How old is the universe?

[Sinai]

Arty, if you disregard what the Bible says or use a symbolic interpretation then where do you draw the line? I mean when God says something and means another thing then eventually you could come to the conclusion that it's all symbolic.

Also, what is the point in preaching to Christians that the age of the earth contradicts what the Bible says? We shouldn't be at all bothered with the age of the earth in all honesty, I am because I think these sorts of "theories" are what drives some good people away from God and those are the ones I try to dialog with, even though I'm still learning like all of us.

Buzz, you might note that of the ten options listed in the poll, only the first one says the person answering the poll disbelieves the biblical account of creation.

And only that first response and the three YEC options indicate a belief that modern mainstream scientific evidence contradicts what the Bible says.

 

[Underdog77]

No - but I'm a research physicist with 20 + years of scientific investigation

Whoopdy do Although you may have more experience than me and probably more knowledge, most things that I give don't really need 'experience', just a little data and logic.

and you are a 17 year old kid parroting Kent Hovind or some other person who deliberatlely lies on this issue.

First of all, I'm still trying to find out what the whole deal is with Hovind. Secondly, I don't just play off these guys. I see what they say, research it own my own, and then come to my own conclusions.

Why not check the geological/paleontological journals yourself and look at the dates they get.

Whose journals? Your resources or mine? If its yours then I would ask how did they get these dates? Did someone (like God) write it down so the scientists could know or did they various tests?

 

[Underdog77]

The same is true of dating methods. If the hypothesis says that the earth is 6000 years old, but the dating method says 4.5 billion years old, until new evidence arrives to correct that date, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Radiometric dating involves making several assumptions. These assumptions can be twisted to come out with a date that you want. I believe it was Uranium-Lead testing that, with various combonations of assumptions, gave the age of the earth anywhere from 1.4 billion (I believe that's the right number) to 7000 years.

This proves nothing for either arguement and just goes to show how subjective dating methods are.

I'm afraid that what a very strange and outmoded interpretation of the Bible says is the age means diddly squat to the evidence.

Did everyone hear that correct? Artybloke is willing to subject the Bible to criticism rather than another religious belief that is 'supported' by fallible, subjective 'scientific' tests. That is what I consider "blind faith".

 

[Underdog77]

If the creation story is symbolic or whatever, is the flood story do you think?

Better watch it friend, there ARE some in here who do believe this, I am not one of them.

 

[Underdog77]

Make that a small minority of the total number of Christians worldwide. Where I come from, I don't anyone who is a creationist.

Why do people think the 'minority' thing is worth anything? If in fact it is true (which I don't know but would seriously doubt because a) I doubt you are anyone has polled all of the Christians today and therefore cannot truly say that and b) although I'm not sure of this it is some logical speculatian, those Christians who live in third world countries and other areas who probably have not been infected by 'science' read the Bible and come to the YEC conclusion)
it does not mean a single thing really. In Turkey (which I might be going to as a short-term missionary) Christians are the majority. Oh wait, no they're not. They are the MINORITY!

Being a minority does not necessarily mean you are wrong. Think of all the times scientific theories ahve been in the minority and have been right. So don't anyone dismiss creationism or YEC just because people claim we are the minority

 

[Underdog77]

I still find your signature offensive....

Ron

Can't please everyone. I'm sure there are at least a few million who would consider your's offensive. I just consider it illogical but that's my view.

 

[Underdog77]

I'm sure some have but probably at the 0.001% level as opposed to the Creationist 75% level.

Riiiigggghhhhtttt....

By the way, what reason do academic scientists have to do this. Their personal salary is not coming by the the route of donations whereas the Creationists like ICR and AIG are funded directly by donations from the people they are conning.

And its different because...? Lying is lying no matter the circumstances.

 

[herev]

It seems that we do not need to worry about Satan tearing the church down, we'll go at each other without even needing him to show up--do we all agree that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our redemption? If so, let's be nice and we can laugh over who was right (if anyone) on this one when we all get to heaven. I'm amazed at how apparently good Christian men and women will tear into each other if someone threatens their sacred cow. WEll, I was always told that sacred cows make good hamburgers, but perhaps we should start a thread to that effect--in fact, I think I will.
Tommy

 

[artybloke]

Hi Arty,

When Jesus talked about the flood, it seemed like he was talking as if it actually happened, so it seems to me, but obviously not to you, which I find hard to understand. What else do you think didn't happen in the Bible?

