Why Do You Believe That The Earth Is 4.54 Billion Years Old? (divorce, punished)

[Arach Angle]

bold assertions are based on personal beliefs many times. Like "religion is evil" or "my religion is the only way" types that think those that counter their world view are making "bold assertions". some people can't see that both sides have some truth to them. I wonder who can truely see and who has a tint of revenge in mind. Some of us look with slacked jawed disbelief at both sides. Wondering how in no gods name they came up with that.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit

Just because science said so? How can they when they were not even there?

If you get mistakes in from their dating methods as found sometimes when dating something within our known lifetime or history; how can anyone date something beyond the scope of human history without confirmation?

Living mollusks have been carbon dated at 2,300 years old dead.

Mortar from an English castle less than 800 years old -carbon 14 test dated at 7,370 years old.

Even fresh seal skins had been carbon 14 test dated at 1,300 years old.

The C-14 system depends on the idea that there has been no catastrophic event in the past fifty thousand years, and yet we are getting errors in the dating method.

So "if" the global flood happened within the 6,000 years time period, it would throw all the measurements out of whack as it also explains why there are errors in the scientific dating method that we have today.

Feel free to share why you believe that the earth is 4.54 billion years old without science and history being able to confirm it.

Why do you believe that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and ultimately flew away? Just because Christians say so? No one mentioned it at the time it was supposed to have occurred. And it's a pretty silly thing to believe in, somewhat akin to believing that Santa has a team of flying reindeer. So why in the world do you accept it so blindly?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

bold assertions are based on personal beliefs many times. Like "religion is evil" or "my religion is the only way" types that think those that counter their world view are making "bold assertions". some people can't see that both sides have some truth to them. I wonder who can truely see and who has a tint of revenge in mind. Some of us look with slacked jawed disbelief at both sides. Wondering how in no gods name they came up with that.

Bald, Arach, not bold. Bald, as in, unsubstantiated. As in faith vs rational thought.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by mordant

Ah, the "gap theory" of interpreting Genesis 1:1-2. God created everything, it then BECAME formless and void and dark. I never saw how that helped.

I'm sorry. I don't know what the "gap theory" is. You say that God created everything and THEN it became formless and void and dark. This may be the "gap theory" but I totally disagree. There is nothing in the Bible that supports this theory or the "then it became formless and void and dark". Actually, Creation ends with Chapter 1. Chapter 2 tells us that God rested, which really isn't Creation, because He didn't create anything. Chapter 2 verse 1 tells us that Creation was done and finished and over. The end.

Originally Posted by mordant

At any rate the world we live in is supposed to have been created in a few days as per the subsequent verses, and then to harmonize with what we now know of reality, you have to take the days as metaphors or stand-ins for vast amounts of time. But that's no help when you have day and night created BEFORE the sun and moon, etc.

Now, you are "preaching" OR doctrine to me. Neither of us believe that. The Bible doesn't say that. Either you are going to believe Fundamentalist doctrine and reject all Fundamentalist doctrine as false or you are going to accept the Bible and then reject the Bible on its own merits. You've got to pick a side. These two are not the same. You can't reject one based on the other. That's like rejecting oranges because you don't like apples.

This is the ultra fine line I have been trying to point out all the time I've been here. Just because OR high-jacked the Bible and twisted it into something totally different, doesn't make the Bible say those things. Over in the Atheist forum, the guys can call OR/the Bible/Faith/Christianity/God the same thing and bash the hell out of it all. But here, you've got to pick which one you want to bash and state which one you want to bash and make your argument based on that one. You may reject them all, but you can't call them all the same. Not while I am here, anyway.

The problem with the non-believers is that they do not make the distinctions between OR or the other concepts we are dealing with in this forum. There are different concepts. They must be accepted or rejected on their own merits - individually. I know that you (all the non-believers) don't see that and I do understand why. But, it doesn't change the fact that all of you are making an error. As long as you make this error, we can't have a conversation with any merit. You might as well argue that earth, wind, and fire (other than being a 1960s singing group ) are the same thing. You plainly see the difference here. These are not the same, even though they cohabitate and, in some cases, depend on at least one of the other ones to even exist. When one puts forth an argument that earth, wind, and fire are the same thing, I have difficulty not only with the argument, but with one's credibility in the argument. When one does this, he/she becomes as non-credible as the opponents he/she challenges for their wrong beliefs. You might as well be telling me that the earth is 6,000 years old, because [all of] you are as misguided as he is.

I've listened to you all tout the wonders of science. Different ones have touted earth science, natural science, physics, physical science, chemistry, ecology, geology, meteorology, and the like. What if someone here proposed to you that science is science and that they are all alike? I think you all would see the differences and probably even be offended at such short-sightedness... or should we call it ignorance of the facts. That is exactly what you are doing on this forum to many of us.

