Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[SoyLeche]

What work? There is no scientific work to the contrary; that's my point. There are not two kinds of scientists: pro-evolution scientists and pro-creation scientists. There is the scientific view--evolution, and the anti-scientific view--YEC. There is no such thing as scientific creationism, and YEC attempts to call what they do science are dishonest.

Or maybe you want to cite me a scientific article, published in a peer-reviewed journal of science, not a creationist propaganda screed, that sets forth evidence for a young earth? Or a Noachian flood? Or Biblical creation?

So, who exactly gets to decide if someones work is "scientific" or not?

For the record, I do not believe in YEC, but I do believe in a creation.

 

[Autodidact]

Whether or not there is a consensus doesn't really matter all that much to me. I prefer to look at the work, evaluate it myself and draw a conclusion.

Really. Do you follow the same practice with regard to say, medicine? Do you prefer to accept your doctor's prescription or read the original medical research? Do you prefer to just get in the plane, or read the blueprints? You must have an amazing subscription list. I assume you subscribe to Nature and about a hundred other scientific journals, in several different languages? What original research in geology did you read to conclude that you don't know how old the earth is?

 

[Autodidact]

So, who exactly gets to decide if someones work is "scientific" or not?

Scientists. If the individual applies the scientific method, their work is scientific.

For the record, I do not believe in YEC, but I do believe in a creation.

Well, for the record, I do not think the age of the earth or the origin of species are something that one believes in or not. One either accepts a theory or rejects it. These are not philosophies or worldviews that one believes in like religion. And, for the record, neither the actual age of the earth nor the actual origin of species are incompatible with a creation.

 

[gnostic]

Science and Bible/Genesis are completely incompatible.

Take the Creation in Genesis 1 as example.

God created light on the 1st day. He use this light to separate day from night, ie light from darkness. The bible doesn't say where this light source come from.

God didn't create the sun, moon and stars until the 4th day.

If the Bible is correct and true, then the earth had day and night without celestial sources (eg Sun).

Is that remotely possible?

Scientifically there are no other source of light that can give the Earth day and night, except from the sun. Clearly the writer (or writers of the Genesis) didn't understand the earth require to spin around its axis, in order to achieve the night and day. Nor did he understands that the sun is sole source of this light, that divide our day into day and night.

So the Bible is incorrect, thus false.

So what is Genesis source of light on the 1st day?

Another thing that the biblical writer didn't understand that the stars are like our sun. According to the bible, the earth is older than the sun. Older than the stars. Older than these fiery orbs by mere 3 days. The earth, sun, and stars are no older than less than 5700 years old. If we take the bible seriously, then there were no stars and sun before 5700 years ago.

Light need to travel over great distance to reach our planet in order to see the stars, and all this take time. If the stars didn't exist until roughly 5700 year ago, then we should not see any stars beyond 5700 light years away. Our telescope should not be able to see stars, galaxies and or other heavenly bodies except within the range of 5700 light years.

Our closest galaxy, Andromeda is roughly 2 million light years away from Earth, so we shouldn't be able to see Andromeda in our telescope for around another 1.994 million years from now, if we are to believe Genesis about the age of the stars. The Andromeda has been known since the mid-10th century, by Islamic astronomer, rediscovered with the telescope became available in early 17th century. Until Edwin Hubble, everyone thought the Andromeda galaxy as being part of the Milky Way. Hubble was the one who classified as a separate galaxy; a spiral galaxy similar to that of the Milky Way.

But our telescope can see billions of light years away. We can see stars and galaxies beyond the Andromeda galaxy. The furthest we can see at the moment is roughly 13.5 billion light years. That is the extent of the technology can see, with the most powerful telescope. At the very least, our universe is that age, because of the limitation of our technology.

So the bible is archaeologically and scientifically wrong in regard to the age of our earth, as well as wrong about the age of the stars and the universe.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's not about your intellect, sandy, but about what you think is a good way to learn about the natural world.

Those two, scientific and scriptural, are not nescassarily mutually inclusive.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Pray enlighten us, Soy, how old is planet earth, and how do you know?

Let me ask you something; How old was Adam when he was made? Ill explain more after I get an answer.

 

[Autodidact]

Those two, scientific and scriptural, are not nescassarily mutually inclusive.

I didn't say anything about scripture. All I said was, do you think that science is a good way to learn about the natural world?

 

[Autodidact]

Let me ask you something; How old was Adam when he was made? Ill explain more after I get an answer.

Sandy: I'm an atheist. This question makes no sense to me. It's along the lines of, "How tall was Frodo?" However, if you're driving toward some kind of omphalism, you have a bizarre theology indeed, and mainstream Christianity left you behind a hundred years ago. We sometimes humorously refer to this kind of view as "Last Thursdayism," as the ontological equivalent of everything having been created exactly as it is, with the appearance of great age, last Thursday. Here's one for you: Did Adam have a navel?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy: I'm an atheist. This question makes no sense to me. It's along the lines of, "How tall was Frodo?" However, if you're driving toward some kind of omphalism, you have a bizarre theology indeed, and mainstream Christianity left you behind a hundred years ago. We sometimes humorously refer to this kind of view as "Last Thursdayism," as the ontological equivalent of everything having been created exactly as it is, with the appearance of great age, last Thursday. Here's one for you: Did Adam have a navel?

