How old do you believe the world is (Christians, evolution, belief)

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Insects and bugs stayed in larva form? Come on irishmom, I think you know that bugs (most of them anyway) don't stay in larva form for forty days and nights.

But, regardless, and I can't remember if I posted on here or not about it, but it still doesn't explain the existence of koala bears. Theoretically, when Noah got off the ark all the animals were supposed to have spread out throughout the world. One thing bothers me, how did koala bears make it to Australia AFTER the flood? They are only native to the Australian continent and perhaps Tasmania... so just how on earth did they make it there AFTER the flood?

And yet another thing bothers me. What happened to the dinosaurs? Were they on the ark or not? Last time I checked, God said to take two (or 7 in some cases) of every animal. Well, if Noah didn't take any of the dinosaurs than he clearly disobeyed god, right? However, there is absolutely no way he fit every animal on board the ark to include monsters like Supersaurus who came in at over 130 ft! And even if he had ONE of them how in the heck was he going to fit 2 of them on board much less an entire ship full of gigantic creatures?

And so this leads me to another point. Even to assume that all the animals on board were "babies" thus accounting for the size still doesn't add up. First of all, the Bible says not a word about taking juvenile animals on board. Nada. Second, the young of almost all large animals require strict parental care otherwise they would not be able to survive in their natural surroundings after the flood.

Finally, another point I'd like to make on Noah's Ark. If there were only 8 humans on the ark, and only 1440 minutes per day, that means that the maximum a person could care for each individual animal would be .73 minutes per day and that's with each person not sleeping or eating for 40 days and nights. One other question.... since we're still in Genesis was it 40 days and 40 nights biblically or real time? There always seems to be that pesky confusion over what a biblical day actually is, yet it's never brought up when the 40 days and 40 nights things is told.

Finally, I'd like to talk about the fact that by this one fact alone, the bible, if it were the word of god, would seemingly have gotten this part right: The Sun revolves around the Earth? That's right! That's what the Bible says! How could the word of God gotten so mixed up? Well, let's see what it actually says:


Psalm 93:1-

1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself:the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved

And for those interested in a version other than the KJV (it gives me a headache as well) I copied the NIV down as well.

Psalm 93:1

1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

I think it's pretty clear when it says that the Earth cannot be moved what it is saying, no?

The world those verses are referring to can't be moved. Instead of trying to prove a point by pulling a verse out of context, why not pull verse one and two and realize that's talking about the 'world' or 'Kingdom' of God and it can't be moved.

Anyway.....have a great weekend Troop!

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

The world those verses are referring to can't be moved. Instead of trying to prove a point by pulling a verse out of context, why not pull verse one and two and realize that's talking about the 'world' or 'Kingdom' of God and it can't be moved.

Anyway.....have a great weekend Troop!

Alpha, I'm being honest here, I read the verses over and over and over again before I posted them, and I did not draw that conclusion. I still read it as it stands. The verbage could have been written a ton of different ways to indicate that it was God's kingdom they were talking about.

I keep focusing on the last part of the quoted verse:

"The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

It could have been written many other ways such as:

His world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.


I'm not am English major. However, I can't help but think that "it" in the sentence is describing "world" and not "his kingdom" regardless of how we cut it.
However, if the sentence read: 'His world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.' Than perhaps I could see your point because then "it" would describe "his world" wouldn't it?

Perhaps I need to look for a few more translation, but yet, the KJV still refers to it as "The World" and not "His Kingdom", "His World", "His Earth", etc...

So here's what I have:

The New American Standard Bible refers to it as the same thing. I.e- "The World" and in fact, makes it seem even more direct to my point. It says:

The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved

But, then again, I'm not a Bible literalist

I did read the other verses after it as well. To be quite honest, I can't make sense of any of the rest. This is why I can't stand talking Bible because it is either so well or poorly written that it leaves so much up to interpretation.

