A serious flaw in the bible...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

The bible says the Earth is around 6000 to 10,000 years old. There are a few obvious problems here...which I want to discuss. Firstly...carbon-dating. It is accurate in dating objects as old as 60,000 years old from what I've heard...there are a few variables that could have changed over time...but we can still safely say the Earth is a few million years old according to carbon dating.
Wikipedia

YECs believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old,[30] rather than the age of 4.54 billion years calculated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating.

Christians often use this excuse:
Wiki Answers

Oh I know that you might say well what about this carbon dating which says that the earth has been in existence millions of years, well one thing that you have to remember is that the material which goes up to make the earth has indeed been in existence for much longer than the earth in its present form. You cannot create matter, for it has always been in existence, but the earth has not.

But hold on..."In the beginning"...so was it the beginning or not? Was it the creation of the heavens and the Earth or not? Get your story straight...and you can't say it shouldn't be taken literally...either everything in the bible is absolute truth, or we can't trust any of it.

What about star light? I quoted as little as possible, but trying to include the most important stuff...see full article for more information.
Article

On February 23, 1987, a supernova, which is a vast star explosion, was observed. It was known as SN 1987A. About eight months after the explosion was observed, reflections from the explosion were seen in a distant gas cloud ring that circled the supernova. The ring can be seen as an orange circle in the photo above. The reason the reflected light was delayed eight months was that it took time for the light to travel from the supernova to the distant gas clouds and then to reflect from there back to earth. (See illustration below.) And so we can conclude that it took about eight months--or 0.66 years-- to journey from the supernova to the gas ring. Knowing the time it took to reach the ring, and knowing the speed of light, we can calculate the distance to the ring. Knowing this distance, and measuring the angle between the supernova and the reflection as seen from the earth, we can use simple trigonometry to calculate the distance of the supernova from the earth. Astronomers have calculated that the distance is so large that it took light 169,000 years to make that journey.

So if you think the universe is 6000 years old, how is it that we can see this supernova and the reflected light? The light had to travel for 169,000 years to reach earth. It must have left the supernova long before the traditional date of Creation, 4000 BC. Can you see how most of us conclude the universe is more than 6000 years old?

Some will suggest that God made the universe complete with a beam of light from the stars to the earth. The actual light that arrives here would have never left the stars, but would have been created midway. It would be like a truckload of Florida oranges that made it to Vermont in 1 hour because the truck and the oranges aboard had been created out of nothing 20 miles away from Vermont. But if this had happened, then the truck does not have oranges from Florida onboard. It would be carrying oranges that had been created enroute. Similarly, if the light was created enroute, the light would not have actually come from the stars.

There is a big problem with this view. We are not merely seeing a simple beam of light. We see events such as this supernova explosion in the light that arrives. Did these explosions really occur? If the light was created part way between the star and the earth in such a way that it looked like an explosion, then it seems that the creator was deceptive. For to create light that looks like an elaborate explosion, when no such explosion really happened, would be deceitful. If the creator was deceptive, would he blame us for being fooled by the deception he made?

If we were to assume that the Bible was God's perfect revelation, but that the light from the stars was deceiving us, how could we trust such a God's written revelation? For if God's physical evidence is deceptive, could not the written evidence also be deceptive?

So...what say you Christians?

On one hand, what is written in the bible isn't necessarily the word of God, it is the word of man and how he interprets what God has shown and said. On the other hand, how science interprets everything is dependent on its past formulas and knowledge - therefore it is flawed and can and has been incorrect.

good point, but using logic to argue against illogical people generally does not work. Christians will generally dodge the argument and avoid the evidence all together. This makes perfect sense to me, yet it is unlikely to convert any Christians away from the bible.

One glitch perhaps though is that science has not separated the observer from the observed. Can we know for sure that the Universe is as old as science suggests without observing it?

reply to post by Nventual

On one hand, what is written in the bible isn't necessarily the word of God, it is the word of man and how he interprets what God has shown and said.

As I said...either it's all absolute truth...or we can't trust any of...therefor, there is no point in following it, as it could lead us to sin (eg. stone gays).

On the other hand, how science interprets everything is dependent on its past formulas and knowledge - therefore it is flawed and can and has been incorrect.

Yes...it could be incorrect...but the problem is...Christians hardly ever bother to actually look at how the science behind this stuff works, and are unable to accurately decide how solid the science actually is...I don't think anyone could disagree that there are stars so far away, the light would take well over 10,000 years to get here...and the science involved in calculating the distance of stars is extremely solid. Christians find it so easy to dismiss well established scientific concepts...when they themselves are promoting absolute crap, with no backing what so ever...

[edit on 20/10/09 by CHA0S]

reply to post by Nventual


Indeed, the word of man. It reminded me of:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
(John, 1:1)

In other words: the game of God is a linguistic game. Nothing more than words... a wordly/worldly construct.

reply to post by CHA0S


Where in the bible does it say the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

I despise all religions - and that silly book uyou quote. But if you are going to try and debunk it, at least show some intelligence about it.

The word day as used in genesis is widely known to have a very free interpretation - it means period of time - it could mean billions of years per each day. The literal interpretation of such passages is the prerogative of total fools - as opposed to the colossal fools who simply believe the whole story.


