Originally posted by XanthosNZThe differences are basic when it comes to the age of the earth,
The difference between a scientific approach and a religious approach is scientists (there have been exceptions) would not be afraid to revise their estimates if new evidence is presented.
Back at the beginning of the 20th century conventional wisdom had the age of the earth as somewhere between 50 and 400 million years. Then Lord Rutherford helped sho ...[text shortened]... be completely inflexible and just attempt to ignore anything that contradicts their viewpoints.
with religion and faith we believe the scriptural account, which places
our faith in God, in the story that tells us what happen. That is an
all or nothing type of deal. It is the foundation of our world views,
it colors everything in the universe accordingly with the meaning that
we believe it gives; God started it all for God's reasons. It is either
true or not, if you start playing with the account, you have really
destroyed the reason for that belief.
With science, we get what data we get, we assume it means this
or that, and make up our minds as to what it means. This is also
used by many for their foundational beliefs about the universe, those
that base their foundational beliefs here alone will judge all things by
by how they color the universe with their beliefs too, world views are
created here as well. There are those that mix the two as well.
I'm making no attempt to say one is better than the other above in
this statement, only to describe what I believe we do.
With science it is an ever shifting foundation, since science is always
looking for new data points, new understanding on how things should
be rightly viewed, the correct way to 'view' and 'recognize' what it is we
are looking at in universe we find ourselves in. We can have all the
correct data points, but view the meaning wrong so that we come up
with the wrong conclusions. It has been said there is a lot more we do
not know, than what we do, and some of what we do know is suspect.
With religion there are a lot of them, so it is possible to believe in the
the wrong one. I like looking at them this way, there are three
different religions and subsets of each, 1 God, >1 god, and 0 gods.
The variable of how many gods there are may be correct, but if you
believe in 1 all who believe in many or none are wrong, if there is 1
do we believe in the right one, if you believe in many and there are,
all who believe in just one is wrong, the same with those that believe
in none, but again are they the right ones, if you believe there are
none and there are none, all who believe in God or gods are wrong,
but no matter what if you are right about that god variable; of course
you could still be wrong about everything else. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you are the most open-minded Christian with which I have ever been in contact.
The differences are basic when it comes to the age of the earth,
with religion and faith we believe the scriptural account, which places
our faith in God, in the story that tells us what happen. That is an
all or nothing type of deal. It is the foundation of our world views,
it colors everything in the universe accordingly with the meaning that
we beli ...[text shortened]... ht about that god variable; of course
you could still be wrong about everything else. 🙂
Kelly
I applaud your open minded thinking. Again - you would have a rec from me if I could give them.
Cheers!
ok people lets just assume(and i say assume for those who don't believe)god is all powerful if he can create everything dont you think he can make rocks at the same time that are, chemically,different to the affect of them ending up seeming older than one another when they were all created at the same time?
I most likely will not know the answer but just for everyone else's enjoyment, tell what you think is the biggest "inconsistancy" in the Bible besides the one talked about previously. Just because it has already been talked about and i wouldn't mind a challenge when it comes to my limited knowledge of the Bible. However I am in no way suggesting that the previous subject be "dropped."
Also when it comes to the Isles "thing" with Christmas; Consider this some people consider Mormonism to be a denomination of the Christian faith however many people within the other denominations, such as Baptist and Methodist do not generally "recognize" or agree with this statement/belief. This is mainly due to the distinct variations in the beliefs and practices between these denominations. In effect the perfect word of god can become slightly distorted because of the im-perfect beliefs and interpretations of people. Take for example King James or at least his translators invented the, untill then non-existant word "baptism" or "baptist." Originally the Hebrew "version" used the word "baptidzo" meaning immersion.
Originally posted by Spazzer2500It was more the literal order of creation in Genesis that I have a problem with... reading it as a "parable" rather than in the purely literal sense seems more appropriate to me.
