The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation

npetreley · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Well,I didn't ask you but if you wish...

Answer why would they lie? There are thousands of geologists and thousands of boilogists and thousands of physisists wandering around, who is forcing them all to lie about everything? This is a conspriacy theory beyond all others. Who is making all of them lie eventhough there is seemingly so much proof to the opposite?

The majority of people used to believe in spontaneous generation. Were they lying or were they just ignorant?

(Hint: Evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation, whether they'll admit it or not.)

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

The majority of people used to believe in spontaneous generation. Were they lying or were they just ignorant?

(Hint: Evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation, whether they'll admit it or not.)

Creationists, whether they will admit it or not, believe that Piltdown man was a true human ancestor. They also believe that Joseph Stalin was the first President of the United States, whether they will admit it or not.

Not only that, but they, even the ones who haven't bothered to actually study the subject, have somehow managed to not be ignorant about the geologic column while the thousands of scientists of various faiths and various cultures around the globe that have actually studied geology - they are "ignorant" (only some of them are lying).

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

Also, even in the 1% of the globe (0.4% if you count the oceans) where you can find all the supposed layers of the geological column, the total depth of the OBSERVED geologic column is 16% of the depth of the THEORIZED geologic column. What happened to the other 84%? Special pleading, of course.

So Nick, you working on getting those calculations together for us? Or were you just working off of John Woodmorappe's assumptions?

randman · Jun 14, 2002

Yep, evolutionists still beleive in spontaneous generation since it hasn't been disproven. Their standard is if you can't disprove it, it must be true, unless you are talking about God.

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by randman
Yep, evolutionists still beleive in spontaneous generation since it hasn't been disproven. Their standard is if you can't disprove it, it must be true, unless you are talking about God.

randman, you are starting to sound like Nick, misrepresenting your critics and all...

randman · Jun 14, 2002

Most evolutionists I meet believe in abiogenesis. I rest my case.

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

Your closing arguments were brief.

I, personally, see more promise in the abiogenetic hypotheses than I do in (for instance) panspermia. I don't "believe in" or accept any of them.

Anyway - more to the point: The abiogenetic hypotheses considered by researchers in the field today are not spontaneous generation. They are, in fact, an attempt at an explanation of how life came to be in spite of the known fact that spontaneous generation does not and cannot happen.

IOW, your case is weak, and as such, you would be (as Nick was) wrong to present your claim about the "beliefs" of evolutionists as fact.

randman · Jun 14, 2002

Whatever. They think life can come from inanimate matter all on its own. Call it what you want. It looks like spontaneous generation to me.

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by randman
Whatever. They think life can come from inanimate matter all on its own. Call it what you want. It looks like spontaneous generation to me.

That's fine. Can you go ahead and admit that you were wrong about the spontaneous generation claim then, and that it was based on your misunderstanding of the two different ideas of spontaneous generation and any particular current abiogenetic hypothesis? Can you admit that scientist don't "believe in" or even "accept" any particular abiogenetic hypothesis at this time?

I can admit that they see promise in finding an abiogenetic hypothesis that both explains and makes at least a few testable predictions....

randman · Jun 14, 2002

No because I am not arguing using your definitions but mine. I think you knew what I referred to, and it looks like a version of sponataneous generation to me.

I admit that you don't think so, which I find puzzling since it is life stemming from inanimate matter, and I don't know what all scientists believe, but I was taught that evolutionists beleived in abiogenesis, and the ones I meet generally still do.

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by randman
No because I am not arguing using your definitions but mine. I think you knew what I referred to, and it looks like a version of sponataneous generation to me.

I admit that you don't think so, which I find puzzling since it is life stemming from inanimate matter, and I don't know what all scientists believe, but I was taught that evolutionists beleived in abiogenesis, and the ones I meet generally still do.

At least you admit to the fact that your argument is based on personal, subjective, and non-standard definitions. That's more than what Nick would do.

Sauron · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

At least you admit to the fact that your argument is based on personal, subjective, and non-standard definitions.

Indeed.

If we could all go around creating our own private definitions of well-established words and concepts, then we couldn't attach common meaning to anything.

The conclusion here is either:

a. randman does not understand the scientific community's view of these topics, as evidenced by the fact that he uses incorrect definitions. In this case, randman is arguing about things he does not correctly understand; or

b. randman *does* understand the scientific community's views of these topics, but cannot refute those arguments. Thus creating the need to re-define them in such a way that randman thinks he can defeat them (i.e., create a strawman position).

