User Tag List

Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 295

Thread: If God created...

  1. #91
    Silver Member 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,969
    Thanks
    760
    Thanked 2,303 Times in 1,484 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    949383
    Quote Originally Posted by CherubRam View Post
    Some of those words are also translated as a plural.
    Which words?
    Last edited by 6days; August 11th, 2017 at 09:34 PM.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  2. #92
    Over 3000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    583
    Thanked 1,045 Times in 820 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    176160
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    I did not see any discussion of "annual" layers in the NY Times article.
    evolutionfacts.com on the other hand is simply a creationist silly site. The "facts" it attempts to present are simply not "facts".

    The earth is billions of years old, the universe even more billions of years old. Yes, if your deity is as powerful as you claim he could have created everything in a week and made it look old just to confuse. But why? Why would a loving god do that?
    Sort of like if your parents said, "Please walk to the market, its only a 1/4 mile" when it was 10 miles away. Or, "Sure the ice is thick enough to skate on" but it was not. What's the point? Being able to have a godly laugh at humanity?
    If you talk to the people who deal with the ice, they tell you:

    "THOSE ARE NOT ANNUAL RINGS. That's not summer and winter," replied Cardin. " It's warm -- cold -- warm -- cold -- warm --cold. You can get ten of those in one day."

    ...

    Yet, the scientific elite was still calling them annual rings in 1998. (See Scientific American, February 1998, p.82).

  3. #93
    Over 4000 post club CherubRam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,668
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 341 Times in 283 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    84530
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Which words?
    Day, Night, Evening, Morning.

    Here is a good study tool: http://biblehub.com/

  4. #94
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    If you talk to the people who deal with the ice, they tell you:
    So, the questions are:
    1. Is every layer seen an annual layer? Or are some based on intra day temperature?
    2. Even if the answer to question 1 is that intra day temperature fluctuations can cause distinguishable layering, is it still possible to determine annual layers?
    3. Is the process totally uniform?
    4. Are layers at the bottom compacted by the weight of ice above or by the water being squeezed out?

    Why don't you track down the "scientific elite" meaning the people who actually do the work in the field and ask them?

  5. #95
    Over 3000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    583
    Thanked 1,045 Times in 820 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    176160
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    So, the questions are:
    1. Is every layer seen an annual layer? Or are some based on intra day temperature?
    2. Even if the answer to question 1 is that intra day temperature fluctuations can cause distinguishable layering, is it still possible to determine annual layers?
    3. Is the process totally uniform?
    4. Are layers at the bottom compacted by the weight of ice above or by the water being squeezed out?

    Why don't you track down the "scientific elite" meaning the people who actually do the work in the field and ask them?
    Obviously it is impossible to tell any accurate length of time when the rings are determined by freezing and thawing. Even with the best records (which we don't have) there are other factors as you suggest. I don't need to hire someone who makes his pay on propagating fantasy based on lies to try to spin around the recorded fact, that those ice rings aren't annual by any means.

    Would you be able to state, for the record, whether you're still maintaining that those rings each represent a year or not? If you're not there's really no point in debating any further. It just means that one specific item that depended on that flawed assumption isn't good. You still have plenty more chances.

  6. #96
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Obviously it is impossible to tell any accurate length of time when the rings are determined by freezing and thawing. Even with the best records (which we don't have) there are other factors as you suggest. I don't need to hire someone who makes his pay on propagating fantasy based on lies to try to spin around the recorded fact, that those ice rings aren't annual by any means.

    Would you be able to state, for the record, whether you're still maintaining that those rings each represent a year or not? If you're not there's really no point in debating any further. It just means that one specific item that depended on that flawed assumption isn't good. You still have plenty more chances.
    No, I cannot state that each ring, or layer?, represents one year. That is why you ask the experts. And yes they do get paid to do research.
    Are you one of the people who asks their car mechanic for medical advice?

  7. #97
    Over 3000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    583
    Thanked 1,045 Times in 820 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    176160
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    No, I cannot state that each ring, or layer?, represents one year. That is why you ask the experts. And yes they do get paid to do research.
    Are you one of the people who asks their car mechanic for medical advice?
    Allright then, we have the potential for progress. Can you please show us the names of the experts that are studying ice rings, and show us how they were cited by those claiming that the ice rings prove that the earth is millions of years old?

    It seems to me that you are neglecting to trust your own intelligence. When we have a plane from a known era (WW2) and it's covered with X amount of ice, it's not too hard to get a general idea of how quickly that ice can build up. If you want to get an average of rings per year, you do a division. Or ask the people who harvested it... which is exactly what the person from that article did. He asked the expert.

    The expert was the person who had first-hand experience with the evidence, without having a financial or egotistical stake in the outcome. Which is better information that the people who made up the "annual ice ring" theory and used that as their proof of "millions of years."

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    Lon (August 12th, 2017)

  9. #98
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,253 Times in 1,969 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    If God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age", then what is the "apparent age" of the earth and the universe?
    It could be thousands, millions, billions? Science is estimating. Theologians are estimating. Somewhere in there, God created. With apparent age? Well, "evolution" (don't like the autonomy of the word) would/might account for such. Creating with age would/might account for such.

    We do know carnivores need herbivores, or they'll die. We know herbivores need plants or they'll die. We know that plants need sunshine, or they will die, and so, imho, a 'primordial ooze' just isn't gonna get-er-done.

    Very basically, design, not random chance is the ONLY thing that will produce a Novel. It requires an author. A car requires a builder. Creation? Moreso.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    patrick jane (August 12th, 2017),steko (August 12th, 2017),way 2 go (August 12th, 2017)

  11. #99
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,837
    Thanks
    3,017
    Thanked 2,734 Times in 1,669 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    If God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age", then what is the "apparent age" of the earth and the universe?
    Works for me:

    The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man. By our understanding that wouldíve required time for Adam to get old but not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.

    Our world looks old because it bears testimony to the affects of sin. And testimony of the judgment of God. It bears the effects of the catastrophe of the flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. I would suggest to you that the world looks old because as Paul says in Romans chapter 8 it is groaning. And in its groaning it does look old. It gives us empirical evidence of the reality of sin. And even as this cosmos is the theater of Godís glory, it is the theater of Godís glory for the drama of redemption that takes place here on this planet in telling the story of the redemptive love of God.

    Is this compatible with the claim that the universe is 4.5 billion years old in terms of earth, 13.5 billion years old in terms of the larger universe?

    Even though that may not be the first and central question it is an inescapable question and I would suggest to you that in our effort to be most faithful to the scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the gospel an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and what it means and why it matters.

    At the end of the day, if Iím asked the question ďwhy does the universe look so old?Ē Iím simply left with the reality that the universe is telling the story of the glory of God. Why does it look so old? Well that, in terms of any more elaborate answer, is known only to the Ancient of Days. And that is where we are left.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    ó Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    Lon (August 12th, 2017),nikolai_42 (August 15th, 2017),patrick jane (August 13th, 2017),steko (August 12th, 2017),way 2 go (August 13th, 2017)

  13. #100
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    It seems to me that you are neglecting to trust your own intelligence. When we have a plane from a known era (WW2) and it's covered with X amount of ice, it's not too hard to get a general idea of how quickly that ice can build up. If you want to get an average of rings per year, you do a division. Or ask the people who harvested it... which is exactly what the person from that article did. He asked the expert.
    What were the experts qualifications, other than digging up the plane?

    And I have a question. I just came back from an ocean beach, the water was rising, the tide coming in. So if I average the rise per hour, then I'll know when it will flood my house that is 30' above sea level, right?

  14. #101
    Over 3000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    583
    Thanked 1,045 Times in 820 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    176160
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    What were the experts qualifications, other than digging up the plane?

    And I have a question. I just came back from an ocean beach, the water was rising, the tide coming in. So if I average the rise per hour, then I'll know when it will flood my house that is 30' above sea level, right?
    Jonah, why is it that the favorite retort used by Old Age advocates in the face of obvious evidence is that those that report it must be morons, and that only "approved scientists" from "evolutionary approved universities" are qualified to understand even basic numbers?

    Fact - The airplane in question was used in World War 2.
    Fact - Airplanes are a recent invention, so this is unlikely to be an fake airplane from the Middle Ages or the Jurassic Age.
    Fact - At the time this was excavated, the plane had been submerged by 48 years of ice.
    Fact - The plane was 263 feet deep underneath the ice.

