Christian Age of Earth?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Athena Man, this is hard to deal with. Even non Christians are supporting the Christian understanding of God, as though this were the only possible understanding, and then it is a stupid, stupit fight about if God exist or not. Stupid because God is an astract, it is just a God and we are determining what that word means. If you drop the stupid argument of if God exist or not, and advance to discussing the qualities of this abstract concept, and our relationship with this abstract concept and each other, then the discussion can progress into something meaning and capable of evolving consciousness. Look up Spinoza, please, add something new to this discussion of God.

Not all think God is an abstract. Especially among Christians.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: zynner The reference to the "four corners of the Earth" is just a figure of speech, not a literal reference Why did so many Christians think the Earth was flat? ~ zynner

I don't know, but in one instance (I believe in Job) the Earth is referred to as a "circle". I've heard it is called a "globe" in another verse.

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe The most interesting thing to me, however, is that so many different cultures and religions have very similar flood myths. Star mentioned that the Chinese do not. I have heard otherwise, but still, many other cultures do.

Even if they did have a flood account the Chinese shoot your creationist explanation all to hell. You see they can show an uninterrupted civilization that goes back to at least before your purported global flood event and some claim an age that would put them at your date for the beginning of the earth. You would think that god would have killed them off if it were a global flood as depicted in your authoritative bible. After all, your authoritative bible does say that it was god’s intention to kill everything on the earth, unless you are trying to tell me that god screwed up. Or that it was a miracle!

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe I don't know, but in one instance (I believe in Job) the Earth is referred to as a "circle". I've heard it is called a "globe" in another verse.

Well yes. The fact that it changes reflects the knowledge at the time of the people that wrote it, not the knowledge of god. Fact is the earth is neither a globe or a circle, it is an oblate spheriod. Find that in your bible.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

"My favorite side effect of the creationist timeline is that most creationists also put the age of the universe at only a few tens of thousands of years old. This is fine except that it also makes the universe a very small place. No stars can be further away in light years than the age of the universe, usually 30,000 to 50,000 light years or so depending on the creationist.

Of course, at this point the physics gets weird. The smarter creationists start playing games with light speed to address questions related to the red shift and so on. Of course nothing really works. It all gets progressively funnier. "

That particular argument is not one that is any trouble to the creationist. The creationist claims God created the light before the stars. Since God can create the light without the source, there is no reason to think that He could not have the light begin arriving before the star was there. If you better understood the creationist account, you probably would have predicted such an answer.

[zynner]

The argument is a fallacy? It is one thing to say an argument is illogical, quite another to say it is false.

"Fallacy" means it is invalid. Therefore, you cannot claim it is true.

Again, I did not say I think the world had a designer because it was designed,

Yes, you did. You don't have to "say" it; it's implied. The moment you use the word "designed," you have introduced TWO concepts: (1) that it is designed and (2) that a designer was involved in doing the designing. You can't have one without the other.

But I assume the possibility of an inteligence exists.

Exactly. That's your mistake. You can't first assume "X" exists if your goal is to arrive at the conclusion (prove) "X" exists.

If you want to prove god/designer/intelligence exists, then you cannot first assume what you are trying to prove. You have to do it by some other means.

We already know of a lesser inteligence (man). It is not that great of a stretch to think a greater one possible.

Sure, we can imagine all sorts of fantasies, such as pink unicorns that live in Lake Michigan.

Now, PROVE that this god (intelligence/designer) exits.

~ zynner

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe That particular argument is not one that is any trouble to the creationist. The creationist claims God created the light before the stars. Since God can create the light without the source, there is no reason to think that He could not have the light begin arriving before the star was there.

It is a well known explanation called "goddidit". It explains nothing. It is right in there with "miracle" and "the will of god".

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: CheckMate Yes i can handle the truth

Sorry, just trying out my Jack Nicholson impression.

Chinatown/Few Good Men:
Can't handle the truth
http://www.wavsource.com/movie_stars/nicholson.htm

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: CheckMate not a jack Nicholson fan myself but he was brilliant in the one who flew over the cookoo nest.

How did I know you would like that movie?

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

Funny you should mention that but it was because the early maps were flat the many people thought the earth was flat.

Who cares? None of what you just wrote does anything to discredit the Bible, which was your original intent. The fact of the matter is that the "four corners" reference was applicable then and is STILL applicable today despite the fact that we know the Earth is round, because modern maps of the world have four corners.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Who cares? None of what you just wrote does anything to discredit the Bible, which was your original intent. The fact of the matter is that the "four corners" reference was applicable then and is STILL applicable today despite the fact that we know the Earth is round, because modern maps of the world have four corners.

Not really. They didn't know what shape the earth was. Columbus's men thought they were going to sail off the edge of the world. But hey if it makes you feel good to pretend that they knew more then they actually did then have at it. It is not as if this is not the standard state for just about every Christian on the planet, present company included.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: LetThereBe That particular argument is not one that is any trouble to the creationist. The creationist claims God created the light before the stars. Since God can create the light without the source, there is no reason to think that He could not have the light begin arriving before the star was there. If you better understood the creationist account, you probably would have predicted such an answer.

