How old is the universe?

[Buzz_Lightyear]

No theory can be proven. The Atomic theory of matter has not been proven. However, what makes it a theory as opposed to a hypothesis is that all the evidence so far collected does not disprove it.

Same can be said about the young earth theory.

Theories can however be disproven.

This is the case with all YEC hypotheses. It's not that evolution is proven; all the evidence so far seems to agree with it, but tomorrow, some evidence may come along that means it has to be modified. YEC hypotheses, however, have all been disproven: the evidence does not support them, in fact it positively trashes them.

They seemingly have all been disproven based on the tools/technology that scientists are working with, which could ALL be wrong. Just because the earth might "look" old to you, it doesn't mean it is old.

 

[artybloke]

It is my understanding that the Jews in Jesus' time were excellent record keepers

Considering that these records no longer exist, there's no way of proving it either way, There's no evidence they were any better than anyone else; and records would reflect the point of view of the chronicler (so they'd keep quiet about defeats, for instance). Records tend not to be unbiased accounts. As for all the names being fictitious: no, they probably weren't all. But some were legendary figures, or fictional, like Ruth for instance.

Luke may well have consulted the records, if they existed and he could have obtained access. But he would have more likely used the Septuagint (Greek OT translation) as a source. With all its mixture of fact and fiction.

 

[artybloke]

Same can be said about the young earth theory.

All the evidence we have disproves it. All.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Considering that these records no longer exist, there's no way of proving it either way, There's no evidence they were any better than anyone else; and records would reflect the point of view of the chronicler (so they'd keep quiet about defeats, for instance). Records tend not to be unbiased accounts. As for all the names being fictitious: no, they probably weren't all. But some were legendary figures, or fictional, like Ruth for instance.

Luke may well have consulted the records, if they existed and he could have obtained access. But he would have more likely used the Septuagint (Greek OT translation) as a source. With all its mixture of fact and fiction.

You do have a point here, and I will research more.

Note: Removed reference to prophecy regarding lineage of King David.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

All the evidence we have disproves it. All.

But remember the evidence is based on theories. But in any case we will not agree, I am certain.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But remember the evidence is based on theories. But in any case we will not agree, I am certain.

no.
evidence may will be theory laden but there is no evidence that 'evidence is based on theories' but rather all philosophy of science speaks about the inductive process going from evidence to theory.

however if you can support this claim i would be interested in your line of reasoning.
as this is a topic of interest to me.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

no.
evidence may will be theory laden but there is no evidence that 'evidence is based on theories' but rather all philosophy of science speaks about the inductive process going from evidence to theory.

however if you can support this claim i would be interested in your line of reasoning.
as this is a topic of interest to me.

Hi

My remark might look obscure and it probably is, but my way of arriving at that statement is this, baring in mind the context of the discussion in which I was remarking on.

All science that is related to the dating of the earth depends on the dating methods used. This is true for fossils also. Now this method can best be described as theoretical as we cannot be certain that it is accurate, due to climate changes or maybe signifigant events in the earths history that reduces the reading of the radio activity for example. We don't actually know what the earth was like say 5000 years ago with certainty.

Now if we use these methods to date a fossil, then yes we know the fossil exists, which in my book is evidence, but we don't know for certainty the age of it. The same applies to rock formations.

I admit that if I want to add any great value to this I would need to disprove the dating methods, but is this possible?

It may seem like fuzzy logic, but I'm very skeptical when it comes to this area of science.

 

[Underdog77]

stating your own belief is a lot different from running down someone elses.

That is my belief. OEC is 1) scientifically wrong 2) a compromise of the Bible 3) misleading to non-believers and a thorn in the side of Christianity in general. That is my belief.

I am not OEC, I am TE. But I also find the use of the "N" word offensive even though I am white.

So what do you care what I say about OEC? I want people to know what I believe right from the start. I'm working on other definitions and my signiture will soon be longer. It will include pretty much all I believe on the major topics.

