It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible says Universe is billions of years old

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The dilemma faced uniquely by evolutionary creationist when dealing with evolutionary theory, apart from any concern of the materialistic evolutionists, is the placing of the very credibility of Jesus Himself on the line. As the Bible emphatically states that by and through Jesus Christ all things were made (John 1:1-5), might it not be reasonable to assume He would have a firm apprehension of all of the details of creation; to include its time line? Jesus stated (Matthew 19:4-6) “…at the beginning…” man and woman were created and joined together as man and wife. The use here of the definite article “at”, as well as the Greek sentence structure of this passage leave absolutely NO room for a “Gap” and “Day/Age” justification for any evolutionary hybrid of creationism out of the Genesis account of creation. Jesus is either lying here or He is deluded; there are no other possible explanations for the specificity of this passage; the “beginning” in the Greek means just that, the beginning.

Furthermore, any time one extracts from any passage of scripture that which is not clearly a fuller explanation of its intent; through some contortion of the original languages into what appears to be a contradiction of a plain text reading of the passage under consideration, they’ve entered the realm of a cultist application of the Word of God. In effect they have made themselves editors of God’s Word, correcting what the Bible plainly says to tell you what God really meant. The scriptural warnings against such are numerous and severe.

If Jesus is not lying or deluded then, one need only take the genealogical information supplied in to Bible to find that the earth is approximately 6000 years old and that about 4400 years ago there was a flood. Observable unbiased scientific data would be reasonably expected to support these approximations; it does.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The law of physics called The Conservation of Angular Momentum basically states that any spinning object that breaks apart in a frictionless environment will continue spinning in the same direction. Why then are at least two planets in our solar system spinning backwards? Why are there at least 6 moons in our solar system spinning backwards, with some spinning backwards around their planets? This makes ANY model of the Big Bang Theory impossible under this law of physics. (The Big Bang Theory simply stated states that all the matter in the universe started as a swirling mass about the size of a period on this page; this mass then exploded to become the universe as we know it. Cosmologists have taken this a step further to hypothesize that all matter started as nothing, which then exploded to become the universe as we know it.)

Another violation of law of physics by this theory is called The Conservation of Angular Momentum; is the fact that our sun has less than 5% of the total mass of our solar system, yet it has 90% of the angular momentum! A physical impossibility to explain from the explosion of any size swirling mass.

The Big Bang Theory is a big dud.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
You can't possibly believe that the earth is 6000 years old?! Both childish and utter ignorant. You dissmiss all science and progress by saying such.

"In the beginning the majestic God created the great expance and matter, and the matter was lifeless and empty... Then said God: Become light! And there was a great light... And there were evenings and there were mornings a first age".

That would be a more or less direct translation with alternate choices of meaning for Hebrew words in the text, of parts of Genesis 1. As you can see God says more or less exactly the same as does modern astrophysics.

To fully understand the bible, especially the Torah, you have to go back to the source and study the meaning of the words used and understand the stories told as allegories. They have a factual side, but every move, name, place, war - you name it - is also a prophecy and witness of many things.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
Why then are at least two planets in our solar system spinning backwards? Why are there at least 6 moons in our solar system spinning backwards, with some spinning backwards around their planets?


Think out of the box my friend. Is there anything against these planets actually started out spinning in various directions. Look at the moon, it doesn't spin at all! And what about the insane movements of Mercury, it baffles everyone, but I guess you have a liable eggsplanation for that...



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SGTChas
 


So you are using your complete lack of knowledge about the solar system to deem the big bang theory impossible? And you expect others to believe you?

If that's the level of your logical reasoning, no wonder you're delusional.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
If you cannot assail the facts, attack he who dares mention the "emperor has no clothes"! Perhaps your obviously superior intellect would enlighten me as to why the law of physics called The Conservation of Angular Momentum does not apply ONLY when speaking about OUR solar system? I've listened to many lecturers attempt and fail to do so. But then they were obviously not as enlightened as you...

[edit on 6/13/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/13/2008 by SGTChas]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
[edit on 6/13/2008 by SGTChas]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


I guess I am both "childish and utterly ignorant" because I believe the Bible EXACTLY as it is written. I'll take that comment in the way I am sure it was written and meant, as a high complement and badge of honor.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by SGTChas]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SGTChas
 





I believe the Bible EXACTLY as it is written.


Your intentions are good. Really. I'm not a Darwinist. But YEC was a mistake we need to admit that. Just like with Galileo and the sun revolving around the earth.

It wasn't written in English dude. I am a Southern Baptist and very conservative. I know Baptist seminary professors that have written books on Genesis. You are misunderstanding the text horribly and discrediting the name of Jesus. I wish you would stop.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Please sir, give me examples without the crass generalizations. Koine Greek and the Bible are among my passions. If you accuse me of a disservice then establish it with two examples at least.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
There seems to be pretty much confusion here about the creation of the universe vis-à-vis the Bible, surely, with none to be blamed. The complexity of the beginning of universe is mind boggling, which I would not consider strange, knowing full well that God Himself is multiple times more complex. Maybe some time in the future we may fully understand the Universe, but understand God fully? Never.

I have read extensively about the various theories regarding the Creation of the Universe but have never come across any mathematician or physicist claiming the absence of a God or His noninvolvement in it. Almost all of them have examined only “how” and probably none “why”. As scientists, they cannot, and it does not concern them either, they are not theologists.

