How would you prove the Universe is old?

[Freodin]

I'm sure you guys are arguing this point just to have something to do.

I feel silly spending this much time trying to refute it.

But for the record, God didn't embed Murphy's Law into His creation.

He didn´t?

IT FELL APART THE FIRST TIME HE PUT IT TO THE TEST!!!

(And considering the disaster with Lucifer and his third of the angels... it fell apart every time he put it to the test.)

 

[Sanguis]

Interesting.

You're atheists because God...

That makes as much sense as saying I don't believe cars exist because my friend was killed in a traffic accident.

Once again, Av filters out the part of the post that he doesn't want to register (Presumably to avoid a relapse of crying-in-the-corner syndrome.).

Av.

What did the last sentence say?

"None of this makes any sense at all."

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe the children eating cookies analogy that has been mentioned is spot on.

If you sincerely believe this, and you're not just trying to get a rise out of us, then I submit your adherence to Adam and Eve being "children" in the sense of children today is coming back on you and preventing you from fully understanding.

 

[CoderHead]

If that "God does not want robots" that we hear so often is to have any meaning, then, yes, education is more important than obedience.

I'm beginning to think "God does not want robots" is a meaningless slogan, the likes of "Science can take a hike."

 

[Sanguis]

If you sincerely believe this, and you're not just trying to get a rise out of us, then I submit your adherence to Adam and Eve being "children" in the sense of children today is coming back on you and preventing you from fully understanding.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/metaphor?view=uk

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=50141&dict=CALD

 

[AV1611VET]

In this regard, Adam and Eve were as toddlers, having no clue what was good and what was evil.

Suit yourself.

You want to talk yourself into believing Adam and Eve had a newborn's ignorance of rules, go ahead.

But God is a just God, and I'm sure the punishment fit the crime.

 

[BananaSlug]

If you sincerely believe this, and you're not just trying to get a rise out of us, then I submit your adherence to Adam and Eve being "children" in the sense of children today is coming back on you and preventing you from fully understanding.

"Children" in the sense they did not know right from wrong, good from evil. They were not children physically, only from a moral standpoint. I think your adherence to Adam and Eve being "children" in the sense of children today is coming back on you and preventing you from fully understanding.

 

[BananaSlug]

Suit yourself.

You want to talk yourself into believing Adam and Eve had a newborn's ignorance of rules, go ahead.

But God is a just God, and I'm sure the punishment fit the crime.

They didn't even realize they were naked. That seems to fit a child's mentality perfectly.

 

[Sanguis]

Suit yourself.

You want to talk yourself into believing Adam and Eve had a newborn's ignorance of rules, go ahead.

But God is a just God, and I'm sure the punishment fit the crime.

I'd post other pictures, but many would be far, far too graphic for this.

You say that the punishment fits the crime? Eating a piece of fruit (Without knowing the consequences.) was criminal enough to warrant 1000s of generations of suffering, war, disease, poverty, death and pain, beyond what A&E could've ever even remotely imagined?

Yeah, that sounds "just".

 

[CoderHead]

They didn't even realize they were naked. That seems to fit a child's mentality perfectly.

...especially since adults make such a big deal out of it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't think reducing Adam and Eve to ignoramuses is the way to go here.

God certainly didn't treat them as such.

That was His mistake.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, AV1611VET! Thank you for your welcome of me into this forum; I appreciate it!

No, I can't think of any thing older; I just meant that I believe it to be only 6,000 years old, as compared to believing it to be billions of years old (as many people believe). No, there is definitely nothing older than that! LOL Well, except God, of course; who never had a beginning!

I love your user name, by the way!

Thank you, my friend!

I have a lot of respect of Young Earth Creationists, and although I'm not quite one myself; I do believe this earth is 6013 years old, but in a different context.

God bless, and I'll be praying for your health issues.

 

[Hespera]

Hi, AV1611VET! Thank you for your welcome of me into this forum; I appreciate it!

No, I can't think of any thing older; I just meant that I believe it to be only 6,000 years old, as compared to believing it to be billions of years old (as many people believe). No, there is definitely nothing older than that! LOL Well, except God, of course; who never had a beginning!

I love your user name, by the way!

You are of course aware that one can find over 100,000 years of ice in antarctica?

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hangback]

You are of course aware that one can find over 100,000 years of ice in antarctica?

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think they're gone, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see in case it upsets their religious sensibilities.
They lie and try to tell us that this hideous affliction known as creationism is not indoctrinated into their children,
who in their right mind would do that to another human being let alone their own? and they have the gall to call it love, that's just plain sick.

 

[LaserWraith]

You are of course aware that one can find over 100,000 years of ice in antarctica?

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh? And how do the scientists know? Read this:

www . answersingenesis . org/docs2003/0730ngrip.asp

There are a number of problems with this claim of counting 110,000 annual layers, however. Since ice compresses vertically and spreads horizontally with depth, the annual layers thin with depth. The measured variables become confused by the middle of the ice core, and the confusion is especially noticeable in the ice-age portion of the core. The annual layer method works well in the upper part of the core for a few thousand years, but it requires some major assumptions to guide the interpretation of the middle and lower parts of the core. Based on their evolutionary/uniformitarian paradigm, the researchers assume that the ice sheet has been in equilibrium for millions of years.1 Once they make this assumption, they rely on the second and third main methods of measurement—glaciological flow models tied to reference horizons—to provide a first guess for the thickness of annual layers.

In contrast to the evolutionary/uniformitarian model, the Creation/Flood ice-age model predicts much thicker annual layers in the lower and middle parts of the ice core, and glaciologists measure subannual or storm layers. It is known that modern storms duplicate with similar amplitude many of the annual layer signatures. If you expect a thicker annual layer deeper in the core, these signatures will show up, while those who believe the evolutionary/uniformitarian model assume that compression and diffusion have wiped out the subannual layers. So, the paradigm determines the age of the ice sheet.

 

[LaserWraith]

I think they're gone, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see in case it upsets their religious sensibilities.
They lie and try to tell us that this hideous affliction known as creationism is not indoctrinated into their children,
who in their right mind would do that to another human being let alone their own? and they have the gall to call it love, that's just plain sick.

How very useful and profitable.

 

[LaserWraith]

I'd post other pictures, but many would be far, far too graphic for this.

You say that the punishment fits the crime? Eating a piece of fruit (Without knowing the consequences.) was criminal enough to warrant 1000s of generations of suffering, war, disease, poverty, death and pain, beyond what A&E could've ever even remotely imagined?

Yeah, that sounds "just".

Not because of God...but sin.

God warned them not to eat it.

 

[LaserWraith]

They didn't even realize they were naked. That seems to fit a child's mentality perfectly.

Sure, they could that they were naked. It is like myself noticing I have hands.

Nothing was wrong with it.

 

[BananaSlug]

Not because of God...but sin.

God warned them not to eat it.

So can you honestly say that it was fair and just to punish all of humanity for the actions of two people? Would you do the same?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So can you honestly say that it was fair and just to punish all of humanity for the actions of two people? Would you do the same?

Of course it is silly. Put two crackheads in a mansion, put a whole bunch of crack in the garden, and tell them not to smoke it. Then get real mad at them becuase they did.