How would you prove the Universe is old?

[Ursie]

You think so?

Yes, I do!

 

[Split Rock]

The Bible is proof enough for me. Not to mention the way that creation works, it's infinite detail, the precise way in which the earth in situated in reference to the sun, moon, other planets etc. The precise speed and tilt of the earth. All of these things are wonderful proofs of Creation. Whether or not you accept them as proof does not change the FACT.

This is sometimes called the anthropic principle. That nature and our planet were fine-tuned for our benefit. Yet, the truth is we are fine-tuned for our planet, not the other way around. If we indeed evolved on this planet, then it only makes sense that we are adapted to it, not it to us. If life were not possible here at all, we would not exist. Have you ever heard the story of the puddle, who thought how great it was that the hole he was in was shaped just perfect for him? It really is the same idea you are expousing.

I can say the same to you that you are saying to me. I believe in the facts stated above, you believe in the 'facts' as 'discovered' by science. Your facts take a whole lot more faith than mine, but hey, it's a free country so you can have your religion of science. In another hundred years or so, if this planet continues, the scientist will have changed their whole paradigm again. 150 years isn't a very long time in the scheme of things.

Well the fact of evolution is that we can see it operate. We can infer from the physical evidence that we have a common ancestor with all other life on earth. You are refering to your beliefs that you feel are as solid as physical evidence. That is fine, but it still isn't based on physical evidence. Your interpretation of scripture is certainly not based on physical evidence and may well be wrong, even if your faith in Jesus as The Savior is not.

As far as faith is concerned this is a bizarre idea of modern creationism. Science is not based on faith. If you have less faith in Jesus Than I have in evolution, then you have NONE. Weird for a Christain to make that kind of statement, just to grasp for some parity.

I think your science holds about as much weight as a flea. You think my bible is not proof. I think we are at a stalemate. Of course, each of us seems to think the other is just plain silly.

If you want to know what weight science holds in explaining nature and the physical world around us, all you need to do is look around you. Our science is responsible for all your little modern conveniences, including the computer you are using right now. Show us what your "facts" have provided mankind. I am refering specifically to creationism, now. You cannot show us anything. Who is the one being silly?

As I've said before, the proof is in the Word, take it or leave it.

What is you are misinterpreting The Word? Is that at all possible? Is it possible that the Seventh-day Adventist Church, who came up with many of the ideas that are now incorporated into creationist beliefs, were wrong back in the 1840s?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Anyone ever consider the possibility that God is powerful beyond what your minds can comprehend?

Yes and it would make perfect sense. He is that being than which none greater can be conceived.

It only really matters if he actually exists.

I guess if you took it seriously ,you'd have to find another job

Are you saying my life's work as a scientist is naught in your holy eyes?

Sorry but you seem to have a big pride problem, Ursie. You really need to dial it back a bit.

I love science and if your god doesn't like scientists then he doesn't like me. Period. End of story.

Perhaps you could learn to simply revel in the creation and know that you had no need to explain every last bit of it scientifically.

Your ignorance is showing again. YOU don't understand what makes a scientist happy. I guarantee you I revel in "creation" precisely because I spend just about every waking hour thinking about it and investigating it at ridiculously detailed level. In fact if it's a battle of who is reveling more in the creation your god put here, I suspect it's the folks who look at the most closely and who are fascinated by it beyond your wildest dreams.

I don't expect you to understand that looking closely at this world is the most interesting thing I can imagine!

IF, however, one loves ignorance and it's all just pretty lights flashing at them until they get raptured and get to leave this place to go to some place better then please don't assume that it is the same "surficial" and pointless place for the rest of us.

 

[CoderHead]

Life went on without many of the things we now enjoy for millenia. I could do without the luxury of those things. I could not do without God.

Indeed it did, although people didn't live as long or have access to the volumes of knowledge that we currently have at our fingertips. If you believe you could live without everything except God, then what are you doing wasting your time here? Go, sell your possessions, shun technology and find yourself a nice little cave. I'm sure you'll be very happy, just you and God.

...or does it not work that way?

 

[Split Rock]

Life went on without many of the things we now enjoy for millenia. I could do without the luxury of those things. I could not do without God.

