Illuminati...your thoughts?

[Alle_Gory]

Keep digging before making conclusions.

Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black.

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

 

[Rogue]

What was the dominant feature which separated humans from our primitive ancestors? The ability to act in coordinated tribes. There is an broadening line of evidence through anthropology and zoology that such traits as cooperative reciprocal altruism are an evolved trait. Being a good person is wired into us and people don't need a holy scripture to tell them how to behave. Children need to be taught the golden rule, and the golden rule has existed prior to religion.

This is really touching upon why people believe in religion. They don't actually believe in god but rather the belief in belief; not for explaining the origin of the cosmos but for a basis of ethics & morality. It doesn't mean it's necessary.

 

[Alle_Gory]

It doesn't mean it's necessary.

I believe it is. Who else is going to teach morality? Obviously not the Catholic church, but there are other religious institutions that aren't as f*cked up.

Yeah sure, you can say this is the family's problem or the parent's problem. But most adults are more messed up than their kids.

 

[Rogue]

I believe it is. Who else is going to teach morality?

Europe has long been a stronghold of atheism and yet there's been no zombie apocalypse. Explain.

 

[Trader]

I will address Richard Dawkin's points directly below

What on earth makes [anyone] think that 'theology' has anything useful to say on the subject? Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form, and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life including humans. Richard Dawkins

Theology and science are not antithetical. Science explains many things, it does not explain everything.

It is science, and science alone, that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, overwhelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively wrong. Richard Dawkins

Name one theological view that has been proven conclusively wrong by science.

Besides, let's not get carried away with ourselves. Science ultimately cannot *prove* anything. If you recall, the fundamental building block of science is the hypothesis. A hypothesis can never be proven correct {think Black Swan} but it can be invalidated.

Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunise against most previous deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will occur. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnassaince rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers of The Independent, do the same for the human genome. Richard Dawkins

Again, religion and science are not antithetical. In fact, religion and science are to be used in concert . Science is the study of the non-spiritual. The Bible is a book on the *wages of sin* or the spiritual. There is no contradiction between the two.

However, there is a hierarchy between the two. Just like the mental realm is above the physical realm, the spiritual realm is above the physical realm. Therefore, using science, which deals with the physical realm to try and answer questions such as: 'How did the universe begin?' is hopelessly naive at best, and prosposterous at worst.

How the universe began is a metaphysical question, which is outside the scope of science.

Science hypothesizes that the universe originated via the process of the big bang.

But where did the *dark matter* that was used in the big bang process originate from? In other words, 'how can *something* come from *nothing*? Did something always exist? How can something always exist?

Science is silent on this issues, as it ought to be. It can only describe the physical process of the creation of the universe.

What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels, work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all? Richard Dawkins [/i]

Actually theology, or the study of God, is quintessential. The conclusion you derive regarding God will determine how you live life.

For example, if your theological conclusion is that God does not exist, and that this life is the only life we will ever have, that we are just a collection of animals capable of feeling pleasure and pain, then the rational thing to do is to maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain. In other words, cheat on every exam so long as you don't get caught (min pain), kill people who want to harm you (max pleasure), IF you can get away with it (min pain), lie to everyone if it makes you more money (max pleasure) so long as you can avoid being caught (min pain).

If you believe the God of the Bible is correct, you will try one's utmost to live out the 10 commandments, constantly devote yourself to the ways of the Lord, and repent for your sins. Most importantly, you believe that there is a heaven and hell, those who believe in Jesus Christ will go to heaven, and thus you want other people to be saved, and you will strive to let others know of him.

These are two completely separate roads.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Europe has long been a stronghold of atheism and yet there's been no zombie apocalypse. Explain.

No it hasn't.

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

Most importantly, you believe that there is a heaven and hell, those who believe in Jesus Christ will go to heaven, and thus you want other people to be saved, and you will strive to let others know of him.

What about those who've never heard of Jesus Christ? Like people in micronesia for example. It's not their fault, yet they're doomed to hell. What kind of a god makes that happen? Condemns an innocent being before even being born. Either a very f*cked up devious god or an illogical mess.

But where did the *dark matter* that was used in the big bang process originate from? In other words, 'how can *something* come from *nothing*? Did something always exist? How can something always exist?

The same way some things don't exist and never will. That's just the way things are.

 

[Rogue]

Trader:
Religion and science are not antithetical. In fact, religion and science are to be used in concert . Science is the study of the non-spiritual. The Bible is a book on the *wages of sin* or the spiritual. There is no contradiction between the two.

