How old is the world?

[Praxiteles]

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

It certainly appears that the poster was doing that.

Perhaps the poster was using metaphor, but given the poster has demonstrated an inability to recognise allegory and metaphor, perhaps not.

 

[Floodnut]

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.

And I really likewise wish you would quit telling me what to tell you. If you don't like what I am saying, go to . . . . . Talk Origins

 

[Floodnut]

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?

It is your Pro-Evolution propoganda that is a waste of time. Just kidding. I think you probably really believe that stuff.

 

[Floodnut]

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

I have said that since mathamaticians evolved from microbial goo, then their really is no difference between non-living chemicals and life, between us and a garden slug. One has just evolved down a different path. Unbelievers are lost sinners for whom Jesus died. It is evolution which says we are slime.

 

[Praxiteles]

I have said that since mathamaticians evolved from microbial goo, then their really is no difference between non-living chemicals and life, between us and a garden slug. One has just evolved down a different path. Unbelievers are lost sinners for whom Jesus died. It is evolution which says we are slime.

I really struggled to follow this.

Is it your contention that evolution says that there is no difference between a human and a gastropod?

 

[A4C]

If something is said to be a lie then there has to be a truth to which the lie is in contravention.
So does this world hold ultimate truth somewhere so that to speak against it is indeed a lie
Jesus Himself said that He was the Truth, the Way and the Life.
Was He a liar?
If not why would somebody who believed in Him and His works be called a liar.
Does not John refer to Him being the Word that was in the beginning. Did He not refer also to Adam and Noah. Is not His own lineage traced back to Adam and do not the years involved there add to 6000.
Rather than calling believers liars I would suggest that those peddling messages that conflict with the word of God (from bacteria to man in millions of years) are in fact themselves guilty of grosse lying as they also have had the ultimate truth told to them many times and constantly speak against it.
Science books have come and gone infact this earth/world will come to an end but God's Word will not pass away ever -because ultimate truth cannot be destroyed.

 

[Elduran]

It is your Pro-Evolution propoganda that is a waste of time. Just kidding. I think you probably really believe that stuff.

Please don't attempt to patronise me like that.

In any case, I wasn't talking to you or about anything you care about, so I don't quite know why you felt it necessary to reply to me then. I expect you would think it a waste of your time if you patiently corrected a misunderstanding that I had about scripture and rather than acknowledging it, I disappeared for a while and then came back spouting the exact same misrepresentation as though you had never pointed out the falsehoods. THAT is what I was considering to be a waste of my time.

 

[Praxiteles]

There is untruth and there is lie.

Untruths can come about through ignorance and mistake. Lies are deliberate.

We can discern the difference between the two with little difficulty.

 

[A4C]

So can we - and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit as well

 

[Praxiteles]

Questions about the validity of the Bible belong in apologetics. This forum is a scientific one, where scientific arguments stand or fall on their merits.

 

[A4C]

This is a forum for discussion and debate concerning creation and evolution.
I am simply laying the foundation upon which creation scientists have found supporting evidence.
If I could not mention the Bible in his manner than perhaps you ought not mention the theory of evolution as a basis for the unending search of evidence that so far has not bourn any fruit

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Since when did meaningless rhetoric become viable contributions to a thread?

If something is said to be a lie then there has to be a truth to which the lie is in contravention.

As this is possible the only part of this entire post that made any sense at all I will address it seriously. You are correct assertion. An example used commonly here would be something akin to “The Theory of Evolution is not science but a religion”. This is a lie.

So does this world hold ultimate truth somewhere so that to speak against it is indeed a lie

And after a small valid point the post becomes vacuous. The phrase “does this world hold ultimate truth somewhere” has no meaning. What the heck is “ultimate truth” it’s meaningless in an of itself. If that wasn’t bad enough now the earth has to hold it. Now that we have the earth holding some vague meaningless concept we have to speak against it. What the @#% are you trying to say here? I left my decoder ring in my other suit.

Jesus Himself said that He was the Truth, the Way and the Life.

So some guy said that he is a unsubstantial concept. This makes as much sense as your last sentence. For clarity, a man can’t be an idea. He may “represent” an idea or speak about ideas. How can someone mean what they say when they can’t even say what they mean?

Was He a liar?

I didn’t know him. What specifically did he assert that can be validated to determine this?

If not why would somebody who believed in Him and His works be called a liar.

This would depend on whether his “works” were lies and if somebody knew they were lies and if they perpetuated them in spite of the first two being true.

Does not John refer to Him being the Word that was in the beginning.

Although I, once again recognize all the words used here, I can not piece together a valid coherent thought from them. Please try using unencrypted English next time.

