How old is the world?

[Elduran]

It doesn't name any of the animals that were on the Ark, duh. It only gives a general description: all air breathing land animals in whose nostrils is the breath of life. Dinosaurs were on the Ark, as were the ancestors of kangaroos. Why don't you give me the verse that says they were not on the ark?

Would you mind explaining why dinosaur bones never appear with human bones in sedimentary layers?

 

[Numenor]

just out of curiousity, how many of the pro-evolution posters here affirm that Jesus is God?

Jesus is God. Any happier?

They are not Bible-believers at the point where they believe in evolution.

No happier apparently. I believe in the infallability of scripture, what I object to is you equivocating your own interpretation of scripture with the infallible Word of God. To believe your own interpretation (and it is an interpretation) is infallible is arrogance God will not look kindly upon.

 

[Valkhorn]

Floodnut, since you failed to respond to my earlier post, how do you address the following:

• Evidence supports a 4.5 billion year old Earth

• Evidence supports that life has existed for nearly 3 or 4 billion years of that time span

• Evidence supports much diversity in life - including millions of species which no longer exist today

• Evidence supports a gradual transition from one form into another over gradual periods of time (i.e. we never see Dinosaurs in the middle of the pre-cambrian layers, or trilobite fossils in the carboniferous layers).

• Independent dating sources give us the ages of fossils and rock layers and ages do correlate with other similar layers in other places of the Earth.

• There is ample evidence that there are plate tectonics, and ample evidence that some land masses which are now two or more continents were once one contienent (South America and Africa have similar coastlines, are separated by a mid ocean ridge and have similar geologic columns and fossils past a certain point) and ample evidence that climate has had many shifts (many ice ages, many interglacial periods, many warm spells too)

Or maybe YEC can't explain any of it? It hasn't so far.

 

[Floodnut]

So for you, Bible believing actually means "Believe that the Bible means what I think it means".

I believe Genesis 1. I do not believe it teaches the world was made in six days. I think that's a category error. Don't presume to tell me what I do and don't believe.

You don't believe in the Bible. You are a liberal backslider. You don't actually believe that the Writer of Genesis meant anything other than six normal days. There, that is what you believe and don't believe.

 

[stone]

when get the answer, maybe you could let me know

 

[Floodnut]

Jesus is God. Any happier?



No happier apparently. I believe in the infallability of scripture, what I object to is you equivocating your own interpretation of scripture with the infallible Word of God. To believe your own interpretation (and it is an interpretation) is infallible is arrogance God will not look kindly upon.

The arrogance is for you to believe the evolutionary interpretations of scientific evidences above the plain and simple sense of Scirpture. Then it further arrogance for you to attempt to project what you think God will look kindly upon.

The earth is about 6000 years old.

 

[ChrisS]

The arrogance is for you to believe the evolutionary interpretations of scientific evidences above the plain and simple sense of Scirpture. Then it further arrogance for you to attempt to project what you think God will look kindly upon.

The earth is about 6000 years old.

How does evolution go against your intepretation of the Bible, besides common ancestry? What if their are serveral gaps between time in the bible and it turns out the world is 50,000 years old of perhaps a million according to biblical principals?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, it is a matter of Two religions. It is evolution which makes the bizarre claims, but the faith continues. We still have yet to see a single case of transition from one speicies to another (of course you will insert your wonderful web links here), nor have we seen the mechanism demonstrated in a controlled experiment. The earth is 6000 years old. All present species on the Earth are descendents of the pairs that were on the Ark of Noah that Jesus treated as Literal.

do you realize what you are saying?
that all the marsuipal-pairs from the ark walked to Australia, and left no fossils on the way. actually they couldn't die since there was only two. so all these species walked very fast straight to OZ without losing anyone?

that your microevolutionary rates to perform this task you propose are about 5 orders of magnitude(10**5) faster than any evolutionist proposal, ie you are a greater evolutionist than any scientist?

just take 1 example.
honey creepers in Hawaii.
the original pair (or are there 7, are honeycreepers clean birds?) had to fly from the ark to Hawaii and micro-evolve in 4K years into the several hundred species now seen in Hawaii.

now repeat this explanation for insects.
that is why evolutionists dont take YECism seriously, it really isn't very good at explaining the things we see around us.


....

 

[Deamiter]

You don't believe in the Bible. You are a liberal backslider. You don't actually believe that the Writer of Genesis meant anything other than six normal days. There, that is what you believe and don't believe.

This is not suprising as most Christians both currently and historically believe that God intended Genesis for a different purpose than a literal history.

Even the earliest Jewish teachings on Genesis emphasize the moral lessons behind the stories, not the actual history. It was indeed easy to believe that it was a historical account, but those same Christians who understood the real purpose of Genesis saw the evidence in geology and knew the world was much older decades BEFORE Darwin was even born!

I believe the Bible is fully inspired by God and exactly the way he wanted it. I believe IN the Bible. I don't, however, presume to claim that I know exactly what every verse means and what God intended for every verse. That is why reading the Bible is essential for every Christian even if they've read it the whole way through!

 

[Mr.Cheese]

It doesn't name any of the animals that were on the Ark, duh. It only gives a general description: all air breathing land animals in whose nostrils is the breath of life. Dinosaurs were on the Ark, as were the ancestors of kangaroos. Why don't you give me the verse that says they were not on the ark?

as an aside, I'm jsut curious how many of each animal was on the ark.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You may assert that I am wrong, or incorrect. But you are wrong to assert that I am lying because you believe that my statement is "blatantly false." When you call creationists liars you are being judgmental. I think it may be that you are the one who is a liar, but then without the truth of God's Word to set moral absolutes you have no reason to see lying as wrong.