I also don't know why you care about the "N" word (it took me a few seconds to realize what it was...for those who are still working on it: [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]). I don't use it but I'm not afraid to say it...except in the middle of the ghetto where I can get in BIG trouble.

You may think calling someone elses belief "crud" to be funny or cute, but I don't.

Ron

I don't think its funny or cute, just straight to the point. Would you rather I say OEC=lies?

 

[OneLastBreath]

So the only reason you wouldn't use the "N" word in the middle of the ghetto is you're afraid of getting hurt? As christians our goal should be to to treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with respect, and above all try not to offend anyone. If someone finds a certain word extremely offensive, then THAT's why you shouldn't use it, not because you're afraid of getting hurt. As for your signature, I commented on it in another thread. If you haven't read what I said yet, here it is:

I noticed your signature (OEC definition: overtly erroneous crud) and would like to point out that in a structured debate such as this, a statement showing such blatant disrespect for another's viewpoint (who is in the same boat as you, knowing only what God chose to include in his Word) is not going to earn you much respect from people who don't subscribe to your beliefs about origins. If you want people to consider what you're saying, I would suggest you acknowledge that the others are intelligent people with legitimate reasons for their beliefs. just as you have legitimate reasons for yours. Otherwise, there's no point in posting in this thread as your not doing much more than attacking other's views. When Nicodemus questioned Christ about being born again, did Jesus ridicule him for him not understanding what he was saying? No, he patiently explained it to him. We all believe in what it says in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, we all believe what really counts, what the Bible specifically says leaving no room for interpretation. Be careful how you treat others with views that differ from yours.

That is my belief. OEC is 1) scientifically wrong 2) a compromise of the Bible 3) misleading to non-believers and a thorn in the side of Christianity in general. That is my belief.

How is OEC scientifically wrong? It agrees with the statement that the earth is several billions of years old, a commonly accepted scientific fact. If your going to look at conventional science, it's YEC that most would argue is scientifically wrong.
OEC is not a compromise of the Bible. It's simply a different interpretation of it. The Creation account is Hebrew poetry. Whether you like it or not, it requires interpretation of it as it's not written the way the rest of the Bible is, with the exception of Revelation. The Bible is bookended by scriptures that weren't obviously written with literal interpretation in mind.
Misleading to non-believers? How so? If anything it shows non-believers that Christians are no longer people who stick their fingers in their ears and yell "I'm not listening" when they hear something they don't like followed by accusing people of being heretics and burning them at the stake.
A thorn in the side of Christianity...that's an extremely heavy statement, one that very few things are deserving of. Do you honestly believe that because I believe God created the Universe with a Big Bang I'm going to hell? I love Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and according to John 10:28, nothing can snatch me out of his hand. Even if you believe OEC is wrong, even from that perspective, it still should never be viewed as a thorn in Christianity's side. Because doing so is to become part of the actual thorn in Christianity's side: dividing our ranks, turning on each other. As Christ said, a kingdom divided will fall. Becoming so wrapped up in our own affairs, bickering with each other, only serves to give Satan a foothold.

"Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs." - 2 Corinthians 2: 10-11

 

[Enigma'07]

Do you honestly believe that because I believe God created the Universe with a Big Bang I'm going to hell? I love Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and according to John 10:28, nothing can snatch me out of his hand.

You're right, it won't cause to to go to hell, but it does hinder your relationship with God, and your testimony to others.

OEC is not a compromise of the Bible

I believe it is. The geniologies in the Bible map out 6,000 years for the earth. Looking at Genesis 1, the word for day used is yom, which, in the 410 other times used in the Bible, refers to 24 hours. There are other Hebrew terms that mean longer periods of time, but these words are not used. Yom is. Looking at that, I don't see how the earth could be 10,000+ years old, and the Bible be true. One or the other, not both.

A thorn in the side of Christianity

Yes it is. It causes disunity as you mentioned. It also causes confution among non believers. Any person (group of people) that are willing to compromise God in order to fit in with modern beliefs is a thorn.

 

[Underdog77]

But I also find the use of the "N" word offensive even though I am white.

