The debate "If a non Christian says the world is only 6000 years old than they sound totally crazy" was started by
June 4, 2014, 5:39 am.
71 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 28 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Mr_Anonymous posted 1 argument, Dbass24 posted 2 arguments, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, Superr1fifty posted 3 arguments, nikoli3664 posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
nick_parrott posted 1 argument, Cody posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
tkershaw3, wmd, AlexLovesBenihime, Mr_Anonymous, Portia_Yov, Flimpy, amwright, Siceless, SpiritofDeath, Dbass24, Sosocratese, Preploukus, DeathsDespair15, Hollister_boy, jessicaS02, kennamarlaina1214, means31, Hayleenikkole, Mikey2k, I_Voyager, liamjosephcash, shinywhale, BabyT14, Superr1fifty, TmlxIss2cool, Biotic, nikoli3664, CX_LD_Ashley, ItsMateo, mdavis1309, JMP9940, misfitcarrot, stantinou93, daddyfantastic, transfanboy, skyfrancois_97 and 35 visitors agree.
KamelotFan10, Garrestotle, Josh, LC_CU_Cat_Catt, Vikram, rcmcmurray, renatus8993, nick_parrott, Cody, milimehta068, stormshy and 17 visitors disagree.
@ Cody - If the evidence supports it, then yes. That being said, no one says it came from nothing. There are two premises - either we don't know from where it came, and ought not fill the hole with something (including nothing), or a recent study suggested the universe might have emerged from a quantum probability, which is tricky in my mind, but as a new idea I haven't digested the data enough to form a decent opinion.
It wasn't nothing.
But nothing exploding into something is plausible??
It's just implausible
well, its a belief, our culture is based around these beliefs so calling someone ignorant for embeacing a knowledge that contradict your own is the definition of ignorance.
i find it completely ignorant to think or believe that the world is only 6000 years old
If enyone would say that it would sound crazy. We fing things even older then 6000 years old.
I think we can agree that currently, there isn't any factual conflict between science and the notion of a god. The literal interpretation of religious texts is always factually problematic.
However, if science serves to explain natural events, then God surely serves as a way to explain the, as of yet, unexplained. As science becomes more and more advanced it also shrinks the space that God can occupy. I don't think it's hard to imagine a world where God is simply an archaic way to explain the unexplained. I think we are getting to a tipping point where the likelihood of a god is becoming so miniscule that the belief in one will soon be akin to the belief in unicorns (although the Bible has those too and people believe it be the literal truth....)
that's the main part. literal. fundamental Christians like to believe that all the bible is literal. In a scholarly setting and many theologians do not take it all literal. Deciding on what is metaphorical or literal is based on historical and cultural context. Genesis, I believe is metaphorical. the stories in Genesis are not a necessity for gods existence .Adam and eve probably didn't exist. Noah's ark could have just been a local flood for all we know. or it didn't happen. In the end god can still be god even if the Genesis stories didn't happen literally as fundamentally believed.
I agree that currently, science doesn't preclude the nonexistence of God, just it it doesn't preclude the nonexistence of a tea pot orbiting the sun. However, it does challenge the notion of the literal truth of the Bible. Evidence shows that certain aspects of the Bible couldn't have possibly occurred. Events like Adam and Eve, the literal account of the creation of heaven and earth, and of course the big one: Noah's Ark. That story is impossible according to modern science. This brings into question all aspects of the Bible. People who claim it to be the literal word of God, an infallible document, can't make that claim if portions of it are untrue. If portions of it are untrue, especially something as big as the flood or the creation of humans, rightfully brings the entire document into question.
You wouldn't accept a scientific paper that had as many mistakes as the Bible would you?
There are no contradictions between the bible and old earth. anyone who believes in young earth is simply uneducated in science and the bible.
Its not any less crazy when a Christian says it.