How old is the earth?

[Knight]

Is the earth relatively old or relatively young?

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Knight

Is the earth relatively old or relatively young?
I guess that depends what you are comparing the relative age to. Compared to my age, the earth is pretty darn old!

But then again, so are you. ;)

My vote: Under 10,000 years old.

[Mr Potato Head]

Under 10,000 years old. But if you asked what the age of the universe was I'd say a whole lot older.

[BillyBob]

4.5 billion.

[Just a tad older than Zakath] :freak:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Lucky

I guess that depends what you are comparing the relative age to. Compared to my age, the earth is pretty darn old!

But then again, so are you. ;)

Ouch!

:D

[ShadowMaid]

I think it's under 10,000 years old. I'd try and give you a more exact number, but all that work for just looking it up, it's painful to think about!:eek:

[ShadowMaid]

Can't find the exact, but go figure. I found a christian site that says the earth is about 6,000 years old.

[Clete]

The Bibles cronology of events seems to indicate aproximately 6000 years of Earth history from creation to the present.
Does anyone beleive this statement to be falsifiable?
If so, would the use of extrabiblical evidence be an erronious means of falsifying it?
In other words, if those who hold to the 6000 year old age of the Earth were completely unable to present any physical, verfiable evidence that this was in fact the case, would this present a problem for the Biblical position or is the fact that the Bible seems to indicate this age of the Earth sufficient in and of itself to establish the idea beyond doubt?

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Tye Porter]

6120

[Jukia]

4.5 billion, with the universe 14 to 16 billion, give or take a few years
and other than the Bible what evidence is there that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Thanks

[Scottb]

IT IS, 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000. I`am sure, because that is what some college said.

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by Scottb

IT IS, 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000. I`am sure, because that is what some college said.

:chuckle:



Under 10,000 years old, between 6,000 and 8,000 frankly. As for Clete's question - well, I don't think the scientific evidence will every show or support an earth age of under 10,000 years. However, we can see plenty of evidence that the models they do put forth are complete bunk.

Add that to the incredible evidence for the Bible as the Word of God, and I will put my faith in that which has shown itself to be reliable over the silliness that comes from most of the scientific community.

Frankly, one of the reasons I think the earth shows so much age, is that just as God created Adam fully grown - aged - I believe that He created the earth perfect, and fully developed - aged as it were.

[BillyBob]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

[Zakath]

Originally posted by BillyBob

4.5 billion.

[Just a tad older than Zakath] :freak:
:chuckle:

Maybe that explains why some days I feel older than dirt...

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The Bibles cronology of events seems to indicate aproximately 6000 years of Earth history from creation to the present.
Does anyone beleive this statement to be falsifiable?
If so, would the use of extrabiblical evidence be an erronious means of falsifying it?
I'd suggest verifying rather than falsifying by looking for corraborating evidence.

Isn't it pretty well impossible to falsify a unique event, like creation?

[Stratnerd]

> Isn't it pretty well impossible to falsify a unique event, like creation?

Some positions I think you can... if you suppose the Earth to be 4.6 billion OR 6000 there should be some things that will falsify one view and corroborate the other. But if you hold the position that Earth was created to look, or worse to be, old then there's no way to falsify it. I do not understand the justification... Adam was made as an adult so they Earth was too? So adult planets are 4.5 billion year old? What standard are they looking at to determine this?

[Knight]

Originally posted by BillyBob

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html And we all know if it's on "talkorigins" it must be true. :rolleyes:

[Tye Porter]

Originally posted by Knight

And we all know if it's on "talkorigins" it must be true. :rolleyes:
The evolutionists Bible?
Or is that the Holy Book inspired and written by their God, Darwin?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

The evolutionists Bible?
Or is that the Holy Book inspired and written by their God, Darwin?
It sure seems that way doesn't it?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
The evolutionists Bible?Nothing so insidious, :Tye:. It's merely a conveniently available Internet library that may contain info on topics relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath

Nothing so insidious, :Tye:. It's merely a conveniently available Internet library that may contain info on topics relevant to the discussion at hand. So would you characterize "talkorigins" as fallible or infallible?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight

So would you characterize "talkorigins" as fallible or infallible? I haven't read all of it, but based on what I've seen, it's merely a collection of material plus archived Usenet postings, none of which qualifies as "infallible" so far as I know...

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath

I haven't read all of it, but based on what I've seen, it's merely a collection of material plus archived Usenet postings, none of which qualifies as "infallible" so far as I know... OK.... so how would you determine what IS and what ISN'T fallible at a place like "talkorigins"?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight

OK.... so how would you determine what IS and what ISN'T fallible at a place like "talkorigins"?

Since all real science is subject to re-evaluation and change in the light of new data, I've never found anything yet in science that I'd consider "infallible" in the sense I think you mean. Not at Talkorigins.com or anywhere else.

That does not mean that some ideas don't fit the available facts better than others... to determine a ranking or hierarchy I test by looking at whether the idea is supported by correct scientific process and how well it fits the available information. If all else is equal (i.e. the process), then the better fit to the data is the "better" explanation.

[BillyBob]

Hey, I just found out that Darwin is my God! :bannana:

"Dear Heavenly Charles, forgive them for they know not what they do. And forgive them for they know not much of anything scientific."

[Scottb]

DARWIN `S DEAD.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Hey, I just found out that Darwin is my God! :bannana:

"Dear Heavenly Charles, forgive them for they know not what they do. And forgive them for they know not much of anything scientific."

Forgive Billy for thinking sci-fi is fact-fi:D

[BillyBob]

Forgive that idiot Tye for claiming that Darwin is my God.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Knight

So would you characterize "talkorigins" as fallible or infallible?

When it comes to science, less fallible than the Bible.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Hey, I just found out that Darwin is my God! :bannana:

"Dear Heavenly Charles, forgive them for they know not what they do. And forgive them for they know not much of anything scientific." That's odd, I thought he was just a dead naturalist...

Of course Tye worships a dead fellow as a deity, so I suppose he assumes everyone else would like to as well. :think:

[SwItChBlAdE]

hey ppl who picked number one.. want to make 250,000 bucks???

http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Prove it. :)

[Tye Porter]

Originally posted by Zakath
Of course Tye worships a dead fellow as a deity
The fact that you believe Jesus Christ is dead explains why you are an atheistic religionist.
Although your belief sounds like another guy here on TOL who calls himself a Christian. :think:

[Scottb]

Originally posted by SwItChBlAdE

hey ppl who picked number one.. want to make 250,000 bucks???

http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Prove it. :) HEY AUSSIE THINKER, YOU CAN MAKE $250,000, IT PROBABLY BE EASY FOR YOU.:D

[Chileice]

I think it is highly likely the earth is at least several million years old, if for no other reason from some geological and astronomical evidence. That being said, none of us was around to see it all get started and anything we say about it will be speculative. I DO believe God created it. How he chose to do that was up to his creative intelligence. And since he left me no SCIENTIFIC record of that creation, I will be content with the poetic version. I presume that if it were really all that important for us to know about he would have given us more info on it. It appears that he was much more concerned with the eternal state of our souls than he is about us knowing the mechanics of creation.

[Scottb]

Originally posted by BillyBob

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html :nono: :chuckle: :zakath:

[Scottb]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

:chuckle:



Under 10,000 years old, between 6,000 and 8,000 frankly. As for Clete's question - well, I don't think the scientific evidence will every show or support an earth age of under 10,000 years. However, we can see plenty of evidence that the models they do put forth are complete bunk.

Add that to the incredible evidence for the Bible as the Word of God, and I will put my faith in that which has shown itself to be reliable over the silliness that comes from most of the scientific community.

Frankly, one of the reasons I think the earth shows so much age, is that just as God created Adam fully grown - aged - I believe that He created the earth perfect, and fully developed - aged as it were. I was being sarcastic.:thumb:

[man_of_God_]

around 6,000 yrs. according to some researchers from Creation Magazine

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
The fact that you believe Jesus Christ is dead explains why you are an atheistic religionist.Well, according to your religious book he was killed by the Romans, wasn't he?

