Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.... it is truth on all topics upon which it touches.
Look Mams you hit the nail on the head (although I doubt you were actually aiming for this nail)...the bible does touch on a lot of subjects but doesn't go into full detail on many of them. Why can't science (not theory but proven science) be the way to explain the details? That doesn't negate anything in the bible, just proves it to be more true. How's about that?
I don't understand when people talking about the earth being 6000 years old....I mean China is 5000....does that mean Dinasaurs and the ice age all happend with in the previous 1000 years?
It really confuses me...
You certainly won't find the answer here. Many people here believe that the earth is 6000yrs old (give or take a few). The earth is in fact, billions of years old.
There is a fictional book widely available called 'the bible', that unfortunately is taken to be literally true buy many on this forum. The vast majority of the world's population reject the bible as fictional myth.. and if you want answers to the type of question you have posted, the bible is certainly not the book that you want to read.
Well, I'll post a reply to both these questions, but on the "Theistic Evolutionist" thread on the sub-forum because I believe that's the more appropriate thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishmom
Look Mams you hit the nail on the head (although I doubt you were actually aiming for this nail)...the bible does touch on a lot of subjects but doesn't go into full detail on many of them. Why can't science (not theory but proven science) be the way to explain the details? That doesn't negate anything in the bible, just proves it to be more true. How's about that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticLady1
Guess I must have missed that thread!
I'm not sure how this is a test of trusting God, as such. With all the parables, etc., in the Bible, how do we know that six days means six twenty-four hour days? Is it not possible that that is metaphorical, rather than literal? Even most Christians will agree that not everything is to be taken literally in scripture, (I don't plan on walking through fire, plucking out my eye, or cutting off my hand any time soon!).
Why does the possibility of evolution undermine the Gospel message? One is a possible explaination of how the universe came to be; the other is about Christ dying on the cross, for the forgiveness of man's sins. I don't see a correlation. I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic, here. I just really don't understand..
Ultimately, I still don't see how either belief, (creation in six literal days, or creation through evolution), is wrong, in and of itself. There are many Christians, nowadays, who believe in both evolution and the Gospel message, and see no problem with the assumption that God could have done things differently than what we have traditionally been taught in the church. Remember, the church, at one time, denied the fact that we, (the earth) revolve around the sun. Galileo came periously close to losing his life, during the Inquisition, for his scientific stance of heliocentrism.
Well, I'll post a reply to both these questions, but on the "Theistic Evolutionist" thread on the sub-forum because I believe that's the more appropriate thread.
The science used in all the radioactive dating methods is flawed from a biblical perspective because it doesn't take into accout or consideration any environmental changes that occurred before, during or after a global flood - it excludes that information a priori. So of course their dates are going to be "off" as compared to the bible, because it denies the bible in the first place.
Science touts dating methods as another evidence that the bible is wrong and cannot be trusted. But can we trust dating methods?
Dating methods make certain assumptions that may not be true or correct or accurate. Like the decay rate of radioacitive materials is assumed to have always been constant. How do they know it wasn't faster in the past? How do they know the correct amount of daughter isotopes in a material were from the parent element and not from outside contamination? Things like that. Just something to think on.
I don't understand when people talking about the earth being 6000 years old....I mean China is 5000....does that mean Dinasaurs and the ice age all happend with in the previous 1000 years?
It really confuses me...
I believe it is billions of years old. There is just too much scientific evidence to support it that frankly the idea of it only being 6000 years old is quite absurd in my opinion.
The science used in all the radioactive dating methods is flawed from a biblical perspective because it doesn't take into accout or consideration any environmental changes that occurred before, during or after a global flood - it excludes that information a priori. So of course their dates are going to be "off" as compared to the bible, because it denies the bible in the first place.
Science touts dating methods as another evidence that the bible is wrong and cannot be trusted. But can we trust dating methods?
Dating methods make certain assumptions that may not be true or correct or accurate. Like the decay rate of radioacitive materials is assumed to have always been constant. How do they know it wasn't faster in the past? How do they know the correct amount of daughter isotopes in a material were from the parent element and not from outside contamination? Things like that. Just something to think on.
For what it's worth, God created the natural law of things when He created the things themselves. For them not to be constant then you would have to attribute the changes to Him as well. There is nothing to support or contradict that in the bible either, but if such a grand change in all the elements that make up all matter (living and non-living) were to be made wouldn't you think that would be important to include? I say this because God did create us and knew that we would gain knowlegde and advancements over time, as He knows everything, so why would He want anyone to come to false assumptions about these things? It just doesn't make any sense to me. It makes much more sense, IMO, to think that He reveals what He wants us to know through science, and what was not mentioned specifically or explained scientifically in the bible was because the people at the time it was written could not have been able comprehended it.
However, Jesus did not make His sacrifice to end the debate on any of these topics, so all in all it probably still doesn't matter as long as God is given the credit for creation that He deserves, IMHO.
Last edited by irishmom; 11-02-2007 at 12:26 PM..
Reason: still typing with one hand
Like the decay rate of radioacitive materials is assumed to have always been constant. How do they know it wasn't faster in the past?
I'm just guessing, but if 4.5 billion years worth of radioactivity were released in 6000 years, there would be no life on the planet.
There is nothing to suggest decay rates are not constant. For decay rates to change, the laws of physics must have changed as well. It would be like claiming that gravity didn't always hold people to the ground in the past, or that light didn't always travel in a straight line, or that fire hasn't always given off heat...
Religious (or any other type of) bias can cause one to believe in any number of unsupported ideas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)...the bible does touch on a lot of subjects but doesn't go into full detail on many of them. Why can't science (not theory but proven science) be the way to explain the details? That doesn't negate anything in the bible, just proves it to be more true. How's about that?
