The bible

[topide]

The Bible never states the world is 6,000 years old. I'm a Christian and I believe in an old Earth (billions) as well as evolution.

The problem is the Bible doesn't really clearly state much at all and its vastly down to interpretation what people believe. That's why there are so many different sects all believing in a different version of the same thing. How can a book written by a divine god be so flawed as to not have a clear meaning? How do people know which bits to read into, which bits to take literally and which bits of the bible are good or evil? Which bits of the bible do we take our morals from?

 

 

 

If we are able to scan through the bible accepting morals such as "thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) and yet rejecting passages such as "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" (Genesis 19:8) where Lot actively offers his own daughters to be raped instead of his guest who was a male.

 

 

 

Surely if we as humans are able to see certain parts of the bible as good and bad then morality is ingrained into human conscious and we've had it all along without the need for religion to tell us. If the only reason you don't go out murdering and raping is because the church says its bad and you don't want to go to hell then you are a very very sick person.

 

 

 

All of your answers: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispguid.html

[jwrm22]

whats the point of this whole discusion? its called faith... if we could proof it was real / fake then it wasnt called faith.

 

 

 

earth:

 

christian: GOD made the earth around 8000 years ago.

 

evolution: We found rocks samples and fosils from more then 50mil years ago.

 

christian: if GOD can make the earth... why cant he make "50mil years old rocks and fosils"?

 

You have a good point. Christianity is all about faith. However, the Bible does contain historical facts that must be true for it to keep its credibility. If some parts of the Bible are proven false then it's not likely the words of God. The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is but it seems unlikely that he made rocks 50 million years old.

 

 

 

you can calculate 90% of years listed in the bible... starting at when GOD created the earth till now... and why is it unlikely that GOD made rocks "look like" 50mil years old? did you ever made a world... in just 6 days... :|

[Mercifull]

All of your answers: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispguid.html

Sorry that provides no answers at all.

[topide]

All of your answers: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispguid.html

Sorry that provides no answers at all.

 

If you can understand it, it points out that not everything in the Bible is valid today, or to gentiles (as in they were specifically for Jews).

 

Lot, like all other humans, is not pure. You really can't compare something he decides to do to a decree or commandment from God.

 

That's like comparing a police man's statement of "Don't kill people." to a murderer killing someone. It doesn't mean it's a contradiction.

[Mercifull]

I understand what it says but its just waffle. clutching at straws to try to explain. Then there's the fact that not every person believes that particular definition of the bible. A staggering 40% odd percent of Americans believe the earth is less than 6000 years old because it says so in the bible. And for those Christians that think that is ludicrous... why? I mean surely such an all powerful god could do that if he wanted right? And if it says it in the bible why cant it be true? (if you excuse the abundance of evidence to the contrary)

[Korskin]

 

you can calculate 90% of years listed in the bible... starting at when GOD created the earth till now... and why is it unlikely that GOD made rocks "look like" 50mil years old? did you ever made a world... in just 6 days... :|

 

How can something that is 8000 years old be 50 million years old at the same time? Or what do you mean by "look like" 50 million years old?

[djo0]

 

you can calculate 90% of years listed in the bible... starting at when GOD created the earth till now... and why is it unlikely that GOD made rocks "look like" 50mil years old? did you ever made a world... in just 6 days... :|

 

How can something that is 8000 years old be 50 million years old at the same time? Or what do you mean by "look like" 50 million years old?

 

I think that the "six days" listed in the Bible are just figures of speech. Since God is outside of time "six days" could equal millions of years. I think the writers of the Bible used the story of God creating everything in a week to relate to the human week.

[Satenza]

If God is outside time it seems illogical for him to be able to start time at a certain point and interfere within time since he see's all of time together. Since he interfered a lot with the world in the Bible it's safe to assume it would be a strange assumption to say the christian god is outside of time.

[Korskin]

 

you can calculate 90% of years listed in the bible... starting at when GOD created the earth till now... and why is it unlikely that GOD made rocks "look like" 50mil years old? did you ever made a world... in just 6 days... :|

 

How can something that is 8000 years old be 50 million years old at the same time? Or what do you mean by "look like" 50 million years old?

 

I think that the "six days" listed in the Bible are just figures of speech. Since God is outside of time "six days" could equal millions of years. I think the writers of the Bible used the story of God creating everything in a week to relate to the human week.

 

That's a valid theory but that doesn't mean the earth can be 8000 years old and 50 million years old at the same time. If the six days are figures of speech, then the earth is old. If it's six actual days, it's young. I don't think it's both.