Science and religion are two diametrically opposed methods, the former founded upon argument from knowledge and the latter founded upon argument from ignorance.

Therefore, using science, which deals with the physical realm to try and answer questions such as: 'How did the universe begin?' is hopelessly naive at best, and prosposterous at worst. How the universe began is a metaphysical question, which is outside the scope of science.

Pff! There are two types of science: experimental and historical, and both are equally adept at testing hypotheses. The fact an event occurred in the distant past, the fact the big bang occurred billions of years ago, does not blind us from knowing what happened.

In this light, let us turn to the reputedly problematic differences between historical and experimental science. Historical scientists are just as captivated by falsificationism as experimental scientists; as three eminent geologists (Kump et al., 1999, p. 201) counsel in a recent textbook discussion of the extinction of the dinosaurs, ‘‘a central tenet of the scientific method is that hypotheses cannot be proved, only disproved.’’ Nevertheless, there is little in the evaluation of historical hypotheses that resembles what is prescribed by falsificationism. The big bang theory of the origin of the universe provides an excellent example. It postulates a particular occurrence (a primordial explosion) for something we can observe today, i.e., the three-degree background radiation, first detected by satellite antennas in the 1960s. Traces, such as the three-degree background radiation, provide evidence for historical hypotheses, just as successful predictions provide evidence for the generalizations tested in experimental science. There is little or no possibility of controlled experiments, however, because the time frame required is too long and/or the relevant test conditions too complex and dependent upon unknown or poorly understood extraneous conditions to be artificially realized.

This doesn’t mean, however, that hypotheses about past events can’t be tested. As geologist T.C. Chamberlin (1897) noted, good historical researchers focus on formulating multiple competing (versus single) hypotheses. Chamberlin’s attitude toward the testing of these hypotheses was falsificationist in spirit; each hypothesis was to be in dependently subjected to severe tests, with the hope that some would survive. A look at the actual practices of historical researchers, however, reveals that the main emphasis is on finding positive evidence—a smoking gun. A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the others (source).

The smoking gun for the big bang was the discovery of background radiation, which—fun little fact—actually comprises of one percent of the static you see when you turn on an old television set. The origin of how our universe began is a scientific question, and is not "hopelessly naive."

Science hypothesizes that the universe originated via the process of the big bang. But where did the *dark matter* that was used in the big bang process originate from? In other words, 'how can *something* come from *nothing*? Did something always exist? How can something always exist?

You are playing a variation of Bertrand Russell's "turtles all the way down," and I'm unimpressed. You can always ask an infinitely regressive series of questions, asking questions from the answers of questions, until you arrive at "I don't know," but god isn't in the gaps. It doesn't mean your god is behind the next riddle. Rather than playing for ignorance, seek to understand from knowledge. And to loop myself back to the top of this post, the domain of god, the god of the gaps, is fluid, ambiguously evolving as science explains more of the natural world. The domain of god is slowly shrinking. And so while, as you say, religion and science are not mutually exclusive, that's not saying anything impressive.

I have asked you two times—now three—to watch ASU particle physicist Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" lecture.

Actually theology, or the study of God, is quintessential. The conclusion you derive regarding God will determine how you live life.

You completely missed the point of Dawkins. What accomplishments of expanding our knowledge of the natural universe has been done by theologians? To further quote Dawkins, to elucidate his intention of meaning: We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.

By the way, I can tell you have also not watched the debate between John Shook vs. William Lane Craig, as I have twice requested. Listening to Shook would be quite educational for you.

Alle Gory:
No it hasn't.

To be more specific, Sweden, Denmark, Norway. These are countries in which the overwhelming majority of the population are atheists. They're generally nice people. You need to ask yourself why the citizens of those countries generally turn out to be normal, functioning, pro-social, productive members of society. Those societies have not gone to hell in a handbasket despite the largely absent presence of religion.

 

[Trader]

What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels, work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all? Richard Dawkins

Actually theology, or the study of God, is quintessential. The conclusion you derive regarding God will determine how you live life.

For example, if your theological conclusion is that God does not exist, and that this life is the only life we will ever have, that we are just a collection of animals capable of feeling pleasure and pain, then the rational thing to do is to maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain. In other words, cheat on every exam so long as you don't get caught (min pain), kill people who want to harm you (max pleasure), IF you can get away with it (min pain), lie to everyone if it makes you more money (max pleasure) so long as you can avoid being caught (min pain).

