The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[As I was saying]

The Holy Spirit will convince me that atheists think the universe is only 200 million years old?

You seem to be fighting a straw man. If we take you at your word (and your willingness to ascribe motives to us without cause makes that suspect), then one day you read an article by an atheist who was woefully misinformed about the age of the Earth.

No one here is saying you should trust us because we are atheists. We are saying the age of the Earth/Universe is based on scientific evidence.


You are implying things about us that are unpleasant and untrue.

If he was woefully misinformed then the one that said the earth was 80 million years old and the one that said it was 2 billion and the one that said it was 8 billion and the one that said it was 13.5 billion years old are equally misinformed because they can't all be right can they or perhaps you believe they are as one atheist does not speak for another so if that is what they believe they have to be right don't they.

Of course I know that atheists are perfect and don't do anything wrong as I was informed by one atheist but the fact is what I said is unpleasant and very true because I am not afraid of the truth unlike atheists who can't handle the truth. If they could they would not believe in evolution in their attempt to get God out of the picture and make themselves the centre of the universe.

The bible says that ONLY the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, so the outcome of that is obvious. If your source is not the Holy Spirit you are believing lies, notwithstanding your silly and childish remark about the Holy Spirit convincing you that the universe is 200 million years old.

Just another example of atheist stupidity in trying to make a case when they have none.

 

[As I was saying]

Here, let me disabuse you of some misconceptions you apparently are suffering from.

1. If you hover of the pic of me and my cat and click on it you'll be able to see my profile information including the fact that I joined this forum in Dec. 2003. You, on the other hand joined in Jul. 2015. I dare say I have much more familiarity with this forum than you do.

2. There are few if any rabid atheists here. I certainly am not one and I rarely discuss the topic of religion outside of a few social contexts like Creationism and Evolution or Separation of Church and State. The forum has rules against anyone - including atheists - from being too rabid.

3. I hope you felt good banging out the rest of your screed, but to me it was like water off a ducks back.

I am not suffering from any misconceptions. Atheists are the ones that specialise in that. You may be sincere in what you say but I find that atheists are usually sincerely wrong so what I say in not far off the mark.

When you or I joined the forum is totally irrelevant because I have been defending the faith since 1990, first at University where I gained three degrees and then later on the internet so you are a baby by comparison. Before I ever came on here I was already loaded up with a lot of experience listening to and debating atheists so best you be careful what you say as the atheists I parleyed with taught me a lot about the paucity of the arguments they pretend are the truth.

Oh, by the way, if you are an atheist invading a Christian website trying to tell us you are right and we are wrong then you are a rabid atheist because I know plenty of atheists who get on with their life and leave Christians alone. You are nothing more than an evangelist for the cause. If you weren't you would keep your mouth shut. I am an apologist for the Christian cause. The difference between you and me is that I am an apologist on a Christian site. You are an evangelist on a Christian site not an atheist one.

So that makes you an interloper and me a welcome commentator.

 

[As I was saying]

3. I hope you felt good banging out the rest of your screed, but to me it was like water off a ducks back.

What was it another atheist said in response to a comment like that? Nice to know that we are dealing with people who have a closed mind.

 

[Black Dog]

If he was woefully misinformed then the one that said the earth was 80 million years old and the one that said it was 2 billion and the one that said it was 8 billion and the one that said it was 13.5 billion years old are equally misinformed because they can't all be right can they or perhaps you believe they are as one atheist does not speak for another so if that is what they believe they have to be right don't they.

Of course I know that atheists are perfect and don't do anything wrong as I was informed by one atheist but the fact is what I said is unpleasant and very true because I am not afraid of the truth unlike atheists who can't handle the truth. If they could they would not believe in evolution in their attempt to get God out of the picture and make themselves the centre of the universe.

The bible says that ONLY the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, so the outcome of that is obvious. If your source is not the Holy Spirit you are believing lies, notwithstanding your silly and childish remark about the Holy Spirit convincing you that the universe is 200 million years old.

Just another example of atheist stupidity in trying to make a case when they have none.

I'm curious. If I can point out contradictions in your bible, will you quit believing it as well?

 

[As I was saying]

I'm curious. If I can point out contradictions in your bible, will you quit believing it as well?

What contradictions? Before you waste your time I have a degree in theology and read the bible in its original language.

 

[Black Dog]

What contradictions? Before you waste your time I have a degree in theology and read the bible in its original language.