It's just that I find the idea of reanimating 3-day dead corpses to be totally without credible evidence.

[BillyBob]

:dead:

[CapnFungi]

the earth is definately under 10,000 years old..

[BillyBob]

Well, I guess it's settled. Three times as many posters believe that the Earth is relatively young, so I guess it must be so. Polls at TOL always reflect reality.

[Bob Enyart]

Hello to all,
FYI, you can hear Dr. Walt Brown on Bob Enyart Live, show #33, Feb. 16, 2004 discussing creaton and the global flood. Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT. Also, I judge his creation and flood theories to best fit the evidence. Thanks, -Bob

[BillyBob]

So his theories reflect a 4.5 Billion year old Earth?

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart

Hello to all,
FYI, you can hear Dr. Walt Brown on Bob Enyart Live, show #33, Feb. 16, 2004 discussing creaton and the global flood. Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT. Also, I judge his creation and flood theories to best fit the evidence. Thanks, -Bob Thank you Bob, I'm sure some of the people here will listen to that show before twisting your statement around.

[BillyBob]

AS;
Thank you Bob, I'm sure some of the people here will listen to that show before twisting your statement around.

Billy;
You planning on twisting his statement around?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Polls at TOL always reflect reality.

more so then the evolutionists broken mirror:D

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart

Hello to all,
FYI, you can hear Dr. Walt Brown on Bob Enyart Live, show #33, Feb. 16, 2004 discussing creaton and the global flood. Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT. Also, I judge his creation and flood theories to best fit the evidence. Thanks, -Bob :thumb:

[kingpin]

I judge this earth to be about 4.5 million years old. But I'm also under the opinion that God has destroyed this earth and recreated it for human life. So I judge the recreation of the earth for human life to be about 6,000 - 8,000 years old.

K

[The Berean]

Originally posted by Zakath

I'd suggest verifying rather than falsifying by looking for corraborating evidence.

Isn't it pretty well impossible to falsify a unique event, like creation?

One of the rare moments where I agree with Zakath! :thumb:

[The Berean]

Originally posted by Knight

And we all know if it's on "talkorigins" it must be true. :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Good one Knight!!! :chuckle:

[thelaqachisnext]

:chuckle:

Maybe that explains why some days I feel older than dirt...
Dirt came first. Only your body made out of the dirt can 'feel' old.

Have any of you ever noticed that no matter how many years we live, we never change inside, in our inner being? We get more understanding [hopefully] but we do not change, or age, in our being.

[Lighthouse]

Under 10,000...

[3.14159]

over 10,000^2

[Skeptic]

It's hard to belief that 52.56% of you folks think Earth is under 10,000 years old.

I guess it is to be expected, when science takes a back seat to religion.

[One Eyed Jack]

It's hard to belief that 52.56% of you folks think Earth is under 10,000 years old.

Believe it.

I guess it is to be expected, when science takes a back seat to religion.

Christians tend to place more importance in the revelation of God than the speculation of man. And science doesn't take a backseat to religion with creationists -- it's riding shotgun.

[Balder]

A-ma-zing.

[allsmiles]

From the little I've been able to garner on the subject, the earth is far older than 10,000 years.

[TheDude]

Why do we need to put an age on the earth?

[Real Sorceror]

It's hard to belief that 52.56% of you folks think Earth is under 10,000 years old.

I guess it is to be expected, when science takes a back seat to religion.
This site is over 50% Christian. Why is it hard to believe they'd vote under 10,000 years?
I voted around 4.5 Billion years, but thats only becuase "pretty damn old" wasnt an option. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Christians tend to place more importance in the revelation of God than the speculation of man. It's your speculation that there is a God who has revealed things to man.

I would rather place more importance on speculations that are supported by evidence.

And science doesn't take a backseat to religion with creationists -- it's riding shotgun. :rotfl:

[RELIGIONSUCKS]

REGARDING THE QUESTION: I do Not Think the age of the Earth is the Issue- THE AGE OF MAN is Clearly 6,000-6,500 Years Old (THAT is REALLY What YOUR ASKING)! THE EARTH Could be Zillions of Years old for All GOD CARES, He Technically did not have to CREATE Dirt to UTILIZE IT and Make something of it for Man to live on! DIRT will Never take over his Throne so I say HE DID NOT NEED TO CREATE IT! So I would Say by reason of the GAP THEORY and The AGE OF GOD (Never Had a Beginning!), That TIME was NON-EXISTANT at the Time of CONSTRUCTION, Therefore a CREATED EARTH is not Proper- a BIBLICAL RENEWED EARTH IS!!! He did NOT Say "BE" he PLANNED PURPOSED and DESIGNED by Seperating Existing Water and Land and Planting Plants Etc.! IT WAS ONLY DARK MATTER when He Arrived to Change it! HE ENTERED the Area as "THE LIGHT" and IT WAS THEN VISIBLE and Needed Work so For 6 Days He Worked with the Angels I am Sure to GIT R' DONE! The Idea that He SPOKE it Into existance is also LUDICRIS Since he Could have SPOKE IT into Existance in 7 MINUTES Probably! So AGAIN I reiterate- a UNFATHOMABLE TIME (UN-NUMBERED) Could Be The Answer to the Age of The Earth, since TIME Itself is a PROPERTY! The Further you Get UP Into Space Time Ceases to Exist, so TIME was the CREATED or The "BROUGHT TO LIFE" Factor of this EARTH Question! TIME was the Only Property Added to The Earth when He Entered the Space! WHY? Because GRAVITY from The MOON- WARMTH for GROWTH From The Sun and Therefore TIME Functions as a Property "NOW!" Thanks Everyone- This is MY FIRST POST- LOL!
JESUS IS CREATOR GOD- Need Proof? I GOT IT in The Scripture too!

[RELIGIONSUCKS]

Here is Good Data- TIME is a PROPERTY and WE HAPPEN TO BE IN IT Right Now- IF YOU EXIST Higher Up and OUTSIDE OF TIME- The UN-IMAGINABLE and UN-FATHOMABLE Creator God Get sto Call The Shots and DESIGN Whatever He Wants and Then Put a TIME-TABLE ON IT Based on his ETERNALITY! He Then Allows the PEOPLE IN TIME to Hear what HE HAS TO SAY About Everything (GOD'S WORD: The Bible) and Based On Thier Response taht Man or Woman goes to STEP TWO- Heaven WITH HIM (NO TIME THERE) or HELL (ETERNAL TIME: Forever!) Hope your TIME CAPSULE is Set on ETERNITY and Not "Time" REASONING!

[Chosen by God]

The Bible does not teach the age of the earth or cosmos, so any atempt using scripture to place age of the earth is merely a guess, theory, assumption, like most other Christian theology. I would trust science on this one as most Christians parrot the idiotic idea of a young earth based on some notion that lightspeed at one time (a pun) was infinite, again, abandoning all reason.

[Chosen by God]

Here is Good Data- TIME is a PROPERTY and WE HAPPEN TO BE IN IT Right Now- IF YOU EXIST Higher Up and OUTSIDE OF TIME- The UN-IMAGINABLE and UN-FATHOMABLE Creator God Get sto Call The Shots and DESIGN Whatever He Wants and Then Put a TIME-TABLE ON IT Based on his ETERNALITY! He Then Allows the PEOPLE IN TIME to Hear what HE HAS TO SAY About Everything (GOD'S WORD: The Bible) and Based On Thier Response taht Man or Woman goes to STEP TWO- Heaven WITH HIM (NO TIME THERE) or HELL (ETERNAL TIME: Forever!) Hope your TIME CAPSULE is Set on ETERNITY and Not "Time" REASONING!
Time and space is the only method for cognizing events. Without time and space no events can happen. With no time and space the event of "being" cannot happen. For the event of existing to take place it is necessary for something to exist somewhere, this is only possible in time and space.

