Is the bible the only reason to conclude the earth is 6,000 years old?

[dlamberth]

Is there any reason to conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old, other than the bible?

Having read the post up to this point, it's pretty clear that the answer is "NO!"

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is based on fossil understanding on the earth, not an understanding of the whole universe. God not only creates the earth, but also creates every other stars and planets. What happened on earth can not be taken as a rule for other solar systems.

No, science does not prove that plants can not exist before our sun.

So the ancient Hebrews, when penning Genesis 1, were actually talking about plants on other plants? Is this independently verifiable, or did you invent it ad hoc to preserve your a priori dogma? Because I think we both know it's the latter.

 

[juvenissun]

So the ancient Hebrews, when penning Genesis 1, were actually talking about plants on other plants? Is this independently verifiable, or did you invent it ad hoc to preserve your a priori dogma? Because I think we both know it's the latter.

This is a different issue. And the interpretation lies on whether we want to talk about faith or not. Since we are talking about science of those exact words (ancient or not), your comment is irrelevant at this time. If you want to leave science and start to talk about faith, then we may take a look of it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That is based on fossil understanding on the earth, not an understanding of the whole universe. God not only creates the earth, but also creates every other stars and planets. What happened on earth can not be taken as a rule for other solar systems.

Genesis says plants appeared before other solar systems, so this argument is irrelevant. Science has shown that other stars existed before our sun, so yet again the bible has it wrong.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

That is based on fossil understanding on the earth, not an understanding of the whole universe.

see, there is that vagueness thing again. You could have explained in some detail what this particular word salad means but we are left wondering.

God not only creates the earth, but also creates every other stars and planets. What happened on earth can not be taken as a rule for other solar systems.

so you are assuming thatGenesis is written about another planet? And on this planet landplsnts occur before the sun. Was Adam on that planet or this one when he named all the animals God created on the other planet? Atwhat pount in Genesis does the narrative switch over to being about earth?

No, science does not prove that plants can not exist before our sun.

just photosynthesizing plants like the trees mentioned in Genesis.

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis says plants appeared before other solar systems, so this argument is irrelevant. Science has shown that other stars existed before our sun, so yet again the bible has it wrong.

Why is it wrong? I don't see anything wrong in the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

see, there is that vagueness thing again. You could have explained in some detail what this particular word salad means but we are left wondering.




so you are assuming thatGenesis is written about another planet? And on this planet landplsnts occur before the sun. Was Adam on that planet or this one when he named all the animals God created on the other planet? Atwhat pount in Genesis does the narrative switch over to being about earth?



just photosynthesizing plants like the trees mentioned in Genesis.

That is a good question.

I would suggest on the Day 3 (verse 9). The earth was made along with many other planets.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Why is it wrong? I don't see anything wrong in the Bible.

Seriously? You don't see anything wrong with saying that the earth was formed before any stars?

 

[juvenissun]

Seriously? You don't see anything wrong with saying that the earth was formed before any stars?

That is a little heavy. Even so, I don't see anything wrong with it.

People taught you that Sun existed before the earth. That is a model. There is no reason that the other way around shall not be true. And I think it is probably a more reasonable model.

--------

Sorry, Split Rock, your thread seems to be hijacked. If you don't like it, I will stop.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is a different issue. And the interpretation lies on whether we want to talk about faith or not. Since we are talking about science of those exact words (ancient or not), your comment is irrelevant at this time. If you want to leave science and start to talk about faith, then we may take a look of it.

Your contention was that science has never proven the Bible wrong. Yet, according to science, the Sun long predates plant-life on Earth, which is in direct contradiction to the Bible, which says that plant-life on Earth predates the Sun. Instead of going on about faith and science, try focussing on the point: your contention is wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is a little heavy. Even so, I don't see anything wrong with it.

People taught you that Sun existed before the earth. That is a model. There is no reason that the other way around shall not be true. And I think it is probably a more reasonable model.

Science disagrees. So your original contention (that science agrees with the Bible, that science hasn't proven anything in the Bible wrong) is once again incorrect.

Science says the stars and Sun predate the Earth, contrary to the Bible.
Science says the Sun predates plantlife, contrary to the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Science disagrees. So your original contention (that science agrees with the Bible, that science hasn't proven anything in the Bible wrong) is once again incorrect.

Science says the stars and Sun predate the Earth, contrary to the Bible.
Science says the Sun predates plantlife, contrary to the Bible.

Science said it wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

Your contention was that science has never proven the Bible wrong. Yet, according to science, the Sun long predates plant-life on Earth, which is in direct contradiction to the Bible, which says that plant-life on Earth predates the Sun. Instead of going on about faith and science, try focussing on the point: your contention is wrong.

I am always focused. Science is wrong.

 

[rikerjoe]

I am always focused. Science is wrong.

Science said it wrong.

So, science doesn't support the bible after all, eh?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I am always focused. Science is wrong.

Hmm, Let's see, on the one hand we have science, the collective product of the best minds in history, and on the other we have Juvenissun, another egocentric creationist who makes up rubbish as he goes along and has a major problem with reality, facts, and the truth.

I think we'll go with science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Science said it wrong.

Nevertheless, that is what science says, refuting your original claim that the science never contradicts the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Nevertheless, that is what science says, refuting your original claim that the science never contradicts the Bible.

...

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I did not say that.

We know what you said and it's garbage.

 

[juvenissun]

Nevertheless, that is what science says, refuting your original claim that the science never contradicts the Bible.

What does the science say?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What does the science say?

You tell us, 'Mr Science Teacher'.