• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;891439; said:
In what follows, I will hopefully demonstrate how a 6,000 year old earth - as proclaimed by biblical literalists - is varifiably false.

Lake Suigetsu

Lake Suigetsu is a small lake near the center of Japan on the island of Honshu, at latitude 35?35' North and longitude 135?53' East. Each spring, tiny plants bloom in Lake Suigetsu - algae. When these algae die in the fall, they drift down to the bottom of the lake covering the bottom with a thin white layer. The rest of the year, darker sediments of clay and various other things (insects, twigs, leaves etc. (these things, in that they can be carbon dated, will be addressed further below) settle on the bottom. This produces alternating layers of dark and light and one can count the years like tree rings

It looks like this:
suigetsucore.jpg


Each layer represents the record of a single year of activity at Lake Suigetsu. It also provides easy ways to date the lake. First, the layers may be counted directly, as one might count tree rings. Doing so reveals that the lake is over 100,000 years old. Counting errors have been estimated on several trials as being on the order of 1.5%, providing for a possibility that the actual age is off perhaps some 150 years per 10,000 Link Even suggesting such error is likely, and even saying 200 years per 10,000 would indicate that the lake is 80,000 years old. Far, far older than a date which would be in compliance with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

From the sediments, one may also perform Carbon dating techniques on leaves, branches and insects which are buried throughout. C-14 dating can be then calibrated with the "tree ring" approach" noted above. Testing reveals a Carbon dated age of approximately 90,000 to 100,000 years - as expected. Same link as above

As revealed in the link I keep linking, plotting the findings against time reveals a consistency between dating techniques. The consistency, of course, is truly problematic for the biblical literalist in opposition because independent metrics revealing the same results means that one has to identify errors - and more than that, critical errors - in each measuring metric... which not only disprove that the metric in question itself is invalid, but also in a manner which would establish a reason why both metrics agree despite the invalidities.

These samples have also been compared against other chronoligical measures, including Ice Core samples as well as actual tree ring samples. The results of each of these dating techiniques as against eachother reveals a remarkable consistency. Making, of course, the Biblical literalists task even harder, in that now we have 4 dating techniques providing results which agree and which were secured independently and for differing purposes.

Stated plaininly, If a literal reading of Genesis is a true historical account, then Lake Suigetsu cannot exist. And yet... it does indeed exist.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe in evolution, then save your money and stock up on flu vaccine from five years ago.....it's much cheaper :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
fanaticbuckeye;890948; said:
I'll bite. I have no education and will admit my vocabulary does not include any words longer than 8 letters (except education and vocabulary):!. I am Christian and believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Therefore, God is perfect in my eyes and the Bible is God's word breathed so forth and so on....


My understanding of what an evolutionist believes...

Man came to existence from simple single celled amoebas (or cells, or proteins, or electrons, or whatever they are). Over the course of m/billions of years, these simple organisms grew into fish then monkeys then men-cliff notes version.

If I have accurately summarized in the most elementary view, Christianity and evolution (from amoeba to man) must be mutually exclusive because I believe the world is only 6000 years old, give or take a few, and such cannot coincide.
To further my faith standpoint, Genesis 1:27 God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.

So, understanding what my faith is and you can see my ignorance or brilliance in the field of evolution is, how can evolution and Christianity both be true?

I am completely open minded to your stance and perspective and am rather anxious to your education of fanaticbuckeye.
Click to expand...

FB - I appreciate your response. I'm sorry I, until just now, overlooked it. I would say, in as much as you state you believe the world is only 6,000 years old and you derive this from your deep personal belief that the Bible is a transcription of a perfect and infallable God, there is no reconisiliation between that Word and evolution. I do not argue that a biblical literalist can reconsile.

My argument, as you hopefully can review in the posts which precede this one, is that despite what the Bible says, the reality that surrounds us reveals results that are quite simply NOT in accord with the Bible as a "fact book." In order to reconsile these glaring inconsistencies, we are given choices. We could choose, as you do, to ignore that which does not conform to our understanding of the world, or perhaps more purposefully attempt to discredit it and adhere to our belief that the Bible is to be understood literarally. Or, we could realize that the empirical evidence established that the world cannot be precisely as described in the Bible.

Choosing option 2 - as I do - we need to further contemplate it. If we deny that the Biblie is a fact book, we do not "kill God" in any way. I'm guessing this is not self evident to you, because I figure you think if the Bible is "a lie" then so is God, etc. etc. etc. But.. that's not the way it HAS to be. If we instead assume that the Bible is a collection of theories about God, creation, etc.. we can see that the Bible is oddly in accord with the scientific reality that surrounds us. That is to say, if we view the words in the book as metaphoric, we can see that phrases like "And the Lord said let there be light, and there was and it was good" are in line with scientific holdings such as "The universe began with the big bang" What becomes interesting (to me, anyway) is that ancient peoples, without the scientific instruments we have available now, already had the "theory" right, even if their description of that theory was made in metaphor.