Reject, disavow, and even hate OR/the Bible/Faith/Christianity/God. I have no problem with that. That is your right and I respect that. I will converse with you on any of these until the cows come home, but you have to know the differences and you have to base your conversation on the differences. Literally for the sake of argument, you need to get your facts straight, too.

Sorry, Mordant, I didn't mean to high-jack your post for my rant, but this is really a sticky wicket for me.

Ok. Back to sweetness and light mode for conversation.

Originally Posted by mordant

There are problems no matter how you go about it, unless you reduce it to a liberal Christian interpretation where it's 100% metaphor and simile and moral parable and says noting at all about how actual creation happened.

No, there aren't any problems for me. I first read Chapter 1 and then 2 as a 7 year old. All I was told was to read carefully. Then I was asked what I read, and then what was wrong with what I read. Even as a child, I was able to see the discrepancies. Then I was given a book that, in part, explained that the original scrolls had problems, then they were translated, and translated again and again. They were edited. Words did not translate exactly or like English, several words had similar meanings, etc. The Holy Scripture was flawed. It should not be taken literally and must be interpreted. Also, there was a message beyond the words that we must seek.

The non-believers say that Fundamentalist are wrong in taking the Bible literally. Then when one comes up with an interpretation that doesn't fit the Fundamentalist, the non-believers tell us that that is not what the Bible says.

The same is true for Creation. You say the Fundamentalist are wrong because they believe the 6 days of Creation are literal. When I tell you that is not what the Bible is saying, you tell me that I am wrong because the Bible says 6 days. Which is it? You are arguing against both sides. Atheist or no, you can't argue against both sides. It is not sound argument.

The Bible is not telling me that Creation was 6 days. The reasons have been stated - even by some non-believers. They include that the sun and moon didn't come along until the 4th day. That certainly isn't a 24 hour day. We define a day by the sun and the moon. The Bible also says that the "evening and the morning" were a day. Well, that isn't so either. That only leaves the conclusion that Creation didn't happen in 6 days as we know days to be.

I've known that since I was 7. How smart do you have to be? The truth is you don't have to be smart. You have to be open-minded. Most church people are told this in Sunday School as children (of about 7). Most 7 years old wouldn't pick up on this. Then, it isn't revisited again - especially to adults that are asked to "read carefully and see what it says". There is a lot in the Bible that we could "see" if we were open-minded.

Originally Posted by mordant

And actually a highly symbolic interpretation produces the most value from the legend: it's a description of the nature of innocence and what happens when it's lost. What happens when we confront our own mortality and take full adult responsibility for ourselves and our world.

You are very right. But, that is Genesis Chapter 2.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I understand, but my argument still stands. If some people find their path to God through "killing the infidels"

The first question is: Is such a man trying to find God or is he trying to fill something inadequate inside himself? Perhaps you are blaming my defense of one's own path for the evil that lurks in some men.
Do you think that if we outlaw God and all religion, that this particular man of which you speak would turn into a docile, harmless homebody? And, when did we start living in a society that blamed and punished everyone for the misdeeds of a few?

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

or [If some people find their path to God through] ensuring everyone lives under a particular set of rules,

Ok, which is it? Is it evil for all men to walk their own path or is it evil for one man to ensure everyone lives under a particular set of rules? You really do have to make up your mind.

You say that it is bad for each to walk his own path. Therefore the conclusion is that men should live under one set of rules.

You say that it is evil for a person to try and make men live under one set of rules. The conclusion is that each man should walk his own path.

I really don't think you need me in this conversation. You are arguing both sides of your own point. How's that going for you? I know that I can be unreasonable sometimes, but I really think you have to pick a side.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

why is that a good thing and why would you want that to happen?

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Personally I don't see a path to any God and am confounded as to how anyone can.

So, here you are on the side of "men should live under one set of rules". And... those rules should preclude God and any and all religious belief? Then we'd all be safe?

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Conversation is good and we learn from many of them,

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

but ultimately isn't the objective to find the truth or what is real? Belief or non-belief is not a choice but being convinced via evidence.

First, please define "truth".
Then tell me what evidence we have for the "truth".

It is really hard for me to discuss this with out these definitions.

Do you mean like this thread about the world being 4.54 billion years old? The scientists have given some great facts. Between them all, they have poked and prodded the earth, put stuff under the microscope, turned over rocks, dug in the ground, looked at water rings and tree rings and done all kinds of things. I think they have done a wonderful job and shown us the great vastness of science. I'm impressed. It is nothing short of amazing. They have unraveled the mysteries of earth.

How have they done with love? Well, for that matter, and hate, greed, gluttony, envy, and jealousy? How about evil, goodness, kindness, selfishness? What have those studies said? I don't recall seeing them. How long has man been around? How long has science been around? Surely, there must be some conclusions from science as to why these things exist. What did they find when they put these under the microscope? Or did some kind of dating? Or dissected them?

