Can we take Genesis Seriously

[PhilosophicalBluster]

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.

The difference is, how I think philosophically is different than how I behave normally. If I behaved in a way that is directly tied to my philosophical thought, (like your example of not trusting my senses) I would behave very differently than I do now.

In other words, I believe that I cannot trust my senses, but I behave in a way that does not reflect that, therefore I can still function in society.

 

[BrokenWanderer]

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.

You can't prove anything? Amusing...since you just proved you can't prove anything. (Side note everyone: I do believe you can prove things)

Now, as to Carbon Dating...its not a great idea to try to figure out the age of things. There have been times where they've used it twice on one object, and gotten two extremely different times. However, you will not find it published on scientific websites, especially ones that back evolution.

As towards creation being literal, yes, I do believe it is quite literal, and if it weren't, wouldn't that therefore make the Bible fallible? We're told the Bible is infallible. (John 8:31-32, 2 Samuel 22:31) I'm not going to try to take over this topic though, I'd like to see a lot of what everyone has to say about it.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

You can't prove anything? Amusing...since you just proved you can't prove anything. (Side note everyone: I do believe you can prove things)

You silly objectivists.

Now, as to Carbon Dating...its not a great idea to try to figure out the age of things.

Err, why not?

There have been times where they've used it twice on one object, and gotten two extremely different times.

When were these?

However, you will not find it published on scientific websites, especially ones that back evolution.

Okay, then where are you getting this information?

As towards creation being literal, yes, I do believe it is quite literal, and if it weren't, wouldn't that therefore make the Bible fallible?

While I believe the Bible to be fallible, metaphorical interpretation is not the same thing as fallibility.

We're told the Bible is infallible. (John 8:31-32, 2 Samuel 22:31)

You're trying to prove that the Bible is infallible... by using the Bible... Have you ever heard of the phrase 'circular logic'? Because that is a prime example.

 

[pac422man]

If you read Genesis chapter 4, you will realize immediately that Genesis cannot be taken literally.

First, Adam and Eve have their two sons: Cain and Abel.

But then Cain kills Abel, and he says to God:
14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

So, clearly, there were more people on Earth other than Adam, Eve, and their two children. The only explanation for this is that the creation story is figurative.

 

[catzrfluffy]

Don't jump the gun. They lived for a long time then, probably means future people.

 

[judechild]

If you read Genesis chapter 4, you will realize immediately that Genesis cannot be taken literally.

Arguements from this perspective are very weak. There is nothing that says Cain and Abel were the only two children at the time, and in fact one verse says Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters.

A better arguement for the non-literal view, in my opinion, is the fact that many of the stories from Genesis chapters 1 to 11 are not unique to Genesis. The seven days of creation is one example; it's Mesopotamean in origin.

Simply put, the Hebrews were not concerned with how the universe came to be, it wasn't on there radar; God instead was revealing that it was He who had created. The Hebrews were interested in the "who" and "why", not the "how", and so God revealed Himself in a way that would make sense to them, with a story they already knew.

 

[pac422man]

Arguements from this perspective are very weak. There is nothing that says Cain and Abel were the only two children at the time, and in fact one verse says Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters.<br />
<br />

<br />
<br />

If you are referring to Genesis 5 verse 4, it states that Adam had more sons and daughters specifically after the birth of his third son, Seth, who he had to "replace" Abel.

Therefore, all other children he had came after the verses I said before.

(Although I realize I am somewhat of a hypocrite for using this as "evidence" as I take the better part [all] of Genesis figuratively, so specifics like this don't really make a difference)

I agree completely with everything in the rest of your post, however.

Of course, as already mentioned in this thread, the best proof that Genesis is not literal is that scientific evidence shows otherwise...

 

[catzrfluffy]

There have been times where they've used it twice on one object, and gotten two extremely different times. However, you will not find it published on scientific websites, especially ones that back evolution.

there's a lot of false information out there. but revisions of carbon-dating accuracy are needed, as new information about it is discovered, see BBC News | SCI/TECH | Dating study 'means human history rethink'
try and find reputable websites, if using a bias one, check the sources as far as one can to see if the claim is true. (type the name of the publication in the search engine and find the quoted article in it yourself) not sure? then don't believe everything.

 

[catzrfluffy]

Therefore, all other children he had came after the verses I said before.

Can't someone be afraid of being bounty hunted in the future? He must have known that the eventual other people going to be born might kill him if they discovered him.

 

[Gatheris]

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.

I'm sorry but i don't agree with you, As one man said, carbon dating actually contridicts millions of years. he explained it like this, at one time a diamond was found that scientists estimated to be 6,000,000 years old. But after they did their carbon dating thing on it, they only found it to be about 3000 years old, but they went with the 6,000,000 years, but the question he asked was, how could the scientists have used carbon dating on it if it was that old?

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I'm sorry but i don't agree with you, As one man said, carbon dating actually contridicts millions of years. he explained it like this, at one time a diamond was found that scientists estimated to be 6,000,000 years old. But after they did their carbon dating thing on it, they only found it to be about 3000 years old, but they went with the 6,000,000 years, but the question he asked was, how could the scientists have used carbon dating on it if it was that old?

Docs or shh.

 

[Wedjat]

I'm sorry but i don't agree with you, As one man said, carbon dating actually contridicts millions of years. he explained it like this, at one time a diamond was found that scientists estimated to be 6,000,000 years old. But after they did their carbon dating thing on it, they only found it to be about 3000 years old, but they went with the 6,000,000 years, but the question he asked was, how could the scientists have used carbon dating on it if it was that old?

Mind telling my why anyone would carbon date a diamond, a non-organic piece of rock?
That's not how carbon dating works my friend, carbon dating is for dead things, not never-alive things.

 

[catzrfluffy]

Wedjat's baaaack!

 

[Wedjat]

Wedjat's baaaack!

I was on holiday, thanks for the party

 

[catzrfluffy]

(Mwahahah knew that would be disturbing)​

 

[anonomiss]

I have read a very interesting book called 'Myths and Miricals' it explains in detail creation in the first bit f genesis. Its a very good book.

To be difficult and reverse the question... Can we take carbon dating seriously? It has been proven wrong over and over. At one time dating a formation of 200y.o. lava rocks as over 1million years old.

I believe in creationism!

 

[Kathy-Mcf]

To be difficult and reverse the question... Can we take carbon dating seriously? It has been proven wrong over and over. At one time dating a formation of 200y.o. lava rocks as over 1million years old.

Yay finally someone is asking this!!!

I believe in creationism!

 

[anonomiss]

glad to please Kathy

 

[Wedjat]

Can we take carbon dating seriously? It has been proven wrong over and over. At one time dating a formation of 200y.o. lava rocks as over 1million years old.

No actually it hasn't.

And I've said it once, I'll say it again. You can't carbon date non-organic material. It simply doesn't work, it defeats the entire point of carbon dating. Besides the fact that carbon dating doesn't work past 50,000 years or so, we use other radioactive isotopes and other methods for longer periods of dating. You can't just cite stuff that simply isn't true as evidence against carbon dating.

 

[anonomiss]

yes it has, ive heard it from many reliable sources. Your opinion, forgive me, i do not deem reliable.

besides shouldnt carbon dating be able to date carbon? thats all a diamond is, compressed carbon.