How old is the world?

[Praxiteles]

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.

Freethinker is not a sockpuppet of mine, or anything like that, if that's what you're thinking.

 

[Floodnut]

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.

So here is the "Thread Governer" determining that Chrisitan Forums > For All Members > Discussion and Debate > Creation & Evolution > How Old is the World > should not include discussion about the validity of the Bible? If Prax' thinks that discussion about the validity of the Bible should take place over at Apologetics, then he is welcome to go right over there and discuss it there, if he doesn't want to discuss here. Bye bye.

The matter of the the validity of the Bible is vital to the question that opened this thread: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? The bible says that Adam was created on the sixth day of the week of creation, which took place six thousand years ago. This is the plain sense of Scirpture. Your arguement is to reject the validity of the simple approach to the biblical account.

But I laugh at you pretending you are Mr. Cop. Heh heheh. cute. You want me to roll over and play dead at your pushy bullying? God's word is true. My ancestors died for it. I am not about to simply shut up.

 

[f U z ! o N]

So here is the thread governer determining that Chrisitan Forums>For All Members> Discussion and Debat > Creation & Evolution > How Old is the World >

Should not include discussion about the validity of the Bible? If Prax thinks that discussion about the validity of the Bible should take place over at Apologetics, then he is welcome to go right over there and discuss it there, if he doesn't want to discuss here. Bye bye. The matter of the the validity of the Bible is vital to the question that opened this thread: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? The bible says that Adam was created on the sixth day of the week of creation, which took place six thousand years ago. This is the plain sense of Scirpture. Your arguement is to reject the validity of the simple approach to the biblical account.

But I laugh at you pretending you are Mr. Cop. Heh heheh. cute. You want me to roll over and play dead at your pushy bullying? God's word is true. My ancestors died for it. I am not about to simply shut up.

and you are very arrogant yourself! the bible DOES NOT SAY HOW OLD THE EARTH IS! MAN HAS ASSUMED IT TO BE 6000 YEARS OLD! HOWEVER IT MAY NOT BE. quit being so arrogant and do some research. all of your points and Mr. Kent Hovind's have been refuted.

 

[Floodnut]

Been there, thanks.

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

When he says "Been there, thanks," he refers to the Answers In Genesis website.

They do actually do science. They are physicists and astronomers. But degrees don't make them right. What is right is the Word of God. Men with degrees also believe in an old earth. The Question for a Christian Forum is what does the Bible say and What does Jesus teach.

 

[Floodnut]

and you are very arrogant yourself! the bible DOES NOT SAY HOW OLD THE EARTH IS! MAN HAS ASSUMED IT TO BE 6000 YEARS OLD! HOWEVER IT MAY NOT BE. quit being so arrogant and do some research. all of your points and Mr. Kent Hovind's have been refuted.

Calmly stating that the Bible is true is arrogant? Oh well. The Bible shows that the Earth is about six thousand years old. Do some research. All of this points and the points of Jesus and Peter have been thoroughly supporte and confirmed. I don't know much about Kent Hovind. Is he a friend of yours?

 

[primate]

The Bible shows that the Earth is about six thousand years old.

Where in the Bible does it say the Earth is six thousand years old?

 

[Battie]

So here is the "Thread Governer" determining that Chrisitan Forums > For All Members > Discussion and Debate > Creation & Evolution > How Old is the World > should not include discussion about the validity of the Bible? If Prax' thinks that discussion about the validity of the Bible should take place over at Apologetics, then he is welcome to go right over there and discuss it there, if he doesn't want to discuss here. Bye bye.

The matter of the the validity of the Bible is vital to the question that opened this thread: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? The bible says that Adam was created on the sixth day of the week of creation, which took place six thousand years ago. This is the plain sense of Scirpture. Your arguement is to reject the validity of the simple approach to the biblical account.

But I laugh at you pretending you are Mr. Cop. Heh heheh. cute. You want me to roll over and play dead at your pushy bullying? God's word is true. My ancestors died for it. I am not about to simply shut up.

Prax is not bullying you nor is he playing the forum cop. He is making a (valid) observation. You do not need to be rude.

This is why he is right: The topic of this thread is not about whether the Bible is valid. It is about the age of the earth. Christians posting in this thread will say that the earth is either 4.5 billion years old or 6000 years old. Both groups will also say that the Bible is valid. The real question, then, which interpretation of the Bible is valid.

In fact, you affirmed this yourself when you claimed that the argument concerned rejecting the validity of the simple approach to intepreting the Bible. So, it's not about the validity of the Bible, it's about defending one's interpretation as the best one.

But, of course, the real, real question most relevant to this thread is, how old does scientific evidence say the earth is?

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

well, his name is flood nut... did you expect sanity?

 

[Praxiteles]

So here is the "Thread Governer" determining that Chrisitan Forums > For All Members > Discussion and Debate > Creation & Evolution > How Old is the World > should not include discussion about the validity of the Bible? If Prax' thinks that discussion about the validity of the Bible should take place over at Apologetics, then he is welcome to go right over there and discuss it there, if he doesn't want to discuss here. Bye bye.

The fact remains that this forum is a scientific one, and theological questions (such as those relating to the validity of the Bible) belong in the Apologetics forum. I'm sorry if that seems pedantic, but that simply is the way that CF is organised.

The matter of the the validity of the Bible is vital to the question that opened this thread: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? The bible says that Adam was created on the sixth day of the week of creation, which took place six thousand years ago. This is the plain sense of Scirpture. Your arguement is to reject the validity of the simple approach to the biblical account.

