Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Fervent · Friday at 11:15 PM

BCP1928 said:
In Western rodeos there is a performer known as a rodeo clown. He is dressed as clown more or less and he scampers around the ring doing funny things, but that's not his real job. His real job is to step in when a rider is thrown or gets into some other trouble. On foot, he has to protect the rider and try to divert an angered animal until more help can arrive. Something similar happens here when a biblical creationist gets in over his head. Have you noticed?

I'm sure it does, but I think this particular character is just having a laugh. The Alfred E. Newman avatar alone speaks volumes, as does the complete disinterest in anything approaching a reasonable discussion.

BCP1928 · Friday at 11:56 PM

Fervent said:
I'm sure it does, but I think this particular character is just having a laugh. The Alfred E. Newman avatar alone speaks volumes, as does the complete disinterest in anything approaching a reasonable discussion.

But he was able to take the heat off 1tonne.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 3:36 AM

AV1611VET said:
I'm not a YEC anyway, so I'll just let them tell you you're wrong.

AV1611VET said:
YOU realize you're dealing with someone who thinks I'm a YEC, don't you?

AV1611VET said:
Q: How old do I say the earth is? (Remember, now. You think I'm a YEC, so don't go outside of YEC parameters.)

You say that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old but that it was created 6,000 years ago. Buddy... that's still Young Earth Creationism. You ARE a YEC.

1Tonne · Saturday at 4:16 AM

The Barbarian said:
100,000 years is about ten times what most YECs would say.

I’ve lost track of the conversation a bit, but regarding how old the earth is, Genesis 1:1–2, it says:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”
This doesn’t clearly state whether those events happened on Day One or before it. It’s possible they’re part of the first day, or that they occurred prior to it.
Then verses 3–5 go on to describe what is specifically called the first day:
“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.”
So, it’s a bit unclear whether “the beginning” in verse 1 is included within the first day or preceded it. The Earth could be millions of years old, but life and anything else is within the 6000-1000 years.

Anyway, just a heads-up: I’m heading away on holiday in 12 hours and getting things ready, so I may be slow to respond. I’ll probably reply properly when I get back!

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 4:31 AM

1Tonne said:
I’ve lost track of the conversation a bit, but regarding how old the earth is, Genesis 1:1–2, it says:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”
This doesn’t clearly state whether those events happened on Day One or before it. It’s possible they’re part of the first day, or that they occurred prior to it.
Then verses 3–5 go on to describe what is specifically called the first day:
“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.”
So, it’s a bit unclear whether “the beginning” in verse 1 is included within the first day or preceded it. The Earth could be millions of years old, but life and anything else is within the 6000-1000 years.

Anyway, just a heads-up: I’m heading away on holiday in 12 hours and getting things ready, so I may be slow to respond. I’ll probably reply properly when I get back!

It's not so much a thing where it's outright stated in the Bible, it's based around the chronology of the genealogy of Jesus and his forebears as worked out by the Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland, working backwards to Adam. It's just one of those extra-Biblical things that's taken as fact by certain Christians.

AV1611VET · Saturday at 6:08 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It's not so much a thing where it's outright stated in the Bible, it's based around the chronology of the genealogy of Jesus and his forebears as worked out by the Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland, working backwards to Adam. It's just one of those extra-Biblical things that's taken as fact by certain Christians.

Here's how this sounds:

Thomas Paine: 1737-1809
Charles Darwin: 1809-1882
Max Born: 1882-1970
Elon Lindenstrauss: 1970-present

Conclusion: It's been a billion years from Thomas Paine to Elon Lindenstrauss.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 6:14 AM

AV1611VET said:
Here's how this sounds:

Thomas Paine: 1737-1809

Charles Darwin: 1809-1882

Max Born: 1882-1970

Elon Lindenstrauss: 1970-present

Conclusion: It's been a billion years from Thomas Paine to Elon Lindenstrauss.

What are you blathering about?

AV1611VET · Saturday at 6:19 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You say that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old but that it was created 6,000 years ago. Buddy... that's still Young Earth Creationism. You ARE a YEC.

