god, life + creation

god, life + creation

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

t

my island

Joined
10 Nov 05
Moves
17944
29 Nov 05

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.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
29 Nov 05

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.

t

my island

Joined
10 Nov 05
Moves
17944
29 Nov 05

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

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
29 Nov 05

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?

w
your king.

H.Q.

Joined
13 Nov 03
Moves
20532
29 Nov 05

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.

Zellulärer Automat

Spiel des Lebens

Joined
27 Jan 05
Moves
90892
29 Nov 05
1 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?

t

my island

Joined
10 Nov 05
Moves
17944
29 Nov 05

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.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
29 Nov 05

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.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
29 Nov 05

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. 😉

t

my island

Joined
10 Nov 05
Moves
17944
29 Nov 05

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

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
29 Nov 05
1 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.

t

my island

Joined
10 Nov 05
Moves
17944
29 Nov 05

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.

w
your king.

H.Q.

Joined
13 Nov 03
Moves
20532
29 Nov 05

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.

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
29 Nov 05

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.

t

my island

Joined
10 Nov 05
Moves
17944
29 Nov 05

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.