quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
Perhaps you determine the earth's age based on the precise moment that God started calling it "Earth."
How old was Adam when God created him? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that God created him as an 18 year old. Meaning that physiologically, he had an 18 year old body. But that doesn't mean that he'd been around for 18 years. Or do you think that God created a squalling newborn and raised him?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
Why not? Do you count your age as when you were first conceived by your parents, or approximately 9 months later when you were done with your embryonic state?
Posts: 45 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Most Christians, as far as I know, reject this interpretation on the grounds that their god would not lie.
(a) We're not Christians. (b) That's not a lie. (c) Christians don't think their god would lie? News to me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Most Christians, as far as I know, reject this interpretation on the grounds that their god would not lie.
(a) We're not Christians. (b) That's not a lie. (c) Christians don't think their god would lie? News to me.
I realise a), and did not intend my post to apply to you. That is, in fact, why I specified "most Christians." Had I intended to include Jews, I would have said "Christians and Jews".
On b), I think we would be getting into word games on "What is truth?", and I won't go there. As far as I'm concerned, the actual moment of creation (in an Omphalos hypothesis) is utterly irrelevant; what matters is the actual age.
And as for c), I think I'm inclined to agree with Dag. Huh?
quote:Creating a system at a place other than what its "natural" starting point would be is not dishonest.
Not in itself, no. But I think it becomes dishonest when taken together with a claim of having created the system at the natural starting point. (If you like, this is the opposite of the interpretation I mistakenly attributed to you in my last post; it's only dishonest in the presence of documentation to the contrary.) You may certainly argue that Genesis doesn't claim any such thing; I think most fundamentalist Christians would disagree, though.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...God created him as an 18 year old. Meaning that physiologically, he had an 18 year old body. But that doesn't mean that he'd been around for 18 years.
A roll of toilet paper, fresh from the factory may only be 2 minutes old, but the individual sheets on the roll must be older than that. As we do with a human infant, we start counting the product's age from the time it becomes the final product, and it assumes its intended form and takes the name by which it will be called.
Parts of me are eons old, but I've only been me (in my current form) for 46 years.
If God wanted to start counting at the moment that he started calling this ball of extremely old dirt "Earth" that's fine.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And as for c), I think I'm inclined to agree with Dag. Huh?
God labeled the commandments in the Torah as "eternal statutes". To the Christians, he changed his mind. What else would you call that?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
1.) Christians think God lied. 2.) Christians don't think the Old and New Testament passages contradict each other.
Now, just for a minute, try to think from someone else's perspective. I know you have almost zero experience in doing this, but I promise, it doesn't hurt.
So, thinking from the perspective of a Christian, not an Orthodox Jew, try to decide which one of those two possibilities Christians believe.
Now, I know you'll be tempted to launch into some extended analysis as to why the Torah passage can have only one meaning. Try to resist that, because your statement wasn't about the nature of the Torah. Your statement ("Christians don't think their god would lie") was about what Christians think, not about how Christian Scripture contradicts your interpretation of scripture.
posted
I think one major difference between Hatrack and most other open fora isn't that Hatrack has a higher percentage of right-thinkers versus wrong-thinkers, but that Hatrack has a higher percentage of Thinkers.
The current YE/OE debate is a good example. On thousands of other fora this is a "debate" of half-understood arguements thrown from one side at the other and back. Now, I won't claim that Hatrack doesn't have its own share of low-brow rabble-rousers, but they are by far a minority. You have to admit that although both sides of most contentious issues are represented here, at least the representatives are people who have deeply thought out opinions and can usually articulate the reasons they believe what they do. That is a bit of a rarity in other fora, in my experience, I'm sad to say.
And for the most part we can disagree passionately on one thread and still be friendly in other threads.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ya also, Ron it takes relatively speaking X many thousands, tens of thousans, millions, tens of millions, hunreds of millions BILLIONS of years for light from the very closest star systems (Eriandus Eridani?) to the obsdervable farthest star in a galaxy far far away to reach us.
The Speed of Light (c) is a constant is possibly under certain theories of Quantum Physics (Cassimir Vacuum) for the speed of light to maybe be changed in a system of 2 metal plates to change its calculations but at the current time we not not possess the tools to verify this.
So essentially, if your a sane rational person the speed of light is overwhelming evidence in favor of an OLD Earth Hypothesis and undenyable support for evolution.
This do not get me wrong does not disprove the concept of an onipotant diety creating the Universe, just means it could only have been done through scientific proceesses and if you wanna still make a leap of faith possibly created by this diety, however if you accept that you'll have to accept the now very real possibility of evolution taking place for a seemingly perfect being cannot break its own laws and as such.
Would not break our percieved rules of the universe.
And thus Evolution is now alot more acceptable now neh?
Next, I remember a book by a Jewish Scholar who wrote how Evolution and the Big Bang theory go perfectly in tune with Genesis, my friend Tyler is reading it, apparantly this scientist sent his son to Jewish school/synagoge and such and the kid came back very very religious so the father writes this book to show his son how evolution+big bang goes together fine with the Torah.
posted
Blayne, have you read any of the rest of the discussion? If someone believes that God could have created Adam as 30 years old, in such a way that all medical tests would show him as 30 years old, don't you figure they would believe that the same God could have created light that moves at what we know as the speed of light, already on its way here? You're not pwning anyone, you're just showing that you're not paying attention to what other people are saying.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Next, I remember a book by a Jewish Scholar who wrote how Evolution and the Big Bang theory go perfectly in tune with Genesis, my friend Tyler is reading it, apparantly this scientist sent his son to Jewish school/synagoge and such and the kid came back very very religious so the father writes this book to show his son how evolution+big bang goes together fine with the Torah.
