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.
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.
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
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?
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]
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?
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.
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.
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. 😉
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.
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.
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.
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.
29 Nov '05 11:15
god, life + creation
Back to Top