The whole reasoning that God exists outside of time and space is loony tune time. But of course for modern theology to work nothing can be logical.

[Real Sorceror]

Here is Good Data- TIME is a PROPERTY and WE HAPPEN TO BE IN IT Right Now- IF YOU EXIST Higher Up and OUTSIDE OF TIME- The UN-IMAGINABLE and UN-FATHOMABLE Creator God Get sto Call The Shots and DESIGN Whatever He Wants and Then Put a TIME-TABLE ON IT Based on his ETERNALITY! He Then Allows the PEOPLE IN TIME to Hear what HE HAS TO SAY About Everything (GOD'S WORD: The Bible) and Based On Thier Response taht Man or Woman goes to STEP TWO- Heaven WITH HIM (NO TIME THERE) or HELL (ETERNAL TIME: Forever!) Hope your TIME CAPSULE is Set on ETERNITY and Not "Time" REASONING!
Did Letsargue and Squeeky have a baby?
Why didnt anyone tell me?

[GuySmiley]

Did Letsargue and Squeeky have a baby?
Why didnt anyone tell me?
:rotfl:

[One Eyed Jack]

The Bible does not teach the age of the earth or cosmos, so any atempt using scripture to place age of the earth is merely a guess, theory, assumption, like most other Christian theology. I would trust science on this one as most Christians parrot the idiotic idea of a young earth based on some notion that lightspeed at one time (a pun) was infinite, again, abandoning all reason.

How old are you? How old was your father when you were born? How old was his father when he was born? Assuming you know the answers to these questions, do you think someone could use that information to figure out when your grandfather was born? Apparently not. And you say we're the ones who have abandoned reason.

[Real Sorceror]

How old are you? How old was your father when you were born? How old was his father when he was born? Assuming you know the answers to these questions, do you think someone could use that information to figure out when your grandfather was born? Apparently not. And you say we're the ones who have abandoned reason.
No. You could not use someone's age as an indicater of thier ancester's age.

[fool]

No. You could not use someone's age as an indicater of thier ancester's age.
Not precisly by any stretch, but you can draw some reasonable upper and lower limits and bracket a patch in history. This is expressed in many fieldswith a +/- or a "circa".
This means that you can know for example that my son can't be older then me, and you can guess that I didn't have him when I was five. You can also be fairly certain that I didn't have him after I was dead (or say maybe I could have a son up to a year after I was dead if the dates were fuzzy and he came really late). With the frozen sperm and embryo stuff they got going on this may all change but those are not the norm and would only come into play since they invented that stuff.

[One Eyed Jack]

No. You could not use someone's age as an indicater of thier ancester's age.

How old are you? How old was your father when you were born? How old was his father when he was born? If you know the answers to these questions, I can tell within a few years what year your grandfather was born.

Let's say you're 20. We're also going to assume your father was 20 when you were born, and his father was 20 when he was born (I'm trying to keep it simple in this example). That would mean your grandfather was born around 1946. See how that works?

[GuySmiley]

How old are you? How old was your father when you were born? How old was his father when he was born? If you know the answers to these questions, I can tell within a few years what year your grandfather was born.

Let's say you're 20. We're also going to assume your father was 20 when you were born, and his father was 20 when he was born (I'm trying to keep it simple in this example). That would mean your grandfather was born around 1946. See how that works?
Now if you knew those ages precisely, would you have to put a +/- by it, or would you know the correct answer?

[One Eyed Jack]

Now if you knew those ages precisely,

You mean like if I knew my dad was 27 years, 0 months, 2 days, 4 hours, 15 minutes, and 47 seconds older than me?

would you have to put a +/- by it, or would you know the correct answer?

I'd be dead on it. But such precise information is rarely available. I figure it's easier to just allow for being up to a year off either way for each generation, and let that be your margin of error.

[GuySmiley]

You mean like if I knew my dad was 27 years, 0 months, 2 days, 4 hours, 15 minutes, and 47 seconds older than me?



I'd be dead on it. But such precise information is rarely available. I figure it's easier to just allow for being up to a year off either way for each generation, and let that be your margin of error.
That makes sense, but could you be . . . uh . . . say off by a factor of 1,000,000 times? ;)

[Real Sorceror]

How old are you? How old was your father when you were born? How old was his father when he was born? If you know the answers to these questions, I can tell within a few years what year your grandfather was born.

Let's say you're 20. We're also going to assume your father was 20 when you were born, and his father was 20 when he was born (I'm trying to keep it simple in this example). That would mean your grandfather was born around 1946. See how that works?
I see your logic, but it is fundamentaly flawed. What if someone started thier family at an ealier/later age. That would quickly throw off your numbers. Same thing if someone died prematurely. The more anomalies, the more your system loses accuracy, and the final result would be very incorrect.

[Real Sorceror]

That makes sense, but could you be . . . uh . . . say off by a factor of 1,000,000 times? ;)
Precisely.

[Chosen by God]

How old are you? How old was your father when you were born? How old was his father when he was born? Assuming you know the answers to these questions, do you think someone could use that information to figure out when your grandfather was born? Apparently not. And you say we're the ones who have abandoned reason.

Would you take a parable literal? Why read more into Genesis than is there? I seriously doubt if Genesis was intended to date the age of the earth. The speed of light and the size of the cosmos proves that the standard understanding of scripture is in error. Not the Scripture is in error but your understanding of what scripture means and how to use it gives the error. In fact If you really are a right winger then you more than likely don't have the foggest of what scripture is about and this genesis dispute is only the tip of your iceburg of error.

I think Genesis is not about when the earth was made but who made it. .

[CapnFungi]

<10,000 years old

[Frank Ernest]

The Bible does not say how old the earth is. The Bible does not say that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Isaiah 45:18 "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

[Omega3]

I'm sorry, but all you young-earth folks are crazy.

This planet is billions of years old.

[Frank Ernest]

Would you take a parable literal? Why read more into Genesis than is there? I seriously doubt if Genesis was intended to date the age of the earth. The speed of light and the size of the cosmos proves that the standard understanding of scripture is in error. Not the Scripture is in error but your understanding of what scripture means and how to use it gives the error. In fact If you really are a right winger then you more than likely don't have the foggest of what scripture is about and this genesis dispute is only the tip of your iceburg of error.
My, my! A left-winger accusing a right-winger of letting politics drive his Scriptural interpretation. :shocked: Pot calls Kettle black. News! :darwinsm:

I think Genesis is not about when the earth was made but who made it. .
Is that a left-wing POV? :chuckle:

Is Genesis a parable? If you believe so, then declare this parable unto us!

[Jefferson]

I'm sorry, but all you young-earth folks are crazy.

This planet is billions of years old.And your evidence is?

[Omega3]

And your evidence is?OMG, do I need to educate you?

There's overwhelming evidence the Earth is billions of years old.

There's NO evidence it's only 10,000 years old.

[eisenreich]

And your evidence is?
Young-earth creationists believe that evolutionists are obviously lying and falsifying their data (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) to suit their athestic worldview. Evolutionists get frustrated when unqualified creationists try to disprove an old earth because a book says otherwise. Back and forth it goes..

Jefferson, bob b, any other YEC:
I think a much more convincing argument from your side would be to find a neutral scientist (and by neutral I mean somelike like a Buddist who has no ties to Abrahamic religions) that supports a young earth (<10,000 years). Because a Buddhist scientist could be impartial as to the actual evidence, his opinion would hold more weight.

[CapnFungi]

I'm sorry, but all you young-earth folks are crazy.

This planet is billions of years old.

LMAO.

I also would like to see your empirical evidence to support such a wild assumption.

