Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

[Loudmouth]

If you really need to believe that...then go ahead. I'm not really into your 5th grade style arguments.

You mean arguments like this one?

"I laugh at post 67 and the one liner replies."--57, post 98

 

[-57]

You mean arguments like this one?

"I laugh at post 67 and the one liner replies."--57, post 98

Why do you insist on replying like a 5th grader?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you insist on replying like a 5th grader?

This is a 5th grader.


"I laugh at post 67 and the one liner replies."--57, post 98

 

[lesliedellow]

Special pleading.

We want to believe that the speed of light varies in time and space. And why do we want to believe that? Not because there is any evidence for it, but because some such idea is necessary before we can pretend that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[-57]

Special pleading.

We want to believe that the speed of light varies in time and space. And why do we want to believe that? Not because there is any evidence for it, but because some such idea is necessary before we can pretend that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Would light move inside of a black hole?

 

[lesliedellow]

Would light move inside of a black hole?

Yes.

Even if it didn't, it would be possible to give a physical reason for its different behaviour there, so that wouldn't be special pleading. Special pleading is when you make up an ad hoc hypothesis to let you believe what you want to believe, and for which there is otherwise no reason to give it credance.

 

[-57]

Yes.

Even if it didn't, it would be possible to give a physical reason for its different behaviour there, so that wouldn't be special pleading. Special pleading is when you make up an ad hoc hypothesis to let you believe what you want to believe, and for which there is otherwise no reason to give it credance.

You special plead evolutionism all the time....which goes against Calvinist principles.

 

[lesliedellow]

You special plead evolutionism all the time....which goes against Calvinist principles.

I accept evolution because I would have a hard time explaing to myself why it has almost universal support amongst biologists, of all religious persuassions and none, if the evidence was not there to back it up.

Even, in the extremely unlikely event that somebody demonstrated that the biologists had got it all wrong, you would then have to start on the astrophysicists, and show that they hadn't got a clue what they were talking about, either. And once you had finished with them, you would then have to start on the geologists....

In short, you would need to show that everybody was wrong about everything, except, of course, for the YECs. Personally, it strains my credulity to believe that so many people could be so wrong about so many things.

 

[-57]

I accept evolution because I would have a hard time explaing to myself why it has almost universal support amongst biologists, of all religious persuassions and none, if the evidence was not there to back it up.

Even, in the extremely unlikely event that somebody demonstrated that the biologists had got it all wrong, you would then have to start on the astrophysicists, and show that they hadn't got a clue what they were talking about, either. And once you had finished with them, you would then have to start on the geologists....

In short, you would need to show that everybody was wrong about everything, except, of course, for the YECs.

Dude, your original sin.......goes away.

You change the bible too much to force it to conform to evolutionism.

 

[lesliedellow]

Dude, your original sin.......goes away.

You change the bible too much to force it to conform to evolutionism.

If an interpretation of Genesis is incompatible with what is known from fields outside of theology, and the Bible is true, then that interpretation must be wrong.

 

[-57]

If an interpretation of Genesis is incompatible with what is known from fields outside of theology, and the Bible is true, then that interpretation must be wrong.

Sure, if your right. But you're not...and are required to change the bible to make it fit your bad science.

Do you realize that the resurrection of Jesus is incompatible with what is known from fields outside of theology, and the Bible is true, then that interpretation must be wrong.

Your post would suggest Jesus never rose from the grave....we interpreted the bible wrong.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you realize that the resurrection of Jesus is incompatible with what is known from fields outside of theology, and the Bible is true, then that interpretation must be wrong.

Your post would suggest Jesus never rose from the grave....we interpreted the bible wrong.

The assertion that the resurrection couldn't happen presupposes that no divine being, able to suspend the normal operation of physical laws as he sees fit, exists. That is a philosophical presupposition, which may be held by some scientists (but not others), and it cannot be deduced from the results of scientific investigation.

 

[-57]

The assertion that the resurrection couldn't happen presupposes that no divine being, able to suspend the normal operation of physical laws as he sees fit, exists. That is a philosophical presupposition, which may be held by some scientists (but not others), and it cannot be deduced from the results of scientific investigation.

Funny how you could post like that. it really doesn't make much sense....Are you saying that God couldn't have created as He said he did in the accounts presented in Genesis? You seem to be a fence sitter lesliedellow.

 

[lesliedellow]

Funny how you could post like that. it really doesn't make much sense....Are you saying that God couldn't have created as He said he did in the accounts presented in Genesis? You seem to be a fence sitter lesliedellow.

He could have done whatever he liked, but all the available evidence is that he did not create in six literal days 6,000 years ago. Therefore, the conclusion must be drawn that Genesis 1 is intended to impart theological information, in a way which could be understood by people in any culture, and not to provide the timeline for a scientific process.

 

[-57]

He could have done whatever he liked, but all the available evidence is that he did not create in six literal days 6,000 years ago. Therefore, the conclusion must be drawn that Genesis 1 is intended to impart theological information, in a way which could be understood by people in any culture, and not to provide the timeline for a scientific process.

And the avialable evidence says you stay dead on day 3.

 

[Speedwell]

And the avialable evidence says you stay dead on day 3.

Only if you are just a human. Are you saying that Christ was just a human?

 

[lesliedellow]

And the avialable evidence says you stay dead on day 3.

The available evidence says that you stay dead in the absence of divine intervention.

The creation of the universe is not about what normally happens; it is about what happened once in the past.

Possibility 1: The universe came into existence over a six day period, without God being involved.
Possibility 2: The universe came into existence over a six day period, through the operation of God's will.
Possibility 3: The universe came into existence instantaneously about 13.8 billion years ago and it has been evolving ever since, and God was not involved.
Possibility 4.) The universe came into existence instantaneously about 13.8 billion years ago, it has been evolving ever since, and that happened because God willed it to happen.

The existence of rocks millions of years old, the existence of stars more than 6,000 light years away, which we can see, and a good many other things all rule out 1 and 2, which leaves 3 and 4. There is nothing except a philosophical presupposition which can rule out the resurrection of Christ, and there are reasons to believe that it happened.

 

[-57]

Only if you are just a human. Are you saying that Christ was just a human?

More to my point. The bible informs us Jesus was God....and Jesus was part of the six day creation people deny.

 

[-57]

Possibility 1: The universe came into existence over a six day period, without God being involved.

Universes just can't pop into existence...then again you already knew that.

Possibility 2: The universe came into existence over a six day period, through the operation of God's will.

That's what the bible teaches.

Possibility 3: The universe came into existence instantaneously about 13.8 billion years ago and it has been evolving ever since, and God was not involved.

That's what the bible doesn't teach.

Possibility 4.) The universe came into existence instantaneously about 13.8 billion years ago, it has been evolving ever since, and that happened because God willed it to happen.

This too isn't what the bible teaches.

There is nothing except a philosophical presupposition which can rule out the resurrection of Christ, and there are reasons to believe that it happened.

You have been presented many reasons to believe the account in Genesis is literal and historical.

 

[lesliedellow]

You have been presented many reasons to believe the account in Genesis is literal and historical.

Only if special pleading and obscurantism count as reasons.