If you believe the God of the Bible is correct, you will try one's utmost to live out the 10 commandments, constantly devote yourself to the ways of the Lord, and repent for your sins. Most importantly, you believe that there is a heaven and hell, those who believe in Jesus Christ will go to heaven, and thus you want other people to be saved, and you will strive to let others know of him.

These are two completely separate roads.

You completely missed the point of Dawkins. What accomplishments of expanding our knowledge of the natural universe has been done by theologians? To further quote Dawkins, to elucidate his intention of meaning: We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.

I already addressed what Dawkins was saying. Dawkins said: 'the achievements of theologicans don't affect anything' that theology is 'not the smallest use to anybody.' I just explained that your personal theology will DETERMINE how you live life. A person who does not believe in God, will choose to live his life in a way that is vastly different from someone who does believe in God. Your entire way of life will change depending which road you take, therefore theology is highly relevant.

Dawkins then proceeds to say that if science were eradicated, it would greatly affect our lives. Of course that is true. Again, theology and science are not antithetical. Theology acknowledges science, and gives it it's rightful place.

What theology is against, ironically, is when you make science your God. You start to worship science without acknowledging it's limitations. When you rely on science to explain EVERYTHING, and proudly declare: 'If science cannot prove it, then it is not true.'

For example, science relies on the scientific method. Now in order to *test* anything, the subject at hand, must be *measured.* Certain things CAN be measured, such a solid, liquid, gas, or the speed of light.

Certain things such as morality, CANNOT be measured. Therefore one cannot employ the scientific method in this situation, therefore this is outside the scope of science. Hence the development other branches of knowledge called morality (study of right and wrong), metaphysics (study of the fundamental nature of reality), and theology (study of God).

I will address your other points later

 

[Rogue]

According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:

theology
1. the field of study, thought, and analysis which treats of God. His attributes, and His relations to the universe; the science or study of divine things or religious truth; divinity. 2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this science or study.

You must adhere to definitions in the dictionary. When Dawkins stated "the achievements of theologians don't affect anything" and theology is "not the smallest use to anybody," keep his words within his context.

Certain things such as morality, CANNOT be measured. Therefore one cannot employ the scientific method in this situation, therefore this is outside the scope of science.

Food for thought....

Sam Harris, "Science can answer moral questions", TED Talk (2010).

Harris is innovating a provocative line of thinking in which science might be able to objectively map out the moral landscape. His arguments are cogent. He concedes it might not succeed, but advancements are possible.

 

[Outsider]

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?"

The Madman
Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Outsider]

Let's just accept that the belief in God requires a one to seriously sacrifizio dell'intelletto, or as Mr. Max Weber put it:

"There is absolutely no 'unbroken' religion working as a vital force which is not compelled at some point to demand credo non quod, sed quia absurdum--- the sacrifice of the intellect."



To Rouge on Mr. Sam Harris:

"'How could anything originate out of its opposite? for example truth out of error? or the will to truth out of the will to deception? or the pure and sunlike gaze of the sage out of lust? Such origins are impossible, whoever dreams of them is a fool, indeed worse; the highest value must have another, peculiar origin they cannot be derived from this tranistory, seductive, decpetive, paltry world, from this turmoil of delusion and lust...'

This way of judging constitutes the typical prejudgment and prejudice which give away the metaphysicians of all ages; this kind of valuation looms in the background of all their logical procedures; it is on account this 'faith' that they trouble themselves about 'knowledge,' about something that is finally baptized solemnly as 'the truth.' The fundamental faith of the metaphysicians is the faith in opposite values. It has not even occurred to the most cautious among them that one might have a double right here at the threshold where it was surely most necessary--- even if they vowed to themselves, 'de ominibus dubitandum.'"

And...

"There is a point in every philosophy when the philosopher's 'conviction' appears on the stage--- or to use the language of an ancient Mystery:

Adventavit asinus,
Pulcher et fortissimus."

(The ass arrived, beautiful and most brave.)

Beyond Good and Evil
-Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[jonwon]

The reason I personally made my posts was not to attack the catholic church, it was to stem the tide of ‘illuminati’ nonsense that attributed the secret society to devil worship.

To actually think the New world order, so called full of bankers, the elite of the world, worship a Diety on a sell by date is imo the height of pure ignorance.

Yeh you have the bilderberg meetings, which in some countries is not actually that secretive, even the house of commons in the UK, asks members of parliament if they have attended a bilderberg meeting, don’t believe me? Check Wiki – you can see scripts of the questions asked.

Again is that about the devil pulling the strings? Don’t be absurd, it’s just a meeting of powerful people, what they decide to do in that meeting Is what’s important, attributing imaginary deities, to these events is why when people discuss them, the conspiracy nut label comes out, because rather frankly facts have been twisted with fantasy - All those 'devil is doing it' nut cases are doing more harm than good, even though they are trying to bring the message out.

This goes for other such so called conspiracy stuff – the reason why people dismiss it, is because you always have some nut tying it to some religious event and all it takes is a belt buckle to prove it.

Yeh powerful people meet up, they control things behind the scenes, yes they fund presidents, have vested interest in politics - pull strings and shape the social structure, yes most people don’t know who they are, yes you won’t hear about these things from the networks they own or fund – does that mean the devil is at work, and we are living in a plane of existence that is fought over by two deities, good and evil? If you look at the so called good deity, he is not so good and the evil deity is not so evil in comparison to the good diety for starters. Also this misses the glaring fact of history and simply slots the world into the 20th century.

It’s just powerful people with money – wanting power and money, who believe they are doing the greater good - if you want to stick a god to them, then the only fitting one is Gaia – It’s not a wonderfully, amazing fantasy befit of a Hollywood movie, the truth is boring – hence why people probably seek out the alternative, because it’s entertainment, your all just simply hungry to be entertained – with fantasy that defies logic.

Videos about the devil and how he owns the masons or the music business is so fundamentally fuc*ed up it’s hard to even take that person seriously who would even consider it to be factual truth.

 

[Guoy Darko]

Name one theological view that has been proven conclusively wrong by science.

The age of the earth, to name one.

Science hypothesizes that the universe originated via the process of the big bang.

But where did the *dark matter* that was used in the big bang process originate from? In other words, 'how can *something* come from *nothing*? Did something always exist? How can something always exist?

Yes, where did God came from? How could God have always existed?

Actually theology, or the study of God, is quintessential. The conclusion you derive regarding God will determine how you live life.

For example, if your theological conclusion is that God does not exist, and that this life is the only life we will ever have, that we are just a collection of animals capable of feeling pleasure and pain, then the rational thing to do is to maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain. In other words, cheat on every exam so long as you don't get caught (min pain), kill people who want to harm you (max pleasure), IF you can get away with it (min pain), lie to everyone if it makes you more money (max pleasure) so long as you can avoid being caught (min pain).

If you believe the God of the Bible is correct, you will try one's utmost to live out the 10 commandments, constantly devote yourself to the ways of the Lord, and repent for your sins. Most importantly, you believe that there is a heaven and hell, those who believe in Jesus Christ will go to heaven, and thus you want other people to be saved, and you will strive to let others know of him.

Yes, I've heard this argument many times by Christians, but it just don't make sense. I never needed the fear of hell in order to have morals and be nice to people. To be honest, I think I only know about 3 Christians, the rest are all atheists. They're really nice people with strong morals! Maybe in the US you've never met an atheist and therefore think they're all mean people with no morals, but believe me: you don't need a religion to be a good person.

But I guess you think, you would go out and kill and rape, if you had no religion? Than Europe would be a big mess of stealing, raping and murdering people. But it's far from that. Crime and murder rates are much higher in the US.

 

[Trader]

Name one theological view that has been proven conclusively wrong by science.

The age of the earth, to name one.

First off, science relies on carbon dating which can be notoriously inaccurate.

Secondly, the Bible never gave the exact age of the earth. The word *day* used in Hebrew does not necessarily mean *one day.* There are splits within Christianity regarding the age of the Earth. Some Christians take a literal meaning to the word *day* others do not.

But remember, the Bible in its essence deals with spiritual matters. It does not purport to give a complete account of history, nor does it attempt to give a complete scientific account of how the universe was created. That's why when the Bible says: 'And God said, let there be light, and there was light,' the Bible does not even try to get into the chemistry and physics behind it.

Science hypothesizes that the universe originated via the process of the big bang.

But where did the *dark matter* that was used in the big bang process originate from? In other words, 'how can *something* come from *nothing*? Did something always exist? How can something always exist?

Yes, where did God came from? How could God have always existed?

The Bible calls God 'The I am that I am' in other words, the one WITHOUT a cause, in other words, God always existed.

Whether or not you buy into that is one thing.

But to boldly proclaim that your big bang theory gets around the issue of *first cause* is completely false.

Actually theology, or the study of God, is quintessential. The conclusion you derive regarding God will determine how you live life.

For example, if your theological conclusion is that God does not exist, and that this life is the only life we will ever have, that we are just a collection of animals capable of feeling pleasure and pain, then the rational thing to do is to maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain. In other words, cheat on every exam so long as you don't get caught (min pain), kill people who want to harm you (max pleasure), IF you can get away with it (min pain), lie to everyone if it makes you more money (max pleasure) so long as you can avoid being caught (min pain).

If you believe the God of the Bible is correct, you will try one's utmost to live out the 10 commandments, constantly devote yourself to the ways of the Lord, and repent for your sins. Most importantly, you believe that there is a heaven and hell, those who believe in Jesus Christ will go to heaven, and thus you want other people to be saved, and you will strive to let others know of him.

Yes, I've heard this argument many times by Christians, but it just don't make sense. I never needed the fear of hell in order to have morals and be nice to people. To be honest, I think I only know about 3 Christians, the rest are all atheists. They're really nice people with strong morals! Maybe in the US you've never met an atheist and therefore think they're all mean people with no morals, but believe me: you don't need a religion to be a good person.

But I guess you think, you would go out and kill and rape, if you had no religion?

You are missing the point. The point is, if you had no religion, and there is nothing spiritual in this world, that we are just animals who experience pleasure and pain, then the LOGICAL and RATIONAL thing for you to do, is to maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain. Therefore, if you are a logical man, you OUGHT to never help someone if it hurts you.

I would argue then, that you are an irrational atheist, why the hell are you being moral when it doesn't give you pleasure?

The reason why you do act moral sometimes even when it does not benefit you, is because you are in fact a spiritual creature and your conscience reminds you that there is such a thing as morals.

 

[Rogue]

Trader:
First off, science relies on carbon dating which can be notoriously inaccurate.

The age of the earth is not determined by carbon dating! (The answer is radiometric dating.) And if you want me to name one theological view which science proved wrong: geocentrism.

The point is, if you had no religion, and there is nothing spiritual in this world, that we are just animals who experience pleasure and pain, then the LOGICAL and RATIONAL thing for you to do, is to maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain. Therefore, if you are a logical man, you OUGHT to never help someone if it hurts you.

You are expressing a pervasive ignorance of anthropology and zoology. I think you need to read the book The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule. But of course you won't, because you have no interest in intellectual honesty.

 

[Outsider]

Rouge you shouldn't worry about proving science "right," it doesn't take a genius to see that science doesn't require the sacrifice of the intellect that religion does. Anyone who is intellectually honest with themselves will recognize that.

Truthfully, all people who believe in Christianity, like Pascal, eventually fall victim to sacrifizio dell'intelletto.

 

[Razor Sharp]

I can prove God exists. I'm talking definitive, science-refuting proof that will make people like Rogue kneel in prayer, and tremble before the Almighty!

Please send a check for $1,000 USD to RazorSharp Communications at 222 Gullible Lane, Bridgeport CN 12345 and you will receive the truth.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Whats wrong with the apple of knowledge ?

Nothing. It just goes back to my point that the Bible was constructed to get some control over the unwashed morons at the time.

 

[Trader]

Nothing. It just goes back to my point that the Bible was constructed to get some control over the unwashed morons at the time.

Very extreme statement you are making. And you are relying on what, to make that statement?

Some of history's brightest theologians, and scientists would love to disagree with you.

 

[Rogue]

Trader:
The Bible never gave the exact age of the earth. The word *day* used in Hebrew does not necessarily mean *one day.* There are splits within Christianity regarding the age of the Earth. Some Christians take a literal meaning to the word *day* others do not.

The methodological error in your thinking is the same principle as Nostradamus predicting the future. You are injecting shoehorned specificity into vagueness, changing definitions to avoid falsification. You are, in the words of James Randi, an unsinkable rubber duck.

shoehorning
Shoehorning is the process of force-fitting some current affair into one's personal, political, or religious agenda. So-called psychics frequently shoehorn events to fit vague statements they made in the past. This is an extremely safe procedure, since they can't be proven wrong and many people aren't aware of how easy it is to make something look like confirmation of a claim after the fact, especially if you give them wide latitude in making the shoe fit. It is common, for example, for the defenders of such things as the Bible Code or the "prophecies" of Nostradamus to shoehorn events to the texts rather than truly predict anything.

Another factor is volume. If you make a thousand or ten thousand or more predictions, or statements, each which are vague and broadly interpretable, you're statistically bound to get some things right. Confirmation bias: you remember the hits and forget the misses. The Bible is such a large text that it would actually be surprising to not have found some "connections" even if it was written by monkeys.