The Earth is not 6,000 years old.

[AV1611VET]

Except the Bible never actually says that. It's just a bunch of people trying to stitch numbers together from lifespans.

In your opinion, what figure would a computer come up with, if it had to "stitch numbers together from lifespans"?

Any idea?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Except the Bible never actually says that. It's just a bunch of people trying to stitch numbers together from lifespans.

there’s an entire lineage from Adam to Jesus. It’s really not that complicated they actually have a name for it. You might’ve heard of it before. It’s called math.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Once more- do you claim your Bible reading is infallible?

It doesn’t have to be completely infallible to determine the age of the earth. Do I need to completely understand the mosaic law to determine the age of the earth according to the genealogy lineage? Do I need to fully understand God’s grace to determine the age of the earth according to the genealogy lineage? Do I need to fully understand how a 6 speed automatic transmission works in order to drive my truck? Do I need to understand how a hydro-electric power plant works in order to turn on the light in my house? Do I need to know how to build a computer in order to operate windows? So please let’s not be ridiculous about this.

 

[Strathos]

The Bible also shows, with much greater clarity, that Pi =3

Actually it doesn't. It simply gives an approximation of the measurement of a certain structure.

In your opinion, what figure would a computer come up with, if it had to "stitch numbers together from lifespans"?

Any idea?

Wrong question to ask, as that entire approach is barking up the wrong tree.

there’s an entire lineage from Adam to Jesus. It’s really not that complicated they actually have a name for it. You might’ve heard of it before. It’s called math.

Genesis 1 and 2 give slightly different creation accounts. There are also 'generations' mentioned as taking place within one of the 'days' of creation (Genesis 2:4). Combined with the fact that God's perception of time is not the same as ours (2 Peter 3:8), and the abundant use of allegory in the early chapters of Genesis, interpreting it as a literal 7-day week is hardly an ironclad proposition.

 

[Frank Robert]

In your opinion, what figure would a computer come up with, if it had to "stitch numbers together from lifespans"?

Any idea?

The computer will sum the numbers you feed it but there is no evidence that the lifespans are based on anything other than belief. The computer will confirm your addition is correct but not your belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

The computer will sum the numbers you feed it but there is no evidence that the lifespans are based on anything other than belief. The computer will confirm your addition is correct but not your belief.

Thank you for an honest answer.

It's too bad the person I asked had to hide up a tree.

 

[Strathos]

Thank you for an honest answer.

It's too bad the person I asked had to hide up a tree.

I gave you an answer just fine. It's the wrong method. It's like trying to measure the depth of the ocean by throwing a rope into the water at the beach.

 

[AV1611VET]

I gave you an answer just fine. It's the wrong method. It's like trying to measure the depth of the ocean by throwing a rope into the water at the beach.

A computer is much more efficient than a calculator, which is more efficient than a slide rule, which is more efficient than pencil and paper, which is more efficient than an abacus.

 

[Astrid]

It doesn’t have to be completely infallible to determine the age of the earth. Do I need to completely understand the mosaic law to determine the age of the earth according to the genealogy lineage? Do I need to fully understand God’s grace to determine the age of the earth according to the genealogy lineage? Do I need to fully understand how a 6 speed automatic transmission works in order to drive my truck? Do I need to understand how a hydro-electric power plant works in order to turn on the light in my house? Do I need to know how to build a computer in order to operate windows? So please let’s not be ridiculous about this.

I am not the one being ridiculous, far less am I evasive.

For a start, "infallible" does not come in degrees.
No superlative does.

All that "fully understand " is where "ridiculous " comes
In- its pure strawman. I'd never call you to go
extrabiblical with fine details!

You have stated that "God's word" is inerrant, you' e told
me His Word indicates 6000yr earth, and a flood.
That is all I am talking about.
Simple, basic, no details.

If you say those things happened, zero chance you
are wrong- though ever so many disagree- then there
is no way that is not a claim of personal infallibility.

Not in all things, not in all details.
But in this, infallible.

Only q is whether you can squarely face what your claim means.

 

[Astrid]

Actually it doesn't. It simply gives an approximation of the measurement of a certain structure.



Wrong question to ask, as that entire approach is barking up the wrong tree.



Genesis 1 and 2 give slightly different creation accounts. There are also 'generations' mentioned as taking place within one of the 'days' of creation (Genesis 2:4). Combined with the fact that God's perception of time is not the same as ours (2 Peter 3:8), and the abundant use of allegory in the early chapters of Genesis, interpreting it as a literal 7-day week is hardly an ironclad proposition.

