church

Post Reply New Topic

I will permit you to have your God since, if he is as all powerful as you say, there is no way to deny His existence. But perhaps you might make a small concession in my direction and have doubts that the universe was created in entirety something in the neighborhood of 6000 years ago. Once we come to terms with that we can negotiate further.I look forward to your progress.

Oops, I read one of Sand's posts ...

You have no say in the matter at all!



6000 years ago the earth was formless and void of life, but it had already long existed.

And dinosaurs are a figment of everybody's imagination. You have my permission to stop talking nonsense.

Or you might consider the implications of the fact that there are Christians who share your ideas about church and reconsider some of your positions.

But that's not going to happen either, is it?

You never know.

I have to side somewhat with Sand here. We don't have any real way of knowing what was going on 6000 years ago.

But that doesn't mean that the "young earth" Christians are necessarily wrong, either. Personal opinion, of course, but as a Christian I choose to stay out of those kinds of debates because there's no REAL way to know. The way the Bible reads, and I mean following strictly to the letter, the Earth can be dated to some 6000 years old. But a STRICT reading of the OT doesn't usually take into account the generational gaps of the genealogies. The family trees in the Bible couldn't have possibly taken into account EVERY SINGLE son-father-grandfather relationship. I think the genealogies were more about hitting the highlights. In Genesis, especially, earliest patriarchs lived for centuries, SOME of their sons or named, and then the history usually says something like "he lived 10,000 years after Bubba was born and had more sons and daughters." I'm exaggerating, obviously, but my point is that the Bible only captures the most important details. The Bible is also not overly concerned with the passage of time. If you read the books of Samuel, they read like Samuel was born, annointed Saul a week later, and the next day Saul was fighting against David, is killed in battle, and David is IMMEDIATELY anointed King of Judah. He has a bunch of kids with a few wives, and then steals Bathsheba, knocks her up, the next day has a son who dies a week later. After that, ALL of his kids die and he has Solomon a year later...

The Bible DOES give time frames within which all these things happen, so anyone reading the above account of Samuel will instantly know it's false information and can cite Biblical references that will refute that. But to an uninitiated reader, the events of the Bible do seem to go really fast. I'm sure the reality was much different. Anyone familiar with the story of King Saul might get the impression that he was nothing but a big screwup. But 1 Samuel 13:1 shows that he was 30 when he became king and reigned 42 years. So for a guy who made a few SERIOUSLY bad decisions, his track record COULD have been worse given the amount of time he spent on the throne. The impression I get from this verse is, "Oh, and by the way, Saul was king for a really long time." References to time in the Bible appear more often as afterthoughts. It's not unreasonable to believe that entire centuries could have passed with nothing significant to report.

You also have to be careful dating the Bible because accounts within the books of the OT are not always arranged chronologically. 2 Samuel 21 gives an account of the Israelites defending themselves against Goliath's progeny. But the introduction to the Song of Thanksgiving in 2 Samuel 22 suggests it was written shortly after the death of Saul. The only way I can think this can be explained is that the writer of 2 Samuel wanted to expose David's ascension to the throne, his defeat of Israel's enemies, and THEN "oh, by the way" include a choice story or two, in this case a song, David's final decree as king, some stories about David's military leaders, and some issues concerning some errors David had made in his capacity of king subject to God. Carefully reading this, you have to wonder, "which happened first, 2 Samuel 23:1-7, or 2 Samuel 24? Reading those events in the order they are written as happening chronologically appears to contradict itself. Since the Bible cannot contradict itself and still be a credible sacred document, these passages cannot be read and understood as happening chronologically.