Indeed it did, although people didn't live as long or have access to the volumes of knowledge that we currently have at our fingertips. If you believe you could live without everything except God, then what are you doing wasting your time here? Go, sell your possessions, shun technology and find yourself a nice little cave. I'm sure you'll be very happy, just you and God.

...or does it not work that way?

You know, I have been asking the same question of creationists here who flatly state that they reject science, while typing away at their computer and posting their remarks on the internet, safe in their cozy warm lighted home.

 

[Hespera]

"Perhaps you could learn to simply revel in the creation and know that you had no need to explain every last bit of it scientifically."
​

Your ignorance is showing again. YOU don't understand what makes a scientist happy. I guarantee you I revel in "creation" precisely because I spend just about every waking hour thinking about it and investigating it at ridiculously detailed level. In fact if it's a battle of who is reveling more in the creation your god put here, I suspect it's the folks who look at the most closely and who are fascinated by it beyond your wildest dreams.

I don't expect you to understand that looking closely at this world is the most interesting thing I can imagine!

.

When a person does this "revelling in creation" that the religionists talk about, they arent really doing that at all. Nor are they praising a non-existent god. They are just looking at the inside of their own eyelids and praising their own imagination.

DONT bother telling a geologist that you get more out of looking at the landscape than does a person who actually understands what he is seeing.

My bf has an uncle who is a corn farmer. to the rest of us, its just fields of corn, mile on mile. boring as dirt. Ride with him, and he can read fields like a book, and keep a running commentary going on each one.

Anyway, there is this whole notion that the theocreos have that they appreciate things more than the non religious do. Its awful narcissistic, but they dont know that.

 

[Cabal]

Which Jews? Today's Jews who are influenced by modern science. Or those from 150 years ago and before?

Both.

Goodness, even St Augustine in the 4th century thought creationism was junk.

Anyone ever consider the possibility that God is powerful beyond what your minds can comprehend? That He could actually have created an entire universe in a matter of 24 hour days?

I noticed you attempted to pick the one hole in my post you could find and ignored the rest.

Would you mind responding to the Bible verse I quoted now please?

Additionally, six days is as arbitrary as 4 billion years

That he could have included something which looked like a historical record in an instant (whether in a massive flood or within the original 6 days of creation)?

Well, that would be fairly deceptive then? And why would he do so?

That He is actually infinitely more intelligent than all the masses of scientists who have ever and will ever live? Consider it.

Trust me, I have. And you know what? I think he's a lot more intelligent again than all the masses of creationists who have ever and will ever live

Maybe you should consider that an all-powerful God could have created by evolution instead?

I guess if you took it seriously ,you'd have to find another job, but maybe it would be more pleasant than arguing with all the loopy creationists out there.

Belief in God =/= having to quit science.

Perhaps you could learn to simply revel in the creation and know that you had no need to explain every last bit of it scientifically.

Except firstly, there is nothing wrong with that. It may tread on some people's personal interpretations of the Bible, but no one ever said they were sacred or untouchable.

Secondly, some of us are MADE by God to be curious about the mechanisms of these things - and how does it do God a disservice to reveal his mechanisms?

You could trust that an omnipotent God had it all in hand, from beginnning to end and created it for your and His good pleasure. Just an idea.

Oh trust me, I do. And it gives me great pleasure exploring scientifically how it all works

The Bible is proof enough for me. Not to mention the way that creation works, it's infinite detail, the precise way in which the earth in situated in reference to the sun, moon, other planets etc. The precise speed and tilt of the earth. All of these things are wonderful proofs of Creation. Whether or not you accept them as proof does not change the FACT.

Yes....the position of the Earth and planets is factual. Don't think anyone's going to dispute that.

Fine-tuned arguments, however, are all bogus.

You do realise if the conditions for supporting our life weren't present....we wouldn't be alive? Or if we were, we'd be in a form adapted to those conditions. So really, it proves nothing.

I can say the same to you that you are saying to me. I believe in the facts stated above, you believe in the 'facts' as 'discovered' by science.

Nice use of air-quotes there, bravo.

Your facts take a whole lot more faith than mine, but hey, it's a free country so you can have your religion of science.

No thanks - if you have to have such self-hatred for your own faith to be a creationist like you're displaying here, I think I'll pass

In another hundred years or so, if this planet continues, the scientist will have changed their whole paradigm again. 150 years isn't a very long time in the scheme of things.

