Astronomy vs. Creationism

Then we have light years. According to the bible the Universe is only 6000-12000 years old. However, the light from distant stars has reached us much, much, much earlier than that.

Ever heard that the speed of light is slowing? Hmm. No, that is not Christian propaganda.


No, but what you said may be. If you bothered to read the artical, you would have noticed that c has possibly changed by a million'th of a percent or so. So the age of the galaxy may be off by a few billion years (its age with that change of c would be 12-15 billion) which is still a lot more than the 10000 years or so.

And any other arguments against the scientific age of the universe that goes along the lines of how innacurate or how much rounding there is...keep in mind that you would say the same things about pi=3 according to the bible...

Science will look at things they observe or discover through careful testing and make a theory based on that, and do more testing to try to prove it true. Religions will generally try to prove what they already believe.

 

Pi in the Bible

Pi ^ Pi

First you observe and test, and then make a theory?

Give me a break. In the scientific method, you give a hypothesis first. There goes the "observation then hypothesis" theory.

 

The site you used in a little odd, and presumptious. It says Dinosaurs are in Genesis simply because Birds are mentioned in Genesis...
Not all Dinosaurs were related to Birds. The Theropods were. The other branch-OrnithoPods, despite the name, were not really related, but have a common ancestor with the Archosaurs, along with the Pterosaurs. The Alligators and Crocodilles are the last Archosaurs.

 

Wonderful.

Science textbooks still use the horse chart. Your point is?

 

Going back to the dome, it is also referred to as a Vault of some kind, and I think the word metal is used.

I had a JPEG of what the scriptures seem to state the Earth looks like somewhere in the now-closed Evolution thread...

 

When it comes to the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, or the development of the world's ecosystem, the difference between a science-based study and a religion-based study is that the scientist changes his theories to match the facts, rather than changing facts to match his theories.

 

Chris2, there is a very good picture of what the Bible says the earth looks like. It's everywhere.

Isaiah referred to "the sphere of the earth".

 

first you observe and test, and then make a theory?

Give me a break. In the scientific method, you give a hypothesis first. There goes the "observation then hypothesis" theory.

My point is where the hypothesis comes from. You don?t get a theory about gravity just by sitting around, you have to get hit on the head by an apple! (Yes, i know that literally that is probably not true, but everyone sees things fall). It is not like a scientist will sit around and say "I think we can do this." Either from their observations, math, other experiments, or something of the like, with reason behind it, will be the source for their hypothesis. Also, if proven wrong, it will be discarded, unlike if something in religion was proven wrong, some people would still believe it if their religion says so. Also in many religions, no one who would let their faith be in question would accept a hypothesis that through all their experiments seemed true but was not accepted by their religion.

...But a scientific hypothesis may contradict what was a previous scientific 'fact' again as long as there is enough evidence or proof to support it.

Also, my point about pi was that arguments against the scientific age of the universe are similar arguments for defending the Bible's pi value (I read the site, but I am unsure why they multiplied the ratio by 3 and what motivated them to take the ration of the two 'line' values? Is their logic just too much of a coincidence of how close the derived value is?). I have not seen that website before, but looking around at other web sites and asking friends here about it, they all said that the people who measured that value rounded a lot of number and that the length of a mans arm (cubit) is not the most accurate measuring tool. However, that new website throws that argument of mind out of the water.

Darth Geist I could not have said it better myself, and I tried .

Isaiah referred to "the sphere of the earth".

Yeah, but are there any other places in the Bible that are not so clear or even contradictory? (I don?t know honestly, that is why I am asking).

 

Standard Hot Big Bang theory says that everythign started from a singularity. And it seems that singularities are not ruled by know laws of physics. To put it simply: Nothing prevents a Universe from appearing without a cause or Creator.

Edit:

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth,nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

-Revelation 7:1

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

-Isaiah 40:22


???

 

To put it simply, to refer to Dinosaurs(as a whole) as birds is the same as referring to Crocidiles as birds.