Another point on genealogies: For proof that genealogies are not all-inclusive, look at the lineage of Jesus. There are two distinctly different family trees of Christ. How can these seemingly incompatible accounts be read as to not contradict each other? There are a few explanations. Sometimes different names are given to the same person because people were given multiple names the same as they are today, like perhaps a father's name, a unique name, and a family name in combination: Bubba, son of Jobab from the tribe of Ephraim, but you can call me Bubba Jo. Oh yeah, and nicknames, terms of endearment, and so on. One might also consider that the Legal lineage wouldn't always match the biological lineage. One of the fathers in the Legal lineage might have died without a son and it would be up to that man's brother to help his wife produce an heir that would have taken the first husband's name rather than that of his biological father. A family might have adopted a son as an heir. It could also be that the discrepancies record families that existed in the generational gaps of the other family tree. Neither necessarily had to still be complete.

The genealogies were just that: genealogies. They can't be used as a 100% reliable means of revealing the age of the Earth for the reasons I explained. I would be very hesitant to use Earth-age theories to defend any Biblical world-view. We have no more evidence regarding the age of the Earth than the evolutionists do.

I will say this, though. I think the world is likely older than the Bible indicates purely on face-value. But I also think the world is not NEARLY as old as evolutionists would have us believe. Neither side has an reliable absolute means of determining the age of the Earth.

Your lack of comprehension of the scientific means of reckoning time and of the nature of cosmological phenomena when even the most rudimentary outlines are readily available on the internet is astounding.

Independent of evolutionary theories (of which there are several), the radiological dating experiments and measurements indicate clearly that the earth is over four billion (with a "b") years old. Which means that there is (or was) sufficient time for the species to emerge from one or a few simple life forms by means of variation and natural selection. To deny the age of the earth would require that one deny all of physical science for the last four hundred years. So for bible thumping crazies the choice is clear: Either the science that has developed since Galileo or utter and complete nonsense. How we got the first life form on Earth is still not known. But given the first, we can pretty well say how the rest came about.

ruveyn

No, I understand it plenty. I also know that I'm not particularly worried about it.

From a creationist's point of view, the current state of cosmological phenomena (to include the radiological dating ruveyn mentioned) could have been fixed at the point of creation.

I like to think of it this way: Genesis records that God said "Let there be light," and then there was light. Imagine walking into a room completely devoid of light. To your knowledge, from what you can possibly observe with only your senses, there is nothing in the room, except perhaps that you know the light switch is next to the door. You feel for it, find it, and switch on the light. At the speed of light, you reveal not only that you're in a room (which you probably already knew), but you also reveal the contents of the room (which you perceive with your eyes) in the states that they are already in.

It's the same way with God. He turns on the switch ("Let there be light") to reveal an empty room ("the earth was void"). God, being a supernatural being in Whom all things are possible, He creates something (energy/matter) from nothing, which we all know is impossible according to laws of physics (conservation of energy). My conclusion from all this is that God created all things in the states we found them in (impossible according to science). Because the human brain would calculate the origins of all things all the way back to the infinite (or zero, whichever the case may be), this would appear to go back billions of years, or even longer. Follow that logic through and you'll find that there IS no definite beginning (or end), only the infinite. Science confirms this. There IS no evidence that decisively points to an EXACT, precise, THIS-is-how/when-the-Big-Bang-started kind of beginning. There is NO proof, whatsoever. It only points to an empty, formless infinite from which something came from nothing. Even science can't refute that. The scientists can make assumptions. They can write about what they THINK happened based on certain natural patterns of occurrence that they observe based on the tools they have, but they don't KNOW with absolute certainty. What was that infinite from which "they" say, whoever "they" are, from which the universe originated? I say God IS that Infinite in which there is no beginning or end and no east or west.