One of the crucial errors with the myth of Adam and Eve being the first humans is that Adam and Eves children went off and married into other existing tribes - now that makes the idea of no other humans before Adam and Eve a bit internally inconsistent to say the least.

reply to post by Vipassana

Can we know for sure that the Universe is as old as science suggests without observing it?

As I stated...we can certainly be sure it's more than 10,000 years old...I mean...I can look at some rock formations and tell they are way older than that...

reply to post by Nventual


First of all, the Bible is the word of God...It is true that man wrote it, but God told them what to say and how to write it. They did not just interpret it

Originally posted by Anuberial
reply to post by Nventual

 

First of all, the Bible is the word of God...It is true that man wrote it, but God told them what to say and how to write it. They did not just interpret it

Well, they did interpret it. The Bible we read today has been interpreted many times to understand its original meaning. Who knows what is right and what is wrong in it? I am Christian, and I love God obviously but his word has got lost there's no doubt about it.

Me, personally, I look at science as the blueprints to God's design. We will never understand his own plans, just the patterns that appeared after he was finished.

What if there was a great fire on earth, and carbon developed faster, making carbon dating look much older.

Carbon dating keeps debunking itself, and some honest scientists are admitting this.

How long does a molten material take to cool off and form into rock.
Days, maybe weeks. Not millions of years.

By the way, what is your purpose?

reply to post by Amagnon

Where in the bible does it say the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

I know what your saying...but there is to much to talk about when it comes to determining the age of the Earth using the bible...that's why I avoided it, it wasn't what I wanted to talk about...but I read a fair bit about it...and when it comes down to it...the general belief is 6,000 years to 10,000 years old. So the word "day" has a very free interpretation as used in genesis...I thought it meant 24 hours...why wouldn't God say "a period of time" instead? Did he want to confuse everyone? He obviously knew such a thing would cause great conflict with his story, and cause a lot of people to stop reading after the first page...real smart...

There is no passage in the Christian Bible that indicates that the Earth is 6000 years old.

EDIT:

Day is a man-made Earth-time. One day on Earth is not the same as one day in Mars, or Jupiter, or wherever else.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by Unregistered]

You are under the assumption that the speed of light has always been constant, and if you do a quick google search you will see that there is evidence that the speed of light was faster in the past compared to the now.
Then you also have to factor in relativity, where space/time is proportional to to the amount of matter/energy in a specific place; the more matter/energy there is, the more "time" there is, and is the reason why the closer you get to the event horizon of a black hole the more time dialates.
So, time is not constant for all parts of the universe and is subjective to the observer. So with this in mind it is possible, factoring speed of light changes and relativity that the earth could still be a young earth.
As for carbon dating, puhhhlease! Most scientists with a modicum of integrity will tell you how incredibly inaccurate it is after 2000 years..

reply to post by exposethosesecrets

What if there was a great fire on earth, and carbon developed faster, making carbon dating look much older.

You mind explaining the science behind this?

How long does a molten material take to cool off and form into rock. Days, maybe weeks. Not millions of years.

You clearly need to do a little reading...there are several types of rocks...sure...it wouldn't take that long for molten material to cool out in the open...

By the way, what is your purpose?

To open up your eye's...

reply to post by CHA0S

So...what say you Christians?

I'm not a Christian, but aren't you focusing on fairly insignificant details?

"In the beginning"...so was it the beginning or not?

Keep in mind that the book your'e quoting was not written in english. It depends on the translation. In some translations Genesis 1:1 is expressed as a literal statement that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." In other translations it's expressed more like "Chapter title: Description of God creating the heavens and the earth." Slightly different meaning.

Focusing on precise phrasing when you're working with a translated copy is bound to have issues.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by LordBucket]

reply to post by Selahobed

That was a very impressive post...but I stated in the opening thread, it is reliable up to 60,000 years...and we can still safely say it's millions of years old, factoring in changes in the environment...in any case...it's still clearly a lot older than 10,00 years...plus, what about all the other age tests?
Wikipedia

YEC is normally characterized as opposing evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics and chemistry (especially absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, dendrochronology and any other fields of science that have developed theories or made claims incompatible with the Young Earth version of world history.

[edit on 20/10/09 by CHA0S]

reply to post by LordBucket

Focusing on precise phrasing when you're working with a translated copy is bound to have issues.

The bible has numerous issues however you interpret it...I could go on and on and on...but this seemed like an obvious thing to point out...

If the earth is 6000 years old then it was created after the agricultural revolution. hmmmm?


I couldn't help but laugh as I was writing that. The whole idea is a joke that really shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

reply to post by Unregistered

Day is a man-made Earth-time. One day on Earth is not the same as one day in Mars, or Jupiter, or wherever else.

I think since he placed us on Earth, and the bible was made for us to follow...we can safely say he wasn't referring to a day on Uranus...

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by Unregistered

 

Day is a man-made Earth-time. One day on Earth is not the same as one day in Mars, or Jupiter, or wherever else.

I think since he placed us on Earth, and the bible was made for us to follow...we can safely say he wasn't referring to a day on Uranus...

Not really.

If he's creating the Earth, then do you think that he's actually standing in the place that is in the process of creation?