Only if the evidence warrants it. I do love how you can claim science is a religion in one breath without any good reason for doing so and then get huffy about one of the things science does better than any church ever has - admit when it's made a mistake or when its ideas need revision. Quite impressive doublethink going on there.

In my opinion, churches should be on their knees praying for the level of consensus and good thinking displayed by scientists. The level of disparity between denominations and inability to be humble over pointless doctrinal disputes is quite laughable, given that Jesus' last prayer was that we be one, and his repeated warnings in the epistles not to get caught up in pointless, petty disputes.

Life went on without many of the things we now enjoy for millenia. I could do without the luxury of those things. I could not do without God.

And creationists wouldn't have nearly the audience they would have if they weren't so fortunate enough to have the internet and computers to discuss their curious ideas.

You're welcome.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible is proof enough for me.

Enough proof to allow you to ignore facts? To ignore reality?

Not to mention the way that creation works, it's infinite detail, the precise way in which the earth in situated in reference to the sun, moon, other planets etc. The precise speed and tilt of the earth. All of these things are wonderful proofs of Creation. Whether or not you accept them as proof does not change the FACT.

Why are these proofs of creation? You never explain that.

I can say the same to you that you are saying to me. I believe in the facts stated above, you believe in the 'facts' as 'discovered' by science. Your facts take a whole lot more faith than mine, but hey, it's a free country so you can have your religion of science. In another hundred years or so, if this planet continues, the scientist will have changed their whole paradigm again. 150 years isn't a very long time in the scheme of things.

Are you saying that the DNA sequences in this paper are wrong?

Inaugural Article: Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Are you saying that if you used the same primers and same PCR protocol that you would amplify DNA with a different sequence than that listed by the authors? Is that what you are saying? Also, please explain why DNA sequencing requires faith. This is the first I have heard of this.

I think your science holds about as much weight as a flea.

I know you do, but you are incapable of stating why other than restating your dogmatic religious beliefs. I have to wonder how you can even argue against geocentrism.

You think my bible is not proof.

I can DEMONSTRATE, using real facts, that a literal reading of Genesis is inconsistent with reality. It's not about your opinion or mine. It is about demonstration. I have it. You don't. That's the difference.

As I've said before, the proof is in the Word, take it or leave it.

What about reality? That has no say? Even if I can show you that reality is completely inconsistent with what you claim you will still stick to your guns, right? There is no evidence I can ever show you that will change your mind, right?

 

[Freodin]

...some of us are MADE by God to be curious about the mechanisms of these things...

An interesting choice of words.

Every Christian - and certainly every creationist - I know believes that God, in some way or another, MADE them.

Yet I haven´t heard anyone - not even a creationist - claim that God took some earth of the ground, formed them and brought them into life by breathing into their nose. They all know and accept that they were sired, born and raised by other humans, offspring of their parents, just like any other (well, most) animals on this planet.

Why don´t they see any problem with God having "made" them via these rather natural means, but need to insist that God "made" everything else via supernatural means?

Do they think they are somehow "less made" (or made less?), because they were born instead of formed from earth?

 

[Cabal]

An interesting choice of words.

Every Christian - and certainly every creationist - I know believes that God, in some way or another, MADE them.

Yet I haven´t heard anyone - not even a creationist - claim that God took some earth of the ground, formed them and brought them into life by breathing into their nose. They all know and accept that they were sired, born and raised by other humans, offspring of their parents, just like any other (well, most) animals on this planet.

Why don´t they see any problem with God having "made" them via these rather natural means, but need to insist that God "made" everything else via supernatural means?

Do they think they are somehow "less made" (or made less?), because they were born instead of formed from earth?

As far as I can tell, only Adam would have been formed from the Earth, even if the Fall hadn't occurred. Quite why Adam is so lauded for being formed from dust among other humans is not something I particularly understand, given that Psalm 139 praises a quite clearly post-fall gestation process as being fearful and wonderful. For a post-fall process, apparently it's not that bad according to the Bible (well, David, anyway) but apparently being formed from dust is better, I dunno...

 

[laconicstudent]

The Bible is proof enough for me.