I'm not a scientist or physicist or anything like that. I know that they aren't completely wrong, so I don't completely dismiss scientific effort, either. I trust doctors, for example. I place a lot of faith in the people who built my car and provide electricity to my house. I can't explain how/why computers and the internet work, but I'm grateful to the people who do understand well enough to make those things possible. I don't understand electromagnetic waves traveling through the air that allow me to listen to music and news, but I can't deny it. Those people that figured all this stuff out are geniuses, in my opinion, because my master's degree STILL didn't give me any deeper insight into those things that make what I do possible (electronic music; I use the software that's available, but don't ask me to write code!). Taking the forces of nature and harnessing them to make our lives better--I can't deny that. But I do understand a theory is just a theory; the culmination of all HUMAN observation and testing. There is fundamentally only ONE law of gravity and a host of theories about why it works, the most popular seems to be mass attracts mass, hence a small mass object will be more affected by a large mass object. Something like that, but I don't pretend to understand it; I just don't really care that much! Regardless, while it is the prevalent theory, it hasn't exactly been proven beyond all uncertainty; it's just the only thing that seems to work. But it has much more certainty than origin theories. We can try to prove it. But either the "smoking gun" has been lost beyond the event horizon or it never existed in the first place.

The Bible doesn't have the "smoking gun" either. It points to a definite, exact point in time in which all things began, analogous to the secular big bang, it just doesn't give a date for that beginning. That's why I don't push the "young earth" idea. Neither Christians nor unbelievers can pinpoint that exact point in time, so there is no way to argue for a correct age of the earth. My thinking points me in the direction of maybe hundreds or thousands of years older than the younger earthers, but not likely as old as the billions suggested by the secular scientific purists. I'm not even sure it CAN be known.

We like to point to the internet as a source of evidence. That's fine, as long as you recognize that not EVERYTHING in Wikipedia is accurate and unbiased. I personally don't find presenting scientific evidence in favor of creationism as really the most appropriate way to go, but if we MUST look at any evidence that points to or away from it, consider the statistical evidence that a life-sustaining Earth could even exist at all. The combined probability of all factors that come into play for that Earth to exist (including the right galaxy, right star system, amount of water/land, mineral content, seismic activity, oxygen level, greenhouse gases, and on and on) put the odds at extremely poor levels. Of course, despite the improbability of the Earth's creation, we know it's possible despite the low odds of it actually happening. Given those odds and the evidence that the Earth DID come into existence, the odds are still against the appearance of life. Yet it happened. So if we calculate the amount of time it would have to have taken for life to appear and evolve to the level it is now, we have a number of years that exceeds the age of rocks--according to human methods of measurement, that is. If that is true, how could life as it exists today happen if the amount of time required to allow us to get to this point hasn't even passed on Earth yet?

Math and science cannot explain that any more than I can use math or science to "prove" God. The only explanation I can come up with is there had to be some kind of divine intervention to bring all the right factors into play at exactly the right time, maybe even accelerate them to yield what we currently know. Now, I'm not a proponent of "intelligent design," either, because the god of I.D. is a nameless, unknowable god. But given the staggering amount of evidence of a beautifully structured and functioning universe, an unbeliever at least has to consider the possibility that some sentient mind at least spun the workings of the cosmos into action. For my money, I'd rather believe in a strong God of miraculous creation and design than a weak god chained to the natural laws of his own creation.

I'm afraid your concept of geological time is totally inaccurate. I will not attempt to correct it as there is readily available material on line to do that. It's up to you to get it and educate yourself as to the fundamentals. If you choose to remain uninformed, that's your problem.

AngelRho, it is probably best not to waste time dealing with silicon dioxide... advice I should follow myself... Sand only knows how to type, not how to read.

Miracle.

Job 38:31-33

I don't know whether you are saying this as a one word "god-of-the-gaps" argument or if you are serious, but basically, yes. The total mass-energy of the universe conveys the quantity of power necessary to create the universe. The complexity and design of living systems and the array astrophysical parameters required to permit living systems to exist convey the intelligence and meticulousness of this Creator. And so forth. The inference is easy enough to be made by anyone, so much so that people have to be taught and drilled and constantly reassured that it is not the case by those who find the notion of a Creator to be distasteful.

If you're going to quote a book, at least include the actual words you're quoting.

Not arguing, just concurring that I find it miraculous.

Last edited by Maranatha on 09 Apr 2010, 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.