[Chosen by God]

My, my! A left-winger accusing a right-winger of letting politics drive his Scriptural interpretation. :shocked: Pot calls Kettle black. News! :darwinsm:

Is that a left-wing POV? :chuckle:

Is Genesis a parable? If you believe so, then declare this parable unto us!

My politics comes from scripture I don't bring it to scripture. Jesus was a radical left winger. He wasn't bringing a tax break for the rich, In fact He said there was no way the rich could enter into His kingdom unless they gave all thier money to the poor..

I don't think it is a parable but I don't think its purpose is to teach us the age of the earth. I think it is just a story that tells us the brief history of Gods relationship with man. It has must know information such as; there is a God and you are not him. He made everything and gave stewardship of earth to man. Man must take care of it or God will punish him. Man must obey God. Don't pay any attention to your wife when she tries to make you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Try to focus on what's there not what you think should be there.

[Delmar]

My politics comes from scripture I don't bring it to scripture. Jesus was a radical left winger. No.
He wasn't bringing a tax break for the rich, In fact He said there was no way the rich could enter into His kingdom unless they gave all thier money to the poor.. Not even close to correct. Jesus recognized that, money had become God to that guy. That is way different from demanding that every one give all their money to the poor! Jesus afirmed property rights. Eve here of " thou shall not steal?


I don't think it is a parable but I don't think its purpose is to teach us the age of the earth. I think it is just a story that tells us the brief history of Gods relationship with man. It has must know information such as; there is a God and you are not him. He made everything and gave stewardship of earth to man. Man must take care of it or God will punish him. Man must obey God. Don't pay any attention to your wife when she tries to make you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Try to focus on what's there not what you think should be there.

[CapnFungi]

You know. Even though I am YEC. This really isn't a salvation issue. So my question is, why is it (age of the earth) debated so much?

[Poly]

, In fact He said there was no way the rich could enter into His kingdom unless they gave all thier money to the poor..
(emphasis mine)

Please site the scripture reference where Jesus said this.

[Delmar]

You know. Even though I am YEC. This really isn't a salvation issue. So my question is, why is it (age of the earth) debated so much?
Because if people believe part of the Bible is not true...

[eisenreich]

You know. Even though I am YEC. This really isn't a salvation issue. So my question is, why is it (age of the earth) debated so much?
If you hold that the earth is billions of years old, Genesis becomes metaphor. If 'The Fall of Man' and original sin is merely part of a parable, what need did Jesus have to die on the cross?

[CapnFungi]

If you hold that the earth is billions of years old, Genesis becomes metaphor. If 'The Fall of Man' and original sin is merely part of a parable, what need did Jesus have to die on the cross?

You don't even know what to believe. You're agnostic.
So why do you care?

[eisenreich]

You don't even know what to believe. You're agnostic.

If I could define my one word title, it would read:
Secular Humanist Agnostic (though for strictly deistic purposes)

Are you implying that a born-again Christian who has never cracked a Bible knows more about his religion that an atheist who has spent years researching the history, source languages, and traditions of Christianity? It is possible for non-believers to have an opinion on the Bible.

So why do you care?
You asked a question.

[CapnFungi]

Are you implying that a born-again Christian who has never cracked a Bible knows more about his religion that an atheist who has spent years researching the history, source languages, and traditions of Christianity?

I'm not sure who this so called born-again christian who has never cracked a bible is.

Are you implying that I have never even looked at a bible and that I know absolutely nothing about it?

Tell be Propeht Wise&Right what else about me do you assume without having any knowledge of?

[eisenreich]

I'm not sure who this so called born-again christian who has never cracked a bible is.

Are you implying that I have never even looked at a bible and that I know absolutely nothing about it?

Tell be Propeht Wise&Right what else about me do you assume without having any knowledge of?
This is the second time today you've failed to understand what a hypothetical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical) is (other was here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1168467&postcount=4) in The Dude's Islam vs. Drugs thread).

A couple posts ago you implied that I lacked knowledge and understanding about theological issues because I labeled myself Agnostic.

You don't even know what to believe. You're agnostic.
At no point did I claim to know anything about you; I was merely asking whether you thought non-theists could ever know more about Christianity than self-proclaimed Christians (like the two 'people' in my hypothetical).

[CapnFungi]

I know what hypothetical is.
Thanks for making me laugh though.

I enjoy laughin with the truely feeble minded

[eisenreich]

I know what hypothetical is.
You certainly haven't demonstrated that today.

Thanks for making me laugh though.

I enjoy laughin with the truely feeble minded
Alone time must always be happy hour then! :bannana:

getting back to the topic of the thread...

Young-earth creationists believe that evolutionists are obviously lying and falsifying their data to suit their athestic worldview. Evolutionists get frustrated when unqualified creationists try to disprove an old earth because a book says otherwise. Back and forth it goes..

Jefferson, bob b, any other YEC:
I think a much more convincing argument from your side would be to find a neutral scientist (and by neutral I mean somelike like a Buddist who has no ties to Abrahamic religions) that supports a young earth (<10,000 years). Because a Buddhist scientist could be impartial as to the actual evidence, his opinion would hold more weight.

[Omega3]

LMAO.

I also would like to see your empirical evidence to support such a wild assumption.Wild assumption? :nono:

The dinosaurs went extinct 65-million-years ago. If the Earth is only 10,000 years old, where did the dinosaurs live?

Oh that's right... you believe man lived on the Earth with the dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago. Too funny.

Look up the evidence yourself. Not only can you find it everywhere, you can also find it in abundance. (Just not in a book of fables such as the Qur'an and the Bible.)

[Jefferson]

The dinosaurs went extinct 65-million-years ago.
Oh?

From http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html

[eisenreich]

Oh?

From http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html
Jefferson.. You're using that? Really?

When AiG says it's time to stop using it as evidence, chances are you're one of a handful on the planet who still believe it.

Letting rotting sharks lie
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/sharks.asp

"Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur."

[CapnFungi]

Wild assumption? :nono:

The dinosaurs went extinct 65-million-years ago. If the Earth is only 10,000 years old, where did the dinosaurs live?

Oh that's right... you believe man lived on the Earth with the dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago. Too funny.

Look up the evidence yourself. Not only can you find it everywhere, you can also find it in abundance. (Just not in a book of fables such as the Qur'an and the Bible.)


I use the same evidence to support creation that you use to support evolution. It just so happens that my worldview doesn't dissolve with all the facts. You still havn't provided me with any evidence..

anyway, i forget you were here 65 billion years ago to see for yourself.

[Omega3]

I use the same evidence to support creation that you use to support evolution. It just so happens that my worldview doesn't dissolve with all the facts. You still havn't provided me with any evidence..

anyway, i forget you were here 65 billion years ago to see for yourself.65 million, not billion.

You have no evidence to support creationism. It's all in a fable book.

[Omega3]

Oh?

From http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.htmlYou believe that crap?

[CapnFungi]

65 million, not billion.

You have no evidence to support creationism. It's all in a fable book.

WE ARE HERE. Now. Are you going to argue that we are not here?
Explain to me where the information comes from in DNA.

Now to go a step further. Explain to me and give me the empirical evidence that supports your assumption that material created itself out of nothing.

If you believe in Evolution that is your assumption.. Oddly enough it is your conclusion too.

[Chosen by God]

(emphasis mine)

Please site the scripture reference where Jesus said this.
19:16
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18
He saith unto him, Which * Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
19:22
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had * great possessions.
19:23
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Everyone knows that a camel cannot go through the eye of a needle, everyone except the Righteous Right that is. They have to grasp outside of common language for some cultural interpretation about a midgit camel and needle gate some where and somehow in their imagination

[Caille]

Everyone knows that a camel cannot go through the eye of a needle, everyone except the Righteous Right that is. They have to grasp outside of common language for some cultural interpretation about a midgit camel and needle gate some where and somehow in their imagination


No midget camel.

No needle gate.


Just a hydraulic press.





Of course, it won't look much like a camel when you're done....