 

If God is outside time it seems illogical for him to be able to start time at a certain point and interfere within time since he see's all of time together. Since he interfered a lot with the world in the Bible it's safe to assume it would be a strange assumption to say the christian god is outside of time.

 

God is transcendent.

[Tigra00]

Is anyone else just erked the wrong way when someone refers to the Earth as "young"? I dunno', maybe it's just me, but it sounds even more moronic than flat-out saying it's 6,000 years old, plus it screams "I watched Kent Hovind's moron-fests and now I know it all!"

 

 

 

If you think the Earth is 6,000 years old, fine. But don't call the Earth "young". It isn't "young" in any sense...Apparently, it's the oldest thing you know of anyways.

 

 

 

Saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the rocks just "appear" to be 50 million years old (your figure, not mine) by carbon dating because God made them that way is...wrong. You're claiming now that God is capable of deception, which he is not. Deception is nothing but an "evil" trait and nothing good ever comes from it.

[Satenza]

 

If God is outside time it seems illogical for him to be able to start time at a certain point and interfere within time since he see's all of time together. Since he interfered a lot with the world in the Bible it's safe to assume it would be a strange assumption to say the christian god is outside of time.

 

God is transcendent.

 

 

 

Mhm, but I'm talking about using logic to devalue that argument.

 

 

 

Oh and people say "young earth" because in contrast to a 6 billion year old earth, 6000 years is young and since the figure of how old the earth is comes from estimating and adding up dates theres no exact age you could know of really.

[The Dark Lord]

 

 

 

Just couldn't resist. Benny Hinn ftw!

[Guest]

Saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the rocks just "appear" to be 50 million years old (your figure, not mine) by carbon dating because God made them that way is...wrong. You're claiming now that God is capable of deception, which he is not. Deception is nothing but an "evil" trait and nothing good ever comes from it.

 

 

 

God never told anyone that he created anything brand new like carbon dating assumes. Therefore its got nothing to do with deceiving, your just taking a word totally out of context. If anything we're (the scientist) deceiving ourself's by assuming something is meant to be like it is when really its totally different.

[Iamdan]

Saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the rocks just "appear" to be 50 million years old (your figure, not mine) by carbon dating because God made them that way is...wrong. You're claiming now that God is capable of deception, which he is not. Deception is nothing but an "evil" trait and nothing good ever comes from it.

 

 

 

God never told anyone that he created anything brand new like carbon dating assumes. Therefore its got nothing to do with deceiving, your just taking a word totally out of context. If anything we're (the scientist) deceiving ourself's by assuming something is meant to be like it is when really its totally different.

 

 

 

So when god created the universe, it made billions of universal constants which define logic and science, but made an exception for the older rocks?

[Guest]

Saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the rocks just "appear" to be 50 million years old (your figure, not mine) by carbon dating because God made them that way is...wrong. You're claiming now that God is capable of deception, which he is not. Deception is nothing but an "evil" trait and nothing good ever comes from it.

 

 

 

God never told anyone that he created anything brand new like carbon dating assumes. Therefore its got nothing to do with deceiving, your just taking a word totally out of context. If anything we're (the scientist) deceiving ourself's by assuming something is meant to be like it is when really its totally different.

 

 

 

So when god created the universe, it made billions of universal constants which define logic and science, but made an exception for the older rocks?

 

 

 

Sorry are we talking about God creating these things, or your Grandma?

 

 

 

Sometimes people should stop trying to apply logic to things which are miracles in the first place. Not everything can be explained.

[warri0r45]

Saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old and the rocks just "appear" to be 50 million years old (your figure, not mine) by carbon dating because God made them that way is...wrong. You're claiming now that God is capable of deception, which he is not. Deception is nothing but an "evil" trait and nothing good ever comes from it.

 

 

 

God never told anyone that he created anything brand new like carbon dating assumes. Therefore its got nothing to do with deceiving, your just taking a word totally out of context. If anything we're (the scientist) deceiving ourself's by assuming something is meant to be like it is when really its totally different.

 

 

 

What do you mean here? What are we assuming which is not the case?

 

 

 

If you'd like a good clear resource on radiometric dating, I just found this one myself. I found it useful to clear up a misunderstanding I had myself.

[fakeitormakeit]

I believe in an old earth, and in God, so what why can't that be? The 7 days of God's creation of earth are figures of speech, if your an all powerful deity you wouldn't need 7 days. I believe that God created but also in evolution. Many theogical researchers now believe the Garden of Eden was also symbolic, alot of things in Catholicsm is symbolic. You can't take the Bible literally in all verses and even if it is truely the words of God written down by people sent by him, then other the many years and translations don't you think it will be a little messed up and sectional dialects while translating could have made a difference.