In genesis 1 it gives an over view of the creation as you know
As far as we know there was no physical/sexual reproduction in the begining so god was not creating them for the first time in chapter 2 he was simply creating more.
ok people lets just assume(and i say assume for those who don't believe)god is all powerful if he can create everything dont you think he can make rocks at the same time that are, chemically,different to the affect of them ending up seeming older than one another when they were all created at the same time?
Of course he can, but why would he? If God did create Earth a few thousand years ago... why would he make it seem that the earth was billions of years older than that? What would that achieve? Why would any creator deliberately try to trick us like that? I simply don't believe that this is the case.
Originally posted by PawnCurry[/b]The earth is what it is, 'it seems' is simply between your ears.
It was more the literal order of creation in Genesis that I have a problem with... reading it as a "parable" rather than in the purely literal sense seems more appropriate to me.
[b]ok people lets just assume(and i say assume for those who don't believe)god is all powerful if he can create everything dont you think he can make rocks at the same time ...[text shortened]... y creator deliberately try to trick us like that? I simply don't believe that this is the case.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
The universe is what it is, it is as old as it is no matter what I, or
you, or anyone else believes it to be. You can use whatever you
want to figure out what the age of the earth is. It then becomes
if it is accurate or not, you are placing your faith in its truthfulness,
its accuracy, and our abilities to grasp the data we are given correctly.
Since you were not there when it was started, I was not there when
it started, and no human you know or don't know personally was
there when it was started, it boils down to what you believe is the
correct and proper way to know how old it is.
This is all very true, but that does not mean that when two people
place faith in different ideas, that they are therefore equal.
For example, I could believe very fervently that the universe was
created last night, and all my expereinces up until that point were
just one big dream. You couldn't prove me wrong because I would
simply state that Unga-Bunga (the god who did this) created the
world in that way just to fool people.
This could be the case. But it's very probably not the case.
So, we need to look at all the possible cases we can conceive and
examine them.
The old earth theory is the most plausible because it has several different,
unrelated scientific techniques which point to an ancient earth (on order of
billions) -- Geology, Astronomy, and Chemistry, just to name a few.
A young earth theory is dependent on a single old religious book written by
several anonymous authors in a time of competing traditions.
Sure, it's possible that the earth is six thousand years old, but such a
case is about as probable as my 'dream scenario' where the earth is 16 hours
old. Neither have any merit as a theory because they are unprovable and
untestable, whereas the old earth theory is repeatedly provable and testable
by multifarious means.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]Doubt it, if the earth was indeed 16 hours old, you could test that how?
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]The universe is what it is, it is as old as it is no matter what I, or
you, or anyone else believes it to be. You can use whatever you
want to figure out what the age of the earth is. It then becomes
if it is accurate or not, you are placing your faith in its truthfulness,
its accuracy, and our abilities to grasp ...[text shortened]... reas the old earth theory is repeatedly provable and testable
by multifarious means.
Nemesio
Since everything would still appear the way it appears now, with now
being X amount of years old, all your readings would be what your
readings are, no matter if it was 16 hours old, or 7k, or 5b years old.
Your faith in your readings and your proof then becomes more
important than the reality of what it is your are suggesting or
measuring.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHere is the difference:
Your faith in your readings and your proof then becomes more
important than the reality of what it is your are suggesting or
measuring.
1) In the 'dream scenario' the only evidence I have is some
notion that exists entirely in my head.
2) In the young-earth scenario, the only evidence I have is
some old book.
3) In the old-earth scenario, the evidence I have derives from
readings derived from various independent and unrelated methodologies
that can be repeated by independent researchers which all point to
the same thing (that the earth is billions of years old).
The reason you believe in the Resurrection is because there were
many eye-witnesses and lots of internal concordance. The reason
you reject Joseph Smith is because there were a few witnesses and
lots of internal contradiction.
In order to deny 3) above, you have to reject lots of independent
scientific 'witnesses' and lots of internal concordance.
And you do this because you hold as axiomatic that the Bible must
be literally-historically true, something which its authors (the [Proto-]
Jews) never, ever held.
Nemesio