Something occured to me the other day, feel free to tell me im wrong; If the universe is less than ten thousand years old (as ive heard creationists believe) then through telescopes etc. we would not be able to see further than approximately ten thousand light years. So how is it with pictures, such as the ultra deep field, we can observe light from other galaxys that has been travelling for over thirteen billion years?

They claim that their god made the light in transit. It's really an amusing case of apologetics aerobics.

http://atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=34

So literally any solid evidence that is put foward to the contrary is proven wrong by a sentence or two basically claiming "God did it" - why is it so difficult for intellectual adult people to let go of something that has mountains and mountains of evidence against it, and the evidence for it... an old superstitious, and in many places violent, book??? Reguardless of what comfort it gives people, it is surely unhealthy to ignore the facts.

ChuckSmiff said, "why is it so difficult for intellectual adult people to let go of something that has mountains and mountains of evidence against it, and the evidence for it... an old superstitious, and in many places violent, book??? Reguardless of what comfort it gives people, it is surely unhealthy to ignore the facts."

History proves that Christians have always fought science. In 1633, Galileo Galilei was put on trial because his scientific discoveries were in conflict with what was written in the Bible. Those who claim to be intellectuals (not fundamentalists) say religion and science are not incompatible. These members of the clergy say that the Creation account in Genesis is only a story that teaches some truth, but not a scientific truth - I guess? Where's the truth it teaches? Genesis and many biblical stories conflict with science and both can not teach the truth. The Hubble space telescope and the Human Genome Project has provided answers that religion never could. The clerics were flipping their wigs because they were losing out as an authority on these matters. That is (in my opinion) why some members of the clergy welcomed a compromise. So, after thousands of years of conflict with science and persecution of scientists they now say that religion and science are not incompatible. If they were not incompatible they would not be contradictory and that is not the case. They make excuses for creation week in the Bible by claiming it's simply a metaphor. If this story is not really an accurate account why give it the title Genesis, which means origin, source, and beginnings. It was first given to Moses so that the revelation of mans history could be taught to the Jewish nation as well as the laws of God. Why wouldn't it be factual? If it's not then why say it is the true word of God.

In order to overcome the obvious conflict in the age of the earth they think that Psalm 90:4 gives them a way out "with the Lord one day is like a thousand years." Maybe because the Lord didn't know how to measure time.

A day repeatedly consists of a morning and an evening (described in Genesis) and we know that the evening is the beginning of the next day because the Sabbath starts on Friday at sundown. So, the excuse that a day could have meant any period of time is disputed by the use of morning and evening. No doubt the author of Genesis had a problem with the measurement time (24 hrs.) is the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on it's own axis. The Earth faces the sun during the day and moves away during the night. However, the sun was not created until the 4th day. How could the morning and the evening be the first day when that wasn't possible without the sun? I'm sure there is a really good explanation for the Creation account having the Earth created before the sun, and plants created before the sun, but I really don't think anyone should waste time on that. These ideas don't get off the ground and not because we just don't understand (quantum physics) or a mystery. These are lame excuses for the obvious lack of knowledge. If the Creator never lies and does not deceive then we should have an account of Creation that would be understandable and better than what humans have managed to figure out up to now scientifically; but all we have is a metaphor? The excuse makers seriously want us to believe that there was no need to explain anything literally. Why is that? If science and religion were compatible it would be obvious to anyone the benefit of knowing the origin of the Universe and life in the Universe? I think this pronouncement is because the war on science is a lost cause that has been more harmful to religion than to science. The clergy claims that science is inexact and cannot explain mysteries. That's because science explains things so that they are no longer mysteries and religion never does. I think that the only reason the clergy now claims that science and religion are compatible is to stop the scientists from writing critical books about their idiotic religion.

They can estimate the age of the universe by various methods. One method is to use the fact that the universe has always been expanding and it is actually accelerating. To determine the age of the universe they estimate what the expansion rate might have been and translate that into a function of time. This is only an estimate because nobody knows the rate of expansion every second of the past. There is more than one method to estimate the age of the universe and about 14 billion yrs. is what most models estimate. The Earth is about 4 billion yrs. old and Genesis 1:1 claims that "in the beginning" God created the Earth. We know that the Earth could not have formed before the sun.

In the face of all this bad science some clerics blame the hostilities between science and religion on "militant atheists who were wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible." That is amazing, because the criticism from scientists was the result of some of the anti-evolution advocates trying to bring Creation or Intelligent Design into education masquerading as science. The reason Creation or Intelligent Design is not science is because there is no Creation or Intelligent Design theory that can be falsified. For something to be called science it requires a theory that can be falsified. A scientific theory requires evidence before it is believed; religion only requires faith. Nobody would have cared if "militant atheists" objected to Creation science or Intelligent Design; but it wasn't. It was the scientist's objections that mattered.

There are no other theories today that dispute the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang theory except biblical stories. Historically the clergy has denied scientific theories if they disputed what was written in the Bible because science and religion are incompatible. If the hostilities between science and religion were because of "militant atheists" why then did some of the members of the clergy (and not all of them were fundamentalists) caution their followers not to argue with the "enemy" because some of them are scientists? Why did they portray the enemy as scientists if religion and science were so compatible?

