Spirituality
03 Dec 09
11 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75G75 this proves my point at least from the young creation argument. You are set on it 100% Explain stars that are further out than 6000 years? (Sure we can say God some how did it) You say the earth is only 6000+ years old yet there are things out there such as those stars that are older than the earth it's self. You see there is at least an apparent contradiction right? When God created He also did make the stars(heavens) and by your account this is 6000+ years ago. You have to explain those stars that are 10,000 light years out.
I agree as I had said that a few postings ago. But it usually seems that most evolutionist or as I say, "ones who do not accept God", seem to think that evolution is a fact as it clearly is not. A very old earth is not a fact as they cannot prove that with current dating technics. The flood on the other hand is a fact if ones would only look at the proof ...[text shortened]... ry to convience the world that it's true when in fact the evidence is extremely weak at best.
Manny
11 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe (your right I don't have any real proof) there are evolutionist that are so set on a belief that new data will not change there mind is all. Like when they find one tooth and build a whole animal from it is all. I think some are just blinded (goes both ways) by their dogma that nothing will change their mind.
Are you saying there is a cult of evolutionists not willing to look at the data? Can you back that up in any way? Do you know anyone who believes evolution took place who has refused to look at data? Do you have any data that you believe I or any other 'evolutionist' on this site would refuse to look at?
Manny
11 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71Look back at all my post. I even answered Knob that no one knows how old the earth is. I know all the postings got confusing. The only thing I said that may not be over 5K years are the ice caps but there is no proof of that either way. And again the bible speaks of "creative days" but we don't exactly know how long those were, but as you say God could have created the things we see in any amount of time.
G75 this proves my point at least from the young creation argument. You are set on it 100% Explain stars that are further out than 6000 years? (Sure we can say God some how did it) You say the earth is only 6000+ years old yet there are things out there such as those stars that are older than the earth it's self. You see there is at least an apparent contra ...[text shortened]... 6000+ years ago. You have to explain those stars that are 10,000 light years out.
Manny
11 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71I agree. I've met many and some will take the time to look at other data and what you have to offer but then there are those who absolutly refuse too. I've heard the term, "They hate God" and want nothing to do with that. But I think it's funny that they hate someone they say does not exist!
I believe (your right I don't have any real proof) there are evolutionist that are so set on a belief that new data will not change there mind is all. Like when they find one tooth and build a whole animal from it is all. I think some are just blinded (goes both ways) by their dogma that nothing will change their mind.
Manny
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
11 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71This shows a gross ignorance of the burden of proof required for science.
I believe (your right I don't have any real proof) there are evolutionist that are so set on a belief that new data will not change there mind is all. Like when they find one tooth and build a whole animal from it is all. I think some are just blinded (goes both ways) by their dogma that nothing will change their mind.
Manny
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
11 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75In the context of what literal creationists purport, the exact age of the earth is not relevant. That is to say, it matters not whether the earth is 4 billion years old or 4.6 billion years old. It is sufficient to say that beyond any measure or doubt it is far, far older then 5,000 years. Or 10,000 years. Or 100,000 years.
Look back at all my post. I even answered Knob that no one knows how old the earth is. ....
11 Dec 09
Originally posted by BadwaterThe next thing you'll say is you were there when it was created.
In the context of what literal creationists purport, the exact age of the earth is not relevant. That is to say, it matters not whether the earth is 4 billion years old or 4.6 billion years old. It is sufficient to say that beyond any measure or doubt it is far, far older then 5,000 years. Or 10,000 years. Or 100,000 years.
11 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Those far away stars and planets and everything else out there is no doubt as old as the light showing from them says.
G75 ? did you get the part about the stars? I've never heard a satisfactory answer yet.
I believe in creation! Just not a great answer on this. The oldest calendars are in the 5000 years range.
Manny
This creation is first explained in Gen 1:1 which simply says "In the beginning." But does this contradict verse 16? Notice the word "Create" is used in verse 1 but the word "make" is in verse 16. Or the Hebrew word "ba-ra' " and the word " 'a-sah' ".
