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

[funyun]

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.

You are the one making the claim it was not the same, therefore the burden of proof is on you. All evidence shows that physical constants remain the same, and Occam's Razor gives us the most reasonable methodological framework in this kind of situation. It takes more baseless assumptions to say what you're saying than it does to say what I'm saying.

 

[dad]

You are the one making the claim it was not the same,

Well, you are the one who claimed it was first of all, and built a pile of assumptions on top of that house of cards, don't blame me they all fall down. Like Humpty Dumpty! And no one will ever be able to put old ageism together again.

therefore the burden of proof is on you. All evidence shows that physical constants remain the same,

Not in the far past, though, and that's the kicker.

and Occam's Razor gives us the most reasonable methodological framework in this kind of situation.

The monk's with me.

It takes more baseless assumptions to say what you're saying than it does to say what I'm saying.

No, the bible is not baseless, it's foundation stones are set with blood, and it's power switch is flipped on a million times a day all over the world, and gets results. Only your claim is baseless.

 

[perplexed]

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.

I don't have a problem with someone saying this as long as you realise other people should not be convinced by the statement the universe was different just on your say so.
My point is that some people say the Bible was true so the universe was different as well as saying you can still find a dating method to get the age of the earth quoted by the Bible.

 

[dad]

I don't have a problem with someone saying this as long as you realise other people should not be convinced by the statement the universe was different just on your say so.

Any more than saying it was the same, on their say so.

My point is that some people say the Bible was true so the universe was different as well as saying you can still find a dating method to get the age of the earth quoted by the Bible.

I have no problem with any dating method as long as we realize that the world was not the same back then and there was no decay universally. No long ages of decaying ever happened, or can be evidenced, in other words. Nothing exists, therefore that could oppose the dates of the bible.

 

[perplexed]

Any more than saying it was the same, on their say so.

The statement the "universe was always the same" is indeed unprovable.
However the best way to understand the universe we are currently in you assume that it was always the same. It does not matter if it this is true or not.

 

[dad]

The statement the "universe was always the same" is indeed unprovable.

Ha. Amazing, really, when you think of it. Upon this sole unprovable assumption ALL old ageism firmly rests.

However the best way to understand the universe we are currently in you assume that it was always the same. It does not matter if it this is true or not.

No, the best way ti understand how it now is might be to assume a universal constant in the present, not that the future, or far past that is the same. WE have no evidence for or against this as far as science goes.

 

[Opethian]

Come on people, I wouldn't even waste my time discussing clear facts like this. The bible obviously gets the age wrong, if you cannot accept that then I would advise you to have brain surgery.

 

[dad]

Come on people, I wouldn't even waste my time discussing clear facts like this. The bible obviously gets the age wrong, if you cannot accept that then I would advise you to have brain surgery.

The ages are not wrong, whether you discuss it or not. Messing with brains of those who oppose your ideas is not the answere either.

 

[nolidad]

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.

One can develop a scientific model showing a young earth and still have stars 12-16 bly out in the universe and only created 6-10k years ago. Itr works out far better than the uniformitarian models presupposing old ages. Being new on this forum I do not know if it has been discussed in great detail here but all radiometric dating methoda are hopelessly flawed ands almost completely useless as dating methods.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

care to show why that is? what you know that the entire scientific community doesn't?

 

[Hydra009]

Come on people, I wouldn't even waste my time discussing clear facts like this. The bible obviously gets the age wrong, if you cannot accept that then I would advise you to have brain surgery.

True. Not a very productive discussion when one's position is held as a matter of faith and any falsifying data is either ignored or dismissed out of hand.

But a slight correction is needed both in your post and the OP: Young Earth Creationism is the one that argues young ages, not the Bible and not Christians as a whole. So the OP would more accurately read, "If YEC is true science MUST get the age wrong."

 

[funyun]

Well, you are the one who claimed it was first of all, and built a pile of assumptions on top of that house of cards, don't blame me they all fall down. Like Humpty Dumpty! And no one will ever be able to put old ageism together again.

This is the default position, and it is also based on observations.

Not in the far past, though, and that's the kicker.

Prove it, Humpty Dumpty.

The monk's with me.

No, lol, he isn't. The monk was a Christian, but he also was a reasonable person.

