Where does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old?

[7djengo7]

Nowhere. The Bible nowhere teaches that the earth is billions of years old. The Bible nowhere teaches that the earth is not less than about 10,000 years old.

The Bible does not teach such things literally. Nor does the Bible teach such things non-literally. The Bible teaches such things not at all.

Similarly, the Bible neither literally, nor non-literally teaches that Adam and Eve never existed.

That's why the first post in this thread by a TOL Darwin cheerleader--as well as all further posts in this thread by one or more TOL Darwin cheerleaders--will be nothing but pure spam and entirely irrelevant to this thread. Darwin cheerleaders know well that they have no answers to these questions, and so, anything they might post in response to this thread will, as a matter of course, be wholly a product of Darwin cheerleaders' trolling.

​

 

[Stripe]

Yep. The Bible leaves absolutely no room for Darwinism. The sooner evolutionists give up either their devotion to Darwin or their lip service to scripture, the sooner a rational discussion can begin over the evidence.

 

[chair]

Yep. The Bible leaves absolutely no room for Darwinism. The sooner evolutionists give up either their devotion to Darwin or their lip service to scripture, the sooner a rational discussion can begin over the evidence.

So let's say that the Bible is plain wrong.
Are you capable of discussing the actual evidence?

 

[Right Divider]

So let's say that the Bible is plain wrong.

Let's not.

Are you capable of discussing the actual evidence?

Of course.

 

[chair]

Let's not.

Of course.

This is exactly the point. If we are talking about scientific evidence, then the Bible isn't relevant. If you insist that the Bible is literally true and accurate, then you must somehow, at any cost, interpret the physical evidence to match it.

So if you want to have an honest discussion of the physical evidence- you have to ignore the Bible.

 

[Right Divider]

This is exactly the point. If we are talking about scientific evidence, then the Bible isn't relevant. If you insist that the Bible is literally true and accurate, then you must somehow, at any cost, interpret the physical evidence to match it.

So if you want to have an honest discussion of the physical evidence- you have to ignore the Bible.

Utter nonsense.

The Bible is God's Word. Whatever it says is true.
When the Bible says that God created the heaven and the earth... that it true.
When the Bible says that God did this in six days.... that is true.

Etc. etc. etc.

Gen 2:1-3 KJV Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So let's say that the Bible is plain wrong.
Are you capable of discussing the actual evidence?

Why would I bother?? You have no "Actual evidence".

 

[chair]

Why would I bother?? You have no "Actual evidence".

To repeat myself: If you are not willing to set the Bible aside when discussing the science, then you are not actually discussing the science.
There are mountains of evidence- you just pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't match the Bible.

 

[Right Divider]

To repeat myself: If you are not willing to set the Bible aside when discussing the science, then you are not actually discussing the science.

False no matter how many times you repeat it.

There are mountains of evidence- you just pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't match the Bible.

Ah... the good old fashion tactic of elephant hurling...

 

[chair]

False no matter how many time you repeat it.


Ah... the good old fashion tactic of elephant hurling...

If you are willing to set aside the Bible, we can discuss the evidence. The fossil evidence, for example. If you can't look at the evidence without constantly checking whether it meets "Biblical Standards" - then there is no discussion.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So let's say that the Bible is plain wrong.

Begging the question won't help your position.

The claim is that the Bible is correct when it discusses the origin of the universe.

Your "side's" objective is to disprove that claim, not just claim it's false and certainly not to leave it at that.

Are you capable of discussing the actual evidence?

:duh:

Are you capable of presenting the evidence in an unbiased manner?

 

[Right Divider]

If you are willing to set aside the Bible, we can discuss the evidence.

I will be happy to discuss ALL evidence... including the Bible.

The fossil evidence, for example.

What about "the fossil evidence"?

If you can't look at the evidence without constantly checking whether it meets "Biblical Standards" - then there is no discussion.

Stacking the deck is no way to "discuss evidence".

Stop trying to tilt the playing field in your favor and just discuss the evidence.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is exactly the point. If we are talking about scientific evidence,

Evidence is evidence.

Assertion: All evidence gathered points to the Bible being correct, either directly or indirectly, and while it may not be currently understood completely, there is no evidence that contradicts the Bible.

then the Bible isn't relevant.

The Bible isn't relevant in a discussion about the Bible?

:think:

If you insist that the Bible is literally true and accurate, then you must somehow, at any cost, interpret the physical evidence to match it.