Anyway, about the "circle" thingy--there was actually some belief around Hellenistic times that the Earth was round, if not spherical. This was probably an assumption made by looking at the other major bodies in the sky, the sun and moon, which also possess a circular-if not spherical at first glance-shape. There are ancient Greek mosaics, frescos, and paintings which potray Atlas holding a circular earth.
So if we were take the fact that the Hebrews knew about a circular Earth as fact that it is divinely inspired, we would also have to credit the Atlas story. This is the Troy fallacy common in discerning religion and science. The City of Troy was apparentally overthrown-in a manner similar to a bible story like the book of Joshua and Judges(In which people do impossible feats of strength)-by the Mycaneans with the help of some Gods. Because we know there was a Troy, does this make the story real? No.
Also take the popular Atlantis myth. There is enough to suggest that Atlantis was in fact Crete which suffered a major Earthquake.

 

Anyway, about the "circle" thingy--there was actually some belief around Hellenistic times that the Earth was round, if not spherical. This was probably an assumption made by looking at the other major bodies in the sky, the sun and moon, which also possess a circular-if not spherical at first glance-shape. There are ancient Greek mosaics, frescos, and paintings which potray Atlas holding a circular earth.

Have you ever heard of positivism? It's the belief that man is continuously getting better intellectually. I have news for you. The myth that most people thought that the earth was flat before Columbus was popularized by positivism. The only people who thought that the earth was flat were minor tribes who knew nothing. Their train of thought was, "It looks flat. It's flat."

Most people who knew anything believed the earth to be spherical. Charlemagne believed the earth to be spherical. The Holy Roman Empire's sceptor is a golden orb that symbolizes the earth.

So if we were take the fact that the Hebrews knew about a circular Earth as fact that it is divinely inspired, we would also have to credit the Atlas story. This is the Troy fallacy common in discerning religion and science. The City of Troy was apparentally overthrown-in a manner similar to a bible story like the book of Joshua and Judges(In which people do impossible feats of strength)-by the Mycaneans with the help of some Gods. Because we know there was a Troy, does this make the story real? No.
Also take the popular Atlantis myth. There is enough to suggest that Atlantis was in fact Crete which suffered a major Earthquake.

The word "circle" from Isaiah is more reliably translated "sphere". It's the sphere of the earth. That's not proof that the Bible is divinely inspird. It is, however, proof that you are wrong in your belief that the ancient Israelites believed in a flat earth.

You need to read some more Grecian myths and Bible stories. The city of Troy WAS overthrown; an archeologist discovered its remains, as you noted. It was not captured in a manner similiar to the stories in the books of Judges and Joshua. We have no idea how it happened, but the myth tells us about the Trojan horse as you should know.

The only supernatural feats in the books of Judges and Joshua are A) The walls of Jericho. Even so, march a hundred thousand people around a brittle wall for seven days then yell at the end of it and tell me was happens. B) The sun not setting so that Joshua could win the battle. C) That guy killing 300 Philistines with an ox goad. and D) Sampson.

On Atlantis:

It was not Crete. It was another island that experienced the same thing that happened to Crete. The civilization that was on Crete was destroyed along with the civilization on that island.

Because we know, does it make it real? Because we know parts of it, it makes that part of the story real.

Troy existed and it was destroyed. That much we know.

Because Isaiah knew that the earth was spherical, it makes the fact that the Bible says the earth was spherical real.

Now let me answer the Bible verses.

It should be translated "sphere", not "circle".

That clears that.

The "four corners of the earth" refers to the points of the compass. Only fools thought that the earth was flat. Even back then.

"Firmament" is an interesting word in the Hebrew. It stretches. It also contains the stars and the stars move across it.

What do we know that is like that? Space.

 

That's not always true. Many people's belief in science is as blind and dogma-driven as a blind acceptance of any religion.

I'm talking about the practice of science... not the belief in it. I am well aware that there are people who choose to blindly accept anything science or religion has to offer. I am not one of these people, nor do I believe in blind devotion to anything.

 

except to Bithy? Right?


Read the now-discontinued Great Debate if you want to get some interesting discourse on the 'firmament' issue. It's around here somewhere. Make sure you are well rested before you start.

Pity that the Debate had to end, in fact. It was quite something.

 

I thought I'd get back to the planets issue: They are kind of conspicious by their abscence. Also we have the paradox of "Why did God create lifeless worlds"?

