1. Account suspended
    Joined
    10 Nov '05
    Moves
    17944
    29 Nov '05 11:15
    If god created the earth as we know it in 7 days then why is there so evidence to support that life evolved over millions of years. Or is it that the 7 days quoted in the bible is actually a metaphor and that it was created over 7 million or billoin years, or that its all a lie and god dosen't exist ant that everything in the bible is fake.
  2. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    29 Nov '05 11:24
    Originally posted by trevor33
    If god created the earth as we know it in 7 days then why is there so evidence to support that life evolved over millions of years. Or is it that the 7 days quoted in the bible is actually a metaphor and that it was created over 7 million or billoin years, or that its all a lie and god dosen't exist ant that everything in the bible is fake.
    Thats a lot of conclusions to jump to with preciously little hard scientific proof.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    10 Nov '05
    Moves
    17944
    29 Nov '05 11:32
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Thats a lot of conclusions to jump to with preciously little hard scientific proof.
    most it not all scientist agree the life on earth evolved over millions of years, and it makes sence over something clicking his fingers 7 times in 7 days to creat everything
  4. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    29 Nov '05 12:24
    Originally posted by trevor33
    most it not all scientist agree the life on earth evolved over millions of years, and it makes sence over something clicking his fingers 7 times in 7 days to creat everything
    Uh huh. Still doesn't prove anything. Without any substance this line of reasoning it's merely argumentum ad populum. I question your most it[sic] not all scientists statement; do you have a conclusive statistical analysis for me to peruse?
  5. Standard memberwindmill
    your king.
    Account suspended
    Joined
    13 Nov '03
    Moves
    20532
    29 Nov '05 12:34
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Uh huh. Still doesn't prove anything. Without any substance this line of reasoning it's merely argumentum ad populum. I question your [b]most it[sic] not all scientists statement; do you have a conclusive statistical analysis for me to peruse?[/b]
    Don't need to prove life to live it....huh.
  6. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    29 Nov '05 12:431 edit
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Uh huh. Still doesn't prove anything. Without any substance this line of reasoning it's merely argumentum ad populum. I question your [b]most it[sic] not all scientists statement; do you have a conclusive statistical analysis for me to peruse?[/b]
    I seem to recall your position being that science has no way of knowing how old the earth (or any celestial body) is--am I correct?
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    10 Nov '05
    Moves
    17944
    29 Nov '05 13:13
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I seem to recall your position being that science has no way of knowing how old the earth (or any celestial body) is--am I correct?
    True, put its clear that it wasn't made in 7 days look around things are changing all the time, different races, changing tempertures, new species, its called evolution not and then there was light, and then there was man and that took 7 days.
  8. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    29 Nov '05 13:35
    Originally posted by trevor33
    True, put its clear that it wasn't made in 7 days look around things are changing all the time, different races, changing tempertures, new species, its called evolution not and then there was light, and then there was man and that took 7 days.
    Ah. The present is the key to the past - a worthy assumption, but one nonetheless.
  9. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    29 Nov '05 13:38
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I seem to recall your position being that science has no way of knowing how old the earth (or any celestial body) is--am I correct?
    My position is that science uses unprovable assumptions in its dating methods. One can say I'm a weak agnostic when it comes to the age of celestial bodies. 😉
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    10 Nov '05
    Moves
    17944
    29 Nov '05 13:40
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Ah. The present is the key to the past - a worthy assumption, but one nonetheless.
    come on halitose whats your theory
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Nov '05 13:571 edit
    Originally posted by Halitose
    My position is that science uses unprovable assumptions in its dating methods. One can say I'm a weak agnostic when it comes to the age of celestial bodies. 😉
    Do you believe that Galaxies exist ? If so what is your best estimate for the distace do some of them ? If you dont have an estimate what do you see as flaws in scientists estimates for those distances ?
    I asked RBHill and he went silent.
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    10 Nov '05
    Moves
    17944
    29 Nov '05 14:15
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Do you believe that Galaxies exist ? If so what is your best estimate for the distace do some of them ? If you dont have an estimate what do you see as flaws in scientists estimates for those distances ?
    I asked RBHill and he went silent.
    Theres supposed to be over a billion stars in the universe a galaxy is simply scientists grouping the ones that are closest together.
  13. Standard memberwindmill
    your king.
    Account suspended
    Joined
    13 Nov '03
    Moves
    20532
    29 Nov '05 14:27
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Ah. The present is the key to the past - a worthy assumption, but one nonetheless.
    The present is the opportunities to the future.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Nov '05 14:27
    Originally posted by trevor33
    Theres supposed to be over a billion stars in the universe a galaxy is simply scientists grouping the ones that are closest together.
    There are about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy. And although the term 'Galaxy' is a man made word the structure can hardly be said to be "grouping the ones that are closest together" any more than a tree is just "grouping leaves that are closest together"
    Anyway my real question to Halitose was whether he accepts that celestial bodies such as stars actually exist and how far away he thinks they are. Or is making vague statements about scientists having no evidence the best he can do.
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    10 Nov '05
    Moves
    17944
    29 Nov '05 14:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    There are about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy. And although the term 'Galaxy' is a man made word the structure can hardly be said to be "grouping the ones that are closest together" any more than a tree is just "grouping leaves that are closest together"
    Anyway my real question to Halitose was whether he accepts that celestial bodies such as ...[text shortened]... they are. Or is making vague statements about scientists having no evidence the best he can do.
    it you think theres 100 billion stars in our galaxy and say every star had on average 9 planets in its solar system do you think that our panet is the only one with, or which has ever had intelligent life on it.
Back to Top