How would you prove the Universe is old?

[AV1611VET]

I've asked you before. Why don't you sell all your fancy electronics brought to you via "discredited" science, give the money to charity and find a cave on a deserted island somewhere? There you will be free from the temptation to use "discredited" science every single day of your life like you do now...

Aim for earth, get earth; aim for Heaven, get both.

 

[Sanguis]

Aim for earth, get earth; aim for Heaven, get both.

Alternatively. Aim for Earth, get Earth; aim for Heaven, get laughed at.

 

[AV1611VET]

Alternatively. Aim for Earth, get Earth; aim for Heaven, get laughed at.

That's about right.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

[Sanguis]

That's about right.

So?

They anticipated that in 2000 years people would realise how absurd they were.

 

[AV1611VET]

So?

They anticipated how absurd they were.

Warned.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

 

[Sanguis]

There's a difference between being hated and being laughed at.

Though, it doesn't surprise me that you find it difficult to discern the two.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Warned.

Re: LK 21:17

Argumentum ad martydom.

 

[Cabal]

Aim for earth, get earth; aim for Heaven, get both.

Greed, in other words.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a difference between being hated and being laughed at.

I'd say hate can manifest itself in more ways than one.

Besides --- the Bible says it, that settles it.

So you can deny it all you want, and I don't blame you; but I have a feeling the only ones you are going to convince are the ones who don't know their Bibles.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I will do if it will accept it.

Nope can't seem to do it. I have them on hard drive in pdf format and I can't get them into a PM or email by copy and pasting.

If you PM me your email address I will send you his three most recent papers. The basics are easy enough to understand, some of the statistical nitty gritty is beyond me, he is a brighter man than me my dad

They are persuasive papers because they are scientifically and mathematically rigourous in a way that the science he is debunking isn't. Statistical analysis show claims for orbital forcing being present in the stratigraphy to complete hokum .

Will do, and thank you very much. I do believe that some of the discrepancies can be explained. I hope I will understand your father's papers as I never was good at statistics, though I have used them!

Mike.

 

[MoonLancer]

I'd say hate can manifest itself in more ways than one.

Besides --- the Bible says it, that settles it.

So you can deny it all you want, and I don't blame you; but I have a feeling the only ones you are going to convince are the ones who don't know their Bibles.

knowing the bible and believing the bible are very different things. Consequently there are all four combinations. Those that believe the bible and know the bible, Those that believe the bible and don't know the bible, those that don't believe the bible and know the bible and those that don't believe the bible and don't know the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

knowing the bible and believing the bible are very diffract things. Consequently there are all four combination. Those that believe the bible and know the bible, Those that believe the bible and don't know the bible, those that don't believe the bible and know the bible and those that don't believe the bible and don't know the bible.

I agree --- and I think this post would look good in a Johari Window format.

 

[Sanguis]

I'd say hate can manifest itself in more ways than one.

Besides --- the Bible says it, that settles it.

So you can deny it all you want, and I don't blame you; but I have a feeling the only ones you are going to convince are the ones who don't know their Bibles.

So, when a mate falls over, and I laugh at them, it actually means I hate them?

Yes.

More Av logic.

Laughing at = Hate. Clearly.

 

[BananaSlug]

I'd say hate can manifest itself in more ways than one.

Besides --- the Bible says it, that settles it.

So you can deny it all you want, and I don't blame you; but I have a feeling the only ones you are going to convince are the ones who don't know their Bibles.

So, I remember asking this once before and you ignored it.

What do you think of Christians who say their interpretation of Genesis as allegorical is inspired by God? To them the Bible says one thing, to you it says another. If both claim they are inspired by God, which one is right?

 

[Ursie]

So, I remember asking this once before and you ignored it.

What do you think of Christians who say their interpretation of Genesis as allegorical is inspired by God? To them the Bible says one thing, to you it says another. If both claim they are inspired by God, which one is right?

Someones interpretation is wrong. I think the Bible is pretty clear, if you use Scripture to interpret what Scripture means, it can't be allegorical. Besides, what does 'And the evening and the morning were the first day' mean if not a literal 24 hour day. Trying to call that allegorical to me seems like simply trying to make it fit into the evolutionary theory. It seems to me that the author of the bible was doing something rather specific to refute the idea of old earth by using this language. While Moses may not have anticipated the debate over Creationism vs. Evolution, God, the One who inspired the Bible certainly did.

 

[Split Rock]

Someones interpretation is wrong. I think the Bible is pretty clear, if you use Scripture to interpret what Scripture means, it can't be allegorical. Besides, what does 'And the evening and the morning were the first day' mean if not a literal 24 hour day. Trying to call that allegorical to me seems like simply trying to make it fit into the evolutionary theory. It seems to me that the author of the bible was doing something rather specific to refute the idea of old earth by using this language. While Moses may not have anticipated the debate over Creationism vs. Evolution, God, the One who inspired the Bible certainly did.

