Science based views say that creationism is wrong, because god says that the world is young..?

Who are they to say that a human year, time even applies to god? People who take things to literally usually get them wrong, and in this case it%26#039;s not just about taking something to literal, its saying that something made by US can apply to the almighty.. Thoughts on this plz. xP
Science based views say that creationism is wrong, because god says that the world is young..?
If God%26#039;s method was evolution, then I don%26#039;t think science has a problem with it.
Science based views say that creationism is wrong, because god says that the world is young..?
Science says creationism is wrong because all evidence points towards evolution and none supports the notion that Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Reply:It should be noted that no where in the Torah, or the Christian Old and New Testament, nor the Holy Qur%26#039;an, nor any other revealed scripture does it actually tell the age of the earth, planets, solar system, galaxies, cosmos, etc. Such is an interpretation made by the unknowing about the unknown which is beyond literalism and is closer to the realm of fantasy being passed off as %26quot;truth%26quot;.


Granted, there are so many inaccuracies as regards to the realities of what exist (such as the sun standing still at noon so that one army could slay more of its enemies, a world wide flood, a boat that could possibly hold at least two of every animal that existed, the earth as the center of the universe, night journeys both on earth to a mosque that did not exist at the time of the journey and into and out of the solar system, the sun setting into a pool of mud, etc., etc., etc. and to name but a few without going into the dead being raised or a god becoming human...) for anyone to take any such writings seriously or even to think that they may actually hold some scientific truths.


Such works are of a religious or possibly spiritual nature and should not be taken literally and are questionable figuratively and metaphorically.


They were written when humankind needed and explanation of what was then not understood and a god or the gods was the simplest answer.
Reply:Creationists are the ones that feel that a relatively young


Earth is the model required to support their theory. Scientists are simply pointing out that the short time line creationists present as part of their theory is inaccurate.





By the way, I%26#039;m only referring to Judeo-Christian based creationism. There are many creationist theories that have no real conflict with science so far, mostly because they have no timelines identified in their dogma, and they are not likely to interpret their creationism as literally as bible-based creationists do.





Unfortunately, for those who base their creationist theories on the bible, that bible does a very good job defining the number of generations (and lifespans) that have passed since %26quot;creation%26quot;. So one runs the danger of invalidating the rest of the bible if they selectively choose to invalidate the time element provided by the same source.
Reply:If the %26quot;human year%26quot; and time do not apply to God, then the 7 Days are only metaphorically true.





What about the fundamentalists who take the 7 Days literally? Are you saying you are a fundamentalist? Because if you are not, you are arguing on the wrong side of the fence.





If you are not a fundamentalist, then science and evolution ought to be comprehensible and acceptable by you.





And if you are a fundamentalist, then you argue against yourself by saying a human year does not apply to God.