No, the bible is not baseless, it's foundation stones are set with blood, and it's power switch is flipped on a million times a day all over the world, and gets results. Only your claim is baseless.

If it's so rock-solid then do as I've asked you to do and prove that it is the historical and scientific all-purpose book you claim it is. See, there's this idea that if you make a claim, it's worthless unless you back it up. I know logic doesn't hold much water with you, but that's your problem not mine.

 

[nolidad]

care to show why that is? what you know that the entire scientific community doesn't?

Well it is not the entire scientific community--just the vast majority that does not beleive the Bible is Gods word or that there is even a God.

I am reading a research work now that shows a young earth model (6-10K) years by Physicist Russell Humphreys.

I cannot get into detail right now but I will give basic theeories of his model.

The universe was created within a black hole with the event horizon about 4 million l/y in diamterand as a total water matrix.

As the gravitational forces collapsed the water--the black hole turned into a white hole and brought expansion.

Because of the known phenomena called gravitational time dilation (even Hawkings wrote about this in His works) What took billions of years in universe time was accomplished in 6 24 hour solar days eath time.

When I finish the reading the work I will put them in more detail here.

 

[JRNetwork]

I find it strange that science and the Bible get the order in which things were created the same. I do not believe word for word what the Bible says about creationism, but I do not believe that "a ball of matter" existed, and for some reason, decided to explode into our universe. I do believe that God created the universe, how he did it is up to him, I see no need to know how.

 

[Lucretius]

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

Who is to say that your interpretation is correct? Would you agree that the correct interpretation of the Bible cannot be one that conflicts with science and reason?

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

Where did Jesus say the time was literal?

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

William Jennings Bryan died after the trial, not before…

There's a fairly large difference in the theologies of the Catholics and Protestants. Of course they are both Christians, but Church tradition (one example) created a large rift that has been repaired for half a millenium.

 

[dad]

This is the default position, and it is also based on observations.

Default is meaningless if not evidenced, and supported. As it is it is merely de faulty position! Observations of the present do not tell the future or far past. Remember that.

Prove it, Humpty Dumpty.

Old agedy Dumpty sat on a wall
This Humpty Evo, he had a great fall
And all PO horses, and all PO men
Couldn't put old ages together again

No, lol, he isn't. The monk was a Christian, but he also was a reasonable person.

Thats why he's with me.

If it's so rock-solid then do as I've asked you to do and prove that it is the historical and scientific all-purpose book you claim it is.

What else would God write, via possesing and inspiring men, chopped liver?

See, there's this idea that if you make a claim, it's worthless unless you back it up.

He did, He does, and He will. I am.

I know logic doesn't hold much water with you, but that's your problem not mine.

You invent a problem for me, then set yourself up as hlier than thou. Good move, kid.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Once again we see that once dad hoc has entered a thread rational discussion become virtually impossible. Maybe we should just leave dad alone in his little fantasy world.

F.B.

 

[dad]

Who is to say that your interpretation is correct? Would you agree that the correct interpretation of the Bible cannot be one that conflicts with science and reason?

No, the correct interpretation of the latter is only possible with the former.

Where did Jesus say the time was literal?

Where did He say that if they killed His earthly temple, He would raise it up in 3 billion years? Nowhere, He said days. The bible says the world was made in 6 days. He did say that the flood took them all away, the unbelievers, though.

William Jennings Bryan died after the trial, not before…

Yes, that was when he was supposed to give his rebuttal. Look into it.

There's a fairly large difference in the theologies of the Catholics and Protestants. Of course they are both Christians, but Church tradition (one example) created a large rift that has been repaired for half a millenium.

If people are involved, eventually we will find divisions, and rifts, and sects, and isms, and whatnots, comes with the territory.

 

[Tomk80]

Default is meaningless if not evidenced, and supported. As it is it is merely de faulty position! Observations of the present do not tell the future or far past. Remember that.

They do if they travel a long time. Present observations of the fossil record tell us about the past thousands and millions of years ago. Present observations of galaxies millions (or even billions) of light years away tell us about the past millions (or even billions) of years ago.

 

[dad]

Once again we see that once dad hoc has entered a thread rational discussion become virtually impossible. Maybe we should just leave dad alone in his little fantasy world.

F.B.

Thats what you just said in the 2nd law of TD thread, then it died. Mr excitement strikes again.