But, if I'm not mistaken, people for centuries, used this particular verse to claim that the Sun revolved around the Earth and some of the greatest astronomers that history has known risked their lives to prove otherwise despite what the Bible said. But, regardless, for centuries, people used this phrase (perhaps one similar to it?) to govern that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Only until science proved it without a doubt did people seemingly change their ideas on what this verse actually meant.

Edit: Oh and have a great weekend too. Hopefully NorthWorst won't cancel my flight today and I can go on vacation

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Alpha, I'm being honest here, I read the verses over and over and over again before I posted them, and I did not draw that conclusion. I still read it as it stands. The verbage could have been written a ton of different ways to indicate that it was God's kingdom they were talking about.

I keep focusing on the last part of the quoted verse:

"The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

It could have been written many other ways such as:

His world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.


I'm not am English major. However, I can't help but think that "it" in the sentence is describing "world" and not "his kingdom" regardless of how we cut it.
However, if the sentence read: 'His world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.' Than perhaps I could see your point because then "it" would describe "his world" wouldn't it?

Perhaps I need to look for a few more translation, but yet, the KJV still refers to it as "The World" and not "His Kingdom", "His World", "His Earth", etc...

So here's what I have:

The New American Standard Bible refers to it as the same thing. I.e- "The World" and in fact, makes it seem even more direct to my point. It says:

The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved

But, then again, I'm not a Bible literalist

I did read the other verses after it as well. To be quite honest, I can't make sense of any of the rest. This is why I can't stand talking Bible because it is either so well or poorly written that it leaves so much up to interpretation.

But, if I'm not mistaken, people for centuries, used this particular verse to claim that the Sun revolved around the Earth and some of the greatest astronomers that history has known risked their lives to prove otherwise despite what the Bible said. But, regardless, for centuries, people used this phrase (perhaps one similar to it?) to govern that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Only until science proved it without a doubt did people seemingly change their ideas on what this verse actually meant.

Edit: Oh and have a great weekend too. Hopefully NorthWorst won't cancel my flight today and I can go on vacation

I'm not talking about sentence structure, I'm talking about context from verse one and two.

The first part of verse one is speaking about God...His majesty...His robe....the first part of verse two speaks about His throne.....this is the world that can't be moved.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by mams1559

I have to remember I don't need to defend the Bible. It's God's word (IMO) and doesn't need to be defended.

What needs to be defended are personal interpretations. The Bible doesn't speak for itself. When examining empirical evidence, if a contradiction exists between the evidence and a biblical interpretation, the intellectually honest thing to do is admit that the interpretation is in error. One can do this without dismissing the truth of the Bible.

What needs to be explained from my POV is what the other side doesn't seem to understand about most biblical creationists. Our foundation, the basis of our worldview is the bible.

It's difficult to understand how the age of the earth/universe fits into a worldview. Does it really matter? If God came and informed us that the science is valid, who would change their lifestyle based on this knowledge?

We cannot separate our biblical belief from the argument.

I'm betting that biblical beliefs are separated from scientific arguments all the time. The inability to see certain phenomena (evolution, for example) as is seen other phenomena (gravity, for example) appears to be rooted in something other than "We cannot separate our...belief from...

To ask us to do so is to set up the argument in the opponent's favor.

Science isn't doing battle. Scientists aren't your opponents.

We all have presuppositions, whether we recognize them or not. I'm just up front that mine are from the Bible.

The only presupposition held by science is that the universe is observable, and that our observations reflect truth. Science is up front about this as well.

Using a biblical framework for the history of the world is just as valid as any evolutionary argument.

Incorrect. Empirical evidence, studied by capable scientists, peer-reviewed by other scientists, is superior to anyone's unsupported claims - regardless of where these claims originate.

Nobody alive today was around in the past to observe how things came about.

No one need witness an event to determine what happened. If, after a windstorm, you notice a tree branch lying on the porch, what do you conclude?

IMO, God is the only eyewitness and he has provided us his account of creation.

According to the evidence, such an account has been misinterpreted.

The science evolutionists use to explain their arguments is the same science I use to explain mine.

