The 6000 Year Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter heiscominginthe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
humble_in_doubt said:
do you really have to ask that question of anyone? I blame Supertramp (remember the logical song). Seriously, logic and reason are, well, logical and reasonable. Who doesn’t prefer reason and logic over ignorance?
Click to expand...
Good question:
“Christians are willing to accept completely improbable things like virgin births, miracles, and resurrections without any evidence — then they scoff at people who accept evolution with textbooks full of evidence and insist that “there’s no evidence for evolution!” It’s mind-boggling.”
 
There is this word called “faith” in God that must be exercised to believe that in God all things are possible without any proof other than God’s word.

Blessings, AJ
 
humble_in_doubt said:
but science and theology can’t be compared in this sort of way. They’re not in the same universe scholastically speaking. Science offers tangible explanations for the physical realities of our universe, while theology is not tangible, we have no evidence the events theologians premise their various theories on actually happened (in fact we’re pretty sure the miraculous events described by the various world religions never happened).

Is 1 + 1 = 2 fallible? I’m not really sure fallibility is an applicable term here. For instance, Newtonian physics isn’t perfect, but it describes the laws of motion to near perfection (more than sufficient for our uses). However, Einstein provided a more complete theory of gravity, space, time, etc. Then quantum mechanics came along (offering a more complete explanation of the sub-atomic level).

So these formulations in science can be perfect, or not. I guess you get really flaky about this subject and say something like mathematics is only one possible description of realities we’ve been able to observe. This might be true, but if it works for our purposes, and it works perfectly, then why the sophistic babble (I say too much philosophy is a waste of time).
Click to expand...
I once watched a particle physicist at work trying to express his thoughts on physics at that level; he said, and let me try and quote, ‘…its like a dream…’, he said with a puzzled expression, staring into space…

I suppose by that he was saying that when you get close enough to the object you are studying scientically, on the verge of reality, the science unravels, what was matter does not just become shapeless energy, but energy becomes a meaningless word, what is it, and how does something intangible like that take on order, predictability and familiarity. Sort of like a dream, I suppose…

Christianity simply steps over the pointy heads with their beakers and calculators and says; ‘…well, we told you so…’, life and reality while tangible are also curiously intangible, ordered, even mysterious and highly unlikely. Its like a dream, and we just happen to be living in that real dream.
 
In the USA there is a society of some 700 anti-evolutionist scientists, all with masters degrees. The source of this information is a book by one of them, The Death of Evolution by W.Johnson [Tan 2000] In a Texas riverbed there are footprints of humans,dinosaurs and trilobite fossils all at the same level. In Siberia there are fossil ‘graveyards’ containing millions of skeletons from all levels of that evolutionist icon, the’geological column’ including man. Obviously they all lived at the same time - the catastrophe of Noah’s flood comes to mind.
 
humble_in_doubt said:
but science and theology can’t be compared in this sort of way. They’re not in the same universe scholastically speaking.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Both are attempts to explain things we see around us. Science explains material things, while theology used to explain both material and immaterial things though it has now restricted itself to just immaterial things. As science has advanced, theology has retreated from explanations of the material.
Science offers tangible explanations for the physical realities of our universe, while theology is not tangible,
Click to expand...
That has not always been the case. Theology used to explain thunder as the anger of Zeus/Thor/Indra; today we use scientific explanations instead of theological ones. Before science theology was a reasonable way to explain the world and it could get results, throwing a virgin into the volcano did stop it erupting after a week or so. The arrival of science allowed us to test that throwing a rabbit into the volcano would work just as well, and eventually that throwing nothing at all got us the same result.

Theology provided answers to questions:Why are there giant three-toed footprints in this rock? The Thunderbird walked here.
Why are there seashells in the rocks at the top of this mountain? There was a great flood that covered the mountain.
They may not be as good as the answers we have now, but they were answers that incorporated all the knowledge available at the time.
we have no evidence the events theologians premise their various theories on actually happened (in fact we’re pretty sure the miraculous events described by the various world religions never happened).
Click to expand...
Ancient writings incorporate a lot of disparate knowledge. We tend to sort that knowledge into many categories that were not seen as distinct by the ancient writers, witness the amount of legendary material that Herodotus incorporated into his history. Hence ancient religious texts seem to us to cover areas outside strict theology. When they were written what we now call cosmology was a legitimate part of theology. Ancient Indian texts incorporate the ancient Indian cosmology - a flat earth round Mount Meru. The Bible incorporates the ANE cosmology - a flat earth under solid firmament.

