Originally posted by divegeester
Comfortable in that cosy compromise now are you?

What compromise?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is about 6,000 years OLD.

That's what I keep saying. Life is only about 6000 years old on this planet, but depending on how you view Genesis 1:2, the earth could be very old.

Originally posted by josephw
That's what I keep saying. Life is only about 6000 years old on this planet, but depending on how you view Genesis 1:2, the earth could be very old.

So there were dinosaurs roaming around as late as 5999 years ago, flying ones, big ones in the oceans and so forth?

When did they all die?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"The pattern proposed for the oxygenation of the atmosphere and oceans is probably qualitatively correct, but its quantitative aspects should be regarded with a significant degree of scepticism."

I found the flaw. Heinrich D Holland spelled skepticism wrong. lol

No really, reading the paper was thrilling. It made me wish I had studied science fo ...[text shortened]... n the quote above, more skepticism was generated than convincing proof.

I'm not converted. 😉[/b]

Sceptic is the standard British spelling, skeptic is archaic in the UK but used in North America (at least according to the Oxford online dictionary). Actually I slightly prefer it with a 'k', but my spelling tends to be idiosyncratic in any case.

The lower bound for the rate for oxygen sink saturation given current levels of photosynthesis is about 2,000 years (according to the Wikipedia article), which would be problematic for a very young living earth. You could just about claim that modern humans were created 6,000 years ago, but because of the advent of burial practices the fossil record for recent humans is unusually good.

I don't understand why you insist on the creation story being literally true. As an allegory the Garden of Eden story works perfectly.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So there were dinosaurs roaming around as late as 5999 years ago, flying ones, big ones in the oceans and so forth?

When did they all die?

They died of old age. 😀

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sceptic is the standard British spelling, skeptic is archaic in the UK but used in North America (at least according to the Oxford online dictionary). Actually I slightly prefer it with a 'k', but my spelling tends to be idiosyncratic in any case.

The lower bound for the rate for oxygen sink saturation given current levels of photosynthesis is about ...[text shortened]... e creation story being literally true. As an allegory the Garden of Eden story works perfectly.

"I don't understand why you insist on the creation story being literally true."

There's really no reason why it shouldn't be literally true. It would be nothing for God to have created every partical of matter instantaneously, and He didn't. I'm fairly certain that the earth was created some time before the start of the six day creation period, which is quite literally true, and would not have taxed God's creative power in the slightest.

And it's so much more fun believing that way too! Not necessarily trying to be funny about that either.

Originally posted by josephw
They died of old age.

But your point is they died sometime after 4K BC. But the fossils are buried miles underground in some cases and can't even be dated with Carbon dating because there is no carbon because it has morphed into stone. You can't do that in a mere 6K years.

Doesn't any of that mean a thing to you?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I don't understand why you insist on the creation story being literally true."

There's really no reason why it shouldn't be literally true. It would be nothing for God to have created every partical of matter instantaneously, and He didn't. I'm fairly certain that the earth was created some time before the start of the six day creation period, whi ...[text shortened]... s so much more fun believing that way too! Not necessarily trying to be funny about that either.[/b]

But your god would have had to have made all the stars in a very large universe and all the planets that don't even revolve around stars, we can detect them, and all the planets and comets and meteors and dust particles in the entire solar system as well as trillions of others billions of light years from Earth.

So why would your god have made all that stuff if WE are the supposed crown of creation and deserving the attention of a god?

Originally posted by josephw
What compromise?

The general theme of your post, but specifically this:

God's wrath has no boundary, just as His love has no end

It's not even scriptural as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by divegeester
If all your replies are there then why start another thread on the subject?

dive, your "Vote" thread requests a narrow Yes or No answer to a single question. Having replied to your original post, I extended the courtesy of continuity in reply to your similar question here. "How can a God of love send anybody to Hell?"
by Dr. Bruce W. Dunn explores the topic question within a wider range. You ask many questions. What do you believe?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It doesn't really matter, but you asked for comments and I gave them.
Are you unwilling to answer my questions simply because you think it doesn't matter to me?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It doesn't really matter, but you asked for comments and I gave them.
Are you unwilling to answer my questions simply because you think it doesn't matter to me?

If "It doesn't really matter..." to you, why should I or any other contributor to this active forum waste their time and energy bothering to dignify them with an answer? "'Life is just built that way'." -Dunn "Hardly an answer..." twhitehead / Red Hot Pawn Policies, Terms of Service and Forum Posting Guidelines are "just built that way" because Russ has absolute authority. Accept it remain a member; reject it with violations, get banned. God has absolute authority. Rejecting it has consequences.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
dive, your "Vote" thread requests a narrow Yes or No answer to a single question. Having replied to your original post, I extended the courtesy of continuity in reply to your similar question here. "How can a God of love send anybody to Hell?"
by Dr. Bruce W. Dunn explores the topic question within a wider range. You ask many questions. What do you believe?

Fair point. But you gave more than a yes or no and from then we were debating were we not?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I don't understand why you insist on the creation story being literally true."

There's really no reason why it shouldn't be literally true. It would be nothing for God to have created every partical of matter instantaneously, and He didn't. I'm fairly certain that the earth was created some time before the start of the six day creation period, whi ...[text shortened]... s so much more fun believing that way too! Not necessarily trying to be funny about that either.[/b]

I think that beliefs can't be chosen at random and that they have to be justified in some way or another, otherwise we risk harms from self-deception. I don't think there's a requirement that they should be true where there's no straightforward test. So a belief that the moon is made of green cheese would be ridiculous in the light of telescopes and the Apollo missions, but in the medieval era, where there was no way of testing it and no reason to believe otherwise, would not be as unreasonable.

Your claim that your belief in the literal truth of the Garden of Eden story is justified by its inclusion in the scriptures would be reasonable if it were not for my claim that it is an allegory in combination with the scientific evidence that life has been around for a few billion years. If you insist on the literal interpretation you may miss what the story is telling you.

In your post previous to mine you replied to sonhouse that "Maybe the dinosaurs died of old age.". It might interest you to know that one of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers had a notion that all possible forms were created at the start of time. So there were creatures that were part plant and part animal (like deer), most of which were quite impractical and so they died out leaving only the more practical species like ourselves.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But your point is they died sometime after 4K BC. But the fossils are buried miles underground in some cases and can't even be dated with Carbon dating because there is no carbon because it has morphed into stone. You can't do that in a mere 6K years.

Doesn't any of that mean a thing to you?

Yes it means a lot to me. I'd like to know exactly what happened to all those prehistoric creatures too.

I have a Biblical perspective and a scientific/evolutionary view.

We may never know the whole truth in this life.

Originally posted by josephw
Yes it means a lot to me. I'd like to know exactly what happened to all those prehistoric creatures too.

I have a Biblical perspective and a scientific/evolutionary view.

We may never know the whole truth in this life.

Sounds like cognitive dissonance, you believe the Earth or life on Earth to be 6K years old. I have heard the idea that dinosaurs are life. So if they were invented, or printed on a cosmic 3D printer, they would have also DIED less than 6K years ago and would still have carbon in their bones and therefore would carbon date to 6000 years ago. Dino's don't have a speck of carbon, all that stuff slowly etched out and replaced by minerals that did not include carbon so other techniques have to be use to date bones 100 million years old and older. So life on Earth HAS to be older than 6000 years, older than 6 MILLION years, older than 100 MILLION years.

You can't turn bone into stone in 6000 years and you can take that to the bank.