Young Earth Debate

[maxmarkov]

Lets take a look at "faith" for a moment. It IS indeed true that certain "large-scale" scientific theories require faith. Even when we have evidence that points into their direction, more often than not the available evidence is not 100% complete to say we can have 100% certainty, which is especially true for hypotheses, but that's a fact of reality in general. We are too small and too flawed (f.ex. our perception) in comparison to the shere size and scope of the Cosmos. That's why we had to build tools and machines to gain access to the electromagnetic spectrum, sound spectrum, etc., which all would be otherwise inaccessible to us.
UV (ultraviolet) radiation for example is very real. UV lamps are pretty cheap nowadays, get one, a piece of paper and a pen with invisible ink. Whatever you've written will be invisible. But if you use an UV lamp you can read it.

Despite the fact that the more complex a subject is the more evidence we need to be sure, there are very significant differences between "faith in scientific theories and hypotheses" and "faith in biblical anecdotes". Science does not claim do have all the answers, some individual scientists incorrectly do. Science is built around the concepts of research, exploration, discovery, experimentation, analysis, exchange of information and data, etc.
Science is a dynamic, constantly changing and improving set of methodologies. New discoveries lead to updates, old data is replaced by new data.

The same, unfortunately, can't be said about the bible. Declaring the bible the single "source of truth" suggests that most of what we need to know about reality is already written in a single book. This is a very dangerous claim, because it does not the take the dynamic nature of reality into consideration and suggests that we don't need to seek for new, more accurate information, knowledge and truths. If one of my relatives gets sick I'm not going to rely on the bible, if my car or my computer has to be repaired I'm not going to consult the church. The Big Bang, as far-fetched as it may seem, with or without the little evidence we have, is at least comparable to other phenomena we experience. Evidence for the claim that "the first woman" was created from the rib of the "first man", even though it is supposed to be an event not billions, but only a couple thousands of years ago, does not seem to be available. How strange.

[lattamoney]

Lets take a look at "faith" for a moment. It IS indeed true that certain "large-scale" scientific theories require faith. Even when we have evidence that points into their direction, more often than not the available evidence is not 100% complete to say we can have 100% certainty, which is especially true for hypotheses, but that's a fact of reality in general. We are too small and too flawed (f.ex. our perception) in comparison to the shere size and scope of the Cosmos. That's why we had to build tools and machines to gain access to the electromagnetic spectrum, sound spectrum, etc., which all would be otherwise inaccessible to us.
UV (ultraviolet) radiation for example is very real. UV lamps are pretty cheap nowadays, get one, a piece of paper and a pen with invisible ink. Whatever you've written will be invisible. But if you use an UV lamp you can read it.

Despite the fact that the more complex a subject is the more evidence we need to be sure, there are very significant differences between "faith in scientific theories and hypotheses" and "faith in biblical anecdotes". Science does not claim do have all the answers, some individual scientists incorrectly do. Science is built around the concepts of research, exploration, discovery, experimentation, analysis, exchange of information and data, etc.
Science is a dynamic, constantly changing and improving set of methodologies. New discoveries lead to updates, old data is replaced by new data.

The same, unfortunately, can't be said about the bible. Declaring the bible the single "source of truth" suggests that most of what we need to know about reality is already written in a single book. This is a very dangerous claim, because it does not the take the dynamic nature of reality into consideration and suggests that we don't need to seek for new, more accurate information, knowledge and truths. If one of my relatives gets sick I'm not going to rely on the bible, if my car or my computer has to be repaired I'm not going to consult the church. The Big Bang, as far-fetched as it may seem, with or without the little evidence we have, is at least comparable to other phenomena we experience. Evidence for the claim that "the first woman" was created from the rib of the "first man", even though it is supposed to be an event not billions, but only a couple thousands of years ago, does not seem to be available. How strange.

so glad you brought up sickness if you are sick a by his stripes we are healed
the Bible has sickness disease covered ! have power over sickness and disease praise God you dont have to be sick
and im not saying you cant learn how to do some from a book im not against knowledge just knowledge that goes against i dont care what crappy misleading "evidence " you present if its in the Bible its True

[lattamoney]

so glad you brought up sickness if you are sick a by his stripes we are healed
the Bible has sickness disease covered ! have power over sickness and disease praise God you dont have to be sick
and im not saying you cant learn how to do some from a book im not against knowledge just knowledge that goes against i dont care what crappy misleading "evidence " you present if its in the Bible its True

Healing https://youtu.be/XEGM8hebCaA

[maxmarkov]

I would like to ask you a few questions if you don't mind, because they might help me better understand your perspective on this subject and maybe you will gain something meaningful from the conversation aswell. You can take as much time as you want to think about these questions and your answers can be as long as you feel they need to be.

