This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Creation according to the Bible.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Pwntiff
Is it possible that the universe was created as the Bible explains, in a
literal
manner?
The specificity of the question denies that possibility with regards to this discussion methinks.
In that case, the only answer to this thread (in my opinion) is "Of course, it's possible." And I have nothing else to add so long as this discussion is focused solely on a literal interpretation as I've never held to one.
Post by
Skreeran
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: since we exist and the universe exists, the universe exists so that we exist. This argument begins to fall apart when we consider the fact that the majority of the planet is uninhabitable by man without some artifices not available to Adam and that in ratio to the rest of the universe, the regions inhabitable by man are minute. So, we refer to "the fall": unfalsifiable.
Anyway,
this book
details evidence for evolution in an easily accessible form. I'm not sure if I have a copy to hand to summarise the arguments, but radiometric dating is explained, genetic mapping is explained, the fallacy of the missing link is explained and there's even an interesting segment on dendrochronology.
Lawrence Krauss
gives a good talk
which explains relatively modern physics and goes into how the age of the universe is calculated.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
on intellignt design.
My response.
I have The Greatest Show on Earth on my shelf, atm, and that is an excellent video (big fan of Krauss too).
Post by
MyTie
One of the arguments against it is that you can scientifically date fossils back several million years. If one is to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, you cannot logically believe in any form of scientific dating. If you don't believe that, for example, one can date human bones to be 4,000 years old, then this argument obviously falls off.
The way I presented it, the earth could be 6K years old, and scientific dating of fossils would return a date of several million years. I prefer the measure of the age of light of stars. That is even easier to accept.Firstly, when you make a statement e.g. the earth is 6000 years old the burden of proof is on you to prove it is.
I'm not claiming it is, or that I know how, or anything. I'm just saying it is possible.
Post by
Skreeran
The way I presented it, the earth could be 6K years old, and scientific dating of fossils would return a date of several million years. I prefer the measure of the age of light of stars. That is even easier to accept.Firstly, when you make a statement e.g. the earth is 6000 years old the burden of proof is on you to prove it is.
I'm not claiming it is, or that I know how, or anything. I'm just saying it is possible.It's possible that the government is secretly monitoring my thoughts from space.
But if I truly believed that, people would look at me funny.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Yes.
Is it at all likely?
No.
Post by
gnomerdon
that would be determined on how accurate carbon dating is.
Post by
Skreeran
that would be determined on how accurate carbon dating is.Carbon dating is only accurate to a few thousand years into the past. Good thing we don't use carbon dating to determine the age of the Earth.
Post by
MyTie
It's possible that the government is secretly monitoring my thoughts from space.
But if I truly believed that, people would look at me funny.
LOOOOLLLLLLLL
zing
It's possible that a ninja named Steve stealthily enters into my attic every year on October 21st to eat corn on the cob. LOOOOLLLLLLLL
But seriously, there is no reason to paint the possibility of an all powerful creator making an aged universe as some sort of fringe craziness. Even if you believe it is fringe crazy, when you make statements like that, all you do is alienate people, me included. I request people be productive with their comments.
I prefer the measure of the age of light of stars. That is even easier to accept.
I don't follow why that should be easier to accept than radiometric data. In either case you're taking the evidence on faith of science that states either that light takes a certain amount of time to travel or that isotopes decay over time.
It's easier to understand, and explain, at least, for me. I'm not disputing the acceptability of carbon dating, just pointing to the simplicity and clarity of the speed of light.Yes.
Is it at all likely?
No.
It is true that those who say it is impossible for the Earth to have been created 6K years ago, lack empirical evidence to the contrary, and are not open to all the possibilities. It is also true that those who say they have empirical evidence that the Earth was created 6K years ago lack scientific knowledge. I stand with neither. It is my belief that the Earth was created 6 thousand years ago. I don't understand it, but I don't think I really need to. This is very personal, and only peripheral to this discussion. If someone professes to KNOW the origins of the universe, then they either have evidence I have never seen, or lack logical perspective. I have my beliefs, as most of us do, but I'm open to the possibility that there is no God. I'm disappointed by those of us who are not open to the possibility that there is a God. It is disingenuous to profess to trust science, without being able to entertain possibilities, when science is built on asking difficult questions, and keeping an open mind.
