Moderator: Moderators
Scrotum wrote: The world is not flat, the world was not "made in 7 days", the world is not 6000 years old etcetera, all this is fiction, WE KNOW THIS.
Question for debate: Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old) ?Easyrider wrote:Where does it say the world is 6,000 years old?
I stand corrected. Certainly the issues I brought up are not relevant to the thread from that standpoint.McCulloch wrote:Please try to remember that the question for debate is, "Question for debate: Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old) ?"
What science has to say it not being debated, nor whether the Bible agrees with science.
micatala wrote:
Part of it is that the word 'reasonable' is somewhat subjective. In my view, having thousands of scientists agree on what the data says is pretty compelling, especially when those scientists work with a whole variety of evidence from a number of different viewpoints. Having 'one doubt' is not sufficient for me to discount the preponderance of the evidence. It's like having one detective who has her own theory of who, how, and why the crime was committed, but having 99 others who agree on at least the basic facts and explanation of the crime.
There are assumptions, but in my view they are very reasonable assumptions because they are based on exactly what we see happening right now. In addition, when the same method is applied by multiple people in multiple places all coming to dates that go back several tens of thousands of years, then again, we have pretty over-whelming evidence. If a guy gets convicted by a dozen different juries, we should feel pretty confident he is guilty.
This is not that hard to explain. In many areas it snows every year, sometimes a lot. Thus, you have layers every year.
For sedimentation, we do not always get a new layer every year. It varies from place to place. Some areas may see no sedimentation for millenia, while others may have built up many feet of sedimentation in the same time frame.
In addition, there is erosion. The dinosaur that is only two feet down today may have been dozens or hundreds of feet down in the distant past.
I honestly don't see how this can be a reasonable objection.
I would agree. We make mistakes. This applies to scientists as well as theologians. We know, for example, that theologians have been very wrong about interpreting the Bible in the past. THe Galileo episode is but one example.
Scientists can be a bit over confident, but on the other hand, they also have a hugely successful track record. When multiple people working on the same problem come to a common conclusion, this is certainly no guarantee, but it does lend a great deal of credibility to the conclusion, especially when anyone with enough expertise can usually verify the conclusion independently on their own.
I don't see the opposition between the scientists and the creator. IN my view, the evidence the scientists are working with is the ultimate result of the creator's actions. Whether the individual scientists are believers or not is irrelevant. We can investigate their conclusions without having 'faith' in it. I believe in God as the ultimate creator. I also accept the overwhelming evidence of the age of the earth presented by scientists as indicative of the actions of that creator.
If you are interested, you might visit Hugh Ross' reasons to believe website. Ross is no fan of evolution, is an evangelical CHristians, but accepts an old earth. I certainly don't agree with Ross on everything, but I do think he attempts to give intellectually honest scientific and theological arguments for his positions. For example, Ross does not believe in a global flood, and makes a good case for why the theological and scientific arguments for a world-wide flood don't hold water. However, he clearly still accepts God and His role as creator.
Wouldn't that by necessity be dependent on how you interpret the stories?McCulloch wrote:Please try to remember that the question for debate is, "Question for debate: Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old) ?"
What science has to say it not being debated, nor whether the Bible agrees with science.
Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say to me. As far as my 'garden' goes, no one will follow me into my own mind. Once it's gone, there's nowhere for the weeds to grow. This exchange is growing more and more cryptic and obscure. I'm sorry to say that I am unable to find any meaning to it.ken1burton wrote:Fallibleone.
Cute, Did your teachers in School accept any answer you put on your homework? Or were they picky?
Fortune Telling as far as an occult practice, Yes. But Prophecies from God which has the ability to make it happen is a bit different.
I have never seen anyone speak on many of the Concepts and interpretations I share, and they are not mine, I just pass them on, As for as how many God has shown what, He has not told me.
I do know what Christianity has is almost nothing. The amount of error of Doctrine is tremendous. And that Israel will see it correctly, and most of the world will come to Christ through them.
Keep your garden weed free. But make sure you have people who follow you doing the same thing, For the difference of a garden or weeds, is weeds are forever.
MagusYanam wrote:Fisherking wrote:Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old)? The scriptural evidence supplied so far would be emphatically "yes". You have not provided any biblical evindence as of yet to be considered.
Fisherking wrote:The question for debate did not ask if there is commentary evidence for a young earth, nor did it ask if you or anyone else if they thought it mattered.
Pardon me for being flippant, but to this response I would ask, 'so what'? To apply a rich cultural narrative full of legend and myth to a question of scientific import is at best an exercise in pointless triviality, and I would consider insistence that it should be applied to matters of scientific import a sacrilege.
And to be clear, I did say that you could have a Scriptural basis for a young earth (if you come at it from an historically anachronistic viewpoint), but to imply that to be the main point of the creation story is a profanity, because to do so would be to interpret Scripture in ways that its authors would not have meant, and to ignore the other layers of meaning that can be gotten if Adam and Eve are considered metaphorical for humanity (which even their names indicate that they are). That is where the Midrash comes in handy. So I think commentary absolutely matters in this debate. Because clearly if the authors had wanted us to read a young earth into their text, a date for the creation would have appeared in the commentaries centuries before Bishop Usher.
Fisherking wrote:Evidentally not -- what scriptural evidence suggests the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
I don't see how I can be any more clear on this.
There is none, because the question is irrelevant! Using myth to answer a scientific question is preposterous.
