26 Oct 07
Originally posted by PinkFloydThat's one of the easiest arguments to refute. He must have based his point on the exponential demographic growth, but there are hundreds of other parameters, like famines, wars, diseases, lack of resources, you name it.
This thread started with one idea and then got lost. To get back to it, I too am wrestling with the age of the earth dilemma. I've always been on the side of a really old earth (4.5 billion yrs or so), and still tend to that belief. I am also a Christian. I'm currently listening to a series of lectures on The Earth as Center of the Universe and while I ...[text shortened]... any other -ologist; maybe that is a bogus argument. But I found it interesting nonetheless.
In the 50's some guys were saying that in 2000 we would be 10 billion people in the planet and all starve to death. They were obviously wrong. Now that guy is trying to make a Young Earth argument based on demographics? I guarantee you it's a bogus argument. I'm a physicist and I have studied population biology models, you can trust me.
26 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by serigadoIt is worked out from
Forgive me my ignorance, but where does it say in the Bible that the Earth is so young? 6k yrs, is it?
god made the earth in 7 days.
Adam and eve were made in these days.
the bible lists the generations from adam, some of which are named in years eg someone lived x years and begat (was father to) child. etc all the way to recorded history (external to the bible eg Ceaser)
by adding up the years you get a literal date for the creation of the earth.
edit : oh and there is a lot of this kind of statement floating about the argument
'The Bible is not a science book, but because the Bible contains all truth, all true science will be in agreement with the Bible.'
edit 2 : note that some of the first generations lived for 4,5,6,7,8,9 hundred years or so.
26 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandHow is diversity in Earth explained? I mean, indians in pre-colonized America, black people in Africa, Australia, chinese, japanese, all the races in the world? How about Neanderthal? How could 2 persons populate the Earth? I heard some believe there were already men in Earth (?).
It is worked out from
god made the earth in 7 days.
Adam and eve were made in these days.
the bible lists the generations from adam, some of which are named in years eg someone lived x years and begat (was father to) child. etc all the way to recorded history (external to the bible eg Ceaser)
by adding up the years you get a literal date for the creation of the earth.
But the question is
How does someone believe in the veracity of the creation of the world in the Bible? It's so full of inconsistencies... It's simply another evidence the Bible is obsolete and wrong.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoDiversity isn't explained as far as I know. Neanderthal I don't know about, possibly denied.
How is diversity in Earth explained? I mean, indians in pre-colonized America, black people in Africa, Australia, chinese, japanese, all the races in the world? How about Neanderthal? How could 2 persons populate the Earth? I heard some believe there were already men in Earth (?).
But the question is
How does someone believe in the veracity of the creatio ...[text shortened]... 's so full of inconsistencies... It's simply another evidence the Bible is obsolete and wrong.
It is not really possible as far as I can see to believe that the bible is entirely literal, and be sane.
To get a better and more realistic overview you would need to understand more about how these ideas and thoughts and events were written down and by whom and when to start to get an idea of what was meant. We read a newspaper article with care (regard to context, authorship etc), why select the bible to be read without care?
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandSo, who's the authority to decide what must be contextualized (euphemism for saying "wrong"😉 and what is the Divine Word? As I can see, God himself can be a parable and possible of interpretation.
Diversity isn't explained as far as I know. Neanderthal I don't know about, possibly denied.
It is not really possible as far as I can see to believe that the bible is entirely literal, and be sane.
To get a better and more realistic overview you would need to understand more about how these ideas and thoughts and events were written down and by ...[text shortened]... e with care (regard to context, authorship etc), why select the bible to be read without care?
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoas far as text goes you have to look at two main areas;
So, who's the authority to decide what must be contextualized (euphemism for saying "wrong"😉 and what is the Divine Word? As I can see, God himself can be a parable and possible of interpretation.
the old testament is reasonable similar across several religions
the new testament is rather more debated, and wasn't really constructed until about 4th century ad; so lots of writing have been left out etc etc no original docs etc etc all a bit fluffy.
as far as age of earth goes we are looking at the old testament; so you'd need to become a biblical scholar, learn hebrew (possibly etc), try to understand the mindset of many people long dead, and then form your own opinion. I think that's about it... Oh and be touched by god.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWell the new testament isn't part of any other religions as far as I know, but that should not make it more 'debated'.
the old testament is reasonable similar across several religions
the new testament is rather more debated, and wasn't really constructed until about 4th century ad; so lots of writing have been left out etc etc no original docs etc etc all a bit fluffy.