[One Eyed Jack]

19:16
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18
He saith unto him, Which * Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
19:22
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had * great possessions.
19:23
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Everyone knows that a camel cannot go through the eye of a needle, everyone except the Righteous Right that is. They have to grasp outside of common language for some cultural interpretation about a midgit camel and needle gate some where and somehow in their imagination

In the Fourth Commandment, how long did God say it took Him to create "the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is?"

[Omega3]

WE ARE HERE. Now. Are you going to argue that we are not here?
Explain to me where the information comes from in DNA.Where did I say that we're not here? I think you're seeing things.

Now to go a step further. Explain to me and give me the empirical evidence that supports your assumption that material created itself out of nothing.Yup, you're seeing things alright. I never said DNA created itself out of nothing. I'm not sure what kicked-off life. Maybe it did it on its own, maybe a god or gods did it, and maybe it was life from another planet.

If you believe in Evolution that is your assumption.. Oddly enough it is your conclusion too.I think you need to look up the definition of "assumption." You assume a book of fables is correct, when really it was written by primitive humans thousands of years ago that still believed the Earth was flat. They knew jack-all.

Another thing, evolution speaks nothing of what what started life. Evolution only speaks to the processes for which we are what we are today.

If you want to believe god facilitated evolution, then I respect that.

[CapnFungi]

Where did I say that we're not here? I think you're seeing things.

Yup, you're seeing things alright. I never said DNA created itself out of nothing. I'm not sure what kicked-off life. Maybe it did it on its own, maybe a god or gods did it, and maybe it was life from another planet.

I think you need to look up the definition of "assumption." You assume a book of fables is correct, when really it was written by primitive humans thousands of years ago that still believed the Earth was flat. They knew jack-all.

Another thing, evolution speaks nothing of what what started life. Evolution only speaks to the processes for which we are what we are today.

If you want to believe god facilitated evolution, then I respect that.


maybe you need to look at the facts, and stop listening to the lies your teachers tell you.

[Frank Ernest]

You know. Even though I am YEC. This really isn't a salvation issue. So my question is, why is it (age of the earth) debated so much?
All I can determine is that YEC seems to be the sine qua non of arguments against evolution.

[Frank Ernest]

In the Fourth Commandment, how long did God say it took Him to create "the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is?"
This it?

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

[eisenreich]

Summary of a typical Evolutionist vs. Creationist argument on TOL.

E: The earth is 4.6 billion years old. Here's my proof (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html), which scientists have universally agreed upon.

C: The earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years young, here's my smoking-gun proof that shows dinosaurs are still alive, shattering the theory of evolution! (which it wouldn't in the first place):


(responding to a post alleging dinosaurs died out millions of years ago)
Oh?

From http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html
Jefferson.. You're using that? Really?

When AiG says it's time to stop using it as evidence, chances are you're one of a handful on the planet who still believe it.

Letting rotting sharks lie
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/sharks.asp

"Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur."




YEC's are kind of sad, in a way. When they realize the 'scientific evidence' proving their worldview is nothing but enthusiastic, but ignorant handwaving, they retreat back to the well (http://www.gennet.org/facts) for another 'fact'. I do have more respect for them, though, than liberal Christians who twist and contort the Bible to align with modern day scientific truths.

[Omega3]

maybe you need to look at the facts, and stop listening to the lies your teachers tell you.So, the book of Genesis, a far-fetched fable written by someone who thought the Earth was flat, over-rules all the hard-evidence the scientific community has amassed?

Do we even know who wrote Genesis?

[Chosen by God]

So, the book of Genesis, a far-fetched fable written by someone who thought the Earth was flat, over-rules all the hard-evidence the scientific community has amassed?

Do we even know who wrote Genesis?
Good point. Here we have a bunch of fools fighting over the words of someone they don't even know, and they are trying to be rational about it. Then they want to rule the world with their emotinal decisions while professng liberty yet practicing tyranny. Yes seperation of church and state is a good idea as long as we cannot agree on what the church is and believes.

[Delmar]

So, the book of Genesis, a far-fetched fable written by someone who thought the Earth was flat, over-rules all the hard-evidence the scientific community has amassed?

Do we even know who wrote Genesis?
Flat Earth is not a Biblical concept.

[Omega3]

Flat Earth is not a Biblical concept.Yeah, but the Bible was written entirely by people who believed it. They also believe the Earth was the centre of the universe. Hehe.

[Delmar]

Yeah, but the Bible was written entirely by people who believed it. They also believe the Earth was the centre of the universe. Hehe. We know that in the time before Columbus the " scientific consensus" was that the world was flat!
Please provide evidence that the writers of the Bible believed the earth was flat. While you are at it provide evidence that our solar system is not the center of the universe.

[Omega3]

We know that in the time before Columbus the " scientific consensus" was that the world was flat! Please provide evidence that the writers of the Bible believed the earth was flat.Everybody back then believed that.

While you are at it provide evidence that our solar system is not the center of the universe.Do you know anything about the universe and the galaxies? We're in a more outter galaxy that's travelling outward from the centre.

Next thing you know you'll be asking for evidence that the sky is blue and water is wet.

[The Berean]

Yeah, but the Bible was written entirely by people who believed it. They also believe the Earth was the centre of the universe. Hehe.
The Earth is the center of the spiritual and human universe if not the phyisical center of the universe. All the important action, meaning man's history and actions, is here on Earth. When you and I are long dead and buried the Bible will still be here.

[The Berean]

Everybody back then believed that.

Do you know anything about the universe and the galaxies? We're in a more outter galaxy that's travelling outward from the centre.

Next thing you know you'll be asking for evidence that the sky is blue and water is wet.
It's my understanding that there is no "center" of the universe since we don't know how "large" the universe really is and we can't see the entire universe. We can only speak of the "observable" universe.


The term universe has a variety of meanings based on the context in which it is described. In strictly physical terms the total universe is the summation of all matter that exists and the space in which all events occur. The part of the universe that can be seen or otherwise observed is usually called the known universe, observable universe, or visible universe. Because cosmic inflation removes vast parts of the total universe from our observable horizon, most cosmologists accept that it is impossible to observe the whole continuum and may use the expression our universe, referring only to that knowable by human beings in particular. In cosmological terms, the universe is thought to be a finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist. It has been hypothesized by some scientists that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse.


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe)

[Delmar]

Everybody back then believed that. You are quessing! Read Luke 17 30 -36 and get back to me.



Do you know anything about the universe and the galaxies? We're in a more outter galaxy that's travelling outward from the centre.


No we are in the center.

[The Graphite]

We know that in the time before Columbus the " scientific consensus" was that the world was flat!
Please provide evidence that the writers of the Bible believed the earth was flat. While you are at it provide evidence that our solar system is not the center of the universe.
Actually, while I am on your side, Delmar, that isn't entirely true. Non-Judeo-Christian people have known the world is round since before Christ. Ancient Greek mathematicians figured it out, using astronomy and geometry, and were surprisingly close to the accurate diameter of the earth. Now, granted, only some people knew this, and your average uneducated masses didn't. But learned men did know.

It's also true that this knowledge became less known through the Dark Ages, but even in the years leading up to Columbus' voyage, the debate was NOT whether the earth was round. The debate was how big the earth was. There were two camps, each side favoring a different area of science.

One camp (including Columbus) said the Earth was smaller than the Greeks said, because they observed meteorological phenomena and the movement of oceanic waters. Being a mariner, Columbus naturally favored this area of science. And that data indicated there was a continental land-mass only about 3,000 miles to the west, give or take, based on weather patterns and ocean currents. And everyone figured that had to be east Asia. Columbus wanted a trade route to Asia that wouldn't have to go around the southern tip of Africa.

The other camp used astronomy and geometry, and rightly knew the approximate size of the earth. And if that was the case (which it is), then Asia would be two or three times as far to the west as Columbus was claiming. Such a western trade route to Asia would have been utterly impossible.

Amusingly, both camps were partly right, of course. What neither of them counted on was a large, undiscovered continent to the west, between Europe and Asia.

Just want to put this forth to clarify the issue, and to dispel the myth that people have always thought the earth was flat before Columbus.


Now, all of that said, ancient peoples prior to the Greeks DID believe the Earth was flat. Except, of course, for the Hebrew people, who knew from their divinely-inspired scripture that the earth is, in fact, round. They had the advantage of many scientific understandings that no one else on Earth had at that time. Washing hands in running water rather than still water, the dangers of eating pork and shellfish, and many other things. The first book of the Tanakh ever written contains scientific information possessed by no one else on earth at the time, such as the fact that the earth hung in space, rather than sitting on the back of a tortoise or some such nonsense.

[eisenreich]

You are quessing! Read Luke 17 30 -36 and get back to me.
So you accuse him of just guessing and then list a passage that has nothing to do with the position of earth in the Universe..?

No we are in the center.
We are at the center of our observable universe just like a sailor on the open sea is at the center of his observable ocean. There is no edge there, just a horizon

The term modern geocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism) refers to a belief currently held by certain groups that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. The prime motivating factor for the modern belief, as opposed to the geocentrism of Ptolemy, is explicitly religious. Advocates generally argue that literal interpretations of certain Biblical passages demand that the Earth be properly described as being the center of the universe.

The consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism#The_modern_scientific_point_of_ view) of scientists today is that
1. there is no center or otherwise special position in the universe,
2. from the standpoint of the laws of physics, there is no special linear velocity (however, the velocity of the cosmic microwave background radiation is sometimes considered special from the standpoint of a scientist)
3. there is a unique rotational velocity in which Newton’s laws of motion hold.

[Granite]

Delmar seriously thought Columbus's contemporaries believed the earth was flat.:doh:

Oh brother.

[Granite]

The Earth is the center of the spiritual and human universe if not the phyisical center of the universe. All the important action, meaning man's history and actions, is here on Earth. When you and I are long dead and buried the Bible will still be here.

This kind of humanistic hubris is moving but also incredibly, supremely arrogant and stupefying in its potential xenophobia.:down:

[The Graphite]

Delmar seriously thought Columbus's contemporaries believed the earth was flat.:doh:

Oh brother.
Don't be so hard on Del. It's a common mistaken, mostly perpetuated by our lousy public school systems.

[Granite]

Don't be so hard on Del. It's a common mistaken, mostly perpetuated by our lousy public school systems.

I'll keep that in mind next time he knocks public schools...

Washington Irving invented that myth, didn't he?

[The Graphite]

This kind of humanistic hubris is moving but also incredibly, supremely arrogant and stupefying in its potential xenophobia.:down:
How on EARTH (no pun intended) was Berean's statement "humanistic?" :rotfl:

It was the blatant opposite of humanism! :doh:

[Granite]

How on EARTH (no pun intended) was Berean's statement "humanistic?" :rotfl:

It was the blatant opposite of humanism! :doh:

If you think about it he was saying "man is the measure of all things" in so many words.

[The Graphite]

If you think about it he was saying "man is the measure of all things" in so many words.
He also said that when you and I are gone, the BIBLE will still be here. THAT is at the heart of things. Mankind without any divine involvement would be just as useless as all of creation without mankind. So, he was ultimately pointing out that GOD is the center of all things, and the only meaning we have is in relation to Him. Which is blatantly opposite of humanism.

[Granite]

He also said that when you and I are gone, the BIBLE will still be here. THAT is at the heart of things. Mankind without any divine involvement would be just as useless as all of creation without mankind. So, he was ultimately pointing out that GOD is the center of all things, and the only meaning we have is in relation to Him. Which is blatantly opposite of humanism.

(Shrug.)

We both took something different from what he said; nothing changes the fact that it has staggering, appalling implications.

The staying power of a book, of course, says nothing about its veracity.

[The Graphite]

(Shrug.)

We both took something different from what he said; nothing changes the fact that it has staggering, appalling implications.

The staying power of a book, of course, says nothing about its veracity.
Staggering, appalling implications to the fools of the world, yes.

[Granite]

Staggering, appalling implications to the fools of the world, yes.

Well that didn't take long, rookie: a few posts deep and you start to act like a self-righteous jerk. Nice job.

[The Graphite]

SELF-righteous? Absolutely not. Without God, I am exceedingly unrighteous. Wicked, abominable, destructive to myself and others.

Would I be a self-righteous jerk if I point out to a youthful gangmember that his actions and lifestyle have staggering, appalling implications? No. It's just a fact. There are staggering, appalling implications, to a fool like him, and he needs to hear it from someone who loves him more than he loves himself.

Just as I do toward you.


And as I've said before, I'm no rookie. This is simply a new name. I've been here on and off for years.

[Granite]

SELF-righteous? Absolutely not. Without God, I am exceedingly unrighteous. Wicked, abominable, destructive to myself and others.

Would I be a self-righteous jerk if I point out to a youthful gangmember that his actions and lifestyle have staggering, appalling implications? No. It's just a fact. There are staggering, appalling implications, to a fool like him, and he needs to hear it from someone who loves him more than he loves himself.

Just as I do toward you.


And as I've said before, I'm no rookie. This is simply a new name. I've been here on and off for years.

Denying your self-righteousness when you're called on acting like a self-righteous jerk is a sure sign that somebody needs the stuffing knocked out of their stuffed shirt.

I don't need the likes of you thinking you "love" me, so don't insult me with that crap. We clear?

[Delmar]

Delmar seriously thought Columbus's contemporaries believed the earth was flat.:doh:

Oh brother.
That is not what I said. there was a time, however, before the era of Columbus when it was assumed that the Earth was flat. It simply wasn't a point I wanted to spend a lot of time researching so I was granting his premise, that every body believed that, for a time.

[The Graphite]

Denying your self-righteousness when you're called on acting like a self-righteous jerk is a sure sign that somebody needs the stuffing knocked out of their stuffed shirt.

I don't need the likes of you thinking you "love" me, so don't insult me with that crap. We clear?
On the contrary, you need it now more than you ever have in your entire live.

Hey, we could have a Granite intervention!


"The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, Granny!"

"We care about you, Gran!"

"We love you more than you love yourself!"

"There's always hope! ... Oo, is that a punch bowl over there? Oh, sweet! Ritz crackers!" :Party:

[The Berean]

This kind of humanistic hubris is moving but also incredibly, supremely arrogant and stupefying in its potential xenophobia.:down:
Oh, come on Granite stop being such a drama queen. ;) Your statement doesn't even make sense. If one believes we are alone in the universe why would that lead to zenophobia? Do you know of any other human civilizations besides the one on Earth? Even if there were why would you care what is happeneing on their world since it would be billions and billions of miles away and we probably could not detect it anyway.

[Granite]

On the contrary, you need it now more than you ever have in your entire live.

Hey, we could have a Granite intervention!


"The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, Granny!"

"We care about you, Gran!"

"We love you more than you love yourself!"

"There's always hope! ... Oo, is that a punch bowl over there? Oh, sweet! Ritz crackers!" :Party:

"Life," nitwit. I don't need any help. If I did the last group I'd turn to would be the kind of people I encounter on TOL. You don't know me, so quit acting like you do. In other words, sod off.

[Granite]

Oh, come on Granite stop being such a drama queen. ;) Your statement doesn't even make sense. If one believes we are alone in the universe why would that lead to zenophobia? Do you know of any other human civilizations besides the one on Earth? Even if there were why would you care what is happeneing on their world since it would be billions and billions of miles away and we probably could not detect it anyway.

Sure it does. Suppose we encounter another civilization. Your attitude would instantly consider them inferior, as we are the center of "creation." I wasn't even talking human civilization, I was talking another form of intelligent life, period.

