In today's post by vjack on the Atheist Revolution blog, he makes the claim that sometimes Christians hide behind the "agree to disagree" statement in order "not to give serious reconsideration of his or her position." This argument definitely goes both ways. I have had similar discussions with Atheists who would pull out the "agree to disagree" or more often I find Atheists are quick to bring up Leprechauns and trolls as a way of relating Christianity to something ridiculous when their arguments come up small. But I digress.
The part of his post that made me think was "The claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old is factually false. Overwhelming evidence contradicts this claim. If the Christian makes this claim and I challenge him, we cannot very well agree to disagree."
Can a Christian argue that the Earth is only 6000 years old?
I am not going to pretend to know a lot about the aging process, or the testing of the age of the earth or anything else for that matter. I will agree with vjack that there is overwhelming evidence that contradicts the claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. On the other hand, Christians that argue that the world is only 6000 years old, almost always have the stance that God created the world with age. Basically that if God had created everything new, things wouldn't have functioned correctly. For example, when God created trees, he probably didn't just put seeds in the ground, he most likely just created a fully formed tree.
Now, I am not trying to argue that the world is only 6000 years old, but I will say that the argument can't be dismissed as ridiculous. If someone holds that view they can "agree to disagree" with someone who holds a view of a much older earth. It does not as vjack put it, "suggest that the Christian is delusional".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
"Now, I am not trying to argue that the world is only 6000 years old, but I will say that the argument can't be dismissed as ridiculous."
Yes, it can, indeed, be dismissed as ridiculous, or absurd, or just downright silly! lol
Walt,
Care to explain why you think that?
Let's assume some things, for the sake of argument. First, let's assume god exists. Let's also assume god wants people to believe in it because it wants them to go to heaven. Finally, let's assume that you need to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to go to heaven.
If these two things are true, why would a god create a universe that shows the Bible to be untrue? If the earth only looked 6,000 years old and we could only see stars 6,000 light years away it would be great evidence that the Bible is true and that god exists, meaning many more people would be "saved."
So either god doesn't want some people to go to heaven or the Bible is not literally true.
I understand why Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old (the bible) but why do other christians and non-christians believe it is older?
I understand where a literalist 6000 year age Christian is coming from. Its the idea of authority and trust.
When I trust someone who has authority on a topic I believe it. So when I was in school I believed that there was a place called London in England that contains a big clock even though I had never been there just because my teacher taught it and I trusted her on that topic.
I've never trusted carbon dating because it seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me. Fancy ways proving something with a suspect method.
I understand that when we find something really old we want to try to date it by comparing it to how old the carbon is that is within it. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how we assume the age of carbon.
Yeah theres no authority on that one, just a string of assumptions. "Lets say that this is _____, and this is _____, and this is _____, than we can say that this carbon is this old." Carbon dating makes a lot of assumptions that I don't believe carry a lot of authority.
Icelander, I agree.
Hi Aaron da Fish. You asked, "why do other christians and non-christians believe it is older (than 6000 years)?"
Stuff like this. Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG It's incontrovertible proof the Earth is older than 6,000 years.
Interesting video about tree age. Most creationist that I know do not believe the earth to be just 6000 years old. That age was based on the genealogies in the Bible. There are definite dates that can be verified, so, going backwards based on ages given, the date of 4004 BC was introduced by Bishop Usher.
However, just as the trees might be missing a ring, the genealogies have been shown to skip generations.
I really find it interesting that the age of 11,000 years (plus a few) is given, since most creationist now believe the earth to be 10,000-25,000 years old. This is actually great verification for this age. Thanks for the info.
"...most creationist now believe the earth to be 10,000-25,000 years old."
[Rolls Eyes] You can never win with fundamentalists. They'll keep changing their tune.
Mark, why is unbelievable that Christians would continue to grow in their understanding of an infinite God, and grow in their knowledge of the book he gave? I would think this is a positive idea, to grow in understanding
Joe MC, this is how Christians "continue to grow in their understanding of an infinite God..."
Revealed Knowledge
Mark,
Actually, Christians continue to grow in their understanding of God by the continued study of the Bible. Since I believe that God is infinite, it should come as no surprise that I would expect to continue to learn about him. We see this on a human level. I've been married 30 years, and am still discovering things about my wife.
I don't expect you to agree. That's fine. I would expect that you would claim to be intellectually honest. So, understanding a view different than your own would be a goal, especially without sarcasm.