Do you think other scientists are completely non-biased? I doubt it myself, I remember a report of a finding of a dinosaur limb that had red blood cells but the story seems to have been brushed under the carpet.

Have you ever considered that what the Bible says involving Genesis is spot on and so too is evolution? Apart from the bit when we evolved from a common ancestor to the ape. Can you give me some evidence that the vast amount of Christians think that Darwin was right and Genesis is wrong?

With regard to the "bias" of scientists (I don't consider YEC's to be scientists, by the way) what safeguards research is the system of peer review (including by people who disagree with your conclusions) and testing. All legitimate research has to be checked out by the scientist's peers before it can be published in a respectable scientific journal, and all research has to be capable of being repeated. That is, if you go through exactly the same proceedures as the original scientist went through, you will get the same results, if the original research was done correctly. If you get different results, then the original research is considered flawed, and the scientist has to go back to the drawing-board. This is actually academic practice across the globe for all scientists.

YEC's however never submit their research for peer review and testing, probably because they know that their results won't hold water.

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. Arianism, in other words. Anyway, he only used the flood story as an illustration; he made no statement as to its historicity. If I say two people in love are like Romeo and Juliet, do I have to believe in a literal Romeo and Juliet, ot can I just be using a literary allusion? This is what Jesus was doing: refering to a story his hearers knew as an illustration of what he meant.

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. I don't take the parables as historical events; and I don't take ancient near-eastern poetry and fable as history either. Which is what the creation and flood stories are.

I've heard about the dinosaur blood too, by the way. I suspect that later research modified the original conclusions; this is what happens in science. It entirely depends on the evidence, so the more information we have the better the ensuing theory. Also, you have to remember that popular science magazines are often not peer-reviewed and sometimes their journalistic instincts override their scientific ones. Sometimes there are big splashy headlines about the discovery of this or that, or the solving of this problem or that, that on closer inspection prove to be rather more complicated than it first appeared.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Artybloke - I think it's more like Docetism, rather than Arianism.

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/mark10.htm

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Buzz, you might note that of the ten options listed in the poll, only the first one says the person answering the poll disbelieves the biblical account of creation.

And only that first response and the three YEC options indicate a belief that modern mainstream scientific evidence contradicts what the Bible says.

Hi Sinai,

Thanks for clarifying the point.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Hi

With regard to the "bias" of scientists (I don't consider YEC's to be scientists, by the way) what safeguards research is the system of peer review (including by people who disagree with your conclusions) and testing. All legitimate research has to be checked out by the scientist's peers before it can be published in a respectable scientific journal, and all research has to be capable of being repeated. That is, if you go through exactly the same proceedures as the original scientist went through, you will get the same results, if the original research was done correctly. If you get different results, then the original research is considered flawed, and the scientist has to go back to the drawing-board. This is actually academic practice across the globe for all scientists.

There is a chance that the tools used to arrive to these results are flawed but can still consistantly arrive at the same results, doesn't mean the result is correct. It wouldn't be the fault of the scientist though that's why they cover themselves by calling their results concerning this topic "theories". I'm sure scientists are just doing their jobs.

YEC's however never submit their research for peer review and testing, probably because they know that their results won't hold water.

This is probably due to them relying on their logic based on the Bible, and science has no faith in the word of God.

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. Arianism, in other words. Anyway, he only used the flood story as an illustration; he made no statement as to its historicity. If I say two people in love are like Romeo and Juliet, do I have to believe in a literal Romeo and Juliet, ot can I just be using a literary allusion? This is what Jesus was doing: refering to a story his hearers knew as an illustration of what he meant.

Jesus was a perfect human being, like Adam before the fall. His wisdom was divine and I'm pretty sure that everything he said has significant meaning. Jesus didn't use the flood story as an illustration, he used it to campare it to the end times, now why would he use an event that didn't really happen to an event that will happen, or will it? It is like using an empty threat. The logic I have for the flood story happening is simple:

Luke wrote the geneology of Jesus back to Noah/Noe and even as far back as Adam, so this to me confirms that Noah existed, unless Luke was wrong.

Why would Moses write a fictious story about a man that did exist? It would be lying, which I'm certain Moses wouldn't have done, therefore the flood did take place, I think.

So was Moses or/and Luke lying in your opinion?

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. I don't take the parables as historical events; and I don't take ancient near-eastern poetry and fable as history either. Which is what the creation and flood stories are.

