There are components of the bible that are infallible, but the text itself is not infallible. You have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the bible.
The age of the (observable) universe is ipso facto observable, however that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the universe was created old in the first place. After all, it would be impossible for humans to live in a universe that appears young. That question is not falsifiable and so is not in the realm of scientific discussion.
Theologically, there have been saints and bishops throughout history who have argued for both young earth and old earth hypotheses. The consensus is that it is not an important question.
Oral tradition is not about being ‘better or worse at memorizing’. Humans can memorize well, and if they develop that skill they can use it. Certain skills that were common in the past, like hunting, are not common today, and vice versa. That doesn’t mean the skill doesn’t exist. The existence and preservability of oral tradition is well-known, and you rejecting that again shows deep ignorance of the subject.
It seems your judgement is based on the flawed idea that the bible somehow created the Church, but it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws. The idea that a flawed bible somehow invalidates the Church has no logical basis.
The age of the (observable) universe is ipso facto observable, however that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the universe was created old in the first place.
It does if there is no evidence the universe was created old.
To argue otherwise is a Russel's teapot argument, and as such can be discarded out of hand.
After all, it would be impossible for humans to live in a universe that appears young.
Why?
If you are accepting that the laws of physics would prevent human life in such a universe, why then would the laws of physics be ignored when convenient for your explanation?
This is a god of the gaps argument.
If you are content to have such a small and meager god, feel free to believe in young earth creationism.
The [theological] consensus is that it is not an important question.
And yet the scientific consensus is that the earth is old.
You can verify their findings yourself, no faith required. That's the beauty of science.
The existence and preservability of oral tradition is well-known
Yes, its very well known as the least reliable method of passing knowledge from one generation to the next.
Oral histories can change dramatically even within a single generation.
but it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws.
So then you agree with me that its nonsense to use the flawed human creation that is the bible as a refutation of an old earth.
Of course it is nonsense to use the bible to refute OEC. The purpose of my remarks was to point out how stupid you are when it comes to biblical history and theology, and that you should recuse yourself from such discussions until you educate yourself.
There are components of the bible that are infallible, but the text itself is not infallible. You have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the bible.
The age of the (observable) universe is ipso facto observable, however that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the universe was created old in the first place. After all, it would be impossible for humans to live in a universe that appears young. That question is not falsifiable and so is not in the realm of scientific discussion.
Theologically, there have been saints and bishops throughout history who have argued for both young earth and old earth hypotheses. The consensus is that it is not an important question.
Oral tradition is not about being ‘better or worse at memorizing’. Humans can memorize well, and if they develop that skill they can use it. Certain skills that were common in the past, like hunting, are not common today, and vice versa. That doesn’t mean the skill doesn’t exist. The existence and preservability of oral tradition is well-known, and you rejecting that again shows deep ignorance of the subject.
It seems your judgement is based on the flawed idea that the bible somehow created the Church, but it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws. The idea that a flawed bible somehow invalidates the Church has no logical basis.
It does if there is no evidence the universe was created old.
To argue otherwise is a Russel's teapot argument, and as such can be discarded out of hand.
Why?
If you are accepting that the laws of physics would prevent human life in such a universe, why then would the laws of physics be ignored when convenient for your explanation?
This is a god of the gaps argument.
If you are content to have such a small and meager god, feel free to believe in young earth creationism.
And yet the scientific consensus is that the earth is old.
You can verify their findings yourself, no faith required. That's the beauty of science.
Yes, its very well known as the least reliable method of passing knowledge from one generation to the next.
Oral histories can change dramatically even within a single generation.
So then you agree with me that its nonsense to use the flawed human creation that is the bible as a refutation of an old earth.
Of course it is nonsense to use the bible to refute OEC. The purpose of my remarks was to point out how stupid you are when it comes to biblical history and theology, and that you should recuse yourself from such discussions until you educate yourself.
Then you agree with me, pretty explicitly.
Well proving me correct seems a rather poor way to go about that.
Why?
Literally by your own admission, my point and the conclusions I drew from what I know is correct.