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

As a Christian, I accept the general accuracy of carbon dating, radioisotope dating, etc. I think scientists have done excellent work in finding the apparent ages of things in our world. I especially like the fact that the Moon scientifically dates one to two billion years older than the Earth. That being said, I believe it was made aged. For example, Adam, the trees for food, etc. were all made aged, too. Frankly, I don't see why Christians would contradict the scientific evidence. It's there for a test to see if you believe God or science.

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.

You are quite right. I cannot create anything. God can. That's one of the reasons He is God, and I am nothing by comparison.

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.

It was just like it reads. In the beginning there was nothing but God. The Bible is absolutely true. Some parts are literal, some are not. Exegesis. Learn 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?

If you base your beliefs on scientific evidence, you will believe the universe is 13+ billion years old. I believe God made it to appear that way. After all, if it scientifically tested to 6000 years old, you wouldn't believe science, would you? If it tested to 6000 years old, you would not have a faith choice, would you? God provides tests. He wants to see if you will believe Him or someone else. I believe Him. You can believe someone else. Fair enough? I won't call you stupid, either.

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?

Clearly, you do not believe that a God who makes the universe is capable of making light enroute. Interesting paradox. An all-powerful God can't make something. It sounds like a problem to me. Is your God an exalted man?

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?

Of course there is a deception. The Bible says so. You have to figure out which one you will follow -- the truth or the deception. It's a test of faith and love for God. See Deuteronomy 13:1-3

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Jim Scott]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CHA0S

 

There are A LOT of flaws in the Bible,
[edit on 21-10-2009 by Titen-Sxull]

Can you name a single flaw in the Bible, please?

reply to post by Jim Scott


Flaw 1: God is supposedly loving and merciful, yet sees fit that every first born CHILD of Egypt is to be mercilessly killed, this punishment is said to befall all who do not spread the blood on their doors, this would include innocents (who are, I remind you CHILDREN). Rather than punishing Pharaoh for his sin God punishes the most innocent of Egyptian people.

Flaw 2: All Loving merciful God sees fit to damn people to an ETERNAL pit of fiery torment.

Flaw 3: God commands the Hebrews to slaughter every living thing in Jericho, I assume there were children living there also.

Flaw 4: Slaves are taken in several cities as the Israelites make their way to the "promised land". We are to believe God condones slavery?

Flaw 5: God sees fit to rob Job of everything and everyone important to him, again God is responsible for the deaths of Children.

Flaw 6: The Bible robs an older flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh, in the story the All Mighty God, who IS LOVE, decides to drown every living thing including thousands/millions of innocent children. He rescues Noah, supposedly righteous, who later gets drunk and lays around naked.

Flaw 7: Ages of people before flood are either exaggerated or mistranslated.

Flaw 8: Tower of Babel, we are led to believe that an ancient people though they could build a tower into Heaven, God becomes worried they will break through the clouds and so sends them into terrible chaos (some loving being, rather than move Heaven to another location he decides to screw with our brains).

Flaw 9: Numerous books thrown out of and added into the Bible. A Fragment of the Book of Enoch remains in Genesis but the book as a whole was thrown out.

Other logical and historical inconsistencies abound. If these nine don't raise some doubt then you are truly lost.

Originally posted by Jim Scott


"Hence, depending on multiple factors such as the configuration of cracks, buildup of Lead particles in them, new cracks or distortions formed under geologic shifting, and other changing conditions, Radon-222 halos might be seen in all conceivable stages of development. Radon halos would be the only types capable of continuing 'migratory' formation, since "Polonium," Uranium, and Thorium halos can only form around particles locked into places in the biotite crystal lattice or transported by subsequent hydrothermal activity."

Simply faulty reasoning. Basically, he is saying that if a flag flies south in a north wind, another flag cannot fly east in a west wind.

Whats faulty about that? It just says that polonium halos can better be explained by gaseous Radon-222 than polonium. This explanation does not require short time creation.

In Conclusion, I believe that Radon-222 is the most likely candidate for the source of certain "Polonium-218" halos in biotite mica. The process envisioned is most consistent with the data (including some observational data not mentioned by previous researchers), and providentially is unique in its characteristics: Radon is an inert gas, the only gas in the Uranium-238 decay chain, having the thermodynamic ability and more than enough time to migrate about in the mica, a few atoms at a time. Also significant is the apparent impossibility of distinguishing Radon-222 halos from Polonium-218 halos under the microscope.

www.csun.edu... - geologist explanation

In uranium ore-fields the extra uranium provides an abundant source of inert radon gas; and it is this gas that diffuses in ambient fluids so that incipient biotite and fluorite crystallization is exposed to it. Radon (222Rn) decays and Po isotopes nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and fluorite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos.

The whole process of Po halo formation can be accomplished without calling on a Creator to do it. The serendipity that has emerged from these observations implies that Po halos in myrmekite-bearing granite indicate a non-magmatic origin for the granite. The argument comes full circle when it meets Gentry's initial [truthfully made] observation that magmatically-derived granites cannot contain Po halos: the half-lives of the Po isotopes are simply too short.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Occams razor - the simplest explanation is usually true. If we see the light from distant stars that that shows their age to be very old, the simplest explanation is that the light actually comes from the stars and they are old. Saying the light appeared midway or the c was variable with no evidence and no other reason than to justify some old creation myth is just wrong and utterly unscientific.