Alright, I've thought about it and if you really find it offensive I promise I won't call you the "N" word.

 

[OneLastBreath]

Enigma, thank you for voicing your opinion however it's still that. Your opinion. You say believing in OEC will hinder my relationship with God, I believe it will help strengthen it. As for the geneologies thing, in the Bible less important people were often left out. While you would never say you are your great-grandfather's son, that's exactly what they did in many of those geneologies. At any rate, as I said everything you said is your opinion. Just as you would reject any proof I would offer towards OEC, to me your statements are simply an opinion. And an opinion on a matter that doesn't matter as far as our faith goes. I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth...you know the rest. As of know, I'm going to stop posting in this thread because this debate has really opened my eyes up to an important fact: it doesn't really matter. It won't make the gavel fall the other way on Judgement Day, so I'm going to spend some time making sure I really understand the important things. If I see ya at the pearly gates I'll be sure to say hi.

God bless.

 

[Ron21647]

To quote Mark Twain, "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you, and it annoys the pig".

In other words, I'm outta here, too.

Ron

 

[Sinai]

As for the Bible: I don't think Jesus' opinion actually makes a great deal of difference. If Jesus was completely human his knowledge of things would be as human as anything else; in otherwords, limited. Anything else seems to me to be a challenge to the incarnation: if Jesus knew everything, he wasn't really human, but only looked human.

The Bible teaches us that Jesus was both divine and human. He was unique in human history--literally God with us.

And please note, note taking the Bible literally at certain points is not disagreeing with it. It's taking serious note of its literary genre and reading it in the light of that.

Which is one reason that option was included in the poll. Thank you for your participation and comments.

 

[Sinai]

But surely the key to all this is putting your faith in God that at least the Gospel writers works didn't get corrupted and thus the geneolgies proove something, and that whoever wrote Genesis was referring to the same literal Noah as Luke did.

The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are quite important, since the Messiah was required to be from the root of Jesse (descended from David) in order to fulfill that portion of messianic prophecy. Matthew's geneology is of Jeses' legal heritage through Joseph [though not Jesus' actual father, Joseph was the legal father], while Luke traces the line through Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from David. Thus, either way, that part of the prophecy was fulfilled.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

To quote Mark Twain, "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you, and it annoys the pig".

In other words, I'm outta here, too.

Ron

Who exactly is this quote applicable to Ron?

Thanks

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are quite important, since the Messiah was required to be from the root of Jesse (descended from David) in order to fulfill that portion of messianic prophecy. Matthew's geneology is of Jeses' legal heritage through Joseph [though not Jesus' actual father, Joseph was the legal father], while Luke traces the line through Mary. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from David. Thus, either way, that part of the prophecy was fulfilled.

Hi Sinai,

I wholeheartedly agree with you, in fact I would go as far as saying the geneologies are important throughout the Bible, they are the spine and they wouldn't have been there if they weren't important.

Your brother In Christ

 

[Ron21647]

Who exactly is this quote applicable to Ron?

Thanks

well, it was not directed at you. And I hope no one got the idea that I was calling them a pig. In the original quote, Mark twain was not doing that either, he was just pointing out that arguing with some people is pointless. Nobody's mind is going to be changed.

I've been told a few many times that I am a detriment to all Christians because of my beliefs, which I feel are resonable and widely held beliefs. And this is from people who refuse to acknowledge the science behind these views. they are putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "lalalala".

If you need more detail, go back through the last two or three days in this thread and see who has quoted me and what they said about it. We aren't discussing the issues any more, it has deteriorated from that.

Ron

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for clearing this up. I did notice some unsavoury remarks so I don't blame ya.

In Christ

 

[El Guapo]

To quote Mark Twain, "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you, and it annoys the pig".

In other words, I'm outta here, too.

Ron

Hey! What about me?! I still got some unanswered questions/invitations for information on 2 or 3 other threads in this forum? They were, technically, directed to specific people I was conversing w/ at the time, but they're open to all. I love everybody!

And now for something completely different...

Priest smiley! (Does anyone ever use this and if so, why?)