"...understanding a view different than your own would be a goal, especially without sarcasm."
Yes, belief in supernatural creatures is a different view than mine and it deserves just as much respect from me as the belief that the countries of Narnia and Oz actually exist. As Walt said, "Yes, it can, indeed, be dismissed as ridiculous, or absurd, or just downright silly!"
Mark,
Amazing! Even now, you are unable to make a statement without sarcasm. To me, the disbelief in the supernatural is just as ridiculous as belief is to you. And I, like you, have evidence (objective, not merely subjective) that is convincing to me. We may not agree, and we cannot be both right. But there seems to be animosity from you that is unnecessary.
"To me, the disbelief in the supernatural is just as ridiculous as belief is to you."
Sorry, Joe mc. I just don't believe in fairies and Gods; I think those who do are deluded.
How is science any different from religion?
Relative to the Earth's population, there are a select few people that "discover" things that they report back to the public...most things we can't prove/check ourselves, a few small things we can....similar to the Bible.
Yet people act as if "scientists" are the ultimate holders of all knowledge who must know everything and be right about everything else.
They are "all-knowing and all-seeing" even though this can easily be proven false, yet any thoughts that go against what "science" has established is "taboo".
Have you ever seen pluto?
I can make a picture of Neptune in Photoshop easy.
Have you ever seen a black hole?
LOL You CAN'T EVEN SEE A BLACK HOLE!
How do scientists "know" its there? by the way it affects things around it. In my life I have seen the craziest drug dealers drop IT ALL, to live a straight life for the God they believe in and never looked back. I've seen people change who, by the logic/values of the world had no reason to change from who they were.
Is that not like the evidence of these "invisible black holes that suck in everything including light" that initially only existed in science fiction movies but were suddenly discovered by scientists so now they're "real"?
Religious fanatics and science fanatics are one in the same. Just different gods.
Ryan,
How is science different from religion? Science is the endless quest for KNOWLEDGE, which is gained by careful study, observation, experimentation and testing. Religion is a system of SPIRITUAL BELIEFS.
You stated that scientists are viewed as the ultimate HOLDERS of knowledge. This is not exactly true. Scientists are the ultimate SEEKERS of knowledge.
Devout religious people, on the other hand, are the ultimate seekers of SPRITUAL TRUTH. This truth transcends factual knowledge and is unconcerned with such things as debating whether the earth is six thousand or six million years old.
The problem that "literalists" have is the need to constantly defend archaic bible-based beliefs against science-based knowledge. This is a losing battle. Literalists view science as the enemy of their faith because in their view it chips away at their belief system. This forces them to choose between rejecting science and losing their faith. Talk about a no-win. If instead their belief system was based on the spiritual message and the great "truths" contained in the bible, they would face no such conflict and would feel no need to reject science.
THE MORE ONE KNOWS, THE LESS ONE NEEDS TO BELIEVE. This statement excites scientists and scared the bejesus out of fundamentalists.
PS - Ryan, you don't have to "believe in" Pluto or Neptune. Get a high-powered telescope and you can see them for yourself. Black holes, on the other hand, are a bit more theoretical at this point. A telescope might not help you there. By the way, science makes a clear distinction between "facts" and "theories" and it's perfectly legitimate, even necessary, to question theories. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any religion that encourages one to question its belief system.
5 reasons why the world is much older than 6000 years:
1.We could not breathe.Where do you think oxygen comes from? It comes from living organisms.
2.Stalactites grow only one centimeter every 30 years.
3.There would hardly be any sand in the world since sand comes from pulverized rock.
4.Small,smooth rounded river rocks would not exist.
5.I love nature and observe it closely.How can you say mountains are a puny 6000 years old,especially when they are still growing taller while others get smaller? Also, have you not noticed how South America's east coast fits Africa's west coast on a map like a jigsaw puzzle? Simple geography and similiar biology in these areas and other areas on the globe indicate that all the continents were connected at one time. This is called plate tectonics,it's why we have volcanoes and earthquakes.
In summary, these natural processes can not fit into the 6000year time frame.
This is all laughable. There is no point in debating with a believer in the Christian myth. They always refer back to a book that ironically they know almost nothing about. The bible? Men wrote the bible. I read Dr. Seuss too and I didn't believe that either. It did make me laugh though.
Anyway. Please save your breath. Debating a Christian about logic or reality is like debating that the color blue with a blind person.
Post a Comment