Some claimed miracles are impossible to disprove. Did Baarlam’s ***[1] talk? If if did then there would be no detectable effects in the world we see now so science cannot strictly rule one way or the other. Was there a worldwide flood 4,000 years ago? No, such an event would have left physical effects that would be detectable today, and we have detected no such effects.

[1] Again the Scunthorpe problem with Baarlam’s Equid. However, I have discovered that I can get round the US-centric naughty word checker by using the UK equivalent. Hmmm, the temptation…
Is 1 + 1 = 2 fallible? I’m not really sure fallibility is an applicable term here.
Click to expand...
It is only true given certain assumptions: “There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don’t.” 1 + 1 = 10.
For instance, Newtonian physics isn’t perfect, but it describes the laws of motion to near perfection (more than sufficient for our uses). However, Einstein provided a more complete theory of gravity, space, time, etc. Then quantum mechanics came along (offering a more complete explanation of the sub-atomic level).
Click to expand...
No scientific explanation is ever perfect, as you say at best science can be sufficiently accurate for its purpose. Every scientific result comes with error bars on it. Every scientific theory is open to change or replacement.
So these formulations in science can be perfect, or not.
Click to expand...
Never perfect, always capable of improvement.
I guess you get really flaky about this subject and say something like mathematics is only one possible description of realities we’ve been able to observe.
Click to expand...
Mathematics is not a description of reality. It is a set of self-consistent axiomatic systems. Some of those axiomatic systems have a more or less accurate correspondance to reality.

rossum
 
matahari said:
In the USA there is a society of some 700 anti-evolutionist scientists, all with masters degrees.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
In a Texas riverbed there are footprints of humans,dinosaurs and trilobite fossils all at the same level.
Click to expand...
Nope. You have been lied to.
In Siberia there are fossil ‘graveyards’ containing millions of skeletons from all levels of that evolutionist icon, the’geological column’ including man.
Click to expand...
Nope. You have been lied to.
Obviously they all lived at the same time - the catastrophe of Noah’s flood comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Only if you believe the lies.

Peace

Tim
 
rossum said:
I disagree. Both are attempts to explain things we see around us. Science explains material things, while theology used to explain both material and immaterial things though it has now restricted itself to just immaterial things. As science has advanced, theology has retreated from explanations of the material.
Click to expand...
I’ll respond to this one (I’m a little tired, plus I agree with some of the stuff you said regarding the fallibility of science … so anyways).

The things theology defines as immaterial (for example people being healed allegedly as a result of faith, prayer, meditation, etc.) are really material things that science just hasn’t figured out yet (but eventually they will). For example, there’s a known relationship between psychology and physical health (like recovering from injuries or illnesses). However, science hasn’t figured out what exactly the relationship is. Religion (or theology) will define these sorts of things as miracles or manifestations of divine power, like the ancients did with earth quakes or solar eclipses. Eventually we came to understand the cause of earth quakes and eclipses, just like we’ll eventually come to understand the relationship between psychological and physical health.

So what you define as mystery, divine, spiritual, or immaterial are just natural phenomena of the physical world waiting to be discovered. Make no mistake … they will be discovered. At one time the CC believed the earth stood at the center of the universe, they were eventually proven wrong (but they still remain, just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses once believed life on earth would end in 1918, and though of course life on earth didn’t end, they still exist). None of this has anything to do with a fictitious deity or any mysterious spiritual power beyond our cognition. It’s just the result of determined people.

To say a Buddhist can be happier because he meditates isn’t an untrue statement (because it’s an objectively verifiable fact). However, to attribute it to something other than our psychological reaction to meditation (or prayer) and the influence our psychology wields over our physical health is fallacious reasoning, pure and simple.
 