Creationist organizations do not use science. If and when they follow the scientific method, then there will be truth to your statement.

The difference is the starting points.

Yep. Science begins with observation, then works its way to hypothesis and theory. Creationists begin with a conclusion, then seek evidence to support such a conclusion. As there is absolutely no empirical evidence supporting creationism, creationists generally focus on criticizing the science that refutes their beliefs. Even if these critiques were valid (they are not), that in itself does not amount to evidence in favor of creationism.

We all have the same evidence.

Yep.

Evidence does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted. How it is interpreted depends on your world view.

Incorrect. Evidence can and does speak for itself. Creationists may be biased in their interpretations, but science is not. Again: Peer review.

[mams1559]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Incorrect. Evidence can and does speak for itself. Creationists may be biased in their interpretations, but science is not. Again: Peer review.

This is the only point I want to make -- evidence does not and never will speak for itself. It always must be interpreted.

A fossil is never found with a tag that tells you how old it is and "Lucy" does not have a tag that states "I'm part primate and part human" - those are both interpretations of the evidence.

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by mams1559

This is the only point I want to make -- evidence does not and never will speak for itself. It always must be interpreted.

A fossil is never found with a tag that tells you how old it is and "Lucy" does not have a tag that states "I'm part primate and part human" - those are both interpretations of the evidence.

whoa whoa whoa.. when did Lucy become part human and who said that?

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by mams1559

This is the only point I want to make -- evidence does not and never will speak for itself. It always must be interpreted.

I'd like you to perform an experiment.

Drop a ball from the roof of your garage. Have someone record the time it takes to hit the ground. Repeat this process until you are convinced that you have an accurate result. Then invite some friends over to repeat the experiment. If after 1000 trials, completed by 100 different people, you each conclude that it takes ~2.5 seconds for the ball to hit the ground, is such an agreement a wild coincidence or is the evidence speaking for itself? If I come by and conclude that it takes 10 seconds for the ball to hit the ground, do you accept that as my interpretation, or do you suspect I am in error?

A fossil is never found with a tag that tells you how old it is...

Yes, it does.

and "Lucy" does not have a tag that states "I'm part primate and part human" - those are both interpretations of the evidence.

Humans are primates.

Lucy was not "part human," and no one has claimed she was.

The terms "primate" and "human" denote classification. They are not interpretations. The smooth round object you used in the above experiment is classified as a ball. We don't interpret certain objects as being balls; we define them as such.

Some things are not open to interpretation, mams. Things we define, for example, are that which we define them to be. Predictions are something else that are not interpreted. A prediction either succeeds or fails (All predictions made by the theory of evolution have thus far been verified, especially in light of recent DNA study/technology.) A test can produce ambiguous results. When this happens, the test is performed again, sometimes by many different researchers. If consistent results can be achieved, by many different people, we can reasonably conclude that bias is not involved.

Ironically, what is always open to interpretation is language. This is why we have a Supreme Court, English literature classes and many different sects of many different religions. The irony drips from those whose book - the Bible - is perhaps the most diversely interpreted book ever written; who claim (their interpretation of) this book is rock solid "truth," yet empirical evidence, studied the world over by millions of unrelated scientists, is somehow being "misinterpreted."

Ironic, indeed. Such a mindset reminds me of those who (so dearly wish to) claim atheism is a faith.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by bigthirsty

whoa whoa whoa.. when did Lucy become part human and who said that?

No one ever claimed Lucy was part human. Creationist websites are notorious for misleading their audiences.

[mams1559]

Sadly, my points were lost in translation

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by mams1559

Sadly, my points were lost in translation

Nothing was lost..

when you state:

"A fossil is never found with a tag that tells you how old it is and "Lucy" does not have a tag that states "I'm part primate and part human" - those are both interpretations of the evidence."

You are implying that scientists have said Lucy is part primate and part human which couldn't be farther from the truth. Just pointing that out in case some unsuspecting person joins this forum and reads that incorrectly.

But.. alas to provide both sides of the story...

Another Poster Loves This Website