Buddy, you are No True Scotsman

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 6:22 AM

AV1611VET said:
Buddy, you are No True Scotsman

I'm Scots Welsh actually.

And you're definitely a Young Earth Creationist because you believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. You cannot argue against that at all.

AV1611VET · Saturday at 6:25 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And you're definitely a Young Earth Creationist ...

But you have to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy to make that accusation stick in your mind.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 6:29 AM

AV1611VET said:
But you have to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy to make that accusation stick in your mind.

... not in the slightest. You are a YEC; you believe that God created the world 6000 years ago, but used embedded age to make it look for all intents and purposes 4.5 billion years old. How does that not make you a YEC?

AV1611VET · Saturday at 6:31 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... not in the slightest. You are a YEC; you believe that God created the world 6000 years ago, but used embedded age to make it look for all intents and purposes 4.5 billion years old. How does that not make you a YEC?

Thanks for the QED.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 6:32 AM

AV1611VET said:
Thanks for the QED.

Seriously, I do want you to answer the question: You believe that God created the world 6000 years ago, but used embedded age to make it look for all intents and purposes 4.5 billion years old. How does that not make you a YEC?

AV1611VET · Saturday at 7:12 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Seriously, I do want you to answer the question: You believe that God created the world 6000 years ago, but used embedded age to make it look for all intents and purposes 4.5 billion years old.

The way you worded your question shows your confusion.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
How does that not make you a YEC?

The only thing that is going to make me a YEC in your mind is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 7:13 AM

AV1611VET said:
The way you worded your question shows your confusion.

Then correct my confusion then.

AV1611VET said:
The only thing that is going to make me a YEC in your mind is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

AV... you know what, fine. It's a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Then correct it. Correct me.

AV1611VET · Saturday at 7:19 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Then correct my confusion then.

I'll try.

WRONG: You believe that God created the world 6000 years ago, but used embedded age to make it look for all intents and purposes 4.5 billion years old.

RIGHT: You believe that God created the world 6000 years ago with embedded age, to make it function like a 4.5 billion year old planet.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 7:22 AM

AV1611VET said:
I'll try.

WRONG: You believe that God created the world 6000 years ago, but used embedded age to make it look for all intents and purposes 4.5 billion years old.

RIGHT: You believe that God created the world 6000 years ago, and embedded age to make it function like a 4.5 billion year old planet.

... That's still Young Earth Creationism. Hem and haw over details like embedded age, but it's still very much Young Earth Creationism, thus making you a Young Earth Creationist.

BCP1928 · Saturday at 7:47 AM

I'll call him a EAC instead of a YEC if he wants. It really doesn't matter--both doctrines are equally vacuous and unbiblical.

The Barbarian · Saturday at 8:31 AM

1Tonne said:
So, it’s a bit unclear whether “the beginning” in verse 1 is included within the first day or preceded it. The Earth could be millions of years old, but life and anything else is within the 6000-1000 years.

Here, you're assuming the "yom" of Genesis are literal 24-hour days. Which has never been orthodoxy in Jewish or Christian theology.

Jerry N. · Saturday at 8:39 AM

Hans Blaster said:
Matthew was not a contemporary. He wrote 40 years after the ministry of Jesus. His work is also mostly based on a similarly aged text also written by a non-witness, non-contemporary derived from the internal tales of the community of followers.

Pliny is good. There is also Philo. I'm sure there are a couple others. The ministry must have been reasonable small or unimportant enough to be noticed, but it is hard to quantify what is "too small". Around the time gospels are written, then external observers do start to notice and mention the movement, including Pliny the Younger.

But none of this is germane and only came up because a poster wanting to bolster supernatural causation (for creationism, one would think) cited the "well testified" supernatural aspects of the life and ministry of Jesus. Whether it was or was not of a supernatural or divine nature, it still is not "well documented" contemporaneously.

I looked up Philo, and I had studied his writings. I think he is great, but I'm surprised you picked him.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Similar threads