# Thousands v Millions (Billions, actually)



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch,

I'd like to hear your reasoning on the vast differences between the biblical and scientific time scales of da erf. 

One says a few thousand years. The other says many billions. 

How do you square that with yourself?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> One says a few thousand years.



Does the Bible say that in black and white?  Or is that just the interpretation of some?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Does the Bible say that in black and white?  Or is that just the interpretation of some?



Well, it's certainly one he's expressed in here, so this may be misspeak. Either way the root question of how he squares his personal belief with what we understand of the fossil record stands. 

But I do seem to recall that the figure was derived from all of the begatting that was going on, with their reported ages, so it's not explicitly stated, but it is in black and white. Both? Neither? Maybe?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2014)

When I was younger, I had been taught the earth was young so much that considering it otherwise felt like heresy.  Still does, kind-a.  The young earth age is based on a literal interpretation of the first 7 days in Genesis, then, counting the years listed in the "begats."  The estimates range from 4-6K.  I even took a course on it in college taught by folks who write a lot of the creation science stuff.  

Not sure what Bassquatch believes where this is concerned, but, I eventually considered that science and God are not mutually exclusive, because, if I believe in God, then science is the study of his creation.  Nothing to fear.  Lots to learn.   The earth doesn't have to be 6k years old in order for the Genesis story to be true......"God dun it."


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 7, 2014)

The Bible was written by men who had nowhere near the  knowledge of geology, geography, astronomy, biology,history, etc. that we have now. Divinely inspired perhaps, but nothing that sounded too far-fetched that nobody would not believe the stories or offer scientific rebuttal. One example is Satan taking Jesus high up in the sky where he could see the whole world at once. 

Huh? No matter how high up you get, the world is a sphere, so you could only see 180 degrees (half) of it any any time. 

A long time ago nobody would have noticed that plot-hole.

Thus it sure seems to me that there was no divine input, no great wisdom or knowledge that wasn't basic human knowledge already around at the time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When I was younger, I had been taught the earth was young so much that considering it otherwise felt like heresy.  Still does, kind-a.  The young earth age is based on a literal interpretation of the first 7 days in Genesis, then, counting the years listed in the "begats."  The estimates range from 4-6K.  I even took a course on it in college taught by folks who write a lot of the creation science stuff.
> 
> Not sure what Bassquatch believes where this is concerned, but, I eventually considered that science and God are not mutually exclusive, because, if I believe in God, then science is the study of his creation.  Nothing to fear.  Lots to learn.   The earth doesn't have to be 6k years old in order for the Genesis story to be true......"God dun it."





> The young earth age is based on a literal interpretation of the first 7 days in Genesis, then, counting the years listed in the "begats."  The estimates range from 4-6K.  I even took a course on it in college taught by folks who write a lot of the creation science stuff.


IF this is correct, depending on its usage, in essence the Bible and science could agree -
The word "day" (which is "yom" in Hebrew) can mean: a 24-hour day, daytime, today, forever, continually, or an undetermined amount of time. There is nothing that requires us to read it as six 24-hours.
You might ask, but what about the phrase that's with it?... "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."3 Doesn't that say 24 hours? No. "'Evening and morning' is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral...like yom, denote a long and indefinite period."


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> IF this is correct, depending on its usage, in essence the Bible and science could agree -
> The word "day" (which is "yom" in Hebrew) can mean: a 24-hour day, daytime, today, forever, continually, or an undetermined amount of time. There is nothing that requires us to read it as six 24-hours.
> You might ask, but what about the phrase that's with it?... "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."3 Doesn't that say 24 hours? No. "'Evening and morning' is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral...like yom, denote a long and indefinite period."




I honestly don't know why it seems like doctrine to some to hold to a young-earth model.  For me.....it's just what I was taught.  Interesting how these things can become fact to a young mind.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Interesting how these things can become fact to a young mind.



Therein lies the rub. I'd like to have a law where no religion can be taught to anyone below the age of 18. But that's just me being silly since it's both unrealistic, as well as ridiculous.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> The Bible was written by men who had nowhere near the  knowledge of geology, geography, astronomy, biology,history, etc. that we have now. Divinely inspired perhaps, but nothing that sounded too far-fetched that nobody would not believe the stories or offer scientific rebuttal. One example is Satan taking Jesus high up in the sky where he could see the whole world at once.
> 
> Huh? No matter how high up you get, the world is a sphere, so you could only see 180 degrees (half) of it any any time.
> 
> ...



True, the most you could ever directly observe was a hemisphere at a time, no matter how far away you got. 

Still, there were two key observations that told early scientists that the earth was a sphere. 

A) When a ship goes over the horizon it disappears from bottom up, not all at once like it would be if the earth was flat and it just exceeded our LOS. 

B) When they observed eclipses they noticed that it disappeared with a circular signature. 

So not only is it round in one direction, like you would expect from a circle (i.e. flat earth) but it's round in all directions, and that only fits one geometric shape. A sphere. 

It was inference based on limited, but accurate, observations until we left earth and could directly observe the earth itself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Therein lies the rub. I'd like to have a law where no religion can be taught to anyone below the age of 18. But that's just me being silly since it's both unrealistic, as well as ridiculous.


Would be really interesting to see what your law's effect had on Christianity's life span/believer numbers though.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

DO NOT POST LINKS WITH OBSCENITIES.

Dawg2


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Therein lies the rub.



Positive or negative depends on one's perspective.  A skeptic might think it is bad, while a believer thins it's good.

Passing along your beliefs/skepticism is a priviledge of parenting.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Would be really interesting to see what your law's effect had on Christianity's life span/believer numbers though.



Plenty of folks convert late in life.  I think for different reasons than young folks sticking with what is familiar.  Christianity would persevere because of hope.

I was more commenting on how, because I was taught that the earth was 6k years old, that I found myself feeling guilty for questioning it.  In reality, I think investigating and questioning is healthy.  I don't think there is anything to be afraid of if you are looking for answers.  What's the point in believing something that is wrong?  

Might as well be able to understand why you believe certain things....."give a defense" type stuff


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Plenty of folks convert late in life.  I think for different reasons than young folks sticking with what is familiar.  Christianity would persevere because of hope.
> 
> I was more commenting on how, because I was taught that the earth was 6k years old, that I found myself feeling guilty for questioning it.  In reality, I think investigating and questioning is healthy.  I don't think there is anything to be afraid of if you are looking for answers.  What's the point in believing something that is wrong?
> 
> Might as well be able to understand why you believe certain things....."give a defense" type stuff



Perhaps, but that's only because you got over your guilt in doing it at all. How many others wouldn't believe if they didn't also feel it a sin to question? No telling. 

I still would like Bassquatch's take on this and how he reconciles in his own mind how one side says a few thousand, where the other says a few billion. 

I don't see an option other than, "Science is obviously wrong and I believe what the Bible says wholly." 

He seems to be tiptoeing around saying this, without actually saying it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree. I'm not trying to end religion or faith, I just want to prevent indoctrination.



Which is essentially saying that you don't want people to teach their kids about God/Jesus, or any other religion, because _everybody_ indoctrinates their kids.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Which is essentially saying that you don't want people to teach their kids about God/Jesus, or any other religion, because _everybody_ indoctrinates their kids.



No, they don't.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, they don't.



Sure you do.  In one thing or another.  Indoctrination does not have to focus on faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Sure you do.  In one thing or another.  Indoctrination does not have to focus on faith.



I acknowledge that much. I was speaking solely about religious indoctrination, unless someone wants to claim that my lack of indoctrination of my own children was a type of indoctrination.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> unless someone wants to claim that my lack of indoctrination of my own children was a type of indoctrination.



Which they will. Just like the claim that a lack of a religion...is a religion.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I acknowledge that much.







StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I was speaking solely about religious indoctrination, unless someone wants to claim that my lack of indoctrination of my own children was a type of indoctrination.



Can a child be indoctrinated to be a "free thinker?"  I think so.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Can a child be indoctrinated to be a "free thinker?"  I think so.



Yes, but that's rarely limited to being free thinking about religion. That's why I excluded it.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, but that's rarely limited to being free thinking about religion. That's why I excluded it.



First, before we dig into this, please understand that I think how a person raises their kids is their business, not mine.  So, I am just addressing the topic at hand, and it is not really specific to you.

But, to address a lack of religious indoctrination, how would you approach faith in order to accomplish a lack of indoctrination, or do you pretend it doesn't exist?  The only way I could imagine somebody saying they do not pass along any beliefs would be to declare that you would not be telling your kids what you believe, and that they are to seek their own answers.

At which point, the "indoctrination" is to teach them to be a free thinker......about religion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> First, before we dig into this, please understand that I think how a person raises their kids is their business, not mine.  So, I am just addressing the topic at hand, and it is not really specific to you.
> 
> But, to address a lack of religious indoctrination, how would you approach faith in order to accomplish a lack of indoctrination, or do you pretend it doesn't exist?  The only way I could imagine somebody saying they do not pass along any beliefs would be to declare that you would not be telling your kids what you believe, and that they are to seek their own answers.
> 
> At which point, the "indoctrination" is to teach them to be a free thinker......about religion.



No worries, I know you pretty well to know your tone is meant to be taken in pursuit of positive discussion. (Unlike some of mine when I let my passions get a hold of me.)

There's a long story that I don't really care to go too much into depth on, but just know that I don't have any contact with my kids right now because of the divorce with their mother and feeling like the only positive thing I could do for them to not see us constantly fighting was to step away. 

She, my oldest, was a bit too young to have the full talk, but when asked why I didn't pray with her while she did it before bed, I would just tell her that the world is full of people who don't believe the way she believes, and that's ok, so long as we treat them with the same respect that we would want for ourselves, to practice theirs. 

If I had been around to have the full conversation it would have been an off-shoot from there, illustrating that, from an internal point of view, every religion thinks they have the "true" bead on the ways of the universe, and they can't all be right. That's not to say that they can't, or shouldn't, believe the way they do, or you do, rather that religion and faith are deeply personal issues that most will not agree on. That faith, belief, and religion aren't the concrete constructs of truth, or right, that others would have us think. Even more, that's ok, provided you are happy with your choices, and allow others to make theirs, even if you disagree with them on it. 

Like I said, you could construe my position to be indoctrinating my children about faith, if you squint really hard, but the only thing I would ever do is tell them A) to make up their own mind using whatever research or criteria they wish to study, and B) to be open minded and tolerant of those who don't practice exactly what we do, because it's just the right thing to do. 

With the caveat that no one has any more right to push their religion on you, than you do yours upon them. 

I neither bashed religion nor praised religion to them. I just told the truth.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No worries, I know you pretty well to know your tone is meant to be taken in pursuit of positive discussion. (Unlike some of mine when I let my passions get a hold of me.)







StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's a long story that I don't really care to go too much into depth on, but just know that I don't have any contact with my kids right now because of the divorce with their mother and feeling like the only positive thing I could do for them to not see us constantly fighting was to step away.



Sorry to hear that.  Without understanding the circumstance, I do hope you are able to remedy that situation in a way that is more beneficial to all involved.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> She, my oldest, was a bit too young to have the full talk, but when asked why I didn't pray with her while she did it before bed, I would just tell her that the world is full of people who don't believe the way she believes, and that's ok, so long as we treat them with the same respect that we would want for ourselves, to practice theirs.
> 
> If I had been around to have the full conversation it would have been an off-shoot from there, illustrating that, from an internal point of view, every religion thinks they have the "true" bead on the ways of the universe, and they can't all be right. That's not to say that they can't, or shouldn't, believe the way they do, or you do, rather that religion and faith are deeply personal issues that most will not agree on. That faith, belief, and religion aren't the concrete constructs of truth, or right, that others would have us think. Even more, that's ok, provided you are happy with your choices, and allow others to make theirs, even if you disagree with them on it.
> 
> ...




Ok.  The caveat is indoctrination to some extent, as well as opening doors to alternatives, if we are being very specific here.  I was just pointing out that we all "indoctrinate" to some extent.

However, I will readily admit that, almost universally, where religion is concerned, the believer's "indoctrination" will definitely be more intense than that of a skeptic......unless you are this kind of skeptic:


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Sorry to hear that.  Without understanding the circumstance, I do hope you are able to remedy that situation in a way that is more beneficial to all involved.
> 
> No worries. I made my peace with it a long time ago, now it's time for my kids to, and decide if they want anything to do with me. As far as resolving it, that's all out of my hands for now, and I won't presume to reach out to them to rekindle, I don't want to intrude.
> 
> ...



That's just a terrible agnostic. I've never once heard an agnostic say that it's pointless to talk about religion. They may say that it's pointless to hold anything about it out as truth, but that's as far as it went, and that much is factual. Agnostics love the mysteries presented, and would love to have discussions on them and possibly be proven wrong. Atheists, on the other hand, are as blindly convinced in the absence of a God as theists are about His presence, in my experiences.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's just a terrible agnostic. I've never once heard an agnostic say that it's pointless to talk about religion.


 I think the sign means pointless to talk about God's.


> Atheists, on the other hand, are as blindly convinced in the absence of a God as theists are about His presence, in my experiences.


Blindly? I feel as though, after many years of blindly believing, my eyes are finally open.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's just a terrible agnostic. I've never once heard an agnostic say that it's pointless to talk about religion. They may say that it's pointless to hold anything about it out as truth, but that's as far as it went, and that much is factual. Agnostics love the mysteries presented, and would love to have discussions on them and possibly be proven wrong. Atheists, on the other hand, are as blindly convinced in the absence of a God as theists are about His presence, in my experiences.



Yea, I know.  I just get a kick out of that clip.  Everybody has their own "code."  For agnostics, my perspective is that intellectual honesty, and the pursuit of, is the primary goal.....but, that's just what I have experienced.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> I think the sign means pointless to talk about God's.
> 
> Blindly? I feel as though, after many years of blindly believing, my eyes are finally open.



First, I didn't mean that as an insult to our resident atheists. 

Second, my statement would only apply to you if you didn't have justification for your position. Like if you just accepted the indoctrination of atheist parents or friends without researching it. 

I can understand the confusion, though, I spent a little time trying to edit that in my mind before I posted, but couldn't come up with anything that didn't involve many paragraphs. 

My apologies to anyone I may have offended with that, it was not my intent.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Blindly? I feel as though, after many years of blindly believing, my eyes are finally open.



Are you atheist?  I though most of y'all were agnostics.....


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yea, I know.  I just get a kick out of that clip.  Everybody has their own "code."  For agnostics, my perspective is that intellectual honesty, and the pursuit of, is the primary goal.....but, that's just what I have experienced.



I would agree with that, at least as far as I go in my own perspective.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Are you atheist?  I though most of y'all were agnostics.....



I am. Don't have a t-shirt yet.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> First, I didn't mean that as an insult to our resident atheists.


No problem, just clarifying that there are at least SOME atheist that got to where they are legitimately. 

Meaning, I put in the time, the reading, the thought process. I also went through the agnostic phase. This phase for ME was just me holding on to something just in case.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> No problem, just clarifying that there are at least SOME atheist that got to where they are legitimately.
> 
> Meaning, I put in the time, the reading, the thought process. I also went through the agnostic phase. This phase for ME was just me holding on to something just in case.



Atheism requires a logical leap as well. That's why I settled into agnosticism. You can't say with any more certainty that there ISN'T a God than believers can say there IS. 

Presented with an absence of evidence on both sides, I contend, the only purely logical position is one that doesn't engage in leaping either direction.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Atheism requires a logical leap as well. That's why I settled into agnosticism. You can't say with any more certainty that there ISN'T a God than believers can say there IS.


Spoken like a true agnostic.  Sure I can.  Just like I can say with certainty there is no Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, or Unicorn. They are in some pretty old books too. 
Reading early human nature, why religion started, etc. It is all clear. Now, you may separate religion from a God belief. That is fine but, without religion, God really doesn't matter. Possibly no consequences. 
I am agnostic about the beginning of the universe. 



> Presented with an absence of evidence on both sides, I contend, the only purely logical position is one that doesn't engage in leaping either direction.



I only looked for the evidence for a God. Since, I was being told there was one. None. That is all I need. 
I don't usually go around telling folks there is no God so, no proof necessary. I didn't start the fire. 

Ever heard the term, Agnostic Atheist? I like it. 2 qualities. Don't believe Gods exist and don't claim to know if they really do.
Or, as I have often put it, Don't know, don't care.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Spoken like a true agnostic.  Sure I can.  Just like I can say with certainty there is no Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, or Unicorn. They are in some pretty old books too.
> Reading early human nature, why religion started, etc. It is all clear. Now, you may separate religion from a God belief. That is fine but, without religion, God really doesn't matter. Possibly no consequences.
> I am agnostic about the beginning of the universe.
> 
> ...



Yeah my agnosticism is pretty strong. 

The point being that 0, i.e. no evidence, is neutral. It is neither positive, nor negative, and therefore benefits no side but also impairs neither side. 

I agree about those 3 creatures, but that's my opinion, as, like I said before, 0 is neutral. No evidence for and no evidence against results in a quantum state of both existence and non-existence. 

It's important to note that religion is a construct of Man where God wouldn't be, theoretically. I also hate using "God" in these discussions because the likelihood that we can identify with a Creator is about nil. Look at the life on this planet, we share 90+% of our DNA with them and we can't even understand them, and people are trying to tell me that we understand a deity that is beyond our plane of existence? C'mon, now. 

Why would God depend on religion? I don't understand that part at all? 

That would be like saying that since you got the process wrong (religion) to take care of your car, that the car doesn't exist, or doesn't even matter? I would say that it most certainly does matter, regardless of your, infinitive, ineptitude and incomplete understanding of it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why would God depend on religion? I don't understand that part at all?



My atheism is based on the evidence provided for a God by religions. Since that is all I have been subjected to. Based on that, there is no God. I have not found the need to try to determine if there was an actual God/Creator because it just wouldn't matter except we could all say, oh, look, well aint my face red, there is a God. Now, back to work. 

I have never heard much about Gods without religion being involved. I think we can all agree religion was invented/founded, therefore..ipso, fatso, e pluribus Unum...(poof)God was too. Now, if the same monotheist God was the only God EVER talked about since the beginning of man, then I may say, hmmmm. 

(I forgot what movie the ipso, fatso was from but, it was funny. )


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah my agnosticism is pretty strong.
> 
> The point being that 0, i.e. no evidence, is neutral. It is neither positive, nor negative, and therefore benefits no side but also impairs neither side.
> 
> ...


I think we are in the same boat.
I reject religion as man made but think that doesn't equate to zero possibility of a god. That basically is the only shred that keeps me from being Atheist. I cant reject that the concept of gods does exist throughout humanity. Whether that only to points to the commonness of man or something else, I don't know yet.


----------