Actually, I suspect the authors (plural) of Genesis would be apalled at how their work is being interpreted by Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals today. Yes, I agree that 'And the evening and the morning were the first day' were intended to portray 24 hour periods. That was the point. To establish a six day work week and a day of rest (or Sabbath). Genesis is full of allegories; like the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil," (trees don't give knowledge) or Eve being made from a rib from Adam (therefore a man is not complete without a woman) are all obvious allegories. None of the writers knew anything about the age of the earth... how could they? That is why there is no clear inference as to the age of the earth in Genesis.

 

[Cabal]

Someones interpretation is wrong. I think the Bible is pretty clear, if you use Scripture to interpret what Scripture means, it can't be allegorical. Besides, what does 'And the evening and the morning were the first day' mean if not a literal 24 hour day.

What does the following verse say about that literalism:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8.

Trying to call that allegorical to me seems like simply trying to make it fit into the evolutionary theory.

Not necessarily that - one can show that the Earth is older than the Bible claims without having to resort to evolution.

It seems to me that the author of the bible was doing something rather specific to refute the idea of old earth by using this language. While Moses may not have anticipated the debate over Creationism vs. Evolution, God, the One who inspired the Bible certainly did.

And why would it matter whether the Earth was old or young, or whatever? Why if God meant for it to be taken literally would there be reams of solid evidence that we and the earth, and the universe are much older than any literal interpretation of the Bible implies? Surely the presence of so much evidence to the contrary means it is better to take Genesis as an allegory.

You definitely give evolution too much credit. Maybe the point of the passage is simply to tell us that God created. Maybe concluding that it also described his exact method is also reading too much into the passage.

ETA: Apart from anything else, the JEWS don't take it literally. When you're trying to tell the actual writer of something that you're doing it wrong, maybe it's time to stop and take a look at your own opinions.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you think of Christians who say their interpretation of Genesis as allegorical is inspired by God?

No comment.

To them the Bible says one thing, to you it says another. If both claim they are inspired by God, which one is right?

We both are --- we're both saying the same thing: Genesis 1 was inspired by God.

Inspiration has to do with the words, not the interpretation of the words.

I like what the Jews say about their Torah, although I'm not sure I believe it or not:

God not only inspired every word, but He inspired the spacing between the words as well.

 

[laconicstudent]

Fine, lets run with this.

Someones interpretation is wrong. I think the Bible is pretty clear, if you use Scripture to interpret what Scripture means, it can't be allegorical.

And then, we look at reality and it is blindingly obvious that this literal account is incorrect. Then we apostatize. Good job, Ursie, you may have just found the reason so many young adults leave the Church. Because when you make YEC necessary in your faith, you will lose it when you come into contact with this thing called "Reality".

Besides, what does 'And the evening and the morning were the first day' mean if not a literal 24 hour day.

An allegorical day obviously.

Trying to call that allegorical to me seems like simply trying to make it fit into the evolutionary theory.

Its actually an attempt to explain how Christianity could be true in light of the real world.

It seems to me that the author of the bible was doing something rather specific to refute the idea of old earth by using this language.

Things are proven or refuted on the basis of proof, not claims. We can see that your claims that Genesis is literal is clearly false.

While Moses may not have anticipated the debate over Creationism vs. Evolution, God, the One who inspired the Bible certainly did.

Maybe He should have been less confusing then, shouldn't he? You laymen have a hard time with it.

Unfortunately, YEC only has 2 options.

1. We are flat out wrong, and since we must, by fiat, interpret Genesis literally, the whole thing is false. We should apostatize immediately. Unacceptable.

2. Our God is pathologically dishonest. Unacceptable.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Someones interpretation is wrong. I think the Bible is pretty clear, if you use Scripture to interpret what Scripture means, it can't be allegorical. Besides, what does 'And the evening and the morning were the first day' mean if not a literal 24 hour day. Trying to call that allegorical to me seems like simply trying to make it fit into the evolutionary theory.

There is a third option: that the author of Genesis didn't know the first thing about how the earth got here.

I think creation myths are always fascinating because they give an insight into the mind of the society writing them. As such they may not have been allegorical to the writer but wind up being beautiful allegories of human nature.

If one believes in God could He not work through that medium? If God creates something He could allow it to write its own history and ultimately reveal more about the creation's view of itself than anything else.

Just hypothesizing here.

Now in the case of some creation stories I suspect the authors may have seen allegory as an integral part and built it into the story.

I don't know. But apparently Genesis is so far removed from the vast amounts of evidence of what we know about earth history that I must assume that either the authors didn't know anything about how the earth got here or they built an allegorical story to explain humanity to the best of their ability.

It seems to me that the author of the bible was doing something rather specific to refute the idea of old earth by using this language.

If that is the case then they appear to have made a mistake.

While Moses may not have anticipated the debate over Creationism vs. Evolution, God, the One who inspired the Bible certainly did.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I wonder why such a God would have made the earth appear, through literal mountains of evidence, to be a very old place indeed. Why God would provide so much evidence for evolution and for "deep time" and for an old earth and have it all be so disastrously not any of those things.

Oh but there's one tiny bit of evidence that speaks against these things: The Bible. A book written by unknown hands at an unknown time. If God foresaw the eventual outcome why is there only one bit of "evidence" for what is real while the rest of the world screams out some "falsehood"?