If the universe is thousands of years old...

Myk101 said:

The Bible does say WHY God did certain things - read it and you'll find out. In that case, YES, people can know God's reason/motive/intent.

But, beside that point, please answer me this question: If I gave you a plausible answer to the apparent contradiction of science vs. the Bible on the topic of light-years, would you still argue that the Bible is wrong on that specific topic? (not whether we should believe the Bible as a whole, just one topic) I understand that you find no reason to believe the Bible to begin with, but is it still wrong on that topic?
.

Click to expand...

For a start; the Bible was written by people. This means that those people assumed on God's motives and intentions. Secondly I will accept not a plausible answer open to interpretation but an answer capable of surviving scientific scrutiny. Everything is plausible just as one can see meaning in almost all written text.
2+2=4 is understood by everyone and all will accept the sum to be true. On a philosophical basis however one may argue that the sum is not 4 but 6 or any number. The bible's account of creation can only be taken on a philosophical basis. Astronomy is a very precise science and uses physics as its main tool. So it is only common sense to refute the Bible as a scientific source on creation.

Damour said:

How come we can see the light from stars that are millions of light years away?

Click to expand...

Only millions? Not billions? hmmmmm.....

By the way, I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

VioletAngel said:

Only millions? Not billions? hmmmmm.....

By the way, I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Click to expand...

Cool, nice to meet some more Christians who don't think the bible is the law.

Where does it say in the Bible that the universe and the Earth are 6,000 years old? Some how this whole issue of interpreting the Bible in so many ways; reminds me of Animal Farm. I have heard things like "Thou shalt not kill without just cause"???!!!!!. It seems that people see in the Bible whatever suits them. Although I am an Atheist I believe in the Teachings of Jesus and accept the Bible as a book recounting the many stories of the time regarding religious historical, mythological and civil matters.This by no means does it render it an accurate account of the truth. It is on the other hand a very good source of solace to the ones who need comfort of the soul. It gives them the reason to hope. Personally I lay my faith in Science.

Myk101 said:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
it is still a known "fact" that old theories have been discarded in light of new evidence and methodologies. So even what we know today to be a 'theoretical fact', like the value of the speed of light or the Big bang or evolution, could be updated sometime in the future in light of new information. We can only test theories with the capabilities, knowledge and technology we have today.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Correction: The speed of light has been confirmed and the only change we will make is to possibly add an extra decimal place as a result of more accurate measurements. We are talking of minute differences. We have reached a stage in physics where any changes will surmount to no consequences bar making science more accurate. The earth obits the sun. This cannot be proven to be otherwise. Such is the case for most scientific verifications today. According to the Bible it is the sun that orbits the Earth. How? simply by the very phrase: Sunrise and sunset. OH!! it is just an allegorical description based on observation. Well in this case so is the rest of Genesis; just symbolism not to be taken literary.

tanzanos said:

For a start; the Bible was written by people. This means that those people assumed on God's motives and intentions.

Click to expand...

We are not debating the source of the Bible, so regardless of who wrote it, if a literal reading of the Bible does not disagree with the "precise science of astronomy", can one claim the Bible WRONG?

This is just like taking a book on philosophy that says ' The universe literally exists, there was a time when the earth was void of life...' and comparing it with astronomy. Taking the philosophy books literal meaning we find the following: The book does not specify any age to the universe, but astronomy does;The philosophy book does agree with astronomy that the universe literally exists, even though the book does not agree with other biology books on the origins of life; So, regardless of OTHER topics covered by the book, or authorship, does the omission of factual data (i.e. the age of the universe) make the philosophy book wrong on that subject?

Secondly I will accept not a plausible answer open to interpretation but an answer capable of surviving scientific scrutiny.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, the interpretation is not subject to interpretation, the text is. So I have given a good interpretation of the Biblical text that agrees with cosmology. Can you say that my interpretation disagrees with cosmology on this topic? If yes, then please explain, if no, then I see an intent to disbelieve the possibility of the Bible to be correct. If you're not open minded to acknowledge the possibility of the Bible to be correct, then what's the point of discussion? If you show me that on this topic there are no Biblical interpretations of its text that fit cosmology but it is absolutely contradictory, then I will question the validity of the Bible.

The bible's account of creation can only be taken on a philosophical basis. Astronomy is a very precise science and uses physics as its main tool. So it is only common sense to refute the Bible as a scientific source on creation.

Click to expand...

As an Atheist, you are in NO place to determine how to "take" the Bible. You don't believe the Bible, you think it's it the opiate of the masses. How can a paleontologist tell a mathematician how to read his math books? ( Maybe as 2+2=6?)
Quite frankly the Bible is to be taken literally. If you don't then you can come up with ANY interpretation that you like nullifying the intended message. You don't take a letter from your wife metaphorically when she says she loves you and misses you, why do that to the Bible?

If the literal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with science, then we have a problem, but if the literal interpretation is in accord with it, why discredit the Bible on that particular subject? Simply because it's the Bible? I think that at that point the preconceived notions overrule any logical conclusion.

