If the Bible is true science MUST get the age wrong.

[perplexed]

This simple fact totally discredits creation science.

 

[Grengor]

Oxymoron comes to mind.

 

[USincognito]

Is this thread supposed to be going somewhere? 'Cause I'm missing the point.

At least elaborate more than a one liner in support of your premise stated in the thread topic.

 

[variant]

. Nevermind I misread the origional post

 

[rjw]

This simple fact totally discredits creation science.

Hi Perplexed,

I note that you are a “seeker”.

One liners are not conducive to good discussion.

I do not mean to be awkward, but what to you mean by “true” in the context of the Bible?

Do you mean “true” with respect to Gen 1? Do you mean true in every word in every book? Do you mean “true” with respect to how the original authors meant their words? Do you mean “true” with respect to how you interpret their words?

Can you explain more please?



Regards, Roland

 

[Jet Black]

This simple fact totally discredits creation science.

remember that the creation scientists claim that science only gets old ages because it is making naturalistic assumptions, and that we don't take into account miracles and things. But basically yes, the cration scintists are making the basic claim that pretty much all of science is wrong.

 

[perplexed]

What is an example of a creation scientist taking a miracle into account?

If the Bible including genesis is literially true there were many miracles and man, the earth, the sun etc were created fully formed. If you just use physical observations and rule out miracles you could not possibly get the correct age. If you used science you would get a false "apparent age" of more than 10,000 years. Creation science claims you can use science to directly and 10,000 year old universe is reasonable based on observations.

 

[Jet Black]

What is an example of a creation scientist taking a miracle into account?

well the creation itself is miraculous.

If the Bible including genesis is literially true there were many miracles and man, the earth, the sun etc were created fully formed. If you just use physical observations and rule out miracles you could not possibly get the correct age.

absolutely. but then they claim that this is an incorrect approach to determining the age of the universe anyway.

If you used science you would get a false "apparent age" of more than 10,000 years.

generally yes. but bear in mind that they are coming at it from the mindset that at least one application of science should be able to show the universe is ca 10kya, and what they are trying to do is find that one solution. For example the attempt to find a solution to the equations of general relativity which gives an old universe and a young earth. Then there are attempts such as the hydroplate model to create all the geological strate that we see in the space of a year.

Creation science claims you can use science to directly and 10,000 year old universe is reasonable based on observations.

yeap. The scientists let the evidence tell them how old the universe is, and the creationists have their conclusion, and try to shoehorn the science to fit it.

 

[perplexed]

but bear in mind that they are coming at it from the mindset that at least one application of science should be able to show the universe is ca 10kya, and what they are trying to do is find that one solution. For example the attempt to find a solution to the equations of general relativity which gives an old universe and a young earth. Then there are attempts such as the hydroplate model to create all the geological strate that we see in the space of a year.

Why assume that miracles don't muck up general relativity and the hydroplate model? Why should at least one application of science be able to show the universe is 10,000 years old?

 

[Jet Black]

Why assume that miracles don't muck up general relativity and the hydroplate model?

as you pointed out they are trying to say that one should be able to develop a scientific model based on the facts of the universe that show the universe is young. The streange thing is, that even though they are trying to produce a scientific model, they consistently require miracles to do things differently, for example altering decay rates through miraculous means and so on.

Why should at least one application of science be able to show the universe is 10,000 years old?

It shouldn't, but they think it should. Remember, they have the conclusion that the universe is 10kya and that God is not a trickster. so it must be the case from their perspective that the features that we see are due to physical processes, and that one should be able to determine the age of the universe as about 10,000 years, just through looking at the evidence.

 

[Lucretius]

I don't really get how people can take the Bible literally…

I just read some 600 paged book on all of Christian theological history…

Some very important Church fathers, like Saint Augustine for instance, stated the Bible should not be interpreted literally. The Protestants (who seem to make up the majority of the fundamentalist movement) want a literal intepretation of something that has been tweaked for centuries by Catholic Doctors of the Church.

I mean, heck, the New Testament wasn't even composed into a full set of works until the 4rd Century — when the catholic-orthodox Church was determining what was "good" and what wasn't…

 

[USincognito]

...when the catholic-orthodox Church was determining what was "good" and what wasn't…

You mean the (since the Great Schism) Catholic and Orthodox Churches who while they decry "atheistic materialism" have no problem with the science leading where the scientific discoveries lead and at the same time promoting the truths of both Genesis and the Gospels?

It's fallen several pages back now, but recently PS139 posted a thread where he quoted a theologian priest - and his (the theologians) comments pretty succinctly summed up why Christians shouldn't have a problem being associated with atheists and other non-Christians on this issue. Their goal is to spread the Gospel and to be the Salt and the Light - not to compress 4+billion years of geology into a year long Noachian flood.

