Part 9 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Back peddling? More like not reinvent the wheel because I do not have any earth shattering evidence to state that the sun is younger than the earth.

The accepted scientific age of the Earth and Sun states that the Sun is older than the Earth. Until someone can prove otherwise, we as a human race will go with that.

Now if you want to take on the scientific community, perhaps you would like to try and test the theory of gravity by jumping off a bridge that is a mile high. After all, gravity is only a theory, much like Evolution and Solar System formation.

So either go test that theory of gravity or provide the earth shattering evidence that the Earth is indeed older than the Sun.

My argument stands.

 

Accepted by who? Is it accepted by every person who lives on the Earth? Apparently not. I don't accept it as 'true' therefore, it is not in accord with what is 'true'.

BTW: why are you desiring to make science mandatory in a religion thread, when it is already known and admitted that science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God?

 

**YOU** don't accept it? Who cares if **YOU** don't accept it.

Once again, if you have evidence to suggest that Sun is younger than the Earth, please do post it.

 

Who cares if the scientific community accepts it?
Well, the stories that were written and later compiled into what is known as the Bible and its relation to God (creator of the universe) predate science.. Science has never been able to succeszfully refute those stories in such a compelling way as to strike down a belief in the existence of God and who inspired the writing of the Bible. So, it would appear that you are in as much a predicament in providing proof that the sun is older than the earth as theists are in proving that God is the creator. Have you gotten that "proof" yet?

 

Because science is based on evidence, not stories written by humans who lived on dirt floors and had zero explanations for the universe, other than coming up with bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Since science based on evidence, the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, while the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Hence the Sun was formed before the Earth. So much for your claim that science has never been able to refute the bible.

Keep asking for evidence that is well established in the scientific community. You are only making yourself look like a fool. And I will be happy to help you do so

 

Isn't it nice to be able to express an opinion? The so-called evidence you have presented is categorically rejected on the basis that it does not compel my mind to accept that evidence as 'true'.

No! you are wrong. Science does not have that human capability of being able to 'refute' anything. Science does not have the capability of thinking therefore, science cannot come to any conclusions based on anything. It is only the practitioners of science who attempt such refutations, and then they encounter others who do possess the capability of refuting the findings of science based on the fact that those practitioners have not presented any evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept their findings as "true".

As I stated. You have not presented any evidence that compels my mind to accept that alleged evidence or argument as 'true'.

 

Whether or not you except something is completely irrelevant. This does not change two facts:

1 - The Sun is older than the Earth, hence disproving the bible.
2 - You have yet produce any evidence to the contrary that that the sun is older than the earth.

Until you produce this evidence, your post are just long winded nonsense to try an justify an irrational belief in the bogy man.

 

Gee... remember these words of yours: "**YOU** don't accept it? Who cares if **YOU** don't accept it. " Then you should also remember my response. Who cares whether the scientific community accepts something. For that matter, who cares if you accept what I say? You still have not made any compelling argument nor presented any compelling evidence to support your claims. Now here is a kicker. If you don't care whether or not I accept what you say or what science says, then why are you striving so hard to convince me or others that you believe I am wrong?

 

For one simple fact: *you* are not the only one that reads this form.

Now, care to post any evidence that the sun is younger than the earth?

 

Reads this what? What form?

You already posted the evidence... you did that when you posted that cite from the book of genesis. Which reminds me. You previously stated emphatically that the book of genesis was false/wrong or some negative adjective .... you were then challenged to present the "PROOF" of that claim. You still have not even attempted to provide any "PROOF" of said claim. Is such PROOF lacking in your bag of tricks?

 

"Reads this what? What form?" <----- another stupid idiotic response meant to simply bog down a thread and play stupid games.

Once again, based on sound scientific evidence that humans have discovered, the sun is older than the earth. If you want challenge this, please present your evidence.

 

Not at all. You previously mentioned a 'form'. I am simply asking what 'form' you are referring to?

What evidence? Mathematical equations that can be altered at the drop of a pin in order to correct previous misconceptions of things where number magic is required to be used as a rationalization? Well I reject such evidence because it does not compel my mind to accept what you and those numbers express to be 'true'.

 

Yet more proof that you simply would rather play games then engage in any serious debate. You know that I meant Forum. In stead you would rather play silly games.

You keep proving my point over and over and over.....

Do you have proof that there have been altered 'Mathematical equations' on the age of the sun and earth?

You are making a rather bold accusation here.

 

bind? Why don't you just tell me that the insane creatures of your mind is stirring, and I'll just let it be.

Yes - you knew I meant 'forum'. There is no 'presumptuous arrogance'. Its common sense based on the entire sentence. Are you telling me you lack common sense? That would explain a few things.....

You haven't proved anything, other than showing proof that you are only here to play stupid games.

Got it, so 'Mathematical equations being alter' is pure conjecture on your part to try and inject doubt into the Sun being older that the Earth and genesis being proven wrong.

By the way, who does Einsteins Bagels have to do with mathematics? Are the creatures stirring again?

I like how you try and weasel your way out of your won quotes:

You are making a pretty bold accusations here..do you have proof that the 'Mathematical equations' behind the age of the sun or earth have been altered?

 

I think the problem here is that he doesn't accept the accepted definitions of things. When you can't agree on the definition of terms, nothing can ever be accomplished.

 

I'm afraid that doesn't quite work. You're asking me what I think this means? You're asking me to interpret the passage? I'm not shifting passages to try to support some narrative. You're suggesting that the passage is open to interpretation? In effect Acts 17:11 says we shouldn’t take anyone else’s word for what the Bible says but search the Scriptures ourselves to see if what they’re saying is true.

I'm not interested in your suggestion of clues. This isn't some mysterious revelation. It's the description of the beginning. Is this supposed to be metaphoric? Light doesn't appear without a source, and we don't need to resort to a mystical response when we have the Sun sitting in the sky. That's our source.

You can't have night and day without a sunrise and sunset. It hadn't happened yet. That's how we measure a day. It takes the earth 24 hours to make a complete rotation on its axis. The Sun is a stationary source. That's a day. It doesn't mention setting the Sun and moon in the sky until the fourth day. If it was already there on the first day, there'd be no reason to mention it again on the 4th day. That's redundant, and I doubt that God would need to repeat himself on this subject. In fact, if the placement of the Sun and the Moon and the stars weren't significant, then what else took place on the 4th day that was important?

No. There's nothing logical about this unless you suspend rationality and logic to accept an illogical position to begin with. You're using pretzel logic to make the case. In fact, you're claiming a "logical position" stemming from the assumption that thick clouds were obscuring the light of the sun which hadn't been in place yet. And then ask the question where did the light come from? And you call this logic?? You can create a logical syllogism to test your position.
P1. God said let there be light.
P2. Thick clouds obscured the light
C: Therefore God must have removed the thick clouds.

And you assume that this is a logical position? In a deductive syllogism, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be absolutely true. First of all P1 assumes it's own truth, however the existence of God is not proven to be true, let alone his saying this. The only evidence of that comes from the Bible and the Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible. That's circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Secondly, there is nothing, even in the passage to demonstrate that clouds were involved. It says this; "and darkness was over the surface of the deep;" and from this you assume that "The earth was dark because of thick clouds covering the entire earth. (You subjectively inject your own idea into the text which says nothing that would support this." This fact will be important to understand the next few verses." You now, without any evidence at all assume that thick clouds covered the entire earth...and then you call this a FACT, without offering a shred of evidence to support that claim. There is nothing in the passage that mentions thick clouds. Finally you make the leap that God must have removed the thick clouds that you haven't demonstrated to have even existed in order to reveal the light on day 1, that hasn't been established until day 4. And then you call this "logic"? Applying logic to the Bible is counter-productive. Never try to make logical sense out of a belief. You believe things in spite of logic. Not because of them.

Of course not. It wasn't called the Sun or Moon at the time of the writing the first book of Moses.
The sun was named after an Old Anglo Saxon word 'sunne'. It is also said to be named after gods in the Greek and Roman mythology that epitomizes the sun in terms of power and strength. Example of a god of the sun is Apollo. The sun has no Official name according to the international astronomical union. the word "sun" is a modern derivative of sol, from the Latin sun god. So it would not have been in use at the time of the writing of Genesis.