The book in question—somewhat mischaractized, as "very very religious" wasn't the issue—is Genesis and the Big Bang, by Gerald Schroeder. I've heard him speak in person. I am a fan of the book, and I agree with a lot of it.
That said, [a] there's a multiplicity of opinions among Jewish authorities on the subject, with Schroeder's take being only one; [b] he's not a "Jewish scholar" in the sense you imply— his credentials are as a nuclear physicist, not as a religious scholar; [c] the existence of this book and the argument it makes in no way supports anything else in your post.
quote: I think one major difference between Hatrack and most other open fora isn't that Hatrack has a higher percentage of right-thinkers versus wrong-thinkers, but that Hatrack has a higher percentage of Thinkers.
The current YE/OE debate is a good example. On thousands of other fora this is a "debate" of half-understood arguements thrown from one side at the other and back. Now, I won't claim that Hatrack doesn't have its own share of low-brow rabble-rousers, but they are by far a minority. You have to admit that although both sides of most contentious issues are represented here, at least the representatives are people who have deeply thought out opinions and can usually articulate the reasons they believe what they do. That is a bit of a rarity in other fora, in my experience, I'm sad to say.
And for the most part we can disagree passionately on one thread and still be friendly in other threads.
I don't know about a lot of that, actually.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: OK, Lisa, there are two possibilities:
1.) Christians think God lied. 2.) Christians don't think the Old and New Testament passages contradict each other.
Dagonee, I would say there is another possibility (though you may consider it a subset of #2). From a Christian perspective, the possibility exists that, where there are seeming inconsistancies, it is because Scripture is recorded by human beings who, though inspired, are still part of specific cultures and contexts.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would consider that a subset of 2 - in fact, one reason why some Christians believe 2 to be true - but it's good to get more detail out there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many religious people find many ways to interpret those passages, quite a few of which would not preclude an egg being around before a chicken. Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and can't forget the religious people who aren't in one of the religions that thinks those passages matter Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_raven, just because someone has faith does not mean something good, necessarily. What they have faith IN is what really matters.
fugu13, you said: "We have several independent measures of age that all agree fairly precisely as to the ages being very different." Actually, those different age dating methods vary wildly, yielding very contradictory results, and all suffer from the same fault: they depend upon the prior assumptions of uniformitarian philosophy in order for their results to be interpreted as indicating vast ages. Creationists have been decrying this circular reasoning for a long time. I have pointed out before here the recent investigations creationist scientists such as Dr. Russell Humphries have done into the amount of radiogenic helium still trapped in crustal granite, that has not yet diffused out. They have found that the amount present is not in harmony with the assumption that radioactive decay has been going on in granite at the same rate as today for billions of years. In fact, the amounts they have found are actually consistent with a geologic age of the granite on the order of 6,000 to 8,000 years. Here again is a link: CRSQ report on research into helium diffusion ratePosts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
He compared diffusion rates in a vacuum to diffusion rates under huge pressures, to point out one of the most obviously fallacious parts of his 'research' (credit to the above page).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And he seems to be a 'unformitarian', too. Take a look at his 'research' talking about how fast sediment and salt accumulate in the sea, which assume incredibly regular rates of accumulation in order to produce his bogus dates.
quote:(c) Christians don't think their god would lie? News to me.
I would say that Christians don't think God would lie directly, in his own Words. However, there is very strong evidence that God would allow us to believe false things. This happens countless times in the Bible - where groups of people believe mistaken things and God does not step in to force them to believe the truth. Often he merely sends a messenger, who may or may not be believed. For instance, he sends Moses to tell Pharoah that pretty unbelievable plagues will come. God, Himself, could have thundered in and told Pharoah himself, but He did not.
Note that this is comparable to a creationist situation. God has potentially sent messengers, via the church, to say that the Earth is young. Even if that message seems unbelievable or unlikely to us (as the plagues did to Pharoah), I think it would be consistent with God's supposed behavior to allow us to hold mistaken beliefs if we so choose to. Presumably, this means that sometimes it is better that we have mistaken beliefs than be forced by God to believe the truth.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
c.t.t.n., he's certainly shown more thinking than you have in this thread.
Unless you consider metaphorically hanging out with the kids smoking behind the library and making fun of people based on what books they check out to be "thinking."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the speed of light, thing... When God created the Earth, who's to say that the universe wasn't already created? There's no reason that the stars wouldn't already be visible because they really were created millions or hundreds of thousands of years before. Therefore, the light would already be there.
If I walk into a room where the light already is, I don't have to wait for the light to travel to my eyes to see it. It's already there. (I know that wouldn't be perceptible anyway... but get my meaning?)
And I agree mostly with Ron regarding the original issue. Just thought I'd stand up and be counted.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: About the speed of light, thing... When God created the Earth, who's to say that the universe wasn't already created? There's no reason that the stars wouldn't already be visible because they really were created millions or hundreds of thousands of years before. Therefore, the light would already be there.
If I walk into a room where the light already is, I don't have to wait for the light to travel to my eyes to see it. It's already there. (I know that wouldn't be perceptible anyway... but get my meaning?)
And I agree mostly with Ron regarding the original issue. Just thought I'd stand up and be counted.
The problem there is that Genesis mentions a pretty much empty void. Part of Genesis was, "Let there be light."
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: It says the Earth was without form and void. I don't remember a mention of the Universe.
And besides, there's war in heaven before the creation of the Earth--where exactly was that if the universe didn't exist???
No... the Earth was not the first thing created. How arrogant are we??
I think the war is just a Christian belief.
But didn't God create the lights in the sky on the 4th day? That would be all the stars in my opinion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
