrong because God created etc, it makes my head implode. Shutup! evidance is evidance

my bad. That's not what I'm trying to say.

If its right it's right. yes people could be mistaken, but they're not trying to disprove anything, they just want to find the answers. I love scientific exploration, i'm a little freaked by some of the findings but just makes it all the more incredible, praise God!

My thing is that no one can 'prove' evolution any more that they can prove creation.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I love this topic.

I find it interesting (read: extremely frustrating) when Christians say science is wrong because God created etc, it makes my head implode. Shutup! evidance is evidance.

But evidance is not evidence.

If its right it's right. yes people could be mistaken, but they're not trying to disprove anything, they just want to find the answers. I love scientific exploration, i'm a little freaked by some of the findings but just makes it all the more incredible, praise God!

Good for you.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

My thing is that no one can 'prove' evolution any more that they can prove creation.

Well technically you cannot prove anything. You cannot prove that the earth is round, or that the computer you are typing on does not run on magic, but there is information that we have that shows that the earth is round and that your computer does not run on magic, to the point where it would be quite ridiculous to claim that the earth is flat.

The same goes for pretty much everything in science. Proofs are for math and alcohol, nothing else.

 

[catzrfluffy]

creationism does not insist that the earth was flat...

Surely you must know by now that hardly anyone in history ever did, it was an inaccurate view of the past concocted by Antoine-Jean Letronne, a French academic, and Washington Irving, a historical fiction writer, since about 1830. In history they could tell that the earth was round by the fact that ships disappeared over the horizon and by the round shadow of the earth that appeared upon the moon during a lunar eclipse, also Isaiah 40:22 says "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." [in some translations 'globe'].
ORB: The Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies
Myth of the Flat Earth
and, I know it's wikipedia, but Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[liesje]

Well technically you cannot prove anything. You cannot prove that the earth is round,

Well technically you can, seeing as we've all seen it on satellites and pictures, and people have sailed the whole way around it

 

[judechild]

Well technically you cannot prove anything. You cannot prove that the earth is round, or that the computer you are typing on does not run on magic, but there is information that we have that shows that the earth is round and that your computer does not run on magic, to the point where it would be quite ridiculous to claim that the earth is flat.

The same goes for pretty much everything in science. Proofs are for math and alcohol, nothing else.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can trust the logic of someone who believes 2+2 = 5!

 

[wannabeswat]

Well technically you cannot prove anything. You cannot prove that the earth is round, or that the computer you are typing on does not run on magic, but there is information that we have that shows that the earth is round and that your computer does not run on magic, to the point where it would be quite ridiculous to claim that the earth is flat.

The same goes for pretty much everything in science. Proofs are for math and alcohol, nothing else.

Haha, well, i disagree. I know what your getting at though
If you don't trust anything you will very soon go Psycotic, that's how the human mind works, haha.
But i totally know what you mean, i'm just coming out(i hope) of a phase of not trusting anything, and it makes you a very stressed person. I wouldn't recommend it haha.

Leisje- I wasn't talking about you haha more others that are very vocal in RL like preachers etc

 

[liesje]

Leisje- I wasn't talking about you haha more others that are very vocal in RL like preachers etc

Hehe oops