The Bible does not claim to be a science book, it only generalizes the historical events. It is up to science to come up with details. The literal interpretation of the Bible yield multiple possibilities as to the age of the universe. Does it make it WRONG?

tanzanos said:

According to the Bible it is the sun that orbits the Earth. How? simply by the very phrase: Sunrise and sunset. OH!! it is just an allegorical description based on observation. Well in this case so is the rest of Genesis; just symbolism not to be taken literary.

Click to expand...

If you take the observation of Sunrise and sunset literally, what do we get? A LITERAL OBSERVATION OS SUNRISE AND SUNSET. NOT a cosmological argument. How come so many people, including scientist, use the phrases sunrise and sunset today? Are they implying that the sun orbits the earth or just stating the obvious, literally?

If I give you a reasoned, logical and VERY plausible solution that brings the Bible and cosmology in accord, and you don't accept my answer, even as a possibility, then it's your will to disbelieve, not evidence.

Myk101 said:

If I give you a reasoned, logical and VERY plausible solution that brings the Bible and cosmology in accord, and you don't accept my answer, even as a possibility, then it's your will to disbelieve, not evidence.

Click to expand...

What are you waiting for?

I guess I should post a closing argument.
Basically, in this thread I have given a plausible answer to the question posed. Please read it to see the details. Therefore I conclude that the Bible is not necessarily wrong on this topic. In light of this, by claiming it wrong, one shows intent to disbelieve the Bible's literal words on this topic, not evidence that the Bible is wrong.

To sum up the discussion, the Biblical account of creation in Genesis does not have all the detail one might ask for. The Bible is not a science book. Because it lacks detail, more than one literal scenario can fit the mold. So I have given a literal Biblical interpretation that is in accord with cosmology. No arguments were brought forth as to my interpretation of the Bible being wrong or that my understanding of cosmology on this topic may be flawed. I conclude that there is sufficient reason to accept the fact that the Bible and cosmology are in accord on this topic. The choice is ours as to whether we even give the Bible the chance to be right or not - not empirical evidence. By showing that it's our will, not evidence, I draw the final conclusion that belief in God is not irrational and that one should consider the words of the Bible, before going much further in life.

Just as one argument against the Bible can be shown irrational, so can be shown other arguments about the Bible (maybe not all, but there is a chance). So maybe, just maybe, with enough time and rational debate on topics as these, the Bible can be shown to be correct.

Myk101 said:

If I give you a reasoned, logical and VERY plausible solution that brings the Bible and cosmology in accord, and you don't accept my answer, even as a possibility, then it's your will to disbelieve, not evidence.

Click to expand...

I am still waiting !!!!!!!

tanzanos said:

I am still waiting !!!!!!!

Click to expand...

for...

Myk101 said:

for...

Click to expand...

If I give you a reasoned, logical and VERY plausible solution that brings the Bible and cosmology in accord

Click to expand...

That? A reasoned, logical and VERY plausible solution that brings the Bible and cosmology in accord.

Atheuz said:

That? A reasoned, logical and VERY plausible solution that brings the Bible and cosmology in accord.

Click to expand...

tanzanos said:

Click to expand...

Read the thread again from the beginning. That's what I did.

Myk101 said:

Read the thread again from the beginning. That's what I did.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I found nothing in your previous postings that came anywhere near to "A reasoned, logical and VERY plausible solution that brings the Bible and cosmology in accord".

Please give me just one.

Myk101 said:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Let me reiterate, the Bible does not give specifics on the creation of the Universe, just as you have stated (but it does give detail on the formation of earth as a life supporting planet). So there are many details that are left out. Whether there was a gap of one day between the creation of the "heavens and the earth" in a state of "formlessness" and the first day ("let there be light"), or a year or a million years, the bible is silent. This is where Science says billions... Well that could well be, and it would fit that particular scenario of creation. If astronomers said tomorrow that the universe is one million years old instead of billions, the bible can still be true, even if they said that the universe is a few thousand years old the bible could still be true. Solely because such detail is left out. On the other hand the Big bang could show an accord with the Bible in the respect of creation ex-nihilo (I said "could", not necessarily "does". Again much detail is left out, but the universe did have a beginning and such a beginning is also mentioned in the Bible) We can debate on the age of the universe, but I think of greater importance is what the bible is a little more clear on, like mankind and earth as we know it.

Going back to the topic of this thread, the original question may possibly have a false premise. "If the universe is thousands of years old, how come we see stars from millions of light years away" According to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the universe can be more that a few thousand years old (which is what my argument is). Not man, not plants, not mountains (the rock that makes up the mountains can be millions of years, but not the elevation), not fish or even bacteria or the smallest living organism - all of these elements are a few thousand years old according to the Bible. In that case the Biblical account is in accord with science in this subject.

I gave you one possibility. There are other possibilities that I can present, but my point is that you can't discredit this part of the Bible - because it does not necessarily contradict science, on this particular topic.

Are there interpretations of the bible that could fit the scientific evidence? I say yes. If so, then you can't discount the entire bible solely on this possibly non-existent discrepancy. It becomes a personal decision to disbelieve or at least disagree with this particular account of the bible. I realize there are many other topics that are seemingly conflicting, but let's tackle one at a time.