Jesus parables were obvious parables as he said before he said them, "let me tell you a story/parable"

I've heard about the dinosaur blood too, by the way. I suspect that later research modified the original conclusions; this is what happens in science. It entirely depends on the evidence, so the more information we have the better the ensuing theory. Also, you have to remember that popular science magazines are often not peer-reviewed and sometimes their journalistic instincts override their scientific ones. Sometimes there are big splashy headlines about the discovery of this or that, or the solving of this problem or that, that on closer inspection prove to be rather more complicated than it first appeared.

Yes, I mentioned that this area of discussion has little value due to the lack of bones/fossils found.

Thanks

 

[Ron21647]

Can't please everyone. I'm sure there are at least a few million who would consider your's offensive. I just consider it illogical but that's my view.

stating your own belief is a lot different from running down someone elses. I am not OEC, I am TE. But I also find the use of the "N" word offensive even though I am white.

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

Ron

 

[artybloke]

Jesus was a perfect human being

And like Adam he had a human brain. With a limited capacity, entirely dependent on the world and culture around him. Anyway, he was a mythical creature.

His wisdom was divine

Contradicts his humanity. He can't be both human and know everything. Remember that Christ emptied himself of all his divinity in order to be a fully functioning human being. For him to know everything means he had an unfair advantage on the cross, and that negates the power of the cross, certainly in terms of redeeming the human mind (What is not assumed is not redeemed.) If he had a human body and a divine mind, he wasn't fully incarnated: the incarnation is not about a half-human, half-divine creature like Achilles, but a full human being who was also fully the Son of God.

This is probably due to them relying on their logic based on the Bible, and science has no faith in the word of God.

Logic is a very bad basis for science. Logic always depends on your starting point. Science always starts with evidence. If there is no evidence there is no theory.

Why would Moses write a fictious story about a man that did exist? It would be lying, which I'm certain Moses wouldn't have done, therefore the flood did take place, I think.

Why? Was Shakespeare lying when he wrote Romeo & Juliet? Was Dickens lying when he wrote A Tale of Two Cities? Your logic is rationalistic: as I've said before, you make the basic mistake that truth=fact. That means that all imaginative writing - and, logically following on from this - including the parables of Jesus - has to be factual or it isn't true. The writers of the Penteteuch (not Moses, as he didn't write down a thing) were no more lying than any other storyteller in the world. You insult all novelists, poets (including me), playwrights, filmmakers, artists by saying that somebody who invents is a liar. Storytelling is one of the basic signs of being human - all human beings everywhere tell stories to one another to bring meaning to their lives and to chase away the shadows. I feel personally insulted as an imaginative writer myself that you think that the use of the imagination is a lie. In fact, fiction that doesn't tell the truth isn't worth the paper it's printed on - but it's just a different way of telling the truth.

Jesus didn't use the flood story as an illustration, he used it to campare it to the end times, now why would he use an event that didn't really happen to an event that will happen, or will it?

Being as I'm a preterite who thinks the end-times are a myth invented to frighten people into believing, I don't think so. Besides which, if I say that Arnold Schwarzeneggar has a Herculean physique, am I not comparing a real person with a mythical one? (Mind you, which is the real one ?)

Jesus parables were obvious parables as he said before he said them, "let me tell you a story/parable"

And it's pretty obvious to me that a piece of writing using symbolic language, refrains, numerology, talking animals and even symbolic names (Adam means "hearth", for instance) is not meant to be literal. God - who is Spirit - is said to walk around his garden for all the world like some ancient lord of the manor, and doesn't seem to know that his creation has sinned till he meets them. That has all the hallmarks of a fable to me - I can't believe that the writers and compilers of Genesis were so simple-minded as to think of God in that way, but they knew how to tell a good story.

It seems to me, and it's seemed to me for a long time, that a fundamentalist reading of scripture is basically anti-spiritual. It makes the rationalist - indeed Comptean - assumption that truth is only truth if it's based on some "fact" or "scientific" basis. This, to me, has already given away the basis of faith: because our faith is based on things unseen, on hope, on the love of God in Christ, not on a set of disprovable facts. Not that there are no facts in Christianity - Christ has to have existed - but none of us can even prove, using scientific method alone, that God exists, or indeed doesn't exist - and the whole of Christian doctrine is undisprovable that way - that's why it's faith, not knowledge. We take a leap of faith into the unknown when we choose to follow Christ - the everlasting arms may be there or they may not be.