That's nice.

I've been told this will derail the thread, so I withdraw the original question.

 

[crjmurray]

That's nice.

Now answer the question please.

We should let the thread drift back towards the OP like sfs suggested. We've derailed enough.

 

[Black Dog]

We should let the thread drift back towards abiogenesis and evolution like sfs suggested. We've derailed enough.

Sorry. I'll edit my post.

 

[As I was saying]

That's nice.

I've been told this will derail the thread, so I withdraw the original question.

Good. Don't want to get into irrelevancies do we. Oh I forgot, atheists do that all the time.

 

[As I was saying]

As renowned scientists from leading institutions like Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Stanford, the American Physical Society, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory to name a few, are admitting that what we see in the universe is not simply happenstance, they're convinced that an intelligent force (not atheism as that is an oxymoron) is behind the awesome and inexplicable things we see around us despite the ranting and raving of evolutionaries.

The fact is, in other words the truth, which atheists can't handle, evolution is an unproven theory. All it does is feed wild speculation that lead to false conclusions about the world, science and culture. In fact atheists have turned it into a philosophical argument, not a scientific one because it is more about getting rid of God than scientific truth.

I have no doubt that as more rational explanation surface, evolutionary theory is bound for the rubbish bin. In fact I am sure the time will come when people will say "However did we believe in such mumbo jumbo."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

As renowned scientists from leading institutions like Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Stanford, the American Physical Society, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory to name a few, are admitting that what we see in the universe is not simply happenstance, they're convinced that an intelligent force (not atheism as that is an oxymoron) is behind the awesome and inexplicable things we see around us despite the ranting and raving of evolutionaries.

Hey, I believe in God.

The fact is, in other words the truth, which atheists can't handle, evolution is an unproven theory.

On this you are misinformed. It is a proven theory.

All it does is feed wild speculation that lead to false conclusions about the world, science and culture. In fact atheists have turned it into a philosophical argument, not a scientific one because it is more about getting rid of God than scientific truth.

Only some versions of theology oppose evolution. Its perfectly simple to develop a theology that REQUIRES evolution. Since evolution is God's way of making us, it would behoove you to consider such a theology.

I have no doubt that as more rational explanation surface, evolutionary theory is bound for the rubbish bin. In fact I am sure the time will come when people will say "However did we believe in such mumbo jumbo."

Spoken by a human with a coccyx.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Non sequitur

How so?

 

[As I was saying]

On this you are misinformed. It is a proven theory.

Only some versions of theology oppose evolution. Its perfectly simple to develop a theology that REQUIRES evolution. Since evolution is God's way of making us, it would behoove you to consider such a theology.

If it is proven, then prove it.

Of course it is simple to develop a theology that requires evolution. Just like the homosexuals that have developed a theology that requires same sex marriage.

We obviously use different bibles because in every bible I have some of which are in the original language of Hebrew and Greek it says that God created everything after its own kind. No mention of God using evolution to create us.

 

[VirOptimus]

If it is proven, then prove it.

Of course it is simple to develop a theology that requires evolution. Just like the homosexuals that have developed a theology that requires same sex marriage.

We obviously use different bibles because in every bible I have some of which are in the original language of Hebrew and Greek it says that God created everything after its own kind. No mention of God using evolution to create us.

Your use of the word "theology" is incorrect (not to mention obviously trolling).

Science and theology is very different, science deal with physical reality, theology deals with metaphysics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Didn't I? How do you know what I have read and what I haven't read?

Because the scientific consensus is 4.5/4.6 billion years, not 200 million. And that's been the case for several decades now.

So wherever you pulled the 200 million from (your hat?), it wasn't a scientific source.

I have noticed one thing here and that is atheists seem to think that they know what everyone who is not an atheist reads and talks to even though they have never met anyone of them in their life or stood by as they talked to whom they talked to.

No, it is simply deducible based on the stuff you write down.

For example, suppose I told you that "my source" tells me that Jesus met the pink undetectable 7-headed leprechaun that lives in my garage... You would be able to deduce that whatever my source was, it won't be the bible, correct?
For the reason that you know perfectly well that the bible doesn't mention any undetectable 7-headed leprechaun(pink or otherwise).

That's the same logic that is being applied here.
Whatever your source was for "200 million" - it wasn't a scientific source. Because we know that the scientific source will state it is 4.5 billion instead.