Click to expand...

Is this OK?

Myk101 said:

Is this OK?

Click to expand...

Please try again!!

PS: Someone is going to win the lottery. What I say is absolutely true. No one can prove me wrong. Why? Well lets put it this way:

1: I said " someone is going to win the lottery".

2: I did not say WHEN
3: I did not say WHERE

So I will always be right!

Kinda reminds us of Genesis in the Bible. All very Vague. Let me remind you that to assume something is correct without evidence is not accepted by SCIENCE. So please try again and give me something that will be accepted by Science. Also empirical evidence is so overwhelmingly against creation that it seems pointless for science to disprove Genesis. Mathematics can prove that 2+2=4. Science does not need to disprove 2+2=8; simply because the first sum is based on principles proven tested and tried by science.

tanzanos said:

Please try again!!

PS: Someone is going to win the lottery. What I say is absolutely true. No one can prove me wrong. Why? Well lets put it this way:

1: I said " someone is going to win the lottery".

2: I did not say WHEN
3: I did not say WHERE

So I will always be right!

Click to expand...

Does that make you wrong?

Kinda reminds us of Genesis in the Bible. All very Vague.

Click to expand...

Does it make the Bible wrong on the specific topic of universe age (not life on earth)?

Let me remind you that to assume something is correct without evidence is not accepted by SCIENCE.

Click to expand...

What have I assumed correct? Astronomy? May I remind you, the Bible is not a science book, so you can't expect detailed theories, laws, and hypotheses from it. Vagueness in this field is expected from the bible, though. Although enough detail is given for the creation account, that's not the subject of this debate.

So please try again and give me something that will be accepted by Science.

Click to expand...

I'm not refuting science and what has been observed by cosmologists. I'm not arguing against the existence of stars billions of years ago. I'm not changing anything scientific. I'm just making it clear that what has been observed by science can fit the Biblical account of creation on the topic of light-years and age of universe. I'm leaving science intact on this subject and just giving you a different interpretation of the Bible that fits observed evidence. The interpretation is literal and likely.
So I don't know what you're expecting...to be accepted by science

Also empirical evidence is so overwhelmingly against creation that it seems pointless for science to disprove Genesis. Mathematics can prove that 2+2=4. Science does not need to disprove 2+2=8; simply because the first sum is based on principles proven tested and tried by science.

Click to expand...

The Genesis account gives a simple answer to these questions. I guess simple answers that include the letters G O D are unacceptable because they are unfalsifiable. That does not make them wrong, though, just like your example. But in a desperate quest for knowledge man seeks a naturalistic answer, he seeks an answer he wants, something he can get his hands on and play with, something he likes. Something very complex in which you can get lost in detail. Something that is claimed falsifiable but never really able to be shown false, because the theory is always changed to include new evidence that might otherwise falsify the original theory. Oh, and these theories are assumed never to be observed at a larger scale - so there goes falsification by observation of these large scale events - only inference remains... Anyway, back to the topic at hand, the Genesis account is open to some interpretation, but limited. I have given you one that is withing biblical hermeneutics and is a literal interpretation - I did not read anything into it (like some theistic evolutionists do). I did not argue anything scientific. So far so good?

Myk101 said:

The Genesis account gives a simple answer to these questions. I guess simple answers that include the letters G O D are unacceptable because they are unfalsifiable. That does not make them wrong, though, just like your example. But in a desperate quest for knowledge man seeks a naturalistic answer, he seeks an answer he wants, something he can get his hands on and play with, something he likes. Something very complex in which you can get lost in detail. Something that is claimed falsifiable but never really able to be shown false, because the theory is always changed to include new evidence that might otherwise falsify the original theory. Oh, and these theories are assumed never to be observed at a larger scale - so there goes falsification by observation of these large scale events - only inference remains... Anyway, back to the topic at hand, the Genesis account is open to some interpretation, but limited. I have given you one that is withing biblical hermeneutics and is a literal interpretation - I did not read anything into it (like some theistic evolutionists do). I did not argue anything scientific. So far so good?

Click to expand...

It does not make God right either.
OK! So you accept that the Bible and Science go hand in hand on the Age of the universe but you do not accept science when Adam and Eve is totally refuted. It seems to me that you choose what to keep and ignore what does not suit your line of thinking. Please understand that Science is not what can be proven wrong but what can be proven RIGHT. I do not need to prove that in a closed box you, a lollipop, a bank, the space shuttle are not inside. All I have to prove is what is inside the box not what is not inside. What you seem to miss is the fact that ALL science is governed by the same guiding principles and when it comes down to it All the fields of science obey the laws of physics. Biology, geology, astronomy etc, all obey the laws of physics. Everything is made up of the same building blocks, thus everything is governed by the laws that allow the building blocks to exist.

According to Genesis:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said let there be light, and there was light.

SORRY but science does not accept this. The earth and the waters were NOT created before LIGHT.

Please read the theory of the Big Bang!