There is the signs theory, but I don't feel that this holds water. If God intended for the planets to simply be "signs", then there is the problem that some of the outer ones are not really visible from Earth(Same problem with the Stars also serving as signs) and also why God would make them as Gas giants and what not.
There is also the theory that they are other planets God got mad at and wiped out. This really only works for Mars, as no other planets apart from Earth and Mars could support life.(Although some moons might be able to).
Another topic I would introduce: Asteroids. Asteroids seem to hint that the formation of the universe was chaotic, that some planets and moons got smashed while others formed. This kind of fits in with the craters. Although one can chock it up to "The Universal curse", it doesn't seem to fit, especially since that whole verse in GENESIS seems to be exagerrated, as God only condemns man to toil, and actually later removes that curse in GENESIS( "I will no longer curse the ground") which makes the need for a saviour to remove it rather unnecessary...

 

Why did God create lifeless worlds?

They look pretty.

As for the asteroid field and mars, I believe that there was a planet that was destroyed in about the orbit where the asteroid field is.

As for Mars, I believe that it was ravaged in an angelic battle when Lucifer fell or at some point in his rebellion(which could mean a little while after his fall).

Maybe it is the same with the asteroid field.

And the craters are results of that.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll do some research on this.

 

"It should be translated "sphere", not "circle". "

No offense, Obi, but somehow I doubt you're an expert on ancient Hebrew.

 

No offense, Obi, but somehow I doubt you're an expert on ancient Hebrew.

And you are?

 

I never claimed to be, and that's why I don't try to make definitive statements on how the bible "really" says what I think it should.

The 's in your court.

 

After further research, I have discovered that the word is the Hebrew word for circle(Thanks to my expertise in ancient Hebrew ), and I would like to know how the Bible can have both an earth with four corners, and an earth that is a circle.

It's clear: The Bible contradicts itself!

Now I see that my religion is a hoax. We can all be atheists together!

//puts his arms around Chris2 and Darth Geist and starts singing brotherly campfire songs.

Or maybe it's just that spheres are a bit . . . circular.

I may be a stubborn religious freak, but I admit it when I'm wrong.

 

BTW how about ancient civilizations?

The flood was apparentally in 3004 B.C or so, if one looks closely at the genealogies and ages of ancient man in the bible. However there is a problem with this. There are ancient civilizations pre-dating the alleged flood date, which did not cease at the flood date, but continued on. 4 years after the date of the flood, for instance, there was a huge civil war in Egypt. I seriously doubt that eight-or so-people and maybe a few infants managed to get into one civil war. Indeed, there were empires at the time with tons of people. Now, unless the wives of Noah's sons were pumping out children at an extraordinary rate-like one child per day-it would have been impossible for these empires to arise and have the populations that they had! If one calculates this, by 2500 the entire world population would be less than a thousand--definetly not enough to disperse all over, and IN NO WAY able to make monuments like the Hanging Gardens and the Great Pyramids.

 

Do spheres have four corners?

The bible had dozens of authors over thousands of years; of course things aren't going to match up.

The book of Proverbs describes how the righteous prosper, and the wicked suffer. Job laments on how the wicked prosper, and the righteous suffer. Many Biblical figures see God face to face, but no one has seen him at any time. Answer a fool according to his folly, but at the same time, don't.

People have worked for the last two thousand years to try to patch these holes, but no amount of rationalizing can cover the fact that A does not equal Z, which is exactly what those who say the Bible has no contradictions would have you believe.

 

The book of Proverbs describes how the righteous prosper, and the wicked suffer. Job laments on how the wicked prosper, and the righteous suffer. Many Biblical figures see God face to face, but no one has seen him at any time. Answer a fool according to his folly, but at the same time, don't.

Job was in the dumps of pessimism. Men do not agree.

Many Biblical figures see God face to face? Name one. Any figure. I'm not saying that they're not there. And tell me where it says that no one has seen him.

 

John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time." (Repeated in Chapter 4, Verse 12.)

Exodus 33:11: "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

There are several other verses to the same effect; some Biblical authors maintain that God has never been seen, and cannot be seen, while others tell stories of men having seen him, or claim to have seen him themselves.

Either people have seen God or they haven't, and the authors of the Bible can't seem to agree.

 

Geist, if I'm not mistaken, those passages with Moses start out by saying that the "angel" or "spirit" of G-d appeared to him. I'm not 100% sure what that means, but I think it implies that G-d was incarnated in a form designed specifically so man could comprehend it. So the passage from John might be completely consistent with the Old Testament... from a certain point of view.

 

The passage seems confused as to what exactly happened. God descends on a column of light to Moses' tent, converses with him "face to face," then tells him, "Thou canst not see my face, for no man can see me and live."

Go figure.