Assuming that the Big Bang, as assumed in these pages, is correct, there is still no valid reason why the earth is the way it is and why we are here see it all ! As one scientist has rightly stated “ there is far less chances for the earth as we see today, to form in the violent universe than for a tornado to pass through a junk yard and leave behind a brand new 747 Jumbo Jet”. And yet, here we are!

I sincerely advise that all of us, who are bugged by this question, study both, the explanation given by the scientists and the theologists in more and more detail, perhaps we may reach closer to understand our God and how He works.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SGTChas
 


The sun has 99 percent of the mass of the solar system, but less than 1 percent of the angular momentum. It is spinning too slowly to have formed naturally.

Source: Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 19.

Please do correct you info



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
The only reason that YEC is rejected among the church is because we want the bible to fit current scientific theory. However if we wish to do this here and therefore change our interpretation of Gen 1-11 and other passages, how can we claim to believe the bible in any way. There are a number of miracles listed in the bible which by definition are against scientific understanding. Must we dispose of all of these as well? Obviously the Red Sea didn't part for the Israelites to cross and then drown all the Egyptians and the sun didn't stand still so that the Israelites could win the fight. Clearly we will have to disregard the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as just a story and the miracles of Jesus must just be allegorical aswell.

The biggest problem with wishing to match the bible with current understanding in science is that of death. The most repeated experiment in history is that when you die you stay dead. Go and check out the cemeteries, you won't find dead people getting up out of the grave. Yet as Christians we must believe in the bodily resurection of the dead. Paul says that if the dead do not raise then we are to be most pitied. If we deny the resurection then Christ did not rise and we have no hope. If however we believe in the resurection then why is it so hard to believe that God could create in 6 days? Both are against our current understanding of science.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Iggus
 


One should not be overly upset about matching the Bible and Science. Science is concerned with only those matters which are governed by the known laws of physics, while the Bible involves both the known and unknown laws of physics and those matters beyond the laws of physics. Science can draw a margin for things it cannot explain; the Divine. While the resurrection of Jesus lies in the realm of the Divine, creation of the universe itself does not. Before the earth was created, there could not have been a 24 hour day. So how long was the day before the creation of the solar system or even the Universe, for that matter?
Moreover, before the creation of the universe, there was no space (the three dimensional space) so there was no time (the fourth dimension). The only “time” there could have been must have been in the Heaven, where God resides. Any idea how long that time could have been in the heavens and its quality? We don’t know the physical quality of heaven, nor any of its properties, so it must be Divine. If we believe in the Bible we have agreed to believe in Science and the Divine, so where is the contradiction?



[edit on 21-8-2008 by spacerobo]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by spacerobo
 


You say that the resurection is outside of science and is divine but that the creation is just a matter of science. This is an absurd statement. Why is the resurection not inside science, after all it obeys the laws of physics. People do not come back to life. So you say that it must be divine. Why can't you say the same about creation?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Now where's the difference between science and the bible?


Science has FACTUAL peer reviewed EVIDENCE

The bible has a collection of interpretable metaphores, which could mean one thing to you and a completely different thing to the next person.

One is fact, one is fiction.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Good point, Mystic. I agree that religion and science can overlap. I was taught by my mother that God created the world, but that a day was equal to eons. And there you have it, they both can fit together.


How does an eon have a morning and an evening?


...And the evening and the morning were the first day
...And the evening and the morning were the second day.
...And the evening and the morning were the third day.
...And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
...And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.



(Note: Jewish people count days starting at sundown, which is why it lists evening first. )



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
The law of physics called The Conservation of Angular Momentum basically states that any spinning object that breaks apart in a frictionless environment will continue spinning in the same direction. Why then are at least two planets in our solar system spinning backwards? Why are there at least 6 moons in our solar system spinning backwards, with some spinning backwards around their planets? This makes ANY model of the Big Bang Theory impossible under this law of physics. (The Big Bang Theory simply stated states that all the matter in the universe started as a swirling mass about the size of a period on this page; this mass then exploded to become the universe as we know it. Cosmologists have taken this a step further to hypothesize that all matter started as nothing, which then exploded to become the universe as we know it.)

Another violation of law of physics by this theory is called The Conservation of Angular Momentum; is the fact that our sun has less than 5% of the total mass of our solar system, yet it has 90% of the angular momentum! A physical impossibility to explain from the explosion of any size swirling mass.

The Big Bang Theory is a big dud.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by SGTChas]


Your theory is proven wrong here, and here. Sorry.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iggus
reply to post by spacerobo
 


You say that the resurection is outside of science and is divine but that the creation is just a matter of science. This is an absurd statement.


I have neither said that "resurection is outside of science" nor "creation is just a matter of science". I merely meant to say that a dead man cannot resurrect without divine intervention. Also, creation did not need such an intervention since all of the events involved in it follow the law of physics (except maybe, the creation of life itself). However, nothing, I believe, can happen without divine will, the will of God. I wish only to emphasize that better understanding of both, the Bible and Science, can remove whatever contradiction that may appear to exist between them.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by spacerobo]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by spacerobo
 


From what I can understand of what you are saying then is that God creates but through evolution etc.. as understood by science and you are happy to believe that God can intervene in the resurrection of the dead just as it says in the bible. So why can't God have created the world in 6 days just as it says in the bible? Is it because it goes against our current understanding of science? But then again, as I have said, raising the dead is really against our understanding of science.

This all feels strangely repetative
Basically I don't see why I have to make God fit our current understanding of "creation" but that we can happily let him raise the dead or any other miracle or indeed wait for him to end the world in a moment.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join