Consider also that as native English speakers, we cannot be sure that the Bible has been translated with it's full intended meaning. That is to say, there are words in languages that do not properly translate, concepts that have to be described because... a more recent example of this problem can be demonstrated by consideration of Chinese translations of Harry Potter Books Of course, this is not said to imply that there is some sort of tranlational conspiracy... it's simple recognition of the fact that ideas - as the written word represents - do not always translate precisely.

Thus, I prefer to look at the Bible as a guidebook of sorts, and not a fact book. A metaphoric understanding does not mean that God is dead, nor that the other 'life philosophies' expounded are "wrong" In otherwords, if the Bible perports to say people should not steal, this advice is not rendered poor if there was no Ark.

I believe that the Noah story describes an actual event. An event that was not a worldwide flood. But, a signifigant flood. Much the same as we might evaluate a Native American Myth... So it is with Biblical accounts of historical events. Upon a more critical review, the description of Noah being even able to do that which is claimed he did becomes all the more ridiculous. For example, we know that tryannosaurs existed. We know that Brontosourus existed. We know that Sabertooth Tigers and Wooly Mammoth existed. Each of these creatures, by 2s, are required to be on this boat. The description of the boat is precisely outlined in the Bible. The craft would be unable to house 2 of each creature in the world. Likewise, consider impossibly obvious problems of the construction itself:

Genesis 6:14 - 16 (NKJV) 14 "Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. 15 "And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 "You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
Click to expand...

You shall make A window... not windows, not several.. one. This becomes highly signifigant because Noah was instructed to make three levels for animal storage as well as to cover the entire craft in pitch.... the problem? Ventalation. A single window would not provide enough ventalation to accomodate the inclusion of 2 of every species of animal sorted and stored on three tiers. All of these criters would die of carbon dioxide posioning - their own exhale.

Anyway... that doesn't mean there isn't a lesson to be learned in this story... Or a "history" to understand... it just means that whatever the lesson... whatever the history... the Bible is not a precise accounting of it.

So, to end this.. in order to reconsile science with the Bible, we must realize that the Bible is a book of MAN written about GOD. Some of which may well be divinely inspired (that is, I surely leave room for the possibility, in as much as I too have been divinely inspired to do certain things, etc.) However, if we cannot move past our fears that a literal translation being wrong renders God dead, we shall never seek to make that leap, and as such bind ourselves and our knowledge to only that which has been written, and not that which we may ourselves observe.
 
Upvote 0
I shall also add.... how were these beasts fed? Let us agree that Lions exist and would be on the ark. What was fed these beasts for 40 days? Nothing? Grain? Lions, of course, are meat eating animals. Should they not suffocate, why did they not starve? Again, consider the Tryanosaur... how was it fed? Of course, even if we assume that each animal became a herbivore for 40 days, in as much as the entire world was flooded, all food stores must have also been on board. 40 days of rations for the entire population of the world...

This, of course, is a serious problem which one must have an answer for to believe. My guess is, one defers to God's more magical side. In doing so - while maintaing faith - we leave the rational world behind.... and frankly, in leaving the rational world behind, we insult God by a tacit admission that he created something which cannot possibly be without supernatural intervention. If supernatural intervention is required, it would mean God is not so infallibale as we'd like... for, was it Not God himself who made that which he decided he needed to destroy via the flood anyway? While this may well be devine providence, it begs the question... why, God.. didn't you see this coming?
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;891468; said:
would you like to point out exactly when the Bible says the earth was created? because for the life of me, i can only find one verse and it says "in the beginning." it doesn't say, "in the year xxxx."
Click to expand...

LV, you tell me.. it's your side of the argument. All I know is biblical literalists aften point to October 23, 4004 B.C. If you believe differently, by all means, let me know.

I've made efforts to establish what I'm saying... please do the same. Establish the biblical date... and we'll work from there.
 
Upvote 0
And so we are back to the original tension, between those of us who see the Bible as the fundamental book of Truth, as against those who see it as a book of facts. Creationists see it as a book of facts, and if one element therein can be proven to be non-factual, their faith evaporates. I think it's unfortunate for them.

If I want facts, I go to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. But there's precious little Truth to be found there.
 
Upvote 0
Indeed, Max... the glory of the Bible is inspirational. It's failure is factual. Likewise, the glory of science is it's factual consistency across disciplines.. it's failure is a matter of inspiration.

Personally, I consider it foolish to not utlilize the benefits of both in our continuing efforts to glorify God. I know that statement sounds screwy to Atheists, but it doesn't much matter.. even if you're just doing science, if there is a God, you're glorfying him... if there's not... well.. whether a glorification is occuring otherwise becomes irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus said:
Well Dr. Purdom only got her degree from Ohio State, she's not a professor there. She currently teaches at a Christian university (Mt. Vernon Nazarene University). And from her short biography it appears that (besides teaching) she primarily gives pro-Creationism lectures. She's published a few papers, but none of them were in evolution-specific journals. I tried looking up her papers with differing results: Journal of Neuroscience: No listing for a Georgia Purdom, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research: (paper authored by seven other colleges that has to do with gene expression in mice), and Journal of Leukocyte Biology (two papers; both deal with the same subject as above - gene expression in mice).