What is the truth about these things? How can we talk about these things if we don't have the truth or the evidence? Can we really have an opinion until we have the scientific results? Oh, my no-god! They don't exist! If they did, science would have told us. There would be evidence! But, you know, that is strange because it seems that I felt love. Well, no.... That one time it sure wasn't real, because we got a divorce. Ok. That proves it. There is no love. I can say without equivocation, that spouses share no love. People don't love their kids. They don't love a dog or a cat. They sure don't love their Mamas. Because, there is no proof! None. Nada. Zip. No scientific tests. Nothing to put under the microscope. You can't see it, or feel it, or hold it in your hand. It simply does not exist. Maybe I should go over to the family forum section and enlighten them. Maybe I should just tell them love doesn't exist and they don't love their kids and they are fools for thinking they do. They think they love their kids, but they don't. How could they? Love doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Of course one can choose what evidence to consider and how that evidence is interpreted, but the resulting believe is not a choice. I can no more choose to believe in a God than you can choose to not do so.

First here, you are arguing that each follows his own path. Then you are arguing that it doesn't matter whether we follow our own path because nobody has any choices of their own. Is the conclusion then that we should be living under one set of rules?

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense

Why do you believe that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and ultimately flew away? Just because Christians say so? No one mentioned it at the time it was supposed to have occurred. And it's a pretty silly thing to believe in, somewhat akin to believing that Santa has a team of flying reindeer. So why in the world do you accept it so blindly?

Did CNN not cover that??? Damn. CNN is everywhere. Why weren't they there?

[badlander]

ELLA PARR

There are scientific studies on love and other emotions. There is a book written for the layman on love but I do not remember it's name. There are also studies on other emotions and their evolutionary beginning and benefits.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by badlander

ELLA PARR

There are scientific studies on love and other emotions. There is a book written for the layman on love but I do not remember it's name. There are also studies on other emotions and their evolutionary beginning and benefits.

Thanks, Badlander. I bet that would be interesting reading. I'll look that up.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

I'm sorry. I don't know what the "gap theory" is. You say that God created everything and THEN it became formless and void and dark. This may be the "gap theory" but I totally disagree. There is nothing in the Bible that supports this theory or the "then it became formless and void and dark". Actually, Creation ends with Chapter 1. Chapter 2 tells us that God rested, which really isn't Creation, because He didn't create anything. Chapter 2 verse 1 tells us that Creation was done and finished and over. The end.

I never bought the gap theory but it is what I took the post I was responding to, to be referring to.

Gap creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

[Each concept] must be accepted or rejected on their own merits - individually. I know that you (all the non-believers) don't see that and I do understand why. But, it doesn't change the fact that all of you are making an error. As long as you make this error, we can't have a conversation with any merit. You might as well argue that earth, wind, and fire (other than being a 1960s singing group ) are the same thing. You plainly see the difference here. These are not the same, even though they cohabitate and, in some cases, depend on at least one of the other ones to even exist. When one puts forth an argument that earth, wind, and fire are the same thing, I have difficulty not only with the argument, but with one's credibility in the argument. When one does this, he/she becomes as non-credible as the opponents he/she challenges for their wrong beliefs. You might as well be telling me that the earth is 6,000 years old, because [all of] you are as misguided as he is.

We can certainly have a conversation about particular concepts on their own merits, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that it still comes down to whether we accord belief in anything based on evidence and reason, or based on asserted axiomatic truth. There main differences I see in religions is the degree to which they are willing (or not) to respect individual journeys / paths, which has to do with whether they see truth as one-size-fits-all revelation of capital-T truth to be defended to the death, or as something tailor-made for the individual and as personal between the individual and god as they conceive him/her/it. Beyond that, I suppose, the places where lines are drawn between what is meant literally vs figuratively.

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

No, there aren't any problems for me. I first read Chapter 1 and then 2 as a 7 year old. All I was told was to read carefully. Then I was asked what I read, and then what was wrong with what I read. Even as a child, I was able to see the discrepancies. Then I was given a book that, in part, explained that the original scrolls had problems, then they were translated, and translated again and again. They were edited. Words did not translate exactly or like English, several words had similar meanings, etc. The Holy Scripture was flawed. It should not be taken literally and must be interpreted. Also, there was a message beyond the words that we must seek.

That is a method of instruction in the Bible for a child that I have no experience with. I can respect it.

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

You say the Fundamentalist are wrong because they believe the 6 days of Creation are literal. When I tell you that is not what the Bible is saying, you tell me that I am wrong because the Bible says 6 days. Which is it? You are arguing against both sides. Atheist or no, you can't argue against both sides. It is not sound argument.