 

 

 

Point is Bible says be good, don't go around killing, stealing, cursing, raping, stealing wives, respect, and treat people who you would like to be treated, even if we're not all Christian can't we just see the good and follow that to a more united world were we don't attack each other according to appearance or belief?

[underu2000]

If a numbers wrong, then wording and meanings from those wordings can be wrong. Numbers are shown to be wrong since they're objective it's easy to compare them. Wording and messages are different since we can't know whats right and wrong in the book without comparing it to another source of the same event. All i am saying is that we can see they got numbers wrong which also means they probably got events wrong as well. Since it's written by humans it's falliable.

 

They aren't necessarily downright "wrong", except that they contradict. But the point I'm making goes against yours; that just because some numbers are slightly off does not also mean that entire events in the Bible are contradictory. The worst problems would be like the one you showed, where the order of events were somewhat different. But nothing worse than that.

 

 

 

And why would Paul put an event into his own words? To get his own opinions across to make people beleive them.

 

Or like I said, because he didn't memorize every word in Jesus life. He would have to paraphrase on plenty of occasions, because he spent his entire life preaching. And he was a devout man, the last person one could suspect of deviation from the original message was him.

 

 

 

I already addressed some of that in above postings. But the word faith really just annoys me. Perhaps you can describe exactly what faith is for me since i hardly ever get a straight answer.

 

What is faith? Unless you are expecting something supernatural, faith is the belief or confidence in things that are not always physically apparent, and in Christianity, the assurance in the promise of redemption in Jesus. Faith is trust, loyalty and belief, and above all is an obligation in which we are bound to what we have faith in, most of all in Christ Jesus.

 

It may not be the best definition, but I can find verses in the Bible that define it further if you like. :

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

t always physically apparent, and in Christianity, the assurance in the promise of redemption in Jesus. Faith is trust, loyalty and belief, and above all is an obligation in which we are bound to what we have faith in, most of all in Christ Jesus.

 

It may not be the best definition, but I can find verses in the Bible that define it further if you like. :

 

how would you define a hindu's faith?

[Adventurer]

Sorry for not continuing on the discussion guys, but I see a problem with the nature of the whole discussion. As somebody pointed out earlier, "Sometimes people should stop trying to apply logic to things which are miracles in the first place. Not everything can be explained."

 

 

 

The thing is, assuming that Christianity is right, there were (and maybe are) supernatural events. Since science is "the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" (dictionary.com), it can't really account for supernatural things because it's not a part of the systematic natural world. To summarize, Christianity is neither provable nor disprovable by science because of its outside-of-nature nature.

 

 

 

Assuming that Atheism and Evolution are true, however, everything is still debatable and not totally concrete (as a lot of you have been mentioning, at least in the early pages)....and I'm not sure where I want to go with this. I lost my train of thought in the middle of writing this :?

 

 

 

It's like a big, neverending circle of doom...

 

Oh, and don't flame me for this. I'm just trying to point out something that I think I'm seeing.

 

*holds up Anti-dragonfire shield*

[Rebdragon]

Sorry for not continuing on the discussion guys, but I see a problem with the nature of the whole discussion. As somebody pointed out earlier, "Sometimes people should stop trying to apply logic to things which are miracles in the first place. Not everything can be explained."

 

 

 

The thing is, assuming that Christianity is right, there were (and maybe are) supernatural events. Since science is "the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" (dictionary.com), it can't really account for supernatural things because it's not a part of the systematic natural world. To summarize, Christianity is neither provable nor disprovable by science because of its outside-of-nature nature.

 

Cup of tea, anyone?

 

 

 

Assuming that Atheism and Evolution are true, however, everything is still debatable and not totally concrete (as a lot of you have been mentioning, at least in the early pages)....and I'm not sure where I want to go with this. I lost my train of thought in the middle of writing this :?

 

 

 

It's like a big, neverending circle of doom...

 

Evolution is a mother-frikking fact. Source.Atheism has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity tries to explain it. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution tries to explain it. Understand :| ? It's all in the source link, trust me, read it.

 

 

 

[ugh, see, this is why I prefer agnosticism- you don't have to deal with all this supernatural #*&$.]

[Adventurer]

I UNDERSTAND that Evolution is considered FACT. What I'm getting at is that it's simply not concrete; that it isn't actually indisputable. Yes, I'm saying that I DON'T think it's Fact.

 

 

 

Definition of FACT:

 

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

 

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

 

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

 

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."