Neither (a) nor (b) is very flattering to randman.

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

In his defense, I don't think randman is being intentionally dishonest. I think, rather that he is a victim of "Morton's Demon"....

randman · Jun 14, 2002

I understand normal English. From what I can tell, evolutionists make up definitions to avoid the facts.

They call species transitional that may have never evolved into another species.

They state they don't beleive in spontaneous generation, and then have the gall to claim they don't based on their definition of the term. Guess what. "Sponteneous generation" is not a modern scientific term. It goes way back, and I am using it correctly. Pick up a dictionary.

Sauron · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by randman
I understand normal English. From what I can tell, evolutionists make up definitions to avoid the facts.

Not hardly. Unless you'd like to show proof where these definitions have changed or been made up?

They call species transitional that may have never evolved into another species.

Click to expand...

Sources for this claim? You do have proof of this, right?

They state they don't beleive in spontaneous generation, and then have the gall to claim they don't based on their definition of the term.

Click to expand...

No, they have the gall to claim that they don't use *your* definition. Wow. Sheer nerve of them.

If you'd start by using a scientific definition of the words you toss around so easily, maybe you wouldn't get yourself into such hot water so often. Hmmm?

Guess what. "Sponteneous generation" is not a modern scientific term. It goes way back, and I am using it correctly. Pick up a dictionary.

Click to expand...

It's your claim that scientists have re-defined this term. It's up to you to prove that claim - not me.

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by randman
I understand normal English. From what I can tell, evolutionists make up definitions to avoid the facts.

They call species transitional that may have never evolved into another species.

They state they don't beleive in spontaneous generation, and then have the gall to claim they don't based on their definition of the term. Guess what. "Sponteneous generation" is not a modern scientific term. It goes way back, and I am using it correctly. Pick up a dictionary.

I don't really have a problem with your (unstated) definition of "spontaneous generation"... I have a problem with your definition of abiogenesis.

If we are agreed that Spontaneous generation means the uncaused (spontaneous) creation (generation) of living organisms from non-living organisms, and if you will recognize that abiogenesis is the stepwise creation (generation) of living organisms from simple self-replicators due to their chemical activity, which in turn were generated by normal chemical reactions between organic compounds.. then we can agree that the two are different ideas and cannot reasonably go by the same name.

Jerry Smith · Jun 14, 2002

Sources for this claim? You do have proof of this, right?

Its the weasel word --- "may" never have transitioned... Of course transitional forms "may" never have "transitioned"... its sophistry.. His claim is accurate, if irrelevant.

Sinai · Jun 14, 2002

Originally posted by Wookie:
I think number 4 - the day or undefined period bit says more than a lot about taking everything literaly in any translation.

Thank you for your input as to which theory you prefer.

BTW - a genuine question - where do people get the idea the world is only 6000 years old from - I haven't read that bit of the O.T. yet so please point me to it.

"Young earth" creationists arrive at that figure by adding up the ages of the people listed in Jesus's geneologies, adding the years since his life on earth, and adding six days for creation (first chapter of Genesis). Some add an additional 6,000 years for the thousand years being as a day to God, and a few add various other amounts that can get it up to as much as about 50,000 years--but that is still a few billion years short of what mainstream science asserts.

BTW what if the human body evolved from the apes as stated by various evolutionists then once the material body was to God's liking he breathed the soul into a chosen one and thus created Adam?

The Bible does not necessarily close the door on that possibility. A very close and careful reading of the first two chapters of Genesis led the Jewish Hebrew scholar Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (generally called Nahmanides) to list something very similar to what you suggest as being an interpretation of those passages--and he wrote it hundreds of years before Darwin.

Wookie · Jun 14, 2002

Thanks for your reply to my questions Sinai - it's appreciated. Interesting stuff about the Nahmanides - I have to check them out.

Wookie

Sinai · Jun 17, 2002

Originally posted by Wookie
Thanks for your reply to my questions Sinai - it's appreciated. Interesting stuff about the Nahmanides - I have to check them out.

Wookie

Nahmanides lived from 1194-1270 A.D. or C.E. His book is entitled Commentary on the Torah.

The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Vader failed, so will the Evil One

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency