1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI notice you say nothing about my charge that you are just mouthing the opinions of those just reading between the lines of the bible, since nowhere does it say in the bible the Earth is whatever, 6000, 7000, years old. You just parrot their words. There is no new thinking involved. My argument about the GC is MY thinking, not mouthing someone else's analysis.
You forget that we have only had one worldwide flood and that God says
it will never happen again. There was no scientists there to know what
happened that caused the Grand Canyon. I think the flood waters, the
breaking up of the waters under the earth that came up through the cracks,
and the formation of the continents after the flood, etc. could have ...[text shortened]... mation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n1/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood
I bet you also firmly believe the number 666 is the sign of the devil. Find THAT in the bible.
Originally posted by PenguinThe fundament difference is one happened the other did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/dec/04/science.research1
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/loftus.mem.html
and lots more, just do a Google on "False memory"
There is nothing fundamentally different between the memory of an event that did happen and the memory of an event that did ...[text shortened]... the appearance of an age of billions of years) differ from Last Thursday-ism?
--- Penguin.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are referring to the following verse:
I notice you say nothing about my charge that you are just mouthing the opinions of those just reading between the lines of the bible, since nowhere does it say in the bible the Earth is whatever, 6000, 7000, years old. You just parrot their words. There is no new thinking involved. My argument about the GC is MY thinking, not mouthing someone else's analys ...[text shortened]...
I bet you also firmly believe the number 666 is the sign of the devil. Find THAT in the bible.
This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number
of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.
(Revelation 13:18 NIV)
The interpretation of prophecies, dreams, and visions is not easy. That is
why wisdom is called for. Biblical scholars have not come to an agreement
on the meaning of this number of a man. If you have the wisdom, then
maybe you can calculate it.
Originally posted by RJHindsMy mistake, I thought it was the same order of business as the generation of the 6000 year date. I am pretty sure THAT is not in the bible. And not being in the bible, why do you let other men decide your stance?
You are referring to the following verse:
This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number
of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.
(Revelation 13:18 NIV)
The interpretation of prophecies, dreams, and visions is not easy. That is
why wisdom is called for. Biblical scholars have not come to an ag ...[text shortened]... the meaning of this number of a man. If you have the wisdom, then
maybe you can calculate it.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat other men do you think decide my stance? Are you sure you are not
My mistake, I thought it was the same order of business as the generation of the 6000 year date. I am pretty sure THAT is not in the bible. And not being in the bible, why do you let other men decide your stance?
talking about yourself?
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm talking about the men who, a few hundred years ago(?), did the 'calculations', based on the Abraham begat, begat, begat series and then concluded the Earth was 6,000 odd years old. Those are the people you parrot. It is not in the bible, how old the Earth is. It is in the minds of men who try to interpret the bible to bend to their agenda. And it is still working quite well on people like you who don't look at other evidence staring you in the face of the falsity of those people who controls your thinking. Yet again, you are duped and don't even realize it.
What other men do you think decide my stance? Are you sure you are not
talking about yourself?
Originally posted by sonhouseI do not parrot these men, for it is obvious to me that the calculations are
I'm talking about the men who, a few hundred years ago(?), did the 'calculations', based on the Abraham begat, begat, begat series and then concluded the Earth was 6,000 odd years old. Those are the people you parrot. It is not in the bible, how old the Earth is. It is in the minds of men who try to interpret the bible to bend to their agenda. And it is sti ...[text shortened]... hose people who controls your thinking. Yet again, you are duped and don't even realize it.
off. However, they can not be off by enough to agree with evolutionary
scientists. The earth is still very young in comparison. I do not attempt
to give an exact age because the Biblical data appear unclear and possibly
incomplete, to me. I, like the evolutionists, can only provide a guess as to
it's age.
Originally posted by RJHindsEvolutionists, as you call them, don't age the Earth, that job is up to geologists. When they come up with dozens of entirely different technologies to measure the age of the Earth and they all agree within some window, all pointing to several billion years of age, you have to come to the conclusion they must be on to something.
I do not parrot these men, for it is obvious to me that the calculations are
off. However, they can not be off by enough to agree with evolutionary
scientists. The earth is still very young in comparison. I do not attempt
to give an exact age because the Biblical data appear unclear and possibly
incomplete, to me. I, like the evolutionists, can only provide a guess as to
it's age.
The people you continue to parrot are living in a fantasy world and have foisted that fantasy to you so the fantasy lives on.
If 100,000 geologists agree on an age for the Earth and 1 creationist scientist who may be a chemist, not even a geologist, disagrees, you take the word of the one creationist who parrots the same dogma as you. That is not thinking for yourself, that is following the party line.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is dishonest to say that the theory of evolution that has been taught in
Evolutionists, as you call them, don't age the Earth, that job is up to geologists. When they come up with dozens of entirely different technologies to measure the age of the Earth and they all agree within some window, all pointing to several billion years of age, you have to come to the conclusion they must be on to something.
The people you continue ...[text shortened]... ots the same dogma as you. That is not thinking for yourself, that is following the party line.
schools does not influence the geologists in interpreting the data collected
in estimating the age of the earth. It is an exaggeration to say all 100,000
geologists agree that the earth is several billion years old when I have
pointed out to you one geologist that disagrees. How many more there
are, I don't know. But just because most geologists believe the propaganda
that the earth is several billion years old does not mean they are right and
the few that disagree are wrong. I have already pointed out that based on
certain laws in the sicience of physics that the Earth can not be billions or
millions of years old. Geologist do not rule on the age of the earth. All
sciences must be considered.