Then any discussion of scripture with you is meaningless as well.

Now did Adam have a navel; yes it is quite obvious:

 

[MaddLlama]

Then any discussion of scripture with you is meaningless as well.

Now did Adam have a navel; yes it is quite obvious:

Is that a photograph? No? Well, a painted interpretation by someone who wasn't there, and didn't know Adam, how is that proof of what Adam looked like? Is there any way to prove Adam's appearance? Is there another painting that proves what color his hair was?

Really, it's a useless and unanswerable question anyway.

 

[Autodidact]

Then any discussion of scripture with you is meaningless as well.

Now did Adam have a navel; yes it is quite obvious:

I don't generally take part in discussions of scripture, unless from a purely historical or scholarly point of view. This is a discussion about archeological evidence. And my point is that there is no archeological, geological, anthropological, biological, paleontological, evidence for Noah's flood. That's because it's a myth.

So God created Adam to appear as if he had been born of woman?

 

[Smoke]

So God created Adam to appear as if he had been born of woman?

Judging from the "evidence" presented, he also created him well-muscled, but with a strangely small head and a tiny little penis. One begins to understand Lilith's point of view.

 

[Autodidact]

Judging from the "evidence" presented, he also created him well-muscled, but with a strangely small head and a tiny little penis. One begins to understand Lilith's point of view.

I believe that the renaissance aesthetic, derived from the Greek, was for a small penis, considered sort of less animalistic/beastly, more refined. God I know some weird stuff. Why can't I make money from my obscure knowledge?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy: I'm an atheist. This question makes no sense to me. It's along the lines of, "How tall was Frodo?" However, if you're driving toward some kind of omphalism, you have a bizarre theology indeed, and mainstream Christianity left you behind a hundred years ago.

Perhaps you could give us some guidelines into how, perhaps from experience or supposition (and please clarify which is which), as to just how creation needs to happen and what the byproduct of it looks like at the first moments thereafter. This would clarify what the universe needed to look like in the beginning.

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps you could give us some guidelines into how, perhaps from experience or supposition (and please clarify which is which), as to just how creation needs to happen and what the byproduct of it looks like at the first moments thereafter. This would clarify what the universe needed to look like in the beginning.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word. What are you getting at? You understand that I'm an atheist, right?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word. What are you getting at? You understand that I'm an atheist, right?

If a universe to be created what would it look like just after the moment of creation. I thought perhaps you might have some insight into that since you don't think that the universe could have been created with the apperance of age. What would your universe look like? I thought that you just might have some insight which allows you to disallow the concept of a new creation with the appearance of age.

 

[Autodidact]

If a universe to be created what would it look like just after the moment of creation.

I haven't the foggiest notion. I suppose it could look any way whatsoever.

I thought perhaps you might have some insight into that since you don't think that the universe could have been created with the apperance of age.

Did I say that? On the contrary, an all-powerful and deceptive God could certainly do this, if He so desired. I just think you end up with an odd theology, but that's your lookout. What you're saying is, in effect, you agree, the universe, the planet, life, all look ancient, the evidence in fact indicates that there was no flood, but you think it's all some kind of giant matrix or hologram that was actually created 6000 years ago to look that way. This hypothesis cannot be disproven. It's just weird as heck. I guess I would think if God went to all that trouble to make it look 4.56 billion years old, down to coordinating the decay rates of all those different elements and all that, we should probably go alone with His program, as he must have had some good reason for it.

By the same token, it could all have been created Last Thursday to look as if it had been here for 4.56 billion years. Equally disprovable. And equally bizarre.

What would your universe look like? I thought that you just might have some insight which allows you to disallow the concept of a new creation with the appearance of age.

I don't have a universe. I just work with the actual one.

 

[Autodidact]

What say you Christians, do you agree with Sandy that all the evidence supports an old earth with no flood, but it's just a great big trick by Yahweh. Anyone here go with that notion?

 

[SoyLeche]

What say you Christians, do you agree with Sandy that all the evidence supports an old earth with no flood, but it's just a great big trick by Yahweh. Anyone here go with that notion?

I could possibly go for a "The Universe is a few thousand years old, and looks like it is a few thousand years old, but we don't know what a universe that looks like a few thousand years old is supposed to look like and we have interpreted the geological/astronomical/biological/etc evidence incorrectly".

I don't really lean that direction, but I can accept it as a possibility.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I haven't the foggiest notion. I suppose it could look any way whatsoever.

That's why some Christians think that God created the universe in motion. That is, the universe is moving in such a way that indicates a "big bang," but God created the universe in motion so God's the cause, not cosmological physics.