Your indifference is typical. Real Philistines, the way you guys strut around and grind things under your heels and simply don't give a damn.

[The Berean]

If you think about it he was saying "man is the measure of all things" in so many words.
Sorry Granite that is NOT what I was saying at all. Perhaps you can ask me what I meant instead of assuming an interpretation and telling me what I meant. :chuckle:. What I simple meant is that God placed man here on Earth. We didn't choose to be here and we didn't create the Earth. And if man is the "measure of all things" then we are not setting the standard very high are we. Or for those non-beleivers like youself, man has plenty of things to keep him busy and focused here on Earth.

[Granite]

Sorry Granite that is NOT what I was saying at all. Perhaps you can ask me what I meant instead of assuming an interpretation and telling me what I meant. :chuckle:. What I simple meant is that God placed man here on Earth. We didn't choose to be here and we didn't create the Earth. And if man is the "measure of all things" then we are not setting the standard very high are we. Or for those non-beleivers like youself, man has plenty of things to keep him busy and focused here on Earth.

I'll do that once you people start returning the favor. Sound fair?

And yes, mankind needs plenty of work. So what.

[Delmar]

So you accuse him of just guessing and then list a passage that has nothing to do with the position of earth in the Universe..?



You did not read my post correctly. The passage in Luke 17 was in response to the claim that Everybody back then believed that(that the Eath was flat)

The passage implies that some people will be doing daytime activities at the same time others are doing nighttime activities! I am making the claim that Jesus understood the World was not flat!

[The Berean]

Sure it does. Suppose we encounter another civilization. Your attitude would instantly consider them inferior, as we are the center of "creation." I wasn't even talking human civilization, I was talking another form of intelligent life, period.

Your indifference is typical. Real Philistines, the way you guys strut around and grind things under your heels and simply don't give a damn.
Granite, are you having a bad day? ;) Wow, you know how I would think if we met another civilation? Wow, I didn't know you can read my mind or are empathic. Granite, how often do you think about other civilations? And what is the probability that there are other intelligent civilations out there? We simply don't know. We can't even get along with each other and you want to meet other civilizations? I would think if some civilization was watching us they'd probably wouldn't want to meet us "silly humans".

[The Berean]

I'll do that once you people start returning the favor. Sound fair?
When have I personally told you what you meant?:confused:


And yes, mankind needs plenty of work. So what.
I agree 100%.

[Granite]

Granite, are you having a bad day? ;) Wow, you know how I would think if we met another civilation? Wow, I didn't know you can read my mind or are empathic. Granite, how often do you think about other civilations? And what is the probability that there are other intelligent civilations out there? We simply don't know. We can't even get along with each other and you want to meet other civilizations? I would think if some civilization was watching us they'd probably wouldn't want to meet us "silly humans".

:yawn:

You know I always like it when Christians skate from hypotheticals the minute they're asked a straight question or their stated opinions suddenly strike somebody as reprehensible.

I don't give a good hoot in hell what the probability is, to be honest. I'm trying to apply your written opinion about mankind's special place in the universe with a real-world implication. You're also avoiding giving your own opinion. Cute trick. Convenient, too.

You friggin' people. Impossible to get a straight answer, from any of you, on anything, except for one topic: how and why we should kill other people. Isn't that telling.

[Delmar]

I'll keep that in mind next time he knocks public schools...

Washington Irving invented that myth, didn't he?That is a very good point! If I had been home schooled I probably wouldn't have had to do any research to show that the writters of the Bible did not believe the Earth was flat! I'm sorry that my public education is showing again!

[The Berean]

:yawn:

You know I always like it when Christians skate from hypotheticals the minute they're asked a straight question or their stated opinions suddenly strike somebody as reprehensible.

I don't give a good hoot in hell what the probability is, to be honest. I'm trying to apply your written opinion about mankind's special place in the universe with a real-world implication. You're also avoiding giving your own opinion. Cute trick. Convenient, too.

You friggin' people. Impossible to get a straight answer, from any of you, on anything, except for one topic: how and why we should kill other people. Isn't that telling.
Ok, what personal opinion do you want me to express? I have no idea what you are talking about? I simply expressed the belief that God placed mankind here on Earth. And you extrapolated something about killing people from that? Is that the gist of it?

[CapnFungi]

<10,000 years

[eisenreich]

<10,000 years
1. What evidence besides the book of Genesis do you base your claim?

2. Is there any possible evidence that could ever convince you the earth is >10,000 years old?

[The Graphite]

There should be an option in the poll for <7,000 years, or something.

Personally, I can say with confidence: <6,050 years.

[eisenreich]

There should be an option in the poll for <7,000 years, or something.

Personally, I can say with confidence: <6,050 years.
Same two questions that I asked Fungi. Also, why are you so confident in your claim?

1. What evidence besides the book of Genesis do you base your claim?

2. Is there any possible evidence that could ever convince you the earth is >10,000 years old?

[Granite]

Ok, what personal opinion do you want me to express? I have no idea what you are talking about? I simply expressed the belief that God placed mankind here on Earth. And you extrapolated something about killing people from that? Is that the gist of it?

No, not really.

I want to know what you'd feel or what your opinion would be if we were contacted by another intelligent species.

[The Berean]

No, not really.

I want to know what you'd feel or what your opinion would be if we were contacted by another intelligent species.
It depends. Do they have cool spacecraft? Can I claim "Right of Vengence" if they insult my family (Yes, I'm a geeky Star Trek fan)? A lot would depend on why they came to Earth.

[The Graphite]

Same two questions that I asked Fungi. Also, why are you so confident in your claim?
Here's an article I wrote, myself, for starters. There's a growing plethora of scientific evidences being proffered, which of course you reject out of hand, probably with comments like, "There's no real evidence in support of a young earth, so why do you believe it?" and so on.

But, as I said, this article (which is quite short) is far from comprehensive, but it's a start. It is biblical, and hardly rests on only Genesis.

Presuppositions, Scripture & the Age of Humanity (http://godisnowhere.org/Articles/Ageoftheearth(Genealogies).htm)

Personally, I'd love to hear an OEC response to it, more than anything.

[The Graphite]

No, not really.

I want to know what you'd feel or what your opinion would be if we were contacted by another intelligent species.
I don't know about anyone else, but so long as they weren't threatening, I'd try to establish a relationship with them, and then proceed to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with them, as I'm able.

What's the big deal with extra-terrestrial life? I seriously doubt it exists, but if it did, it has no negative repercussions on my theology that I can think of. Who cares?

[Omega3]

No we are in the center.Considering scientists have already determined the general size and shape of our universe, I'd like to know what evidence you have to the contrary. There's probably many other universes out there, but still, what makes you think we're in the centre?

We're moving so fast through space in so many different directions. We're on the outer edge of the Milky Way, and that's no theory. Why would the centre of the universe be on the outskirts of one of just billions of galaxies? It doesn't make any logical sense, especially since there is no actual centre, as space is all relative anyway.

And what makes you think god or the gods didn't make life on other planets? I bet some of them are misguided to believe they're at the centre too.

There's probably millions of planets out there with life on them.

This universe can't all be for us.

[The Berean]

Considering scientists have already determined the general size and shape of our universe, I'd like to know what evidence you have to the contrary. There's probably many other universes out there, but still, what makes you think we're in the centre?

We're moving so fast through space in so many different directions. We're on the outer edge of the Milky Way, and that's no theory. Why would the centre of the universe be on the outskirts of one of just billions of galaxies? It doesn't make any logical sense, especially since there is no actual centre, as space is all relative anyway.

And what makes you think god or the gods didn't make life on other planets? I bet some of them are misguided to believe they're at the centre too.

There's probably millions of planets out there with life on them.

This universe can't all be for us.
This is an argument from incredulity.

"The universe is so huge! Earth can't possiby have the only life on it!"

Ellie Arroway made the same argument in the novel Contact.