Wrong tree?. I'm straight to the heart of the matter of
God's word v "science".
The Bible gives the numbers. If the Bible is God's inerrant word
then Pi is 3.
If itscapproxim!ate, as it obviously is, then the Bible is variously
approximate.
Infallible approximaions...

And then its how much error is allowed in perfection?
50&%? 99%? Zero?

 

[AV1611VET]

Only q is whether you can squarely face what your claim means.

The Bible is infallible. I am fallible.

 

[Strathos]

A computer is much more efficient than a calculator, which is more efficient than a slide rule, which is more efficient than pencil and paper, which is more efficient than an abacus.

Which doesn't matter, as you're measuring the wrong thing. To try another analogy, it's like trying to measure the distance to the moon by counting how long it takes to move across the sky, without knowing how big it is.

 

[Strathos]

Wrong tree?. I'm straight to the heart of the matter of
God's word v "science".
The Bible gives the numbers. If the Bible is God's inerrant word
then Pi is 3.

It's a measurement of a specific object. Ever think it might not have been perfectly round?

 

[Astrid]

It's a measurement of a specific object. Ever think it might not have been perfectly round?

I can think of far more than that.
Including that if it isn't round the error is even bigger.
If you don't wish to address the topic that's fine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which doesn't matter, as you're measuring the wrong thing. To try another analogy, it's like trying to measure the distance to the moon by counting how long it takes to move across the sky, without knowing how big it is.

Frank nailed it.

I'll let it go at that and assume you didn't understand the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can think of far more than that.
Including that if it isn't the error is even bigger.
If you don't wish to address the topic that's fine.

QV please: My Pi Challenge

 

[coffee4u]

I'll be posting lines of evidence against a young earth. The first I don't think anyone has noticed before, the long lived Greenland Shark. It reaches maturity at a staggering 150 years of age and has a gestation period of at least 8 years. If more than 38 generations existed, the Earth could not be 6,000 years old. Based on the population, more than 38 generations is all but guaranteed.

The Greenland shark reaches maturity at 150 years of age now and it gestates for 8 years now. What is does now is not what it did at creation.

Every living creature changed at the fall in some way.
The best known change was that of diet. From all animals being completely herbivores to some being omnivores and some being carnivores. The Greenland shark now eats squid, fish and seals.

Animals again changed after the flood with God placing a fear of man upon most animals since man was now allowed to eat meat. Since the Greenland Shark is not a domesticated animal it too has this fear.

Other changes were not outlined except to say the creation groans.
Romans 8:19-23
20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now;
What you see now is not how it was created and since we do not have a time machine we can't know how it was created originally to behave including it's life span or gestation period.

Also one does not need to believe in 6 thousand years to believe in creation. Young earth creationists believe anywhere from 6 to 15 thousand years, but of course focus in on 6 because that is what everybody does.

 

[Strathos]

Frank nailed it.

I'll let it go at that and assume you didn't understand the question.

I think it's the case that you don't understand my objection.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The Greenland shark reaches maturity at 150 years of age now and it gestates for 8 years now. What is does now is not what it did at creation.

I love these poorly thought through claims. Everything bred so much faster, and there was no death. How long before the Earth would become overcrowded? Let me guess - God had an undocumented plan to turn off reproduction/transport animals to another planet..... or did He plan all along to bring about the Fall so he could change these behaviours and introduce death to keep the numbers down?

Every living creature changed at the fall in some way.
The best known change was that of diet. From all animals being completely herbivores to some being omnivores and some being carnivores. The Greenland shark now eats squid, fish and seals.

All animals were herbivores who never defecated/defecated magic, disappearing faeces. How did God cope with the ever growing piles of poo? Or did you mean all animals were herbivores except the ones which weren't?

 

[Astrid]

I love these poorly thought through claims. Everything bred so much faster, and there was no death. How long before the Earth would become overcrowded? Let me guess - God had an undocumented plan to turn off reproduction/transport animals to another planet..... or did He plan all along to bring about the Fall so he could change these behaviours and introduce death to keep the numbers down?


All animals were herbivores who never defecated/defecated magic, disappearing faeces. How did God cope with the ever growing piles of poo? Or did you mean all animals were herbivores except the ones which weren't?

I'm curious what those long fanged deep sea fish ate
down in the black depths. Deep sea turnips?