It's a fact that education is the enemy of religious dogma, and Darwin's theory of evolution is not compatible with religion or the Creation Story in Genesis? The Bible teaches that man is a special creation, apart from animals. Darwin's theory does not. Genesis is the completely erroneous story in the Bible explaining to man how the Creator created everything in a week, and there are two conflicting (erroneous) versions. The only way to get around this trite antiquated ridiculous story is to say that the story was metaphorical, not scientific. If the Creator inspired the Bible then why isn't the explanation of Creation better than the scientific explanation, and what reason would there be to disguise the truth? What possible reason could there be for telling stories that are obviously lies to teach moral lessons? The Noah's Ark story is absurd considering what we know about the evolution of animals, and does anyone believe that there was never a rainbow before the flood? If there is a Universal truth involved in any of these morality tales why mix it with bald-faced lies?

If religion were actually compatible with science then what science discovered would be indisputable proof of a Creator, but nothing could be more in conflict than the story of Creation in Genesis and what science has found. The God inspired stories of the Bible is not compatible with science. If there is any other "truth" involved in these stories what the hell is it?

It is not possible to reconcile scientific theory and Creation, but this does not change the fact that there are Creationists who still say that evolution must not be taught as fact unless the weaknesses of evolution are taught. That is why scientists have written books that point out the folly of Creation science or Intelligent Design. Evolution is not a theory about a banana. Evolution is a scientific theory that led to the discovery of DNA, and DNA proved the theory. There is no scientific theory that involves a Creator or Intelligent Design and it's not science.

Out of shear desperation for a purpose religionists try to avoid these issues by claiming that "religion explains areas of existence that science cannot." That's right, because science is involved in areas of existence that are provable and nobody can study a myth or an apparition. Some of the clergy claim that the only reason that Christians doubted the scientific theories was because scientists represent atheistic and materialistic views. I guess that will do away with the silly notion that the clergy disputed scientific theories because scientific theories didn't agree with what was written in the Bible? Now it has all been settled so why don't the scientists shut up? Scientists know that those involved in the religious hierarchy have always attacked science because they do not want the scientists to have more authority than the clergy, and a "compatibility" statement doesn't change a thing. The clergy want Christians to take over scientific areas, and they want students of science in the universities to have greater faith in the Creator. However, the fault-finding clergy who are saying that there is compatibility with science and religion claim that science could never provide a full explanation of our understanding of the world, because no matter how close to the truth science and math theory are, they are only approximations.

They know that their "faith based" arguments have been abandoned by anyone with any sense because they contradict scientific theory, so the only thing left is to claim that science cannot be entirely accurate, so there is always a degree of mystery. And guess what? They claim that any remaining mystery is God. That is not the way scientists solve problems and we don't need those who do. "The God of the Gaps" does not solve questions; it put them to rest. What are the mysteries that the "Word of God" has solved even approximately? No matter, because scientists have solved this unsolvable mystery, there is no God.

Indeed, I was well into my 20's before I ever heard the religious argument against Lyell and 'old earth' science: "God made the rocks/earth/fossils/whatever *appear* to be old to either (a) test our faith or (b) confound the unbeliever.

Pretty rotten God either way to pull a stunt like that. ;-)

The measurable light that leaves the Andromeda galaxy, the light/image that we see of it, didn't start its journey two and a half million years ago, it is an illusion put in place so that we may find it a nice thing to gaze upon??? I think that it's along those lines that people of rational understanding will eventually be able to open peoples eyes to really how rediculous the whole thing is, and how over complicated!

One believer I know said said that using math in the bible that the Earth was 6,500 years old. Yes the torah is steeped in math but I cannot fathom that you could use biblical math to prove the age of the Earth.

Yep. It's been done. It's pretty silly, but the young-earth creationists take it seriously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Anyone that is intellectually honest would admit that Torah math or codes do not prove a thing. There have been test that prove secular literature can be used the same way to prove just about anything that you want to believe. There is plenty of evidence that Moses did not write the Torah (the law) or the Pentateuch first five books in the Bible. The myth that Moses wrote the Bible started with the Levites, who created the myth that Moses brought Levitical laws down from Mount Sinai on the orders of God. This is not the truth because various people wrote the Torah over a long period of time. Scholars have proven this by examining the books in question, but even a casual investigation is enough to conclusively demonstrate that no single individual, or a Moses wrote them. That thoroughly brings into question the origins and divinity of these writings.

Writings that are questionable to begin with can not be used as proof of anything or possibly be used to determine anything concerning science.

A temple complex found in Turkey that predates even the pyramids. Mesopotamia gave rise to human civilization and archeologist Klaus Schmidt has found the exact spot where humans began that ascent. The German archeologist discovered a revolution in the story of human origins. Schmidt uncovered a vast and beautiful temple complex; a structure so ancient that it may be the very first thing human beings ever built. The temple he found was built 11,500 years ago - 7,000 years before the Great Pyramid, and more than 6,000 years before Stonehenge. The ruins are so early that they predate villages, pottery domesticated animals, and even agriculture - the first embers of civilization.

This is not the only proof that the earth is much older than 6,500 years, and even if they change it to they only mean humans are 6,500 years old that can be proven to be false as well.

Coming up with figures from ancient writings and saying that it coincides with existing myths is pretty meaningless when it does not coincide with what has been proven by science. That is only more proof that it's fake. If they had found evidence that what was in the book agreed with science that would be something. And guess what? There are web sites where they do try to make Torah math agree with the older earth that has been proven by science.