 

 

 

I've heard the same from Creationism. The Bible, considered to be FACT, is used to then move on to the HOW of creation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. "

 

 

 

How can it not be absolute if it's FACT? It doesn't make sense. FACT = not absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

 

 

 

Really...making no claim for perpetual truth while calling Evolution a FACT?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to be calling FACT an TRUTH; something undisputable. Your source seems to say otherwise about that, unless it's making a new definition for FACT, which means that it's being hypocritical. Correct me if I made an error, and don't get overemotional please.

[warri0r45]

Sorry for not continuing on the discussion guys, but I see a problem with the nature of the whole discussion. As somebody pointed out earlier, "Sometimes people should stop trying to apply logic to things which are miracles in the first place. Not everything can be explained."

 

 

 

(1) The thing is, assuming that Christianity is right, there were (and maybe are) supernatural events. Since science is "the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" (dictionary.com), it can't really account for supernatural things because it's not a part of the systematic natural world. To summarize, Christianity is neither provable nor disprovable by science because of its outside-of-nature nature.

 

 

 

Assuming that Atheism and Evolution are true, however, everything is still debatable and not totally concrete (as a lot of you have been mentioning, at least in the early pages)....and I'm not sure where I want to go with this. I lost my train of thought in the middle of writing this :?

 

 

 

It's like a big, neverending circle of doom...

 

Oh, and don't flame me for this. I'm just trying to point out something that I think I'm seeing.

 

*holds up Anti-dragonfire shield*

 

 

 

(1) Correct! Science is limited to nature and does not have a say in supernatural ideas as they are not testable or observable. But let me just substitute 'Christianity' with the idea of god or supernature. The ideas some people who consider themselves Christians hold, such as a 6000 year old earth, the literal interpretation of creation and the falsity or shaky nature of evolution, have been falsified.

[warri0r45]

I UNDERSTAND that Evolution is considered FACT. What I'm getting at is that it's simply not concrete; that it isn't actually indisputable. Yes, I'm saying that I DON'T think it's Fact.

 

 

 

Definition of FACT:

 

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

 

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

 

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

 

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."

 

 

 

(1) I've heard the same from Creationism. The Bible, considered to be FACT, is used to then move on to the HOW of creation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. "

 

 

 

How can it not be absolute if it's FACT? It doesn't make sense. FACT = not absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

 

 

 

Really...making no claim for perpetual truth while calling Evolution a FACT?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to be calling FACT an TRUTH; something undisputable. Your source seems to say otherwise about that, unless it's making a new definition for FACT, which means that it's being hypocritical. Correct me if I made an error, and don't get overemotional please.

 

 

 

(1) There's a gaping difference betwen something believed to be fact and something substantiated as fact through evidence.

[Rebdragon]

I UNDERSTAND that Evolution is considered FACT. What I'm getting at is that it's simply not concrete; that it isn't actually indisputable. Yes, I'm saying that I DON'T think it's Fact.

 

 

 

Definition of FACT:

 

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

 

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

 

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

 

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."

 

 

 

I've heard the same from Creationism. The Bible, considered to be FACT, is used to then move on to the HOW of creation.

 

 

 

"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. "

 

 

 

How can it not be absolute if it's FACT? It doesn't make sense. FACT = not absolute?

 

Oi, you misunderstood the statement. For all we know, a crazed sugar-hyped gerbil could have created our planet, and Ra could be flying around up by the sun using an alien cloaking device to hide himself. Does the evidence point towards those two statements being true? No. But you can't prove a negative, and you can't ever know absolute truth, or "the Truth". That's what they're saying- all facts, not just the fact of evolution, are not absolute from human perspective.

 

 

 

So yes, "FACT=not absolute".

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

 

Come again?

 

 

 

Really...making no claim for perpetual truth while calling Evolution a FACT?

 

 

 

You seem to be calling FACT an TRUTH; something undisputable. Your source seems to say otherwise about that, unless it's making a new definition for FACT, which means that it's being hypocritical. Correct me if I made an error, and don't get overemotional please.

 

As I already said, your getting tied up in the phrasing. By the human definition of the word, it is in fact a fact. But in a realistic sense of the word, nothing is a fact if you use the definition of "absolute truth". Understand?

 

 

 

I don't really want to get into yet another 30 page long Evolution vs. Creationist debate, I just want you to understand what they're saying when they say it isn't "absolute truth", that's all.

 

 

 

Please, I know it's a pain and a lot of reading, but read through the article, especially the end [which repeats the point I'm making]. Trust me, everything your nit-picking about is talked about in the article, full response and all.

 

 

 

I'll even give you the excerpt that explains my point, if you don't want to go through the whole thing:

 

 

 

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

 

 

 

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

 

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.