Did He not refer also to Adam and Noah. Is not His own lineage traced back to Adam and do not the years involved there add to 6000.

So what are you asserting here? If you take these writings and assert that the earth is 6000 years old then you or your source is lying (take your pick).

Rather than calling believers liars I would suggest that those peddling messages that conflict with the word of God (from bacteria to man in millions of years) are in fact themselves guilty of grosse lying as they also have had the ultimate truth told to them many times and constantly speak against it.

Here’s where you go horribly and irreparably wrong. If said messages are supported by empirical evidence and the “word of god” (whatever that is to you) is not supported by evidence, then by a preponderance of the evidence your “word of god™” is false. Furthermore, if you make an assertion about something that is contrary to the evidence then you are a liar. (i.e. “the ToE is not science OR speciation has never occurred) What you call your “ultimate truth™” is just your opinion. It’s a vague idea based on belief and upheld by faith alone. It is not “truth” by any stretch of the imagination.

Science books have come and gone infact this earth/world will come to an end but God's Word will not pass away ever -because ultimate truth cannot be destroyed.

How can you take a meaningless concept and argue for it as if it has any worth whatsoever? Just saying the impressive sounding words “ULTIMATE TRUTH” doesn’t give your opinion, belief, or faith any more credibility. If you want to talk about truth at all you’ll actually need to make an assertion that makes sense and is testable. Until then your opinions will remain in the realm of your belief system. You may “believe” they are “Ultimate Truth™” but to the rest of the world they will always remain baseless opinion.

 

[Praxiteles]

This is a forum for discussion and debate concerning creation and evolution.
I am simply laying the foundation upon which creation scientists have found supporting evidence.
If I could not mention the Bible in his manner than perhaps you ought not mention the theory of evolution as a basis for the unending search of evidence that so far has not bourn any fruit

Creation "scientists" don't look for evidence. Creation "scientists" don't even do science. They certainly do no research. They troll through scientific literature looking for snippets which they can take out of context to promote their interpretation of their sacred writings.

What measurements have creation "scientists" taken? What observations have they made? What hypotheses have they put forward with testable predictions?

The Bible is not a science text. A strictly literal reading of the Bible certainly contradicts observations of the world. However, as a sacred test the Bible has a great impact, which is exactly the way it should be.

Or to you maintain that bats are birds? Or that hares chew cud? Or that the earth is a circle?

 

[A4C]

I would refer anybody seeking truth about what creation scientist really do perhaps you should visit one of the many creationists sites www.answersingenesis.org for instance and read the many papers presented there

 

[Praxiteles]

Been there, thanks.

How do you think I know that they don't actually do any science?

 

[A Freethinker]

Again its bad enough the creationists don’t seem to get that without you propagating the same foolish myth.
Ghost

Guess what? You aren't going to change their minds, especially after saying something like this. You just told the Creationists what you are trying to do, putting them "on guard". If this is what you thought, it was best left unsaid.

What I said was nothing they don't already know deep within their strange psyches.

 

[A4C]

Freethinker certainly has a good grasp of the English language. I wonder who he really is and whether (considering 5 posts only) he should hold the title as top thread derailer.

 

[A Freethinker]

By your response, are you not further "derailing" this thread? My post isn't stopping anybody from continuing the discussion. Nobody made you read it.

Anyway, for kicks, let's get back on track. Some very good points have been brought up by the... Non-Creationists (not necessarily evolutionists) which have gone unanswered by Creationists. I'd like Creationists to backtrack and try to answer some of these challenges.

Here's another: How can we see light from distant galaxies (over 100 million lightyears away) if the universe is only 6000 years old? The light takes hundreds of millions of years to reach us. For all we know, a star 100 million lightyears away could have died 99 million years ago, and we wouldn't know for another million years.

 

[Floodnut]

Please don't attempt to patronise me like that.

In any case, I wasn't talking to you or about anything you care about, so I don't quite know why you felt it necessary to reply to me then. I expect you would think it a waste of your time if you patiently corrected a misunderstanding that I had about scripture and rather than acknowledging it, I disappeared for a while and then came back spouting the exact same misrepresentation as though you had never pointed out the falsehoods. THAT is what I was considering to be a waste of my time.

I will "patronise" and ridicule and turn your own tactics against me back to you. You are the one who calls creation a lie, you poor child with blinded eyes.

 

[f U z ! o N]

I will "patronise" and ridicule and turn your own tactics against me back to you. You are the one who calls creation a lie, you poor child with blinded eyes.

who are you to judge? what if we are all wrong?