I could make the same assertion against your position:

If you insist that the Bible is NOT literally true and accurate, then you must somehow, at any cost, interpret the physical evidence to contradict it.

So what makes your claim more valid than mine?

In other words:

Saying it doesn't make it so.

So if you want to have an honest discussion of the physical evidence- you have to ignore the Bible.

Special pleading is a logical fallacy.

The Bible itself is (physical) evidence. Rejecting the Bible as evidence (especially in a discussion about how the evidence obtained by doing science relates to the Bible) is illogical, by definition.

 

[JudgeRightly]

To repeat myself: If you are not willing to set the Bible aside

When we're discussing what the Bible says?

:kookoo:

when discussing the science,

The OP is about what the Bible says.

Meaning we can't "set the Bible aside."

No, Chair, we're not going to let you stack the deck in your favor in this discussion.

then you are not actually discussing the science.

Regarding science, evidence, and the Bible, consider for a moment how many archaeologists, especially those who are considered secular (ie, those who reject the Bible as God's word), keep a Bible handy when excavating in the Middle East. Why do you suppose that is?

There are mountains of evidence- you just pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't match the Bible.

There is a literal mountain of evidence that the Bible is true. It's called Mount Moriah.

Because if Christ did not rise from the dead, then certainly Christianity is vanity, and if Christianity is vanity, then the Bible is certainly not true.

 

[chair]

Ancient holy tests aren't part of Science. They aren't evidence.

If you claim the Bible is scientific evidence- then you need to prove that it is true- without reference to belief. Can you?

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you are willing to set aside the Bible,

Again, in a discussion about the Bible?

:kookoo:

we can discuss the evidence. The fossil evidence, for example.

You mean the fossils of billions of dead things that are buried in rock layers of a mile or so deep laid down by water all over the earth including on the tops of mountains?

Those fossils?

Stripe, could you remind us again of the 3 things needed to make fossils?

If you can't look at the evidence without constantly checking whether it meets "Biblical Standards"

Considering we're testing to see if the Bible is true or not, USING the evidence you are laying claim to, why SHOULDN'T we check whether it meets "Biblical Standards," being that it matches what the Bible says, or at the very least, does not contradict it?

- then there is no discussion.

The only time there is no discussion is when people who, like yourself, reject the Bible refuse to discuss the evidence.

So how about it, Chair?

Care to discuss the evidence?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ancient holy tests aren't part of Science. They aren't evidence.

"ancient holy tests"

Namely?

If you claim the Bible is scientific evidence-

Evidence is inherently "scientific."

There is no such thing as "non-scientific" evidence.

then you need to prove that it is true-

Here is a test to see if the Bible is true:

Spoiler

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:12-19&version=NKJV

In other words, if Christ was not raised from the dead, Christianity (and the Bible by extension) is false. On the other hand, if Christ WAS raised from the dead, then all other religions and beliefs (including the belief that the universe is old, and not less than 10,000 years) are false.

without reference to belief. Can you?

Why "without reference to belief"?

 

[chair]

"ancient holy tests"

Namely?



Evidence is inherently "scientific."

There is no such thing as "non-scientific" evidence.



Here is a test to see if the Bible is true:

Spoiler

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...9&version=NKJV

In other words, if Christ was not raised from the dead, Christianity (and the Bible by extension) is false. On the other hand, if Christ WAS raised from the dead, then all other religions and beliefs (including the belief that the universe is old, and not less than 10,000 years) are false.



Why "without reference to belief"?

prove to me that "He has been raised from the dead"

edit: I don't think it is possible to prove this without referring to the Bible itself, in some sort of circular reasoning.

 

[RobertBoyce]

Nowhere. The Bible nowhere teaches that the earth is billions of years old. The Bible nowhere teaches that the earth is not less than about 10,000 years old.[That's why the first post in this thread by a TOL Darwin cheerleader--as well as all further posts in this thread by one or more TOL Darwin cheerleaders-- [/CENTER]

To state the age of something you must have a starting point. Genesis was written for people who were living over 2,000 years ago & still the book of Genesis laid out our evolving lives at a level even the peasant could understand. Time is irrelevant, life’s development is not.

Djengo7; below is what Darwin said, now it is your turn to tell us all how it really was/is--------
Djengo7; I await your response

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

 

[Bob Carabbio]

There are mountains of evidence-

Present one piece of "Evidence" that the Bible is wrong.