LOL. I am well aware of that particular, well, I hesitate to call it an argument. Of all the preposterous assertions made by creationists to squeeze objective reality into their narrow religious viewpint, this one is about the most ridiculous. Of course the universe isn't billions of years old. God just created it to look billions of years old. Really odd sense of humor that God has. Or maybe he just liked the weathered look. Whatever.

[Chris]

Quote by: Dirty Name Who cares? None of what you just wrote does anything to discredit the Bible, which was your original intent. The fact of the matter is that the "four corners" reference was applicable then and is STILL applicable today despite the fact that we know the Earth is round, because modern maps of the world have four corners.

whom are you addressing Dirty Name? When quoting someone in a large thread like this one, it helps to include the name of the person you are quoting.

thanks in advance.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: CheckMate Now i just want to start at the beginning Adam and Eve and apple and such and what is the apple.

Interesting that you should bring that up. I have heard numerous theories, from a literal fruit, to sexual relations with the serpent. The second implies that the "tree of life" was Jesus Christ, and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was satan. When eve "took of the fruit" she engaged in sexual relations. Adam then brought guilt upon himself by taking her back, despite the knowledge of her sin.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Interesting that you should bring that up. I have heard numerous theories, from a literal fruit, to sexual relations with the serpent. The second implies that the "tree of life" was Jesus Christ, and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was satan. When eve "took of the fruit" she engaged in sexual relations. Adam then brought guilt upon himself by taking her back, despite the knowledge of her sin.

These really aren't theories as much as random guesses. It could represent anything. Then again anything could represent anything in the Bible, since no one even knows what's a metaphor and what is being literal.

[RickSp]

The irony of trying to squeeze science into the young earth creationist model is that the model is based entirely on one article of faith. The creationist viewpoint assumes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, an assumption based strictly on faith.

Given that the Bible was written by many hands over a considerable period, the view that it is literally an accurate account addressing not only theology but also astral physics and palentology among other disciples, is quite remarkable, if not a bit bizarre.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: RickSp Given that the Bible was written by many hands over a considerable period, the view that it is literally an accurate account addressing not only theology but also astral physics and palentology among other disciples, is quite remarkable, if not a bit bizarre.

For some reason, theists think this helps their argument: that since all these books in the Bible "seem" to agree with other, and since they were written at different periods of time, they are all true. This couldn't logically be farther from the truth. This just shows the effect of 1500 years of translations and changes on the Bible. That the grammatical, technical, and contradicting errors, have actually been cleaned up quite a bit. The job isn't finished there are still a lot of contradictions.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: CheckMate would like to give my opinion on Adam and Eve, well, i do not want to shock anybody its just an opinion. One day Adam was roaming the garden of Eden when he noticed Eve in the garden so he hid himself behind a tree and watched because Eve had an unusual look to her face it was quite joyful to watch it was very flush and pink and her skin had a wet like look, then he noticed something so nasty and wicked to the eyes he fell down to his knees and weeped becuase he new what god had told him when he came of age, that the essance of life and knowlegde would be his not a serpents. At this point we now know how satan the serpent got his knowlegde of life and out to manipulate the truth. I would like to stop there we can go back there another day back to Adam. Adam went back to Eve once the serpent had gone and said to Eve the apple was mine it was promised to me the essence of knowlegde was for man and man only now i know now the depths which women will go he realised what had gone wrong. He went back to god and told him what had happened and god said to him never make a good women wait.Now go and live your life and learn from your mistakes he did they had to son's he then told one son because he wanted one son to no the truth and to the other son he said nothing? If i had read this in a bible i would exept this more closer to the truth than anything else i have read or seen, so if you wish to change my opinion show me the truth

Sounds more like a bad dream. I don't know why you are sharing this. What basis do we have to debate this off of? If you want a dream interpreter, or some medication, go someplace else.

[RickSp]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 For some reason, theists think this helps their argument: that since all these books in the Bible "seem" to agree with other, and since they were written at different periods of time, they are all true. This couldn't logically be farther from the truth. This just shows the effect of 1500 years of translations and changes on the Bible. That the grammatical, technical, and contradicting errors, have actually been cleaned up quite a bit. The job isn't finished there are still a lot of contradictions.

The "people of the book", be they Christian or Jew, tend to ignore the influences from other earlier documents, including the Hammurabac Code and in the case of Christianity, the cult of Mithras. I think that the existence of flood myths from other cultures only weakens the Judeo-Christian claims about their flood, which apears to be merely a cleaned up version borrowed from others. If the Bible is the inerrant word of God then the big guy must be a plagarist.

[xyzer]

Given that the Bible was written by many hands over a considerable period, the view that it is literally an accurate account addressing not only theology but also astral physics and palentology among other disciples, is quite remarkable, if not a bit bizarre.

Rick...I agree with you. Literal belief in the Bible has to be naive. I've listened to too many humans distort truth to believe that stuff. The stories were even written in, Hebrew, Greek and then whatever. There were no printing presses for hundreds of years and so it all had to copied by hand by a human who was bound to filter it! :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html Some of Catholic hierarchy disbelieve also!