I was under the impression that atheists pride themselves in dealing with logic and fact but it seems not.

Yep. And the fact is that scientific sources will say it is 4.5 billion, not 200 million. And that is how we know that whatever your source was - it wasn't a scientific source.

Just like you would know that whatever MY source was for the 7-headed leprechaun - it wasn't the bible (no matter if I claim it is).

They are as much creatures of supposition, guesswork, gambling, blind faith and foolishness as the next person.

Nope, as I have just demonstrated to you.

You don't require "supposition, guesswork, gambling, blind faith and foolishness" to deduce that my source for the 7-headed leprechaun is not the bible - regardless of my claims, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What I can see is that you believe what you believe because you eyes have been blinded by satan as to the truth as the bible says. I have read the stories of notable atheists who read the bible with an open mind and they realised that what they believed was hocus pocus so they gave up atheism and became followers of Jesus and were and are great apologists for the truth of God's word.

One of them was a personal friend of mine who had a brilliant mind, was a Ph.D and the youngest professor of Philosophy at Oxford University at the age of 25. A confirmed atheist, he read the whole bible to be able to discuss it in his Philosophy lectures and as a result he decided that God existed, that Jesus was his son and the Bible was true so he ditched his atheism. He has written so many books on the subject that have gone out all over the world, millions of them. He was well able to because he had a degree as well in the ancient languages of Hebrew and Greek.

And I know a guy who was a christian and then one day came to the conclusion that what he believed was a bunch of nonsense and became an atheist.

I also know another guy who was a christian and then read the Quran and became a muslim.

I also know yet another guy who was a christian and then converted to budhism.

 

[Heissonear]

Hey, I believe in God.



On this you are misinformed. It is a proven theory.



Only some versions of theology oppose evolution. Its perfectly simple to develop a theology that REQUIRES evolution. Since evolution is God's way of making us, it would behoove you to consider such a theology.



Spoken by a human with a coccyx.

Paul,

Evolution has yet to be proven by evidence.

Did God not Create this physical world? We know that He did.

Were you and I there when He did so? No, at least I wasn't, I wasn't even born yet.

Can you find or give evidence that God did not Creat the physical realm with full apparent age, so that if you examine the physical realm "it has natural age", just like if we went to Eve the day after she was Created, and asked her how old she is, she would say "one day old" but by physically examining her we could see in the natural she appears 18 or ? years old by appearance.

Is this possible?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Paul,

Evolution has yet to be proven by evidence.

Did God not Create this physical world? We know that He did.

Were you and I there when He did so? No, at least I wasn't, I wasn't even born yet.

Can you find or give evidence that God did not Creat the physical realm with full apparent age, so that if you examine the physical realm "it has natural age", just like if we went to Eve the day after she was Created, and asked her how old she is, she would say "one day old" but by physically examining her we could see in the natural she appears 18 or ? years old by appearance.

Is this possible?

It is logically possible that the world could have been created with the appearance of great age and that evolution (etc.) had already happened.

That conjecture would raise the question of why a God would do this, and if there is actually evidence for a God. In that the main prediction made by the conjecture is that there is a God who did that.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

As renowned scientists from leading institutions like Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Stanford, the American Physical Society, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory to name a few, are admitting that what we see in the universe is not simply happenstance, they're convinced that an intelligent force (not atheism as that is an oxymoron) is behind the awesome and inexplicable things we see around us despite the ranting and raving of evolutionaries.

Could you please name those scientists, because what you've stated seems like fabricated propaganda.

Oh. I see that the user who posted this has been banned. I guess I didn't need to phrase the question diplomatically and can just state that his claim was false. There might be a scientist from some point in history from those institutions who've made statements to that effect, but it's an audacious lie to present it as if that's a common stance from them.

 

[Astrophile]

If he was woefully misinformed then the one that said the earth was 80 million years old and the one that said it was 2 billion and the one that said it was 8 billion and the one that said it was 13.5 billion years old are equally misinformed because they can't all be right.

First, unless you can provide sources for these statements about the age of the Earth, I shall assume that your memory is at fault or that you have misunderstood your sources and that they didn't actually say anything of the sort.

Second, if you have a personal library of more than a thousand books and if you also have a degree in theology and can read the Bible in its original languages, you are intelligent enough to read some geology books and to find out for yourself how scientists have measured the age of the Earth and established the geological time scale. I recommend The Age of the Earth and Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies by G. Brent Dalrymple.