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CHA0S

 

There are A LOT of flaws in the Bible,
[edit on 21-10-2009 by Titen-Sxull]

Can you name a single flaw in the Bible, please?

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

I would say that is flawed along with several 1,000's of other passages. But you go ahead and keep cherry picking what you want if it makes you feel better..

reply to post by Jim Scott

Of course there is a deception. The Bible says so. You have to figure out which one you will follow -- the truth or the deception. It's a test of faith and love for God. See Deuteronomy 13:1-3

Oh...so it's all guess work then...what a stupid answer...

reply to post by Maslo

Occams razor - the simplest explanation is usually true. If we see the light from distant stars that that shows their age to be very old, the simplest explanation is that the light actually comes from the stars and they are old. Saying the light appeared midway or the c was variable with no evidence and no other reason than to justify some old creation myth is just wrong and utterly unscientific.

It good to see we still have some people who can think clearly here on ATS...

BTW, check out my new thread: In Christianity, Why is Satan Evil, and God Good? What is Evil?

[edit on 21/10/09 by CHA0S]

reply to post by Jim Scott


Great Jim Scott!!!

......This is insane!

Why have I never seen/heard of any of this?

I am profoundly amazed at Robert Gentry's level of ingenuity, meekness, and intelligence! And I AM NEVER amazed at someone's level of intelligence.

reply to post by CHA0S


well.. the ATS evangelical cabal with do the lord's work on this thread.. It will be derailed very soon. Was interesting while it lasted.

reply to post by Maslo


Man, did you miss. Check out www.halos.com... and the sister site by the incredible Dr. Gentry. Wow.

If you believe in the almighty "Razor", then you will have no choice but to recant.

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day"

This could mean that when he said 7 days he meant to say 7 billion years or whatever.

Also if God is almighty and powerful he might have chosen for the world to appear older so we might ask these questions, it could be a test to find out who is faithful and trust the Bible and who questions it... who knows??? Religion is a CRAZY topic.

Hello, i personally have completly disregarded religion recently due to my knowledge of evolution, evolution along with yes carbon dating is more than enough to disprove this nonsense, proof that the world has been around for millions of years and that we did infact come from bacteria is more than enough for me

reply to post by TarzanBeta


Not so quick, here are some papers which chalenge his results:

www.infidels.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.csun.edu...

www.csun.edu...

www.talkorigins.org...


Id like to point out that Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist.

My comments to Titen-Sxull

How about Egypt making the Jews slaves?

God doesn't send anyone to Hell. They send themselves because they have free will.

Do you know what was in Jericho? There were giants there and they were pure evil and even the children were evil.

Where in the Bible does the Israelites take slaves as they make their way to the "promised land".

Jobs sons and daughters were grown up. God didn't rob Job it was the devil.

The Biblical flood was before the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Originally posted by dreamofflying
Hello, i personally have completly disregarded religion recently due to my knowledge of evolution, evolution along with yes carbon dating is more than enough to disprove this nonsense, proof that the world has been around for millions of years and that we did infact come from bacteria is more than enough for me

So nothing created something?

double post. Sorry.

[edit on 10/21/2009 by texastig]

double post. Sorry.

[edit on 10/21/2009 by texastig]

Originally posted by reasonable
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

I would say that is flawed along with several 1,000's of other passages. But you go ahead and keep cherry picking what you want if it makes you feel better..

Why would the above happen?
Deut 22:21b
Because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by dreamofflying
Hello, i personally have completly disregarded religion recently due to my knowledge of evolution, evolution along with yes carbon dating is more than enough to disprove this nonsense, proof that the world has been around for millions of years and that we did infact come from bacteria is more than enough for me

So nothing created something?

You are confusing evolution and abiogenesis with the origin of the universe/matter...

All we know is that SOMETHING caused the universe to exist... Why do you say it was god? Why are you antropomorphing it? Why are you making biased assumptions without evidence about it and try to sell them as proven?
The only correct stand is agnostic...

The Bible does not say that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, it says that the time of mankind is 6,000 years old. The Earth was already created before God allowed light to shine upon it at the start of the first day of what is commonly called the "Genesis". In fact, the Earth was a water covered world covered in thick clouds of darkness. The Genesis is the account of the age of man when God began to transform the Earth into what we know it to be.

The Earth is 4.5 billion + years old. The Bible says that God made it to be inhabited. Prior to the age of man there existed countless life forms. According to some ancient texts not contained in the Bible yet in Jewish writings, this Earth was populated by angels and under the governorship of Lucifer. After the rebellion against God, God destroyed the civilization that had been here making it "without form" (life form) and "void" (barren).

When you read the Bible, understand that you need to read it as it says. "In the beginning God created the heavens (universe) and the Earth." It never says it was 6,000 years ago. "And the Earth (already existing) was without form (lifeforms) and void (dead, lifeless, barren). And God said (concerning the Earth) let there be light and there was and a 1st day (due to the rotation of the planet). Then the rest of the genesis is self evident. The Bible states that the Earth was already here when God said to it, "Let there be light".