Since you didn't read what I wrote with any meaningful level of comprehension as evidenced by your reply, I repeat again:

So why are professional creationists such pervasive liars if they supposedly are constrained by some sort of absolute morality that forbids lying?

Why is creationism backed by lies and science backed by facts?

And again, to say that I have no reason to see lying as wrong is false. Do not state it again, or else that will be a lie in and of itself.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The earth is about 6000 years old.

Four points you need to consider before you continue these bald assertions and empty rhetoric:

1. Christian creationists realized that statement was false even before the theory of evolution came on the scientific scene.

2. You have no basis other than dogmatic biblical literalism to believe that statement. It's an assertion without any evidentiary basis.

3. To repeat that claim even though you've been presented with evidence to the contrary in the past means that you either don't read what people write or what evidence is presented, or else you make a statement deliberately that you know is false.

4. Asserting that the earth is 6000 years old and equating that to the most "true" belief in Christianity only makes your religion look absurd.

 

[Numenor]

The arrogance is for you to believe the evolutionary interpretations of scientific evidences above the plain and simple sense of Scirpture.

You think that the Genesis should be read literally, I am not so arrogant as to say you are wrong. But you present your interpretaion as infallible, which not just arrogance, it is of the devil.

Then it further arrogance for you to attempt to project what you think God will look kindly upon.

Are you saying that you are infallible?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You don't believe in the Bible.

Wrong. I don't believe in your interpretation of it.

You are a liberal backslider.

I refer the hon. gent. to the answer I gave A4C the other day about the origin of my screen name.

You don't actually believe that the Writer of Genesis meant anything other than six normal days.

Writer? This was not originally a written document; it's oral history. I don't even start to presume to know exactly how all the people who passed it down the generations viewed it, and don't frankly much care to. There was no "Writer of Genesis". There were keepers of oral tradition, redactors, priests, theologians, editors - loads of people.

There, that is what you believe and don't believe.

And I told you to stop trying to tell me what I do and don't believe, but you prefer to carry on in your arrogance doing so.

 

[GodsSamus]

Wrong. I don't believe in your interpretation of it.



I refer the hon. gent. to the answer I gave A4C the other day about the origin of my screen name.



Writer? This was not originally a written document; it's oral history. I don't even start to presume to know exactly how all the people who passed it down the generations viewed it, and don't frankly much care to. There was no "Writer of Genesis". There were keepers of oral tradition, redactors, priests, theologians, editors - loads of people.



And I told you to stop trying to tell me what I do and don't believe, but you prefer to carry on in your arrogance doing so.

I have a question. If God used Evolution, how can sin and death be related? I challenge ANY gap-theorists or theistic evolutionists to tell me this..

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have a question. If God used Evolution, how can sin and death be related? I challenge ANY gap-theorists or theistic evolutionists to tell me this..

Sin = Spiritual Death = Separation from God.

There, even an Atheist could do it.

 

[Elduran]

I have a question. If God used Evolution, how can sin and death be related? I challenge ANY gap-theorists or theistic evolutionists to tell me this..

Are you going to answer all the posts that ahve been directed at you on this thread first? Once again, you're here and ignoring all the posts that disagree with your outlook on the world, despite the fact that you asked people to show you which of your "earth age" claims were false and they started doing just that.

Now, are you going to retract the claims that have been shown to be false, or are you just going to waste everyone's time AGAIN?

 

[Praxiteles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by: Praxiteles

Telling lies for God is acceptable. I think there's a clause in the commandment about bearing false witness that says something along the lines that if a lie increases the faith of the faithful it's OK.

God denying atheists and promotors of evolution have no prohibition against lying so they can make up falsehoods like this with no moral compunction

.Oh, so this poster is the judge and jury on relevancy. Did the judge pronounce on the relevancy of prior posts alleging that I was lying, or the allegations that Creationists are liars. To say creationists are liar is relevant according to this judge, but it is a 9.6 on the irrelevancy scale to point out the lack of moral basis for evolutionists who have often been caught in lies.

"This poster" is no such thing.

My original post, as is clear to anyone, is about Creationists' cavalier attitude toward the truth in spite of their claims that they adhere to Christian beliefs. This is nothing to do with whether one side lies more than the other. What is relevant is that one side claims to have a monopoly on morals but consistently fails to live up to them.

It just so happens that when a scientist lies, and gets caught, he gets an almighty kick in the pants by the rest of the scientific community. When a Creationist lies his compadres either stay mum about it, or further propagate the lie.

If I were not a believer? What is moral and immoral to a garden slug?

I beg your pardon?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I beg your pardon?

I do believe that the poster just called all non-believers Garden Slugs.

 

[Praxiteles]

Yes, it is a matter of Two religions. It is evolution which makes the bizarre claims, but the faith continues. We still have yet to see a single case of transition from one speicies to another (of course you will insert your wonderful web links here), nor have we seen the mechanism demonstrated in a controlled experiment.

Geez, Floody, they're happening all of the time. The info on this stuff is readily available. You're either lying or deliberately ignoring the evidence. This bovine stomach lining that YEC Central promulgates about there being no evidence, and that evolution is accepted on faith will not wash here. We know better, and you should too.

The earth is 6000 years old. All present species on the Earth are descendents of the pairs that were on the Ark of Noah that Jesus treated as Literal.

Fine.

If you wish to believe this, fine. However, you do so in the face of the overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary, and so do not try to insist that science backs up your position.