 

[dad]

...yeap. The scientists let the evidence tell them how old the universe is, and the creationists have their conclusion, and try to shoehorn the science to fit it.

No evidence says a thing about okd ages, ONLY their preferred interpretations, and underlying assumptions do that, not the evidence, which is open! If the universe was different then, all bets are off for dating, pure and simple, and no one can say it wasn't, while the bible indicates it was.

 

[dad]

....
Some very important Church fathers, like Saint Augustine for instance, stated the Bible should not be interpreted literally. …

Catholics didn't cozy up to evolution till recently. I don't take the bible literally. I don't. for example think Jesus was a vine, or a door, in a literal sense. But there are things the bible obviously pushes as true, like the flood, garden, etc. There is a difference, and some wisdom needed. To disbelieve it's essence should not be cloaked in other garments of light.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

derpa derpa derpa... rob schneider is THE CARROT

good point...

 

[Lucretius]

Catholics didn't cozy up to evolution till recently. I don't take the bible literally. I don't. for example think Jesus was a vine, or a door, in a literal sense. But there are things the bible obviously pushes as true, like the flood, garden, etc. There is a difference, and some wisdom needed. To disbelieve it's essence should not be cloaked in other garments of light.

You are free to interpret the book in any way you please, I wonder though —*what is the deciding factor that makes something in the Bible a literal truth, or an allegorical one?

You mean the (since the Great Schism) Catholic and Orthodox Churches who while they decry "atheistic materialism" have no problem with the science leading where the scientific discoveries lead and at the same time promoting the truths of both Genesis and the Gospels?

It's fallen several pages back now, but recently PS139 posted a thread where he quoted a theologian priest - and his (the theologians) comments pretty succinctly summed up why Christians shouldn't have a problem being associated with atheists and other non-Christians on this issue. Their goal is to spread the Gospel and to be the Salt and the Light - not to compress 4+billion years of geology into a year long Noachian flood.

Well, this literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter arose as a sort of counter-movement to that of liberal theology in the late 19th Century. The fundamentalists were just defending what they believed to be the literal word of God against the allegorical interpretation of liberal scholars. Fundamentalism went down hill after the Scopes Monkey Trial (the fundamentalists focused too much on anti-evolution and premillenialism, which has to do with Christs reign on Earth sometime in the future) but now they are on the surge again.

I just was making a point that the Protestants, whose movement was influenced by many Catholic and Orthodox peoples, who wanted to let every believer read the Bible, seem to forget that it was the unified Church in the early C.E.'s that pasted together the New Testament (though obviously Genesis is not here) as well as argued and formed the foundation of the trinitarian and soteriological dogmas that the Protestants later tweaked to fit their needs.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

interpretation and presuppositions

 

[funyun]

No evidence says a thing about okd ages, ONLY their preferred interpretations, and underlying assumptions do that, not the evidence, which is open! If the universe was different then, all bets are off for dating, pure and simple, and no one can say it wasn't, while the bible indicates it was.

Let's make a deal. You show some evidence for the underlined part, and I'll take you seriously for once.

 

[dad]

You are free to interpret the book in any way you please, I wonder though —*what is the deciding factor that makes something in the Bible a literal truth, or an allegorical one?

If it seems that it need be taken literally or not, and if it fits with the rest of the document.

Well, this literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter arose as a sort of counter-movement to that of liberal theology in the late 19th Century. The fundamentalists were just defending what they believed to be the literal word of God against the allegorical interpretation of liberal scholars.

Jesus refered to the time of the garden, and the flood. So it was settled long before the 19th century.

Fundamentalism went down hill after the Scopes Monkey Trial (the fundamentalists focused too much on anti-evolution and premillenialism, which has to do with Christs reign on Earth sometime in the future) but now they are on the surge again.

That was about as valid as a communist show trial. The freemason star of the show, who was to give his rebuttal, or comeback a while after the trial, strangely dide before he ever got the chance. It was supposededly natural, but I have a suspicious mind.

I just was making a point that the Protestants, whose movement was influenced by many Catholic and Orthodox peoples, who wanted to let every believer read the Bible, seem to forget that it was the unified Church in the early C.E.'s that pasted together the New Testament (though obviously Genesis is not here) as well as argued and formed the foundation of the trinitarian and soteriological dogmas that the Protestants later tweaked to fit their needs.

I make no difference in Cats or Prots. They were Christians. Just as today, despite the state they got into.

 

[dad]

Let's make a deal. You show some evidence for the underlined part, and I'll take you seriously for once.

You show me it was the same. The bible tells us it was different back then in a lot of key ways. We cannot assume it to be the same, with any support whatsoever except belief.