Fundamentalism, however, tries to be certain about things which can never be certain. It tries to shore up faith by appealing to so-called "facts." The problem is that those facts have already proved to be built on sand. There is no support for creationism; it was a disproved hypothesis 100 years ago and it still is. The evidence - which, let's remember, is the signs of his handiwork that God has left in the universe - says that the earth is very old, that evolution happened and is still happening. If you say that the facts are wrong and the literalist interpretation is right, then you make God a liar, because it is God who made the world that looks old. If you say that the Bible contains a mixture of genres including fiction, then you read the Bible for what it was always meant to be - an anthology of spiritual truth, not a science book.

 

[Ron21647]

Hi

There is a chance that the tools used to arrive to these results are flawed but can still consistantly arrive at the same results, doesn't mean the result is correct. It wouldn't be the fault of the scientist though that's why they cover themselves by calling their results concerning this topic "theories". I'm sure scientists are just doing their jobs.

<snip>
Thanks

Theories, as used by scientists, does not mean this. regardless of the dictionary definition. If you go to any science textbook, even one used in junior high school, the first chapter will cover scintific method and theory.

Most people seem to use the word as in the old tv show, "Columbo". But when Lt Columbo would say "I have a theory about this", what he really meant was "hypothesis". It didn't become a theory until it was proved at the end of the show. Up until that point, it could have been wrong, and sometimes was, his first suspect in the show did not always turn out to be guilty. Once it was proved, then it was a theory. A theory is still never 100% proven and correct, new evidence might come to light which frees a convicted criminal. But it is the best explanation for the existing evidence.

Ron

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Hi Arty,

Apologies for seemingly insulting everybody whoever wrote anything in history, including you, but I simply did not intend to.

Based on the information you have just divulged including the end times comment being used as a scaring tactic, I don't think we'll ever agree on anything regarding this subject while we're on earth.

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.

But maybe we can just agree to disagree.

Thanks for chatting.

In Christ

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Most people seem to use the word as in the old tv show, "Columbo". But when Lt Columbo would say "I have a theory about this", what he really meant was "hypothesis". It didn't become a theory until it was proved at the end of the show. Up until that point, it could have been wrong, and sometimes was, his first suspect in the show did not always turn out to be guilty. Once it was proved, then it was a theory. A theory is still never 100% proven and correct, new evidence might come to light which frees a convicted criminal. But it is the best explanation for the existing evidence.

Ron

Hi Ron,

Thanks for this. A scientific theory may be more heavily scrutinized then say a Columbo style theory, but it still remains a theory at the end of the day.

 

[artybloke]

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

Well, they do prove something. Just not that it's factual. Again, the suggestion seems to be that using a fictional or imaginative element is "corrupted": that isn't the case at all. What the writers were doing (using a common technique of the time) was connecting Christ by association to the Royal line of David, because that was the most important line from which the Messiah was said to come. There would have been no way of checking its historicity, and nobody would have bothered to check it, because it was the symbolic meaning that was important - and the fact that Christ was, like everyone else, (that, in otherwords, he was "like us in all things" except sin) a "child of Adam" was also important to establish to make his redemption possible.

Again, the truth of it is symbolic, not factual. In ancient times, before science came on the scene, they didn't make that distinction. All truth was symbolic.

 

[artybloke]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for this. A scientific theory may be more heavily scrutinized then say a Columbo style theory, but it still remains a theory at the end of the day.

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.

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.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Well, they do prove something. Just not that it's factual. Again, the suggestion seems to be that using a fictional or imaginative element is "corrupted": that isn't the case at all. What the writers were doing (using a common technique of the time) was connecting Christ by association to the Royal line of David, because that was the most important line from which the Messiah was said to come. There would have been no way of checking its historicity, and nobody would have bothered to check it, because it was the symbolic meaning that was important - and the fact that Christ was, like everyone else, (that, in otherwords, he was "like us in all things" except sin) a "child of Adam" was also important to establish to make his redemption possible.

Again, the truth of it is symbolic, not factual. In ancient times, before science came on the scene, they didn't make that distinction. All truth was symbolic.

Hi Arty,

I respect your knowledge regarding the setting of the writing of the Gospels.

The simple question is, who are all these people between Jesus and King David, if they are all ficticious(as I assume you think) then why bother going into any detail? It is my understanding that the Jews in Jesus' time were excellent record keepers, and I really believe that Luke researched this area before he wrote it. But it is all about faith I suppose.

I think we may be going of topic here

Thanks