Post by
Adamsm
The issue is....every religion has their own creation myths; so I doubt the Bible version is the 'real' one.
Post by
Skreeran
But seriously, there is no reason to paint the possibility of an all powerful creator making an aged universe as some sort of fringe craziness. Even if you believe it is fringe crazy, when you make statements like that, all you do is alienate people, me included. I request people be productive with their comments. My point is that possible≠likely. Many things are possible, a few things are likely.
If you want to suggest something is likely, please provide evidence.
Thus, I stand by my initial statement that the Biblical account is
technically possible
(just as the idea that we might have spontaneously popped into existence fifteen minutes ago is technically possible), but without evidence, I don't believe it.
Post by
Orranis
It's possible that the government is secretly monitoring my thoughts from space.
But if I truly believed that, people would look at me funny.
LOOOOLLLLLLLL
zing
It's possible that a ninja named Steve stealthily enters into my attic every year on October 21st to eat corn on the cob. LOOOOLLLLLLLL
But seriously, there is no reason to paint the possibility of an all powerful creator making an aged universe as some sort of fringe craziness. Even if you believe it is fringe crazy, when you make statements like that, all you do is alienate people, me included. I request people be productive with their comments.
It's not fringe crazy, but at that point I'd argue neither is government monitoring us from space. I mean, hell, they already do to a certain point. The logic is that there's no real reason for us to believe it rather than any other alternative explanation of anything. If I were to argue that say, Force is equal to Mass*Acceleration because of something like The Force, it wouldn't necessarily be mutually exclusive with any properly established scientific concept, but the fact that you cannot prove or disprove it and it doesn't really affect how you do anything just means that there's no real reason to believe it in the first place.
Yes.
Is it at all likely?
No.
It is true that those who say it is impossible for the Earth to have been created 6K years ago, lack empirical evidence to the contrary, and are not open to all the possibilities. It is also true that those who say they have empirical evidence that the Earth was created 6K years ago lack scientific knowledge. I stand with neither. It is my belief that the Earth was created 6 thousand years ago. I don't understand it, but I don't think I really need to. This is very personal, and only peripheral to this discussion. If someone professes to KNOW the origins of the universe, then they either have evidence I have never seen, or lack logical perspective. I have my beliefs, as most of us do, but I'm open to the possibility that there is no God. I'm disappointed by those of us who are not open to the possibility that there is a God. It is disingenuous to profess to trust science, without being able to entertain possibilities, when science is built on asking difficult questions, and keeping an open mind.
There is empirical evidence to the contrary, mounds and mounds of it. Your argument lies in the second half, and I simply have to say I disagree. I do feel the need to understand the world around me, and I think it's key to our advancement in knowledge that we do. I think there are very few, although very vocal, people who believe in a total lack of possibility of a God, and I would not associate myself as having the same beliefs as this person.
Post by
Adamsm
There's also the fact that it never really says how long each day of Creation was.
Post by
Orranis
There's also the fact that it never really says how long each day of Creation was.
I disagree, it clearly defines what a day is after he creates the sun. Most of the 'it's a metaphor!' arguments kind of fall flat on me though.
Post by
Adamsm
There's also the fact that it never really says how long each day of Creation was.
I disagree, it clearly defines what a day is after he creates the sun. Most of the 'it's a metaphor!' arguments kind of fall flat on me though.
/shrug I don't believe in the Bible version of creation, or really any of the creation myths of the religions I believe in.
Post by
MyTie
There is empirical evidence to the contrary, mounds and mounds of it.I must not understand what empirical evidence is. For us to gather that, we would have to travel through time, and witness creation ourselves, according to my understanding of empirical evidence. Certainly there is evidence of the length of time the universe has been in existence, and that evidence suggests that the universe is much older than 6 thousand years. I can't dispute that. I'm just saying there is nothing that we can point to and say "this is proof that the Earth is older than 6K years, and was not created aged".Your argument lies in the second half, and I simply have to say I disagree. I do feel the need to understand the world around me, and I think it's key to our advancement in knowledge that we do. I think there are very few, although very vocal, people who believe in a total lack of possibility of a God, and I would not associate myself as having the same beliefs as this person.I'm not understanding which of what I said you are disagreeing with. Would you please clarify?
My point is that possible≠likely. Many things are possible, a few things are likely.
If you want to suggest something is likely, please provide evidence.
Thus, I stand by my initial statement that the Biblical account is
technically possible
(just as the idea that we might have spontaneously popped into existence fifteen minutes ago is technically possible), but without evidence, I don't believe it.Certainly, it is your choice what to believe. I have no evidence to offer beyond human nature and conjecture. It is difficult to believe, that God created the world. It takes a great deal of faith. The thing that makes it easier, to accept God, is a critical view of life and death in the absence of a God. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong in what you believe. It's not what I believe. I think we are ok with that, though. The disagreeing part.
I sometimes wonder what the world would be like, and what people would be like, if God showed himself and demanded we obey him in a physical sense. I suppose I don't even need to read the entire old testament to see that probably wouldn't change anything. Most people, generally speaking, will never believe.
Post by
pezz
If only ancient literature 101 was mandatory. We'd never have an argument about whether to take ancient Hebrew creation myths literally or not again. The original authors certainly didn't intend for it to be literal.
Post by
Orranis
There is empirical evidence to the contrary, mounds and mounds of it.I must not understand what empirical evidence is. For us to gather that, we would have to travel through time, and witness creation ourselves, according to my understanding of empirical evidence. Certainly there is evidence of the length of time the universe has been in existence, and that evidence suggests that the universe is much older than 6 thousand years. I can't dispute that. I'm just saying there is nothing that we can point to and say "this is proof that the Earth is older than 6K years, and was not created aged".
Empirical Evidence is through both direct and indirect observation, we have indirectly observed that the universe is more than 6,000 years old through many different techniques.
Your argument lies in the second half, and I simply have to say I disagree. I do feel the need to understand the world around me, and I think it's key to our advancement in knowledge that we do. I think there are very few, although very vocal, people who believe in a total lack of possibility of a God, and I would not associate myself as having the same beliefs as this person.I'm not understanding which of what I said you are disagreeing with. Would you please clarify?
Your argument should lie not in "You can't prove that" but in your personal belief not to find the proof necessary.
My point is that possible≠likely. Many things are possible, a few things are likely.
If you want to suggest something is likely, please provide evidence.
Thus, I stand by my initial statement that the Biblical account is
technically possible
(just as the idea that we might have spontaneously popped into existence fifteen minutes ago is technically possible), but without evidence, I don't believe it.Certainly, it is your choice what to believe. I have no evidence to offer beyond human nature and conjecture. It is difficult to believe, that God created the world. It takes a great deal of faith. The thing that makes it easier, to accept God, is a critical view of life and death in the absence of a God. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong in what you believe. It's not what I believe. I think we are ok with that, though. The disagreeing part.
I sometimes wonder what the world would be like, and what people would be like, if God showed himself and demanded we obey him in a physical sense. I suppose I don't even need to read the entire old testament to see that probably wouldn't change anything. Most people, generally speaking, will never believe.
You yourself say that you do believe in the possibility that God may not exist, why do you not give other people the benefit of the doubt with their beliefs?
Post by
Thror
The Bible was never written with the intention to resist large amounts of intelligent people dissecting it. Seriously guys, argumenting against the Bible is a complete waste of time. You can not turn someone from his beliefs by logically disproving his chosen religious texts. Many people believe what they wish to believe because faith is a positive thing for them and it brings a new element into their lives, and the religious texts are just a sort of a background background for their faith.
Post by
Orranis
You can not turn someone from his beliefs by logically disproving his chosen religious texts.
That's not true, nor will it get us anywhere with anything in life. It won't happen in any single epiphany of logic, but it can make people start to question. I only enter into the debates mutually though, and I fully approve of faith that does not hurt and brings happiness, however if they wish to debate the subject I am more than happy to explain why I believe it is correct.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.