That question is nothing to do with the validity of the Bible itself, but with your interpretation of the text. A plain reading of scripture, if strictly adhered to, brings up absurdities. Even you must admit that you do not hold to a strict reading of scripture, but re-interpret some lines so as to avoid absurdity.

My argument has nothing to do with validity of scripture or otherwise, since to me the Bible is no more (or no less) an important document than the Iliad. It's a fascinating historical document which reflects the culture of the people from which it sprang. My argument is about the science, and when people come in here postulating patently ridiculous work-arounds to make science fit with their interpretation of the Bible, then I do not wish to let that pass.

But I laugh at you pretending you are Mr. Cop. Heh heheh. cute. You want me to roll over and play dead at your pushy bullying? God's word is true. My ancestors died for it. I am not about to simply shut up.

Overreact much?

Of course I don't want you to roll over and play dead. I would like you to play nice, though. Pontificating about the purported evils and falsehoods of modern science with nothing to back you up in terms of evidence is not nice. Nor is it likely to elicit a calm response.

 

[Praxiteles]

When he says "Been there, thanks," he refers to the Answers In Genesis website.

What's with addressing me in the third person? Do you do that in real life when you're talking to people?

They do actually do science. They are physicists and astronomers. But degrees don't make them right. What is right is the Word of God. Men with degrees also believe in an old earth. The Question for a Christian Forum is what does the Bible say and What does Jesus teach.

Your claim is that they do science. That's great. By all means feel free to back that up with something. (eg. An example).

 

[A Freethinker]

Floodnut, before this conversation continues, I think it's important that you do some "growing up". You are only hurting your argument by acting so immature. If you want an example, read just about any of your posts in this thread.

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

Floodnut, Please answer my question about the distant visible stars, if you would be so kind.

 

[A4C]

.

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.

Have you ever wondered why stars are out there ( beside how they were formed)
If you have trouble for that perhaps you would like to read the report of a witness in Genesis. You will see that they were hung there by God with the intention of providing for the benefit of man a more interesting night sky than just a plain black one. Therefore for man to take advantage of God's galactic handiwork He would have had to create them as He did man - in a matured state.
I believe that the more you learn about God the more impressed you will be at the love He has for man as evident by His creation.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

If you have trouble for that perhaps you would like to read the report of a witness in Genesis. You will see that they were hung there by God with the intention of providing for the benefit of man a more interesting night sky than just a plain black one. Therefore for man to take advantage of God's galactic handiwork He would have had to create them as He did man - in a matured state.
I believe that the more you learn about God the more impressed you will be at the love He has for man as evident by His creation.

So what you're saying not only is god misleading, but he's doing it for our amusment?

 

[A4C]

So what you're saying not only is god misleading, but he's doing it for our amusment?

No I am saying God is kind and considerate
Perhaps God never intended to enter the evolution controversy so His actions needed nobody's approval

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Firstly, who was this witness, and how did they view the stars being 'hung'.

Secondly, are you seriously saying that you don't consider it misleading if the universe was created to, in all possible ways, appear old?

Lamb dressed as Mutton?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

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

I have no objection to whatever nonsense you want to post. However, when you start acting as if you know what I believe better than I do, you cross the line into acting as a complete prat. Since you get my beliefs wrong more often than not, it's not unreasonable that I ask you to stop talking rubbish about me.

But please yourself. Carry on making a complete ass of yourself if you like. Let the record merely show that you are carrying on despite a perfectly reasonable request to stop. Such Christlike behaviour.

 

[Nightson]

So the rest of the universe was created for the sole purpose of giving us something interesting to look at? Rather wasteful of him don't you think? Especially all the parts that we can't see.

 

[Jet Black]

So the rest of the universe was created for the sole purpose of giving us something interesting to look at? Rather wasteful of him don't you think? Especially all the parts that we can't see.

which is what 99.999999999999999999% of it. heh.

just think of all those pointless neutrinos, that we can't see, billions and billions of them passing through every square centimetre of our bodies every second, mimicking events that never happened. all thouse meaningless ripples in the gravity field that we can't detect caused by... oh nothing, since the causitive events never occured. the deep infra red glow of stars that never died and cooled, but just look that way, or would do if they weren't obscured by clouds of dust. the tearing apart of the saggitarius galaxy, that never happened and that we can't see without special equipment. all those endless events that look like they happened but didn't. aah magnificent.

 

[A4C]

which is what 99.999999999999999999% of it. heh.

just think of all those pointless neutrinos, that we can't see, billions and billions of them passing through every square centimetre of our bodies every second, mimicking events that never happened. all thouse meaningless ripples in the gravity field that we can't detect caused by... oh nothing, since the causitive events never occured. the deep infra red glow of stars that never died and cooled, but just look that way, or would do if they weren't obscured by clouds of dust. the tearing apart of the saggitarius galaxy, that never happened and that we can't see without special equipment. all those endless events that look like they happened but didn't. aah magnificent.

Aren't you glad hat we have scientists today so we can see just how magnificent God's creation is?

 

[Elduran]

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.

I have used no such tactic against you. However, since you've now admitted that you intend to patronise and ridicule me, and have the audacity to suggest that I am the one lying here when all around you you can see the continued assertions that science says things it doesn't, I think you've earned yourself a place on my ignore list.

My reading here will be considerably less painful without your contributions