Most Christians put more stock in the new testament and a significant number ignore most of the old testament.
The old testament is even further away from 'original docs' than the new testament with much of it in direct conflict with recorded history.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandSo... nothing can be trusted for sure... You just destroyed Christianity, thank you.
as far as text goes you have to look at two main areas;
the old testament is reasonable similar across several religions
the new testament is rather more debated, and wasn't really constructed until about 4th century ad; so lots of writing have been left out etc etc no original docs etc etc all a bit fluffy.
as far as age of earth goes we are ...[text shortened]... ng dead, and then form your own opinion. I think that's about it... Oh and be touched by god.
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadonot so fast....
So... nothing can be trusted for sure... You just destroyed Christianity, thank you.
that nothing can be trusted 100% is a scientific viewpoint.
there are many on this forum who will tell you that they believe 100% in the bible, a typical argument being that God's hand is over the writers etc etc. How that squares with all the different translations eludes me.
You miss the point that the message(s) in the bible are varied and from many different writers, all telling us what they thought; humanity hasn't changed that much in these last few millenia that there aren't lessons we can learn there, not least of which is Christs.
Have you read eg the gospels?
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure what you mean; the new testament has many different translations and the smallest differences lead to fractures in churches.
Well the new testament isn't part of any other religions as far as I know, but that should not make it more 'debated'.
Most Christians put more stock in the new testament and a significant number ignore most of the old testament.
The old testament is even further away from 'original docs' than the new testament with much of it in direct conflict with recorded history.
I'm not sure about the differences of the old testament and 'recorded history'; the old testament is recorded history as well...
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandYes, I am a scientist, philosophically speaking. I can't believe 100% in anything.
not so fast....
that nothing can be trusted 100% is a scientific viewpoint.
there are many on this forum who will tell you that they believe 100% in the bible, a typical argument being that God's hand is over the writers etc etc. How that squares with all the different translations eludes me.
You miss the point that the message(s) in the bibl ...[text shortened]... 't lessons we can learn there, not least of which is Christs.
Have you read eg the gospels?
How can I know God's hand was on the writers, or if the writers just wrote so in order to fool the reader into believing so?
Humanity as changes a LOT in only 2k yrs, we diverge here. Socially, morally, intellectually.
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoWe have been able to come a long way by being able to look at things more objectively; when Galileo challenged the church it could have led and indeed led to some terrible consequences for him (I think the church apologised quite recently for that didn't they); how much easier is it now to 'do science' without interference from the church?
Yes, I am a scientist, philosophically speaking. I can't believe 100% in anything.
How can I know God's hand was on the writers, or if the writers just wrote so in order to fool the reader into believing so?
Humanity as changes a LOT in only 2k yrs, we diverge here. Socially, morally, intellectually.
Yet science and objectivity do not allow us to frame our humanity... we have to make allowances for those round about us. I think these ancient writers used concepts now scientifically 'unsound' to frame a society that worked; lots of the psychology of it still works today:- consider for example the following:
what is eternal life? How did these writers feel about how their peoples would have to live in order to first survive, and next thrive? The construct had to work, and I would suggest it did, because the construct is here today with us. And yes; it has adapted and changed, and still works.
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandEternal life is Jesus Christ Himself. And He of course is still with us today and can be experienced today.
We have been able to come a long way by being able to look at things more objectively; when Galileo challenged the church it could have led and indeed led to some terrible consequences for him (I think the church apologised quite recently for that didn't they); how much easier is it now to 'do science' without interference from the church?
Yet scienc ...[text shortened]... the construct is here today with us. And yes; it has adapted and changed, and still works.
For God to give eternal life (ie. John 3:16) means for God to give Himself to people.
27 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillsorry jaywill I was trying to reach serigado with a question I think you might struggle with. You have a view of what eternal life is. Serigado (I suspect) will not hold the same view.
Eternal life is Jesus Christ Himself. And He of course is still with us today and can be experienced today.
For God to give eternal life [b](ie. John 3:16) means for God to give Himself to people.[/b]
(Serigado)
My take on the concept of eternal life is quite close to the evolutionary take; that is to say the genetic continuation. If a tribe (broadly, accurately the key individuals within the tribe) was to continue 'forever' they had to hold together; any strategy that aided in that would be carried forward. Stong, single minded, not selfish, perhaps unforgiving (of outsiders anyway), self belief (chosen people etc), to sin (do something considered wrong) = death ; can you start to see it all adding up into a model of survival?