What are the most valuable things you have discovered by studying the Bible and by applying what you've learned in your day-to-day life?

What do you feel is lost or people are missing when they put their faith into Science instead?

If somebody asks you to explain to them your deepest beliefs, values and perspectives, would you be willing to do that? If yes, how would you do it and what would you tell them? If not, why not?

Would you be willing to listen to and consider other people's beliefs, values and perspectives even when they are very different from your own? If you do, do you believe such a conversation could be valuable and if so, what do you believe could you learn? If not, why not?

Do you believe we can gain anything meaningful and valuable from traveling the world, exploring different cultures and learning about how and why they live the way they live? Would you be willing to go on such an exploratory journey yourself? If yes, what would you expect or desire to find on that journey? If not, why not?

[Coonehh]

Genesis Chapter one God Created the Heavens and the Earth not the Big Bang

Scientfically Determined by people with a agenda how want to discredit everything in Bible

the Bible does not have contradict its self people who say that cherry pick verses out of it

no offense bro, but that's more like a plastic spork as opposed to a sword, much less a sharpened one.

tell me, what happens when you put a lot of power to the wheels of your car.....the tires spin....why is this....the coefficient of friction has been breached.

the big bang is the same exact concept

how do you know that "god" didnt "tap the void" and unleash an incomprehensible amount of energy stored in the vacuum potential?

if "god" did this, would it not have some physical analog to point at?

(not that I believe the demon known as yhvh could do such a thing to begin with, but that's another topic)

[Aaron Gustaveson]

Lets take a look at "faith" for a moment. It IS indeed true that certain "large-scale" scientific theories require faith. Even when we have evidence that points into their direction, more often than not the available evidence is not 100% complete to say we can have 100% certainty, which is especially true for hypotheses, but that's a fact of reality in

Evidence is never 100%.
That is not how science (or statistics used in the sciences) works.
Because scientific claims are not made with 100% confidence (not believed but thought to be most likely true) no faith is required.
Belief requires faith.
Scientific truths are not intended to be believed.

[Karl Williams Jax]

there is no Evidence of a Big Bang you are just buying in to their bulll shit

I'd believe god caused the Big Bang, before I would believe there was no Big Bang.

[lattamoney]

We can at least start off with the points you mentioned:

What about fossils points toward a young Earth?

What about the Grand Canyon points toward a young Earth?

What about Coconico sandstone points toward a young Earth?

THE Grand Canyon was not formed over millions of years . but with the Right Kinds of Conditions Like a giant flood science can prove that a giant canyon could be formed in a short period of time with a Giant Flood like 'Noah's Flood this proves there was a giant flood . and all the water went in the the caverns of the earth witch was proven when the Russians drilled 7 miles deep in the Earth and Found water where there should be none .

Coconico sandstone points to again a giant flood witch Creates layers witch again can be easily reproduced . If Coconino sandstone happed over millions of years you would expect to see weathering or erosion of the layers of rock but you don't . everything is smooth, also there are no fossils in the layers that suggest there was a long elapse between the layers So I ask how did the sand stone avid erosion of millions of years ? it did't . Also why is there no evidence of Vegetation in the layers ?

[lattamoney]

There is a Ton of Evidence that proves the Bible

[SebG]

There is a Ton of Evidence that proves the Bible

Unfortunately, many people see the Bible as the whole literal truth.

This is clearly not the case. For example, the Bible refers to "the corners of the Earth".

There are no corners. There is also no explanation in the Bible about differences between humans in skin colour and hair morphology.

Some Bible scholars claim the Bible indicates that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Many Bible scholars refute this. Some Bible scholars claim God created other hominids at the same time as Adam and Eve, or just before - other scholars claim there was only Adam and Eve and their children all interbred. So Bible scholars can't even agree.

There is tree ring evidence of trees extending more than 13,000 years ago. Annual ice layers at the poles show over 100,000 years of layers. https://biologos.org/resources/audio...d-is-the-earth

The Bible provides no explanation of atomic energy. Using nuclear physics, radio isotope dating indicates Earth rocks are over 4,000,000,000 years old. The Bible doesn't mention meteorites. There is evidence of meteorite craters thousands of years old (and older) but no evidence of a worldwide flood.

I think you are on more solid ground when you view the Bible as a story about God's relationship with humans.