|  eat | May 4, 2007 5:04pm | 198 was explaining how the idea that science and religion disagree with each other simply because they hold different a priori beliefs is inconsistent with the history of science. He alluded to Lord Kelvin, a devout Christian who was the first scientist to give evidence that Earth was on the order of 10 to 100's of millions of years old (not 3000-6000, as had been believed before).
I don't really see how 199 relates to that discussion. |
|
| 
| |
| 
Sponsor |  emortis9 | May 4, 2007 5:15pm | | 202) great post eat. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 8, 2007 8:16am | | I also believe in the word of God and in the accounts of Genesis, yet I believe that the Earth is old. Further more, I don't believe that believing in an old Earth takes away ANYTHING from God. |
|
|
| | eat | May 8, 2007 10:19am | 208: "I also believe in the word of God and in the accounts of Genesis, yet I believe that the Earth is old."
Genesis requires things to be vastly younger than they really are. To believe the scientific evidence about the age of Earth, humanity and many others things contradicts the history that Genesis clearly lays out.
Leaving aside the basic contradictions of physics and biology contained in Genesis, chapter 1 states the Earth was created five days before man. In later chapters of Genesis, several genealogies can be pieced together to give a genealogy from Adam to Abraham, which covers about 1950 years (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis]). Then in Matthew 1:1-16, there is a genealogy from Abraham to Jesus consisting of 52 generations ("Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ." Matthew 1:17). Assuming for argument's sake that the average age a man begat a son to be 50, that amounts to 52 * 50 = 2600 years between Jesus and Abraham. This means that there were about 2600 + 1950 = 4550 years between Jesus and Adam. Add 2007 years, and we see that humanity arose some 6550 years ago. Because Earth is only 6 days younger than humanity, this also places Earth at about 6550 years old. There are volumes of evidence indicating that humanity and Earth are older than 6550 years. If the accounts in Genesis were true, however, humanity and the Earth would have to be about 6550 years old. These contradictions between the historical account of Genesis (and it was intended to be a historical account, not an artistic metaphor, of creation) and science are only two of many.
It's inconsistent to believe in both Genesis and science unless you ignore critical parts in one of them. |
|
|
|  fireforchrist | May 8, 2007 11:29am | Another great post Eat.
"It's inconsistent to believe in both Genesis and science unless you ignore critical parts in one of them."
It is obvious that ether God is wrong or mans knowledge is wrong; you cant have it both ways. I have to admit the choice is scary. If God is right then man is DAMMED. If man is right then God is *poof* -gone- =vaporized=.
Who do you trust? Science (has a track record for changing its mind) or God (has always been correct)
Proof? Find out for yourself.... or wait for death. |
|
| 
| | JRyanStevens | May 8, 2007 12:12pm | except that god hasn't always been correct, which is what I think eat was talking about. obviously you can make consolations and say the word was "corrupted" by man, meaning it's been changed, or something along those lines--but then there's a problem with god's competency and caring for his flock (teaching them the correct way to live, etc.).
and yes, science does change its mind--and thank goodness it does! things that don't change don't survive the test of time. (on a side note, this is one reason religion has been so successful). more importantly than a track record for change, it has a track record for progress--absolute, undeniable progress. obviously science is doing something right... if not damn near everything right. we take medicine, we make cars and planes, we use subatomic particles to image microscopic structures... all because we use the scientific mindset. science is always refining, always making purer, always improving itself. so yes, I'm glad science has changed its mind. it has immense utility and worth. |
|
|
Sponsor | | emortis9 | May 8, 2007 1:08pm | "Who do you trust? Science (has a track record for changing its mind) or God (has always been correct)"
Science has a track record for producing working results. For a more detailed response the the above post :) |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 8, 2007 1:51pm | # 209... I don't think so. Give me an example. I believe that your interpretation of scripture tells you that, but I don't see scripture saying that this earth is young. We weren't there. Now you are saying that it all was in 24 hour days. Were in scripture does it mention that. I know this is touched on before, but nothing was set is stone. As for the tracing of Adam to now, that has also been discussed and has been said that that was a theory, or personal interpretation, again. So you see, one can believe in Genesis and still believe that the earth is old. Just because one believes that the Bible is the word of God, doesn't mean we all believe that this is a young earth.
Now, to say that God hasn't always been correct is not something I would believe in either. Saying that what man thinks that God has done, is not always correct, that is a better statement. I believe in what Genesis teaches us. Now you give to much credit to just science JRyan, I do believe science has given us progress, but I tend to think that the insperation was given by God in science. Yet as we have seen, the same science has given us the dark side that we wish we could forget. Science may have a track records for productin working results, yet not all those results benefit people. Infact some of of those results have the power of great evil. That is what you are proud of. God, is truth and Love. I would and will always place my bet with Him, even when I don't understand everything He truely is. |
|
|
Sponsor | | emortis9 | May 8, 2007 4:12pm | "Science may have a track records for productin working results, yet not all those results benefit people."
And?
Regardless of whether the technology has done great harm or great good is irrelevant. The point he is making is that it works. The scientific method really does produce results i.e. this computer we are communicating with.
Also, you could say that God knew that there would be evil when He created this universe so He is the ultimate cause of evil...not science(not to say that you think that science is the ultimate cause of all evil. lol). This is the age old paradox of an all-loving and all-loving God. |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion