Multiple questions about the Earth regarding nonsense written in the bible?

Question

I would like to know the truth because in the Religion and Spiritual section, all the answers doesnt make sense, some come up with bible quotes and some even bash science for lacking evidence, I decided to put this up on the science section.

1. Was the Earth really 6000 years old? I find it hard to believe this.

2.Was the worldwide flood even possible?

3.It is said that there was never any rain before the Wordwide flood, again is that even possible too?

4.God created Light and darkness after he created water? This one certainly tipping me off, could planets possible exist before the sun?

5.Could all the stars really appear after the 7th day creation? As far as I know, I heard some stars are distant light years away and would take certain years to be visible on Earth depending on how far they are.

Thank you for taking your time to read this, please take your time and answer it.

Answer 1

1. No.  We know the age of Earth, there is no disputing it.  Remember the Bible was writing way before science could age rocks.

2. No.  There is absolutely no proof a worldwide flood ever occurred.  Would not the results have been the extinction of all humans?

3. Not possible.  It rains somewhere on Earth everyday.

4.  No.  The age of planets in our solar system is younger than the sun.

5.  Stars are different ages.  So are solar systems.

Answer 2

I often ask people who take a fundamentalist, literal view of what is written in the bible to please consider it as a story; not a literal truth.  Similarly, those who oppose a strict biblical version should consider it in the same way.  It is very instructional to read the chapter og genesis, instead of just arguing about it.  The first impression is one of vagueness and difficulty in understanding what exactly it means.

But remember that, at the time the first scriptures were being written, the 'world' consisted of the middle east, part of Africa, and an unknown expanse to the east.  The Ancient Greeks knew better, and had even made a pretty good approximation of the circumference of the world; so a little of this knowledge could have filtered down.

Religion is based on faith, not knowledge.  Unfortunately, there are some who have been in positions of power who oppose the spread of knowledge; because this may weaken their power base.  Over the centuries, this has led to a 'mistrust' of science; because science is based on knowledge, not faith.  This is the fundamental difference between the two; but  I do not believe it is a difference of conflict.  

You cannot scientifically disprove faith; so religion should have no fear of science.  I think this mistrust stems from the fact that a lot of science learning was thought to be leading people away from religion, and must therefore be opposed.  

I don't think that it is necessary to prove anything through a literal interpretation of the old testament - Christianity is founded on the teachings of the new testament (the old testament is essentially the same as the jewish scriptures).

As far as the 'age of the earth' being 6000 years; I cannot understand why some people are so determined to maintain this position.  It is NOT referrred to in the bible; but is based on studies undertaken by Archbishop Usher of Ireland in the 17th century, based on a literal study of the ages of the men in genesis.  This has to be viewed in the context of the time, when Copernicus was accused of Heresy by stating that the earth was not the centre of the universe; but revolved around the sun.

If people just accepted the old testament as being partly allegorical in nature; then these conflicts would resolve themselves.

Answer 3

1.  This is one is disputed between scientists and religious ppl

2.  Yes it is possible, at one point Earth may have been completely water, although the heat of the Earth may have cause a lot of that water to boil and excape our atmosphere (remember, our atmosphere was very small then)

3.  No, not possible, weather played an important role in the evolution of life on Earth (if you believe evolution)

4.  Earth may have formed before the sun began fusion at its core to become a star.  the planets formed from all the stuff that didn't form the sun

5.  Maybe there were atmospheric disturbances that prevented light from penetrating the atmosphere.  The stars in our galaxy are millions of light years away, meaning the light takes millions of years to reach Earth.

Answer 4

1. Categorically no

2. Feasible that there may have been a flood affecting the known world (from the perspective of the author/s), caused by tectonic or cataclysmic events (earthquake, tsunami, volcano, asteroid impact etc)

3 to 5: These all require belief to be even plausible: no scientific or other basis for these statements.

Note: science is based on the premise that belief is not required: if you wanted to you could go and prove anything scientific youself. The same can't be said for the spiritual.

Answer 5

Religion is based on blind fate science also on fate but less blind you are aloud to question it.

so depending which religion you take will tell you the different time frame

2. Yes it called in science a pole shift it only happened scientifically speaking 70000 years ago.

3. scientifically speaking NO because earth cooled off due to rain.

4. science claim first there was total darkness than light which made the creation, but depending what you want to follow (believe) i would say:  " take your pick" .

5. if you want to believe that that is the truth than yes it is, and do not question it.

If how ever you want to know which one is the real truth i would say to you:

Both have truth in them,  the problems lies that in due time the real  Truth through  man misinterpretation of what certain apostles wanted to tell us has been let say misinterpret ion .

bye the way i come from a priest  family and also has been scholared  on  my OWN FREE WILL  in the religions.

BUT

i am also a man of science.