Aren't you following the party line when you decide to agree with what you
believe is the majority opinion of scientists. That does not sound like you are
thinking for yourself too me. You don't have the knowledge necessary to do
any tests that can determine the age of the earth and neither do these
geologists that you decided to agree with because it agrees with your world
view. They only have a little information, which they use to guess at a
possible age for the earth mainly based on the propaganda they have received
from the evolution myth.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo what evidential criteria do you use to decide which memory is true (the event did happen), and which memory is false (the event didn’t happen)?
The fundament difference is one happened the other did not.
Kelly
Would you take evidence from a newspaper to be no less a matter of “faith” than evidence from an astrological horoscope? Some people likely would—do you think their notion of “evidence” ought to be granted equal weight?
The issue is really one of what counts as evidential justification for that “faith”, or confidence in a belief. For example, when it comes to the physical nature of the universe—including how old the earth is—I would tend to discount evidence from a document that gets the movement of the sun and planets wrong:
>>>Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
Assuming that you don’t think that the Sun really does revolve around the earth (and that is what causes the length of an earth-day), how can that rather ancient book be taken as equal (or greater) evidential justification for opinions about the age of the earth (or the universe), than the variety of measurements taken by scientists today? [EDIT: Re sonhouse's post above.]
[NOTE: one could say that the view that the sun goes around the earth was just as much a metaphorical statement then as it is when we say something like that now—but then that means that the biblical texts offer metaphorical, rather than physically accurate, descriptions of the nature of the universe. It doesn’t improve the status of the biblical texts for giving factual information about such things.]
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBut not you, you think things out for yourself and come to the conclusion 100,000 geologists ARE wrong. All on the word of one creationist whose ideas coincide with yours. Yessir, real thinking there.
It is dishonest to say that the theory of evolution that has been taught in
schools does not influence the geologists in interpreting the data collected
in estimating the age of the earth. It is an exaggeration to say all 100,000
geologists agree that the earth is several billion years old when I have
pointed out to you one geologist that disagrees. Ho age for the earth mainly based on the propaganda they have received
from the evolution myth.
All you have to do to think you are actually refuting someone or a large group is to say, no, you are all wrong and I am right because these people interpreted the bible in such a way as to convince me and millions of other people they are right about the age of the Earth, therefore you all are wrong, no matter how much agreement there is between disciplines, these ideas were developed by those extremely wise men, MUCH wiser than all you 100,000 geologists, who PROVED the Earth is 6,000 years old.
So it is not god who tells you these things but men. Just like Christianity in the first place.
Originally posted by sonhouse"I do trust science. I allow for human error but overall I do trust science. I think my point is that the earth is more than 4000 years old without a doubt."
But not you, you think things out for yourself and come to the conclusion 100,000 geologists ARE wrong. All on the word of one creationist whose ideas coincide with yours. Yessir, real thinking there.
All you have to do to think you are actually refuting someone or a large group is to say, no, you are all wrong and I am right because these people interp ...[text shortened]...
So it is not god who tells you these things but men. Just like Christianity in the first place.
Quote by menace71
Besides the tree information that menace71 was referring to, we have
Biblical records that report history going back to at least 6000 years. So
I think we all could agree that the Earth is at least 6000 years old. Perhaps
menace71 would question the Biblical information and prefer to stay with
the 4000 year old earth. There is no other information that is known to be
reliable enough for geologists or any other scientists to give an age for the
Earth older than these dates. Several billion years is just an exaggerated
guess based on no scientifically tested information to determine it's reliablity.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou really have to learn somthing about scientific methodology, RJHinds.
There is no other information that is known to be
reliable enough for geologists or any other scientists to give an age for the
Earth older than these dates. Several billion years is just an exaggerated
guess based on no scientifically tested information to determine it's reliablity.
Originally posted by RJHindsThey only have a little information, which they use to guess at a
It is dishonest to say that the theory of evolution that has been taught in
schools does not influence the geologists in interpreting the data collected
in estimating the age of the earth. It is an exaggeration to say all 100,000
geologists agree that the earth is several billion years old when I have
pointed out to you one geologist that disagrees. Ho ...[text shortened]... age for the earth mainly based on the propaganda they have received
from the evolution myth.
possible age for the earth mainly based on the propaganda they have received
from the evolution myth.
Your words. So you figure now there is a vast left wing conspiracy that now includes thousands of geologists and thousands of 'evolutionists' to destroy christianity.
What other scientific disciplines are in this vast conspiracy? Does it include mathematicians who verified the statistics on the dozen's of technologies used by this vast conspiracy? Does it include Botanists too? Chemists? Nuclear scientists who date ages of rocks?
I guess we are up to a couple hundred thousand people involved by now, eh. Who else is in this grand vast left wing conspiracy? Are politicians in on the big secret christian destruction league? Could it go all the way to Obama?
I guess the Brits are in on it too, since they also have hundreds of 'evolutionists' and geologists. And the Germans, and the French. The Iranians would have a vested interest in killing christianity too so maybe they are in on it also.
Originally posted by sonhouseKeep thinking about it. You may be on to something. 😏
They only have a little information, which they use to guess at a
possible age for the earth mainly based on the propaganda they have received
from the evolution myth.
Your words. So you figure now there is a vast left wing conspiracy that now includes thousands of geologists and thousands of 'evolutionists' to destroy christianity.
What other scie ...[text shortened]... s would have a vested interest in killing christianity too so maybe they are in on it also.