- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Cato @ July 08 2008,02:39) Not necessarily, belief in a supreme creator is not dependent on Genesis or any of the OT for that matter. Also inspired does not equate with literal, Genesis in particular appears to be largely allegorical, when looked at in that light it doesn't engender these creation debates. It's like trying to compare abstract poetry to geology and biology while debating the relative truths and values. The old Apple and oranges bit I think.
Shouldn't a belief based on allegory be allegorical? If Genesis is allegory then why not the gospels and Paul's wide-ranging anally-retentive rants? Do you believe in an metaphorical god (as Einstein did) or a literal one?Stuart
God NEVER said the earth was 6,000 years old, try to actually get a biblical concept before critizing my religion.
Quote (Theologian-and-Apologist @ July 14 2008,09:52) God NEVER said the earth was 6,000 years old, try to actually get a biblical concept before critizing my religion.
How old would you say the earth is, and what evidence supports that view? Also you might tell us what you find wrong with Ussher's geneological calculation.Stuart
Does anyone know excatlly how old the earth is other than GOD?
I mean is anyone still alive other than GOD here/there when it was created?
No.
So…All anyone is doing is guessing…taking a “Stab” at it.
Which there is nothing wrong with that I suppose.
Some things only GOD knows. Thats just the way it is.
Hi Samuel,
Perhaps older than the oldest fossil.
We should not assume creation began at Genesis 1 as earth was seen formed then.Quote (Samuel @ July 28 2008,14:08) Does anyone know excatlly how old the earth is other than GOD? I mean is anyone still alive other than GOD here/there when it was created?
No.
So…All anyone is doing is guessing…taking a “Stab” at it.
Which there is nothing wrong with that I suppose.
Some things only GOD knows. Thats just the way it is.
4.54 billion years old.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 28 2008,14:55) Hi Samuel,
Perhaps older than the oldest fossil.
We should not assume creation began at Genesis 1 as earth was seen formed then.
What evidence do you have that supports your view?How old would you say the earth is, Nick?
Stuart
Well,
Keep in mind that could be a deciption.
You can not possibly know how old the earth is. You were not here nor was anyone else that is currently alive today.
They are making their “Best Guess”
noneless its still a…
“Guess”
Which makes it a “Non-Fact”.
So …I'll put my trust in GOD.
I'm quite sure if he wants me to know this he will tell me.
When Jesus comes back I don't really expect him to come back asking me “How old is the earth?”
Its probably going to be more like…
“Have you kept my commandments?”
Quote (Stu @ July 28 2008,22:53) Quote (Samuel @ July 28 2008,14:08) Does anyone know excatlly how old the earth is other than GOD? I mean is anyone still alive other than GOD here/there when it was created?
No.
So…All anyone is doing is guessing…taking a “Stab” at it.
Which there is nothing wrong with that I suppose.
Some things only GOD knows. Thats just the way it is.
4.54 billion years old.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth
Stuart
Thanks for the link, Stu.
In regard to science, it should be understood that astronomy and biology have become intertwined in an attempt to explain theories of the other. I admit that just because one theory may have more validity than the other it doesn't necessarily mean if one is wrong both are wrong but among the (hard) sciences if one is wrong the other is most likely incorrect as well.
The idea of a universe vastly older than thousands of years but billions came about to support the theory of evolution. Without this vast period of time Darwin's theory simply fails to support itself. On a side note I ironically ended up siding with Carl Sagan on this issue of evolution in that evolution is statistically impossible.
Anyways, assuming evolution is false what other school's of though support this view? We have radiometric dating, red-shift of solar light, universe expansion, and perhaps a few more which if are relevant I apologize for forgetting them.
Radiometric dating has its own series of problems including cosmic radiation affecting isotopes of material measured, leakage of gasses which distort predictions of actual concentrations, and measurement of objects which date millions of years old but we know are only hundreds. These issues both make such objects appear younger and older depending on the isotope measured.
Redshift has its own set of problems such as predictions being made about the most powerful quasars have larger shifts than nearer but less powerful quasars to be false.
Also the expansion of the universe is an interesting model but for something that we understand to be expanding at a predictable cubic, we have no idea where the center is and have little understanding of the walls but merely know they are there. Also static models of the universe tend to explain problems in redshift far better.
Lastly there is the idea of dark matter and now dark energy. This idea originated when the calculated mass of the Milky Way fell far below the required mass for the observed shift in light due to gravitational forces. This being said it is an invented concept that so far we have little to no evidence for.
As far as a 6000 year old earth is concerned I believe it but only in the sense that I default to it. Sure the time from Adam to us is around 6000 years but I do not have any evidence to believe how long the earth was around before Adam was created. In all the debate I've heard about I like the argument with day being the Hebrew word “yom”(sp?).
I am not arguing a six thousand year old earth is correct but that our current scientific model is based in pseudoscience and fails within its own boundaries.
Embrigh
Quote In regard to science, it should be understood that astronomy and biology have become intertwined in an attempt to explain theories of the other.
Why can’t it all just be called science?Quote I admit that just because one theory may have more validity than the other it doesn't necessarily mean if one is wrong both are wrong but among the (hard) sciences if one is wrong the other is most likely incorrect as well.
So if Genesis is literally wrong (which it is) then the gospels are as well.Quote The idea of a universe vastly older than thousands of years but billions came about to support the theory of evolution.
Wrong. The two theories are supported by completely independent bodies of evidence.Quote Without this vast period of time Darwin's theory simply fails to support itself. On a side note I ironically ended up siding with Carl Sagan on this issue of evolution in that evolution is statistically impossible.
If you believe creationist quote-miners you will believe anyone.Quote Anyways, assuming evolution is false what other school's of though support this view?
Why are you assuming evolution is false? Have you got evidence that falsifies it, or are you just speculating in some religious fantasy world?Quote We have radiometric dating, red-shift of solar light, universe expansion, and perhaps a few more which if are relevant I apologize for forgetting them.
Microwave radiation, predicted and subsequently found several years later.Quote Radiometric dating has its own series of problems including cosmic radiation affecting isotopes of material measured, leakage of gasses which distort predictions of actual concentrations, and measurement of objects which date millions of years old but we know are only hundreds. These issues both make such objects appear younger and older depending on the isotope measured.
Except we have isochron dating and calibration by dendrochronology to take care of those issues.Quote Redshift has its own set of problems such as predictions being made about the most powerful quasars have larger shifts than nearer but less powerful quasars to be false.
Also the expansion of the universe is an interesting model but for something that we understand to be expanding at a predictable cubic, we have no idea where the center is and have little understanding of the walls but merely know they are there. Also static models of the universe tend to explain problems in redshift far better.
So what is your predictive, falsifiable theory of cosmology?Quote Lastly there is the idea of dark matter and now dark energy. This idea originated when the calculated mass of the Milky Way fell far below the required mass for the observed shift in light due to gravitational forces. This being said it is an invented concept that so far we have little to no evidence for.
Which is one of the reasons we built the Large Hadron Collider.Quote As far as a 6000 year old earth is concerned I believe it but only in the sense that I default to it. Sure the time from Adam to us is around 6000 years but I do not have any evidence to believe how long the earth was around before Adam was created. In all the debate I've heard about I like the argument with day being the Hebrew word “yom”(sp?).
Anyone who believes the earth came into existence AFTER the start of the agricultural revolution is either an idiot, a liar or just ignorant. I would you like to give you the credit of being in the latter category.Quote I am not arguing a six thousand year old earth is correct but that our current scientific model is based in pseudoscience and fails within its own boundaries.
…but you cannot disprove any of the standard model of cosmology or any of evolution by natural selection, so your post in fact consists of baseless smears on the detailed, professional and evidentially supported work of scientists across the world. Just because you want to believe the mythological cosmology of ancient Middle-Eastern goat herders.Stuart
Hi,
Science has become the teacher that men listen to.
The teachings of Jesus Christ are relegated to pagan superstition.
Will there be faith on earth when King Jesus returns.? That depends on you.
Choose life.
There’s so much fiction around now.. things are getting hard. Let’s hope to hold onto what we once knew as truth absolute. Let’s hope there is faith found on Earth.
Hi Miia,
We were told by Daniel that knowledge would increase.
But knowledge without Wisdom is futility.
Scripture is wisdom written,
Lk 11.49
Therefore also said the wisdom of God
’I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will slay and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