Appeals to authority = logical fallacy.

Not to mention the way that creation works,

How?

it's infinite detail, the precise way in which the earth in situated in reference to the sun, moon, other planets etc. The precise speed and tilt of the earth.

That is astrophysics. What mechanism did God to physically do this again?

All of these things are wonderful proofs of Creation.

No, non sequiter. They are observations for which science has developed parsimonious explanation. This is like my claiming that grass is green is proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorns rule the world and control the weather. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Whether or not you accept them as proof does not change the FACT.

LOL. Whether you accept it or not doesn't change the fact that your argument is fallacious.

I can say the same to you that you are saying to me. I believe in the facts stated above, you believe in the 'facts' as 'discovered' by science.

Facts have to be proven first before they can be stated as such.

Your facts take a whole lot more faith than mine, but hey, it's a free country so you can have your religion of science.

Except

1. Science isn't a religion
2. It doesn't require faith when you can observe it. I don't take on faith that the sky is blue. I can see that it is so.

In another hundred years or so, if this planet continues, the scientist will have changed their whole paradigm again. 150 years isn't a very long time in the scheme of things.

You seem to think this is a bad thing.

I think your science holds about as much weight as a flea.

argumentum ad hominem = fail.

You think my bible is not proof.

You have been told this a million times. The Bible isn't proof until you can objectively test for God.

I think we are at a stalemate.

No, you've lost.

Of course, each of us seems to think the other is just plain silly.

Clearly.

As I've said before, the proof is in the Word, take it or leave it.[/quote]

 

[AV1611VET]

So are you admitting that inspiration from God has nothing to do with how a person interprets the Bible?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are unwilling to go against them even if they are wrong?

That has to be done in the proper venue, or it's a sin.

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

 

[BananaSlug]

Yes.

So why do you think your interpretation of Genesis is right, when God doesn't let you know which interpretation is right?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why do you think your interpretation of Genesis is right, when God doesn't let you know which interpretation is right?

As the Bible says:

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That has to be done in the proper venue, or it's a sin.

Ahhh, I see. So you take care of internal disagreements "behind closed doors".

Let's see if I got this right. If a Christian said the same thing an atheist says on here about the history of the earth and evolution (and many of them do) you would not take them to task on the topic.

But if you see an "atheist" icon you can say whatever you like?

 

[BananaSlug]

As the Bible says:

Isn't that still your interpretation of that verse? Are you saying any interpretation is right? If so, why does it matter if evolution is true or not if interpreting the Bible is left up to the individual?

I like how you tried to use Paul's letter to the Romans about eating meat sacrified to idols in an attempt to relate it to interpreting the Bible.

1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. Romans 14:1-5

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahhh, I see. So you take care of internal disagreements "behind closed doors".

That's one way to put it.

Let's see if I got this right. If a Christian said the same thing an atheist says on here about the history of the earth and evolution (and many of them do) you would not take them to task on the topic.

It actually depends. I'm not just going to roll over and let TEs bully us w/o saying something. Especially when they're picking on a newbie.

But if you see an "atheist" icon you can say whatever you like?

No, I can't say "whatever I like" --- I have standards.

Did you feel you could say whatever you liked to Glenn Morton?

 

[Ursie]

When a person does this "revelling in creation" that the religionists talk about, they arent really doing that at all. Nor are they praising a non-existent god. They are just looking at the inside of their own eyelids and praising their own imagination.

DONT bother telling a geologist that you get more out of looking at the landscape than does a person who actually understands what he is seeing.

My bf has an uncle who is a corn farmer. to the rest of us, its just fields of corn, mile on mile. boring as dirt. Ride with him, and he can read fields like a book, and keep a running commentary going on each one.

Anyway, there is this whole notion that the theocreos have that they appreciate things more than the non religious do. Its awful narcissistic, but they dont know that.

I will certainly concede that you are very intrigued by and enjoy the creation and that those who look closely can appreciate more. Just don't agree with you on how it came about. But I'm glad you enjoy it immensely.

 

[Cabal]

It actually depends. I'm not just going to roll over and let TEs bully us w/o saying something. Especially when they're picking on a newbie.

Aw, diddums.

Try being denounced as non-Christian on a near daily basis, by other Christians.