40.png
humble_in_doubt:
None of this has anything to do with a fictitious deity or any mysterious spiritual power beyond our cognition.
Click to expand...
You were a little tired when you wrote this. If its beyond your cognition how do you know it is not a mysterious spiritual power. Do you not believe in things beyond your cognition, whilst at the same time believing things are beyond your cognition; but you hope that they will turn out to be the types of things you want them to be.
 
The Earth is billions of years old, like all faiths, religions, cultures and belief systems, we Catholics have our own creation mythologies … and that is what the book of Genesis is.

Although I have been taught to take it’s meaning quite literally.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness
…
10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” **And God saw that it was good. **
…
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
…
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
…
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
…
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
…
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
…

What I’m getting at is that the Book of Genesis isn’t a exact recount saying this is exactly how the world was made, the message of the Book of Genesis is that the world and everything in it is created (in one way or another) by God and that all of creation is intrinsically good.

And for all those who don’t want to believe that you can believe in God and scientific truth, i refer you to Anthropic Principle.

Hope this sheds some light.
Zach Bickhoff
 
StAnastasia said:
Good question:
“Christians are willing to accept completely improbable things like virgin births, miracles, and resurrections without any evidence — then they scoff at people who accept evolution with textbooks full of evidence and insist that “there’s no evidence for evolution!” It’s mind-boggling.”
Click to expand...
Yes think about this deeply.

Historians agree there is ample evidence and eyewitness accounts.
 
Whatever the age of the earth and however long ago God created the first humans, and even if Genesis is allegorical, there is one major logical flaw with evolution that in my mind can never be reconciled with Scripture.

That is, if sin and death entered the world as a result of Adam’s fall resulting in God’s curse (to which even Jesus referred), then DEATH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE FALL. And evolution cannot occur without death…
 
heiscominginthe said:
Don’t believe me, believe the Word of God.

Genesis 1: 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

The firmament spoken of here is our atmosphere. There indeed was water above our atmosphere and below outer space. If you read Genesis, mankind did not know what rain was, for they had never seen it. The earth prior to the flood was watered by dew. That is why when Noah claimed that if men did not turn from sin, God would cause water to fall from the sky, rain, and flood the earth. The bible tells us that the windows of heaven were opened and it stated to rain.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read all 33 pages, but have you considered that there is water in our atmosphere? Is it possible that is what the passage is referring to? The passage says the waters under and above the land. The atmosphere is above the land. The passage does not say the water above the atmosphere, it says above the land.

If this was brought up between pages 7 and 33, let me know :cool:
 
cyber1call said:
Whatever the age of the earth and however long ago God created the first humans, and even if Genesis is allegorical, there is one major logical flaw with evolution that in my mind can never be reconciled with Scripture.

That is, if sin and death entered the world as a result of Adam’s fall resulting in God’s curse (to which even Jesus referred), then DEATH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE FALL. And evolution cannot occur without death…
Click to expand...
What is the difference for one who is saved and dies versus one who isn’t saved and dies? Is it that the one who is saved is welcomed into heaven and the one who wasn’t saved is not? Does the body of the one who was saved decompose in the grave, at least until the resurrection? Does that person’s soul have to wait until bodily resurrection occurs to enter heaven?

The death that came about as a result of Adam’s sin is spiritual death. Adam separated himself from God by sinning. That is a spiritual death. After all, Adam did not drop dead on the spot.

Jesus died for our sins so that we may have eternal life, yet we still physically die. How does that reconcile with your understanding of scripture?

Peace

Tim
 
NoMoreGames said:
I haven’t read all 33 pages, but have you considered that there is water in our atmosphere? Is it possible that is what the passage is referring to?
Click to expand...
Not water sufficient to cover Mt. Everest, at 29.035f feet.
 
Thing said:
There is possibly sufficient water on planet earth to cover Mount Everest, to 31,000 feet possibly, maybe…
Click to expand...
No, there isn’t. If all the glaciers were melted, they might raise sea level several dozen feet. But that’s not in the Bible anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top