I'm trying to find a site that will help me out on the translation differances but it's my understanding that the term " create " means the actual making of the stars, planets, etc. Where the word " make " would refer to them becoming finally visable to the planet earth. It could be they were not visible from the earth even though they had been in the universe for eons of time. It was probably because during the formation of the earth, dust or the water that was on the surface had not been divided yet which later formed the water canopy over the earth, so this made the stars and sun impossible to see. Once the stars, the sun and moon were made visible to the earth, then we had the divisions of night and day.
12 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75so you place evolution in satan's toolkit. so one day satan's tricks someone into robbing an orphanage's winter clothes fund and another day satan tricks a good christian into believing in evolution.
Evolution goes contrary to the Bible. And Jesus himself spoke of the flood. If it wasn't real I think he would have mentioned that.
And time and more research and prayer, honest prayer that the bible teaches us to do is what he uses to answer our questions. He does want us to search for answers with the thought in mind that we do inventually find them. ...[text shortened]... 's right or wrong, if theres a God or not, did we evolve or not, did Jesus exist or not, etc..
you are right on the money.
jesus spoke in parables. as in stories. as in not real stories to make a point. you don't believe those stories. yet you believe that he once told the flood is real. when there are 4 gospels and they all have discrepancies: stuff that is in one of them but not in the others. at least one of which is written by someone who wasn't even an apostle.
you know what, i would like to see that verse in which jesus says the flood was real. you have been clobbering me over the head with it for a long time.
12 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace71yes, he will say there are no stars older than 6k years. because satan tricked the astronomers into calculating those distances. that is not really proven. that is unreliable.
G75 this proves my point at least from the young creation argument. You are set on it 100% Explain stars that are further out than 6000 years? (Sure we can say God some how did it) You say the earth is only 6000+ years old yet there are things out there such as those stars that are older than the earth it's self. You see there is at least an apparent contra ...[text shortened]... 6000+ years ago. You have to explain those stars that are 10,000 light years out.
Manny
he questions everything. but here is where the hypocricy sets in: he is not that skeptic about "proofs" about the flood. he doesn't admit they might be tricks from satan. that they might be unreliable.
i can't use isotope dating in this forum. something so simple yet i can't use it. because he won't let me.
12 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75ooo nice. so you believe the creation days were metaphorical. how about the 900 years of methusalem? how about god stopping the sun in place for joshua?
Look back at all my post. I even answered Knob that no one knows how old the earth is. I know all the postings got confusing. The only thing I said that may not be over 5K years are the ice caps but there is no proof of that either way. And again the bible speaks of "creative days" but we don't exactly know how long those were, but as you say God could have created the things we see in any amount of time.
12 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75actually, you so called bible scholar, we had day and night right from day 1. and to claim "it may mean " they were not visible is juvenile. visible for whom? god was the only one there. it would be like the bible is rewritten to say "err and you couldn't see the stars if you were there. your weren't but should you have been on that barren wasteland you couldn't have seen them"
Those far away stars and planets and everything else out there is no doubt as old as the light showing from them says.
This creation is first explained in Gen 1:1 which simply says "In the beginning." But does this contradict verse 16? Notice the word "Create" is used in verse 1 but the word "make" is in verse 16. Or the Hebrew word "ba-ra' " and the ...[text shortened]... n were made visible to the earth, then we had the divisions of night and day.
12 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd you call yourself a christian after all those comments? Unbelieveable.....You don't believe anything in the Bible it seems so why even waist the time to say your Christian? I've never heard anything like this...Wow!!!
actually, you so called bible scholar, we had day and night right from day 1. and to claim "it may mean " they were not visible is juvenile. visible for whom? god was the only one there. it would be like the bible is rewritten to say "err and you couldn't see the stars if you were there. your weren't but should you have been on that barren wasteland you couldn't have seen them"