[Delmar]

Considering scientists have already determined the general size and shape of our universe, I'd like to know what evidence you have to the contrary. There's probably many other universes out there At the risk of revealing my public school education, AGAIN, what definition are you using for the word universe? I'm asking because if there is more than one of them it can't mean this
"the summation of all matter that exists and the space in which all events occur"

but still, what makes you think we're in the centre?

We're moving so fast through space in so many different directions. We're on the outer edge of the Milky Way, and that's no theory. Why would the centre of the universe be on the outskirts of one of just billions of galaxies? It doesn't make any logical sense, especially since there is no actual centre, as space is all relative anyway.

There is no center and space is relative but "scientists have already determined the general size and shape of our universe" :think: How does that work, I wonder?


And what makes you think god or the gods didn't make life on other planets? I bet some of them are misguided to believe they're at the centre too.

There's probably millions of planets out there with life on them.

This universe can't all be for us. Why not?

[Real Sorceror]

And what makes you think god or the gods didn't make life on other planets? I bet some of them are misguided to believe they're at the centre too.

There's probably millions of planets out there with life on them.

This universe can't all be for us.
Well, here are a lot of other planets and stars. I cant completly dismiss the idea of life on other planets. I cant even dismiss the idea of intelligent life on other planets.

Hmmmm...........alien Jesus?:alien:

[Balder]

Well, here are a lot of other planets and stars. I cant completly dismiss the idea of life on other planets. I cant even dismiss the idea of intelligent life on other planets.

Hmmmm...........alien Jesus?:alien:
They'd have to have St. Patty's beer every communion, to represent Xexus' green blood....

[Real Sorceror]

They'd have to have St. Patty's beer every communion, to represent Xexus' green blood....
And then they'ed argue whether it was symbolic or real! :rotfl:

[Omega3]

At the risk of revealing my public school education, AGAIN, what definition are you using for the word universe? I'm asking because if there is more than one of them it can't mean thisThe offical definition is everything. However, my and a lot of other people's new-age definition of "the" universe is just "our" unverise, which would be all the dark matter and galaxies that weem to be travelling outward from a certain point, apparently where the big bang occured. As new theories emerge and we learn more, we understand that there may be other universes containing matter and energy in this third dimesion but are too far away for us to detect them. There are also other dimensions which "things" (whatever they may be) can "exist."

There is no center and space is relative but "scientists have already determined the general size and shape of our universe" :think: How does that work, I wonder? Why not?You're not looking at this in the proper perspective and context. Everything is moving. We know that the centre of our universe seems to be where the big bang took place, but still, that's relative, because that "centre" and the mass surrounding it is all moving too. There is no such thing as a “set” position in empty space.

In any case, like I said, our solar system and cluster of stars we belong to locally are in the outskirts of Milky Way. The Milky Way is in the outskirts of the universe, quite far from where the Big Bang bang apparently took place.

[Delmar]

The offical definition is everything. However, my and a lot of other people's new-age definition of "the" universe is just "our" unverise, which would be all the dark matter and galaxies that weem to be travelling outward from a certain point, apparently where the big bang occured. As new theories emerge and we learn more, we understand that there may be other universes containing matter and energy in this third dimesion but are too far away for us to detect them. There are also other dimensions which "things" (whatever they may be) can "exist." Why redefine a perfectly good word?The universe is all that exists in every where in every dimension. We have generally assumed that there is more out there than we are aware of, big deal. So when we discover there is a lot more out there than we are aware of you start trying to sound smart by making 3rd grade arguments. "Oh yeah well I've got ten times infinity!" it's just silly!



You're not looking at this in the proper perspective and context. Everything is moving. We know that the center of our universe seems to be where the big bang took place, but still, that's relative, because that "center" and the mass surrounding it is all moving too. There is no such thing as a “set” position in empty space.

In any case, like I said, our solar system and cluster of stars we belong to locally are in the outskirts of Milky Way. The Milky Way is in the outskirts of the universe, quite far from where the Big Bang bang apparently took place. OK, I have a confession to make. When I told you we are in the center of the Universe I was yanking your chain. I really don't know. I really don't care!

[Omega3]

So when we discover there is a lot more out there than we are aware of you start trying to sound smart by making 3rd grade arguments. "Oh yeah well I've got ten times infinity!" it's just silly! OK, I have a confession to make. When I told you we are in the center of the Universe I was yanking your chain. I really don't know. I really don't care!Huh? Where did I make third grade arguments like "oh yeah we'll I've got ten times infinity? I didn't say I had anything.

You're a strange bunch of folks here at TOL.

[Delmar]

Huh? Where did I make third grade arguments like "oh yeah we'll I've got ten times infinity? I didn't say I had anything.

You're a strange bunch of folks here at TOL.
Universe = infinity. When you speak of multiple universes you are, in fact, claiming you can multiply infinity. Why are you lumping others in me?

[Omega3]

Universe = infinity. When you speak of multiple universes you are, in fact, claiming you can multiply infinity. Why are you lumping others in me?You are clueless when it comes to the physics and math behind this. Look up Stephen Hawking.

[truthteller86]

You are clueless when it comes to the physics and math behind this. Look up Stephen Hawking.Stephen Hawking has been "hung out to freeze (http://kgov.com/bel/2006/20060613-BEL117.mp3)" :chuckle:

[bob b]

You are clueless when it comes to the physics and math behind this. Look up Stephen Hawking.

One rule which I always followed in evaluating technical claims, most generally in weapon systems proposals in the Aerospace field, was to carefully examine the underlying assumptions, because if there were any major problems in any proposal that was the area where they were inevitably located.

Carrying this rule over to the field of Origins, it can easily be seen that proposals by people like Hawking are weakest in the assumptions they make. The most glaring of these are at least two: 1) assuming that the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to the early universe, and 2) assuming that there are uncountable numbers of "parallel" universes. There are others, but these two should suffice as discussion starters.

[bob b]

Perhaps I should add a bit of information for people to "chew on" with regard to the age of the universe (and offhandedly the age of the Earth).

The currently popular "inflationary episode" of the Big Bang is thought to have expanded the early universe by 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times (give or take a few zeros) in the first picosecond, and then stopped, or at least drastically slowed down. If that rate of expansion had lasted just one more picosecond it would have generated a universe of the current size.

I see no fundamental reason that we should not assume this latter scenario, because it results in the identical physical universe as the inflationary Big Bang and matches all known astronomical evidences that are measured today.

It also happens to be compatible with the early Genesis scenario. :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Joe Roberts]

Stephen Hawking has been "hung out to freeze (http://kgov.com/bel/2006/20060613-BEL117.mp3)" :chuckle:


I'd be interested to see who would be hung out to freeze if Enyart really debated Hawking.

[truthteller86]

I'd be interested to see who would be hung out to freeze if Enyart really debated Hawking.Ooh Ooh, would Bob E. get to use his cool voice synthesizer again :D That would :guitar:
Stop defending people who hate Jesus Christ Joe.

PS: Do I have "Streets of Philadelphia" ? It was the title track from the homo movie with Tom Hanks(That I didnt watch yesterday ;) )...I don't remember that one in the collection....I really liked the song...good stuff from The Boss eh.

[Real Sorceror]

I'd be interested to see who would be hung out to freeze if Enyart really debated Hawking.
Hawking would completely own Enyart(and most anyone else on the planet)

[truthteller86]

Hawking would completely own Enyart(and most anyone else on the planet)In the robot voic category...you're right, but as to the other issues... :kookoo: You should listen to the show I linked RS....and the follow up show a few days later.... your science hero has some "spacey" ideas huh :chuckle:

[Psalmist]

63 years that I know of . . . :dizzy: :rolleyes: :bannana: :noway: :crackup: :wave: :dead: :grave:

[Mr. 5020]

63 years that I know of . . . :dizzy: :rolleyes: :bannana: :noway: :crackup: :wave: :dead: :grave:63?! Dude, you're old! ;)