Old Earth vs Young Earth, a debate between Christians

[spydertl79]

It’s not a theory, it’s a convention and Einstein did not reject the idea at all, he simply chose to go with a velocity based convention rather than a position based convention; both of the two conventions work fine. The position based convention has actually been used in the secular literature before; it’s not that extreme of an idea.



You’re going to have to be more specific, the only verse I am aware of with the word “Unicorn” is in Job and it’s usually translated as “Wild Ox” in most English translations and not unicorn. It’s not referring to the magical white horse with a single horn, we know that.

Any large reptile can be referred to as a dragon, so the writers of scriptures use the term to most likely refer to any number of dinosaurs that used to be around (The Chinese still refer to dinosaurs as dragons). The term dragon is used most often in the books of Daniel and Revelation where it’s a metaphor for Satan. I see no problem with Giants in the Bible either, especially given the fact that their heights were realistic (somewhere between 7 and 9 feet tall).



Where did I say that? I said that you can’t use science to validate scripture because science is fallible and scripture is infallible. There’s plenty of scientific evidence that is consistent with scripture, but a person shouldn’t use it to validate scripture, rather scripture validates our use of science. If the God of scripture didn’t exist we wouldn’t be able to do science because we couldn’t use inductive reasoning.

Never said it was an extreme idea... It's just rejected by the overwhelming majority of physicists. Einstein did not accept the convention in any way, shape, or form. He did reject dogmatic religion and would have laughed at the YE movement.

Seven feet tall giants- how do you figure?

Dragons meant dinosaurs... It probably did but only because people had unearthed dinosaur fossils and had no scientific explanations. Too bad Noah didn't like velociraptors.

Scripture is infallible? Really?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.”

And so on and so on.

[Statler Waldorf]

Never said it was an extreme idea... It's just rejected by the overwhelming majority of physicists. Einstein did not accept the convention in any way, shape, or form. He did reject dogmatic religion and would have laughed at the YE movement.

Well that’s really not how science works, something isn’t deemed valid or invalid by how many people ascribe to it.
Einstein did in fact accept the idea, that is why he was originally going to use it in his work, he chose not to use it not because it was not a valid idea, but rather he preferred a velocity based system.
Whether or not Einstein would have committed the fallacy of appealing to ridicule when faced with young earth creation scientific ideas is irrelevant.

Seven feet tall giants- how do you figure?

Goliath was described to be six cubits and a span tall; depending on how big people were at the time that puts him somewhere between 7 and 9 feet tall which is not unreasonable at all.

Dragons meant dinosaurs... It probably did but only because people had unearthed dinosaur fossils and had no scientific explanations. Too bad Noah didn't like velociraptors.

I think you overestimate the paleontological skills of people in those times, I think it’s more likely they actually saw such creatures and that is how they knew they were reptilian. I am not sure what you mean when you say Noah didn’t like velociraptors.

Scripture is infallible? Really?

Yes.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.”

And so on and so on.

I am not sure what any of these have to do with the infallibility of scripture, care to elaborate?

[spydertl79]

Sure, I think it's disgusting to hold the beliefs in those verses. Slavery is wrong. Subjugating women is wrong. Killing someone because they are a "sorceress" is wrong.

To call scripture infallible when it contains such verses is not something that any decent person would do, in my opinion.

[Statler Waldorf]

Sure, I think it's disgusting to hold the beliefs in those verses. Slavery is wrong. Subjugating women is wrong. Killing someone because they are a "sorceress" is wrong.

Well you are missing the context of those verses, but either way you admit that these things are just your opinion which doesn’t make scripture not infallible at all.

To call scripture infallible when it contains such verses is not something that any decent person would do, in my opinion.

Again, context matters, but your opinion doesn’t prove scripture is not infallible in any way. Besides, I thought atheists viewed morality as subjective; couldn’t the people in those days determine their own views on morality?

[NY8123]

Well you are missing the context of those verses, but either way you admit that these things are just your opinion which doesn’t make scripture infallible at all.



Again, context matters, but your opinion doesn’t prove scripture is infallible in any way. Besides, I thought atheists viewed morality as subjective; couldn’t the people in those days determine their own views on morality?

Morality is subjective based on beliefs. Religious views can define your morality as can other values but over all what I view as morally acceptable is based on a societal influence. In 1800 having slaves and growing weed was morally acceptable regardless of religious beliefs. So morality is subjective to definition as is any other human defined trait or influence.