I'm afraid this explanation of yours, falls on its face. This is from the KJV, the oldest Bible version.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

In fact, you altered the text of the NLT. It says this:

Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened. 16 God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18 to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good

You added this: "God made two great lights, the sun and the moon---" The version of the Bible that you use as your source does not say the words "the sun and the moon". You've added this on your own. Do you make a habit of rewriting the Bible to suit your purposes?

No. It's not the least bit obvious. One has to jump through your hoops of wild imagination to buy this explanation. Clouds?? You invent this explanation and then try to pass it off as fact? What's obvious here is that you create a fantasy of your own making, and then even go to the extent of adding things that don't even exist in the source that you provide.

That is not a logical conclusion. I'm not sure where you arrive at this conclusion, but it's absurd on the face of it. The most accurate conclusion here is that you're making up events and adding things that aren't in the text to support your narrative as an authority on the interpretation of the Christian reading of the Bible, even when the question here comes from the Old Testament which predates Christianity. Maybe you should leave that interpretation to the Jews. It is their book after all. They might have something to say about it with more authority then you could ever claim.

 

This is the most convoluted explanation I've come across. It even resorts to adding things that aren't in the text, even from his own source. Clouds??? And rewriting the text to support your narrative??? What would God say? Probably...I didn't say that. You're bearing false witness.

- - - Updated - - -

In order to logically conclude any of this, you have to suspend logic itself.

 

Didn't you know...the earth is only 6,000 years old. Once the earth was in place, the rest of the universe was populated. Ignore the fact that the earth as 4.7 Billion years old, and the universe is 13.7 Billion. That's just science and physics. We've got a book composed by a bunch of primitive humans trying to figure out where they were, and what are all those lights in the sky are that proves they were right and all that science is straight from the pits of Hell, according to a Republican Congressman that sits on the House Science Committee.

 

We have a poster that lives in a state of denial on just about everything. Denying the truth doesn't change the fact. It only renders that person irrational and incapable of an honest discussion. The earth could not exist without the Sun. Hence, it had to exist prior to the earth. Someday, far into the future the Sun will exhaust it's fuel and collapse on itself and the earth and everything in close proximity will be sucked into a black hole.

 

Very good response. We never change anybody's position that they totally believe in. But that's not the purpose is it? The fact is, that others read these posts, and they'll decide for themselves who's making the sound argument, and who's blowing smoke. So the important thing is to make a sound argument based on fact rather than some belief. There is no factual evidence that the earth predates the Sun; in fact it would be impossible, nor is there evidence that Genesis explains the beginnings of the universe. These are beliefs. A person that believes in this stuff, and rejects the science and physics that doesn't require us to suspend logic and our senses, is in denial. Science is a threat to those beliefs.

 

An honest person would know that you meant forum, left out the u. This is petty silliness. To make an issue over a typo is ridiculous.

 

Then likewise there is no 'factual evidence' that would show that the Sun predates the earth... only mathematical calculations... and Einstein already indicated that the laws of mathematics and reality are not related. Impossible? How would you know what is 'impossible'? Are you declaring yourself to be God?

 

To make Genesis "work"...i.e. fit logic (not even geology or astronomy)....Mitt has to add things that are not in Genesis, and ignore things that ARE in Genesis.....then declare that that is "logically concluding".

With that standard we can just as easily claim there was NO Resurrection and "logically conclude" that......the Apostles merely had a shared hallucination where they imagined seeing Jesus after his death, and that accounts of the disciples speaking with or interacting with Jesus should be ignored or included in the shared hallucination.

Why not? Same debate and interpretation ideas....add things to the Gospels that aren't there (like adding "thick cloud layers" to Genesis)....ignoring things in the Gospels that ARE there (like ignoring the Sun's creation on the Fourth Day, not First).....and determining our own conclusion on the Resurrection.....that it never happened or was an illusion.

- - - Updated - - -

There's no such thing as gravity.....God holds everything down to the Earth via the Holy Spirit.

Just TRY to prove this so-called "gravity" exists. I dare you.

 

Well, apparently he is using that same system of logic as some of the non-theists on this forum, because some of the non-theists have made such similar claims.

Is that an admission to the existence of God? I see no quotation marks indicating that you were quoting someone else.

Been there, done that. I am now thoroughly convinced that 'gravity' exists. That response of yours however does not address the questions contained in the statement that you responded to.