    Bob Cardin, the guy who dug out the original plane, said there were "hundreds" of rings. Or in other words, not practical to be able to count. If those were annual ice rings, there would be only 48 rings, or one ring per five and a half feet. It's plainly obvious that those are NOT annual ice rings.

    "No way! In case you don't know, Dr. Hovind, I work at the Denver National Ice Core Laboratory here in Colorado. And we've been taking cores of ice from Greenland and Antarctica. It's dry, very cold, the glaciers are MILES THICK, but their annual growth rings are very THIN."
    It is acknowledged that the "annual growth rings" are allegedly "very thin." How many "very thin" ice rings should you expect find in 153 feet? But YOUR Solution is that you need to find an "expert" who is PAID to study ice rings (paid for by whom, because we all know researchers are so objective when money is involved) to tell us that these ice rings aren't one per year?

    Here's what the scientific evidence tells us: the professional "expert" "scientists" whom you wish us to trust are either incompetent or professional liars or else they wouldn't have invented the "annual ice ring" fake evidence in the first place. People that work in real occupations that do actual work of real technology and engineering and science couldn't function if they operated on nonsense assumptions like that.

  15. #102
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Jonah, why is it that the favorite retort used by Old Age advocates in the face of obvious evidence is that those that report it must be morons, and that only "approved scientists" from "evolutionary approved universities" are qualified to understand even basic numbers?

    Fact - The airplane in question was used in World War 2.
    Fact - Airplanes are a recent invention, so this is unlikely to be an fake airplane from the Middle Ages or the Jurassic Age.
    Fact - At the time this was excavated, the plane had been submerged by 48 years of ice.
    Fact - The plane was 263 feet deep underneath the ice.

    Bob Cardin, the guy who dug out the original plane, said there were "hundreds" of rings. Or in other words, not practical to be able to count. If those were annual ice rings, there would be only 48 rings, or one ring per five and a half feet. It's plainly obvious that those are NOT annual ice rings.



    It is acknowledged that the "annual growth rings" are allegedly "very thin." How many "very thin" ice rings should you expect find in 153 feet? But YOUR Solution is that you need to find an "expert" who is PAID to study ice rings (paid for by whom, because we all know researchers are so objective when money is involved) to tell us that these ice rings aren't one per year?

    Here's what the scientific evidence tells us: the professional "expert" "scientists" whom you wish us to trust are either incompetent or professional liars or else they wouldn't have invented the "annual ice ring" fake evidence in the first place. People that work in real occupations that do actual work of real technology and engineering and science couldn't function if they operated on nonsense assumptions like that.

    OK, now I understand. The experts are either lying or just making millions.

    And you ask your car mechanic for medical advice, right?

  16. #103
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,914
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 630 Times in 561 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183868
    The dustiness of the lowest ice layers in cores itself throws the whole system into doubt. Years of non-volcanic dust floating around? Years? No.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  17. #104
    Over 3000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    583
    Thanked 1,045 Times in 820 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    176160
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    OK, now I understand. The experts are either lying or just making millions.

    And you ask your car mechanic for medical advice, right?
    Your so-called "experts" have already been proved to be lying. "Annual ice rings" they said, remember? I'd take an honest mechanic over a brainwashed M.D. any day. And in reality, I do. That's why I'm healthy.

  18. #105
    Over 3000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    3,120
    Thanks
    583
    Thanked 1,045 Times in 820 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    176160
    The premise of this thread is flawed in its conception. The earth does not appear old. Or at least that varies widely with one's perception of old. I say the earth is young only because this is in in the scale of a fantastical "millions of years" figure. The earth itself is as old as dirt. It's older than any living thing left alive today, it's as old as our earliest recorded history. How old are you? Twenty years? Forty years? Sixty years? The earth is six thousand years old. In reality, that's OLD.

    Now if someone looks at the oceans with the premise that a pagan deity had to cry each and every drop to fill the expanse, every winter crying twelve drops to commemorate their lost child, the earth is going to look extremely old to them. If a humanist evolutionist looks at a fossil with the premise that "fossils take millions of years to form" they will look at millions of fossils and think the world is billions of years old, and this will hardly seem strange when he thinks that the Nothingness had to give birth to matter itself from the Nothing. So why does the earth appear old? It has everything to do with the context, and even more to do with the personal beliefs of the eye of the beholder.
    Last edited by Rosenritter; August 13th, 2017 at 02:22 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us