In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Subduction Zone]

To get back on topic, there are Christian groups that realize that believing the mythical stories of Genesis literally would require believing in a dishonest or lying God. I have heard time and again creationists claim that "God would be lying" if Genesis were not true. It is rather ironic that since God made the Earth according to their beliefs and all of the evidence tells us that there was no worldwide flood, that life is the product of evolution, and that their version of God had to make that evidence, then they are in effect claiming that "God lied".

Here is a link to one such group:

http://biologos.org/

Though not a wholehearted endorsement of science, they do accept the fact that life evolved, and that the conventional idea of a Flood never happened. Their approach is that if science and the Bible appear to disagree with each other perhaps it is not science that is wrong, but the interpretation of the Bible that is wrong. The remember the failure of Christianity when it came to Galileo:

"Church tradition has also been appropriately challenged as new historical or scientific evidence presents itself. Consider the scientific work of Galileo, which overturned an earth-centered worldview and thus irrevocably affected our interpretation of passages like Psalm 93:1. - See more at: http://biologos.org/common-question...fic-and-scriptural-truth#sthash.NKac4NKf.dpuf"

 

[StanJ]

The rules say private messages. These are public messages. You don't get to reinterpret the rules.

The rule says "personal contact" and I have asked for it to be clarified.

 

[StanJ]

Pray for him, bro.

It's better to just put him on ignore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The rule says "personal contact" and I have asked for it to be clarified.

It was clarified by a moderator. The post was rather obvious Let me find it and link it for you.

Actually a site advisor:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...th-apparent-age.7945946/page-23#post-69626525

" No contact is in respect to personal communication, not threads. However, responding in a negative manner or personalized manner that is argumentative when asked to cease communication, can be a violation. Responding to the content of a post without personal hints and sticking to that content is allowed even if there is a no contact request in other settings (profile, PM, blessings, etc.). "

Now let's get back on topic. I posted a link to a Christian group that accepts evolution. Any comments?

 

[RickG]

You misunderstand, I said how did they observe? Nobody was there.

Lets take a look at a different dating method, one that is not radiometric, Ice Core dating. I mention this one because we can measure back from today to way in the past before humans. What do you perceive to be a problem with that method?

 

[lesliedellow]

Lets take a look at a different dating method, one that is not radiometric, Ice Core dating. I mention this one because we can measure back from today to way in the past before humans. What do you perceive to be a problem with that method?

What's wrong with it? It gives an answer which doesn't correspond to the answer I have already decided upon. That's what's wrong with it.

 

[RickG]

What's wrong with it? It gives an answer which doesn't correspond to the answer I have already decided upon. That's what's wrong with it.

There are a couple of reasons I specified ice cores, the main one would be that annual layers of ice occur today and proceed back in time beyond the 6 to 10 thousand year creation science age of the earth. Thus having both , yes were were there and , no man did not exist then. Both scenarios to compare.

 

[florida2]

0

Actually you can count me in on that.

 

[StanJ]

Lets take a look at a different dating method, one that is not radiometric, Ice Core dating. I mention this one because we can measure back from today to way in the past before humans. What do you perceive to be a problem with that method?

In a word... Vostok.

 

[VirOptimus]

In a word... Vostok.

If I may ask, what, if any, education in science do you have?

 

[StanJ]

If I may ask, what, if any, education in science do you have?

Grade 10. You?

 

[VirOptimus]

Grade 10. You?

University. You should study science more if you want to credibly debate it.

 

[StanJ]

University. You should study science more if you want to credibly debate it.

Why would that be? So people who have a lot more education than I have in evolution won't look so bad when I prove them wrong?

 

[VirOptimus]

Why would that be? So people who have a lot more education than I have in evolution won't look so bad when I prove them wrong?

If you could "prove evolution wrong" then you would be set for life. Nobel prize, what have you. In fact, upending an established scientific theory is every scientists wet dream.

But you cant, and you never will as you are far to ignorant on the subject. Your arguments only show your own shortcommings in knowledge.

 

[StanJ]

If you could "prove evolution wrong" then you would be set for life. Nobel prize, what have you. In fact, upending an established scientific theory is every scientists wet dream.
But you cant, and you never will as you are far to ignorant on the subject. Your arguments only show your own shortcommings in knowledge.

I think you're showing your fear now, but here is what one Nobel Prize Laureate said;

“Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life – the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.”

Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
(Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, p. 147.)

 

[VirOptimus]

I think you're showing your fear now, -snip-

Haha, no.

In your own words, what does the theory of evolution entails?

Further, explain your own main scientific gripes with the theory.

 

[Chris B]

Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979),

Does his comment get weighed, or just accepted if it fits "the paradigm in place"?

Even if he had a point when he said it, he said it at least 35 years ago, if not a decade or more before that.
And awful lot has changed in that time.
Apart from it being long enough to see short-lifespan lifeforms evolve.
And even spot a species of two dividing, though that's a slow and prolonged event on the scale of a human lifetime.

 

[Chris B]

I can present it another way if you like.
Does that make the point better?

Mark 8:12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a (un-verifiable) sign?
Truly I tell you, no (un-verifiable) sign will be given to it.

or this

Mark 8:12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a (miracle) ?
Truly I tell you, no (miracle) will be given to it.

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think you're showing your fear now, but here is what one Nobel Prize Laureate said;

“Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life – the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.”

Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
(Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, p. 147.)

Oh, wow. 1945. Wowee. Now, isn't it a shame that we haven't learnt SOO much more about the evolutionary process, the human genome, DNA and other things since that time?
And if it's not glaringly obvious, I'm being sarcastic. If you want to use the words of scientists to try and discredit evolution, keep it up to date.

 

[RickG]

In a word... Vostok.

You didn't answer the question. What is the problem you see in annual layers contained in ice core chronology? We see exactly the same information in all ice cores from annual snow accumulation today back through time before man. If you think they are not reliable, then please explain why.