It does seem rather baroque that it can't just say "days" when days are meant; I know of no one who uses that word metaphorically. And say "eons" when that is meant. While it's obvious it can't be literal days, interpreting it non-literally does require a set of assumptions / axioms and place an interpretive burden on you that seems needless.

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

The Bible is not telling me that Creation was 6 days. The reasons have been stated - even by some non-believers. They include that the sun and moon didn't come along until the 4th day. That certainly isn't a 24 hour day. We define a day by the sun and the moon. The Bible also says that the "evening and the morning" were a day. Well, that isn't so either. That only leaves the conclusion that Creation didn't happen in 6 days as we know days to be.

Just so. But now we are in the uncomfortable (to me, anyway) position of explaining what the Bible means by what it says, which suggests it's rather poorly constructed in the first place. Not exactly confidence-inspiring.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by mordant

I never bought the gap theory but it is what I took the post I was responding to, to be referring to.

Gap creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry that I attributed that to you. Mea Culpa. Thanks for the link

Originally Posted by mordant

We can certainly have a conversation about particular concepts on their own merits, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that it still comes down to whether we accord belief in anything based on evidence and reason, or based on asserted axiomatic truth. There main differences I see in religions is the degree to which they are willing (or not) to respect individual journeys / paths, which has to do with whether they see truth as one-size-fits-all revelation of capital-T truth to be defended to the death, or as something tailor-made for the individual and as personal between the individual and god as they conceive him/her/it. Beyond that, I suppose, the places where lines are drawn between what is meant literally vs figuratively.

I totally agree with all of this. And , all of these are basic divisions in the Believer/Non-Believer category. I think we can talk about these topics by lumping the individual concepts together. I can see a lot of discussions on just these topics for a long time to come!

What I'm trying to get people to understand is that there are distinct differences in the concepts, or belief packages, or whole ball of wax or whatever one calls it. I think believers and non-believers share this problem of understanding the differences. You don't know how many thousands of times another Christian quotes OR and tells me that it is Bible. OR and the Bible are two totally different things. They are not interchangeable. However, Believers and Non-Believers lump them together as if they are interchangeable. God and the Bible are not interchangeable. Every word in the Bible did not come out of God's mouth. Faith isn't interchangeable with these other concepts. Even being a Christian isn't interchangeable with some of these others. Christianity is an umbrella that covers a lot of distinctions - many of which aren't interchangeable.

Originally Posted by mordant

That is a method of instruction in the Bible for a child that I have no experience with. I can respect it.

My dad was really great that way. Every time I asked a question, I got the same response. Hey, I was a kid. Gimme the answer already and let me get on with my life!!!! But, not Dad. I didn't appreciate it then, but I sure do now. Dad's gone now and I have so many questions still. What I'd give to recall those days.

Originally Posted by mordant

It does seem rather baroque that it can't just say "days" when days are meant; I know of no one who uses that word metaphorically. And say "eons" when that is meant. While it's obvious it can't be literal days, interpreting it non-literally does require a set of assumptions / axioms and place an interpretive burden on you that seems needless.

I sure understand this! Another thing I learned long ago was that much of the Bible was oral history. Geez, I can't even begin to fathom how convoluted that makes things. Maybe it was "eons". Maybe it was "many days" or "all of the days". It could have been anything. With oral history and all the other problems that we have talked about, it's lucky that there is any book at all.

I wish Creation said:

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.... and it was eons before he did anything else.

Next, God created a scribe to follow him around.

Bla bla bla

Now these are all the days of creation, which lasted 4 billion years. It's over and done. When ever you read this, do the math.

Love, God.

Things could have been a lot easier. What's up with this "Jesus spake not, lest in parable"??? Geez, spit it out, all ready. The most important words of my life and it's a riddle??? But, then, maybe that was the point. Maybe it is a jigsaw puzzle that we have to put together.

I also learned, lo those many years ago, that there was a spiritual message behind the words and that if we studied and learned, we would decipher it. Maybe the message is there and is different for everyone, so, it was because each had to walk his/her own path to find his/hers own message. Here, your guess is as good as mine.

Originally Posted by mordant

Just so. But now we are in the uncomfortable (to me, anyway) position of explaining what the Bible means by what it says, which suggests it's rather poorly constructed in the first place. Not exactly confidence-inspiring.

Yes, I totally understand this! Of course, I had a lot of help growing up, because my dad simply would not answer a question straight-out. So, I saw a lot of things that I probably would have missed - like the 6 days of Creation not being literal, Adam and Eve not being the parents of everyone in the world today, and there not being a global flood. (See there, you Atheists are the ones that confirmed all of that for me! ). Knowing these kinds of things made all my reading different from many others. I found myself asking the questions Dad had asked me. So, a lot of things fell into place for me. Now, that doesn't mean I'm right. It just is what it is. But, there is a surface story that made sense to me, just like the story in any other book in the Library. I keep looking for more.