Religion is one way to define morals but not the only way.

[Statler Waldorf]

Morality is subjective based on beliefs. Religious views can define your morality as can other values but over all what I view as morally acceptable is based on a societal influence. In 1800 having slaves and growing weed was morally acceptable regardless of religious beliefs. So morality is subjective to definition as is any other human defined trait or influence.

Religion is one way to define morals but not the only way.

How do you know any of what you said above is true? How do you know morality is always subjective? How do you even define it?

[spydertl79]

Well you are missing the context of those verses, but either way you admit that these things are just your opinion which doesn’t make scripture not infallible at all.



Again, context matters, but your opinion doesn’t prove scripture is not infallible in any way. Besides, I thought atheists viewed morality as subjective; couldn’t the people in those days determine their own views on morality?

They can and they did determine their own views on these issues. It's troublesome to me that the so called "word of God" agreed with and supported something so violently evil.

Almost as troubling as you supporting it just because someone wrote it in a 2000 year old book.

Two questions for you: do you agree with the verses promoting slavery and subjugating women?

If you don't, then why do you disregard those verses as needing to be "put into context" while viciously arguing in the absolute truth of the verses that explain the origin of life or the acceptance of homosexuality?

If you do then good for you, I guess.

You can't have it both ways.

[Statler Waldorf]

They can and they did determine their own views on these issues. It's troublesome to me that the so called "word of God" agreed with and supported something so violently evil.

Wait, so you just said that people back then were allowed to determine their own morality, but then you made an appeal to slavery being evil, well which is it? Either you have to allow them the right to determine what is good and evil for themselves, which would mean that back then slavery was good but today it is evil or you have to argue that morality is objective and slavery is always evil. Which is it?

Almost as troubling as you supporting it just because someone wrote it in a 2000 year old book.

Support what? The American concept of slavery or the Biblical concept of slavery? Historically they are very different.

Two questions for you: do you agree with the verses promoting slavery and subjugating women?

I am not aware of any verses that “promote” slavery, I agree with the ethical laws the Hebrews were forced to follow when dealing with their slaves (something that in itself was unheard of at the time), and I realize that slavery was far different in those days than it was in 19^th century America. American slavery is brutal and evil, slavery during the times of the Bible was a necessary social and economic safety net used by many people to keep from starving to death, it was more of a form of indentured servant-hood (receiving freedom and economic gifts in order to succeed in the world after 6 years of labor) than slavery how we understand the term to be used today.

Women should not instruct men in the church (which is clearly what Paul is talking about in 1 Timothy) because they are far more easily deceived spiritually. The Bible has no issue with women holding authority over men in society and everyday life, just not within the church, and for good reason.

If you don't, then why do you disregard those verses as needing to be "put into context" while viciously arguing in the absolute truth of the verses that explain the origin of life or the acceptance of homosexuality?

All verses should be interpreted in context wouldn’t you think? When you look at the historical context of the term “slave” and the spiritual context of the roles of women in the church the verses make a lot of sense and I have no problem with them.

You can't have it both ways.

I am not having it both ways : ) I am interested to hear your response though regarding how slavery can always be evil in a world where you espouse morality is relative. Talk to you Monday!

[JackFinfan]

Women should not instruct men in the church (which is clearly what Paul is talking about in 1 Timothy) because they are far more easily deceived spiritually. The Bible has no issue with women holding authority over men in society and everyday life, just not within the church, and for good reason.

Could you explain how women are easier to deceive spiritually, and give the "good reason" why they should not hold authority in the church?

[Statler Waldorf]

Could you explain how women are easier to deceive spiritually, and give the "good reason" why they should not hold authority in the church?

Paul explains himself in 1 Timothy 2, Eve was deceived by Satan into eating the fruit, Adam was not. Women and men enjoy different spiritual gifts, one of man’s spiritual gifts is authority and proper instruction in the church, women serve different but no less important roles in the church. As for “good reasons”, I can think of several, first of all if someone is more likely to be deceived spiritually then that is not the person you want instructing everyone else on spiritual matters, secondly and most importantly God clearly says through His revealed word they are not to instruct with authority within the church, that’s as good of a reason as you can get right there. Surely you’re not going to commit the unisex fallacy and try to tell me that men and women are identical are you?