N
ngill09
Guest
Can’t tell if serious or trolling.
- Status
B
bsroufek
Guest
Since Jesus said, “Heaven and Earth will pass away but my words will never pass away.” You say historical subtleties of language make it lost. I believe for the most part that Father means Father and fire means fire. Very few words change over time. Otherwise, why write the Bible?
The Earth is young, but “deeper truths buried in Scripture” can come only from studying the authors and manners of writing not much from subtleties of changing language.
B
bsroufek
Guest
I also read this man’s work on the age of the universe. He basically says, “The Bible says it took Six Days for Creation. Scientists say it took 14 billlion years. So, each day in Creation was 14 billion/7 years.” He tries to claim that both the Bible and the Big Bang Theory are correct, except that his idea that a day can be understood to mean billions of years is too much of a stretch. Nonsense!
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Do you believe that DNA adds length over generations?
There are only 23 pairs per human.
B
bsroufek
Guest
What I’m claiming is that DNA does not keep long histories. Therefore, it can not be used to determine the age of the Earth/Universe.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Not the age of the earth rather the age of the chromosomes.
N
ngill09
Guest
You’re taking the stance that science and Christianity are at odds. This is a bad idea. Ironically, it’s also the position that Richard Dawkins takes.
N
ngill09
Guest
The idea that the earth is 6,000 years old conflicts with a concordance of data which are the foundation for the fundamental theories of physics, geology, biology, astronomy, archeology, paleontology, meteorology, genetics, and cosmology. Every field of science that touches upon or implies something about the age of Earth and the universe indicates that the age is on the scale of billions of years, not thousands. In order to hold that the universe is 6,000 years old, you must assume that the entire project of science is fundamentally and completely flawed.
That is why Young-earth Creationism is not taken seriously.
That is why Young-earth Creationism is not taken seriously.
B
bsroufek
Guest
You are accusing me of taking science and Christianity as at odds, but I believe the supposed science which guesses that the universe is 14 billion years old is just a guess, not science. They perceived constant radio waves to be throughout the universe and GUESSED that it meant that the universe is 14 billion years old.
They’re wrong and not every scientific argument has to be reconciled with Christianity. Only truth must be reconciled with Christianity. And I say the Earth is about 6000 years old, not 14 billion years old, as Genesis says. Why would Moses invent all those ages, from Adam on?
A
aux1
Guest
How do you get equilibrium in 500 years with 5730 years half-life?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock
B
bsroufek
Guest
I looked it up. The information I was given was wrong. I see the half-life at 5,568 years (Libby value)
But, I say that DNA keeps no long histories, so can’t be used for Earth dating. And chromosomes are DNA.
A
aux1
Guest
You have it backwards.
- Mathematical description of an expanding universe was formulated in 1922. Big Bang was first theorized in 1927.
- Expansion of the universe has been observed by Hubble in 1929. Hubble’s law is all that you need to estimate the age of the universe, you’ll get 12 billion years if you do the homework.
- Existence of CMBR was theorized in 1948. It was discovered in 1964.
N
ngill09
Guest
You should probably “look up” some actual information on DNA. If your understanding of DNA is on par with your understanding of carbon dating and the Big Bang Theory, then you could do with some education. Is there any reason why you say “DNA keeps no long histories”, or are you just asserting that?
B
bsroufek
Guest
That calculation assumes that the stars go back to a central point. Scripture says that God created the Heavens with His outstretched arm.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Then you either didn’t read the whole thing or you badly misunderstood it, because that is not at all what he said. His calculations are based on Einstein’s theory of relativity and the universally accepted rate of time dilation, a fact that is confirmed by any physics textbook.
It’s not some arbitrary, “Genesis says this, but science says this, so Genesis must really mean this.” Understanding what Schroeder is saying requires very careful reading.
A
aux1
Guest
There is no center of the universe, or, the center is everywhere.
r(t) = v*t holds regardless of where you anchor the coordinate system.
I
Ion
Guest
The problem is actually, can you accomodate the natural law as we can observe it now, with the young earth creation, as God would realize the creation making use of this laws?
For as much as science knows now, I think not, but I can’t say in what way God choosed to create everything. Now, if you look backwards through this laws, it looks like 15 billions years, but you can’t know for sure. A scientist, from the very beginning excludes God intervention in natural law, thus he has to say 15 billions years in a scientific theory.
My personal opinion is that indeed there was a canopy of water isolating the earth from the rest of the universe. Also, fire was not possible on earth before Adam’s fall.
For as much as science knows now, I think not, but I can’t say in what way God choosed to create everything. Now, if you look backwards through this laws, it looks like 15 billions years, but you can’t know for sure. A scientist, from the very beginning excludes God intervention in natural law, thus he has to say 15 billions years in a scientific theory.
My personal opinion is that indeed there was a canopy of water isolating the earth from the rest of the universe. Also, fire was not possible on earth before Adam’s fall.
I
Ion
Guest
That would be an interesting project! Not necessarily to put in place, but to have it there…I suppose any meteorite would be caught and relaunched out in space by inertia…
D
Della
Guest
It does in clouds. It only falls to earth under the right conditions.
However, everyone is dancing around the real issues because no one here is a biblical scholar who understands the symbolic language (mythology) employed by the writers of Genesis. Mythology is not the telling of fairy tales, it is the telling of truths couched in poetic/saga language. For example, Lord of the Rings is mythology. We don’t believe in elves and orcs, but we do believe in the things they represent, such as truth vs. deception, beauty vs. ungliness, high art vs. vulgarity.
Many, atheists and believers alike, make outrageous assumptions about the Bible because they have no schooling in theology, typology, mythology or even in the sciences. This is a huge mistake, not only because they are wrong in their assumptions but because it distorts truth and so doesn’t help them understand the Bible or God or man’s understanding of himself and his place in the overall scheme of things.
I have a B. A. in religious education, but I don’t claim to be a biblical expert because I’m not. But, I do know where many posters have gone wrong in their assumptions, but it would take too much time and effort to correct all the mistaken notions people have expressed–and I don’t just mean the non-believers.
So I urge everyone to read solid resource material, such as the CCC about these issues. And if there are those who don’t want to look into actual Church teaching, I would loving suggest they do so anyway so they won’t go on repeating the silliness they have read from sources with agendas or that are simply in ignorance on the topic.
- Status