But as Muck already stated, the validity of an argument is not based on the authority or credentials of the person asserting it. If she wants to be taken seriously she should publish a few papers in peer-reviewed journals that show evidence of Creationism. But then again there is no evidence for a 6,000 year-old earth, a universe that was created in 6 days, man being created from clay and woman from his rib.

EDIT: Looks like Gatorubet beat me to the punch on most of this already. :wink2:
Click to expand...
The point was that it seemed from your posts that noone coming out of OSU science academics should be able to not be an evolutionist. And no I'm not arguing anything from authority. I don't believe you should believe creationist arguments just because someone with a doctorate from tOSU is a creationist. You had painted the picture that you couldn't go to tOSU science departments and not believe in Evolution. Clearly someone came away unconvinced with a doctorate too.

I do realize that the number of scientists who accept evolution is much greater than those who accept a literal Biblical Interpretation, but likely there are more literal Bible believing scientists than you would think. Many have Ph.D.s from places like tOSU, Penn State, Harvard, LSU, Texas, UCLA, etc. So while you reject the evidence they see doesn't mean there isn't evidence. Yes Dr. Purdom started out as a literal interpreter of the Bible, but not all do.

I believe we've been over this before, but mainstream Science journals will often not publish or hire a creation scientists just because they know the scientist is a creation scientist. In the same article it is shown that there are articles published by creation scientists in the peer reviewed journals you are refering to.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;891505; said:
And so we are back to the original tension, between those of us who see the Bible as the fundamental book of Truth, as against those who see it as a book of facts. Creationists see it as a book of facts, and if one element therein can be proven to be non-factual, their faith evaporates. I think it's unfortunate for them.

If I want facts, I go to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. But there's precious little Truth to be found there.
Click to expand...

By way of explanation, the PCUSA Confession of 1967 states my views. Everyone is free to follow their own.
2. The Bible
The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written. The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel. The church has received the books of the Old and New Testaments as prophetic and apostolic testimony in which it hears the word of God and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated.
The New Testament is the recorded testimony of apostles to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and the sending of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Old Testament bears witness to God's faithfulness in his covenant with Israel and points the way to the fulfillment of his purpose in Christ. The Old Testament is indispensable to understanding the New, and is not itself fully understood without the New.
The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God's work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.
God's word is spoken to his church today where the Scriptures are faithfully preached and attentively read in dependence on the illumination of the Holy Spirit and with readiness to receive their truth and direction.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;891540; said:
The point was that it seemed from your posts that noone coming out of OSU science academics should be able to not be an evolutionist. And no I'm not arguing anything from authority. I don't believe you should believe creationist arguments just because someone with a doctorate from tOSU is a creationist. You had painted the picture that you couldn't go to tOSU science departments and not believe in Evolution. Clearly someone came away unconvinced with a doctorate too.

I do realize that the number of scientists who accept evolution is much greater than those who accept a literal Biblical Interpretation, but likely there are more literal Bible believing scientists than you would think. Many have Ph.D.s from places like tOSU, Penn State, Harvard, LSU, Texas, UCLA, etc. So while you reject the evidence they see doesn't mean there isn't evidence. Yes Dr. Purdom started out as a literal interpreter of the Bible, but not all do.

I believe we've been over this before, but mainstream Science journals will often not publish or hire a creation scientists just because they know the scientist is a creation scientist. In the same article it is shown that there are articles published by creation scientists in the peer reviewed journals you are refering to.
Click to expand...
I never meant to imply that anyone who obtains a Ph.D. in biology or related field in evolution could never dismiss what they learned and instead accept Creationism. Just like there are priests, pastors, etc. that have dismissed their teachings and accepted evolution or became agnostic or atheist (not that one must be atheist to accept evolution as previously stated by others). Sorry if that's the way I came across.

The reason that Creationism is not taken seriously by mainstream science is because no Creationist has ever proposed a Theory of Creationism which is self-consistent, agrees with observations, and provides usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make predictions, they prove to be false). And there are many types of Creationism; Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Evolutionary Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, etc. So which Creationist position is correct? It seems that Creationists can't even agree amongst themselves exactly what the Bible tells them to believe.
 
Upvote 0
Saw31;891559; said:
This is all so simple to me.

If I believe in God and I'm wrong....No big deal.

If I don't believe in God and I'm wrong....d'uh!!!

:biggrin:
Click to expand...

Well, that is all good, but what does correct geological sediment dating have to do with a belief in God? Nothing, unless you link it with a belief in literal Biblical facts. And there is no need to, IMHO. Here, we are simply talking about another form of the universe revolves around the earth controversy.
 
Upvote 0
LV

not to gang up on you, but the concepts of the big bang and evolution really provide more evidence for God than take away from it.

anyone who looks at the bible and takes it word for word as fact, not meaning to offend, is simply wrong in my view.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top