So if the present is not a key to the past then we could be wrong about the age of the earth.
It could actually be a lot older than we think.
Stuart
Creation vs. Evolution II
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
It could actually be a lot older than we think.
Stuart
Dear Stuu,
It could also be younger than we think. You are leaving out ONE BIG FACTOR and that God's Ways are not necessarily man's ways, either. God created this world for His Children to live happily in it without provocation. And He truly does His best. So remember that when hashing out your new information as Armageddon fodder. God knows those who believe in Him and those who don't. If there is any possibility that the Earth is tons older than 6,700 years, we will learn of it. It may be that it is so, and it may be that it is not so. Time will tell us the answer, no matter who is right.
Then we can exchange apologies. Don't jump the gun. You'll never realize that sometimes something different is better than what you've got. God is not One to shout up to. You believe what you want and we will believe what we want, and time will prove who is right and who is wrong. Of course, you will find it handy to mention my Big Error, but that doesn't happen that often at all. I'm not right 100% of the time, but I do like being right, so we really have to let God have His say on all of this. We can wait for it, or we can go forward blindly into the foray.
Now, just because you think it's okay to quit believing in God, it is often the time for Him to let you do it for awhile, until the toll rate is reached, and then He does something about it. I cannot say when He will do it. I can say that He Will do it. I can tell you:
1. That He created man from an adult male instead of a infant male and female also.
2. That He did the same thing with animals and plant life, making an apple tree appear older and of bearing fruit immediately. If He can make redwoods that live seemingly forever, He can make trees whatever way He wants to, and that includes All Foliage and animals. He created chickens instead of baby chicks or eggs. He created frogs and ducks in the same way. They were not born of eggs by Him. He jumped a step or few as He saw fit. The same with mankind. I believe, the same as Earth. I could be right about it, or I could be wrong about it. Time will tell us, of course. So there you go! We'll have to see what the Lord brings to the Table. We will wait as long as He wishes before any concessions are made. So don't hold your breath. I'm just saying, it's not a done deal, by any measure.
And John, the 4th gospel of the Lord Jesus IS the book to refer to for a more in-depth assessment. For in the first verse, it says something enigmatic about the Creation. If you can't discover it, then you are at a loss. But you will say, well what loss am I at. I say, wait and see what it is first, then make your move.
"In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God. So that being said, the Word and God are the same thing. "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not Anything made, that was made." "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not comprehend it."
That's the difference between John and Matthew or Mark, or Luke. They all tell some similar stories about Jesus and God, and they also tell some new stories. If you want to learn more, pick up a Bible and read.
Sincerely,
Michael
Last edited:
But it could be older, too. That's what you get when you dismiss real science. You have rejected the only independent way of knowing. So the earth could be trillions of years old by creationist 'methods', which basically just involve denial of science.
We have learned of it. 4.56 billion years is the age of the earth. How were you expecting to find out? By hearing voices in your head?? Didn't your god give you a perfectly good brain to think with, one that is curious enough about the universe to look for clues about how old it really is?
And what have you done with that brain and those clues when they have been presented to you? You have rejected them and instead gone with an ancient book written by ignorant people for another time and a purpose completely unrelated to actually knowing how old the earth is. Do you have an excuse to give your god for doing nothing with your 'gift' of a brain? It's all there for you to discover but you have refused 'his' clues.
Can you show me the verse that says the earth is only a few thousand years old? It doesn't actually say that anywhere. You are going on a calculation of a tedious genealogy, which Saul of Tarsus warns you not to pay attention to:
1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
I never did to begin with.
So you prefer magic to embryology.
Have done. Really dull read, with writers who don't understand humans. If you want to know about humanity, read Shakespeare. If you want to know about a god, read Richard Dawkins. There is nothing more in-depth required than what he writes.
Stuart
6days
New member
I was thinking more of the "religious extremists who resort to illogical backflips" to avoid evidence that leads to a master Designer.*redfern said:
Of course... we learn from mistakes. But, what should bother you is the plasticity in evolutionism. Evolutionism is a non falsifiable belief system, where explanations are like a dense fog that covers any landscape. It should bother you when you notice evolutionists doing backflips. For ex. They claim both poor design and good design supports their beliefs... they claim non functionality, and highly functional supports their beliefs. IOW...the evidence often does not matter; but instead its only about crafting an explanation for "religious extremists".*redfern said:
Again, you are unwilling to follow the evidence.*redfern said:
The Bible was written by over 40 authors over the course of more than 1400 years and yet it is one 'storyline' that is inerrant, and often confirmed internally and externally. *Atheists like to make lists of things they call discrepancies, yet are unable to pick and defend even one single point that would make a difference to the Gospel.**
I agree with you, if you are including evolutionism in all religions. Its always interesting to comparw the contributions Christianity has mafe to science and compare it to the harm evolutiinism has done.*redfern said:
*redfern said:
So cool you got to sit in on a Carl Sagan lecture!! I wish I had been there with you.*
It's no surprise though that Sagan made the comments he did. *The Biblical account of supernatural creation is threatening to atheists and many evolutionists. There aren't tens of thousands of scientists claiming the story of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is supported by scientific evidence.*
Science found no such thing. You confuse science with evutionismredfern said:
On common ancestry, Carl Sagan's ex, an evolutionary biologist, rejected mutations as the creative mechanism of common ancestry beliefs. So, does that mean you should believe the same?*redfern said:
That is dishonest. Snelling understands radiometric dating but says the evidence from science shows the earth is young.*redfern said:
Ex.*
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive
gcthomas
New member
Lots of errors/lies 6Days, but I'll just pick up one:
No, she didn't reject 'mutations'. In fact, she was just referring not to evolution as a whole, but simply the origin of some cellular organelles, in an argument that she won. Evolution textbooks all have her theory of the symbiotic origin of mitochondria in them.
She has actually said: "Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred." and "… Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that what is going on is the pursuit of science and not the shoring up of dogma."
I believe what she says — do you, since you brought her up as a source? Even if you were quotemining her by dishonestly changing the meaning of her words?
No, she didn't reject 'mutations'. In fact, she was just referring not to evolution as a whole, but simply the origin of some cellular organelles, in an argument that she won. Evolution textbooks all have her theory of the symbiotic origin of mitochondria in them.
She has actually said: "Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred." and "… Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that what is going on is the pursuit of science and not the shoring up of dogma."
I believe what she says — do you, since you brought her up as a source? Even if you were quotemining her by dishonestly changing the meaning of her words?
6days
New member
That isn't true GC. In the interview she discussed mutations in chickens as an example and said "I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”gcthomas said:
She did believe in common ancestry, but that quote you use is meaningless. Yes all biologists know adaptation occurs. Not all biogists believe in common ancestry.*gcthomas said:
She said "This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs.*Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.”gcthomas said:
I agree with her on that.*
Dear Stuu,
But it could be younger too! I don't deny science, just your science about evolution from some distant chimp. That I deny. You are wrong. I don't deny science when it speaks true things, like flowers being pollinated by a bee or a hummingbird. Stuff similar to that. And how big is the crater of a volcano. But I don't buy the Earth being that old. You believe that! So, we both disagree and we can agree to disagree. I don't believe that the Earth is old. I believe my way and you can believe your way. We will find out what is true when Jesus returns or when we face God. That's what I wanted to say by my post. You all just get too excited, I think!
Stuart, I don't believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Haaa!! How will I know how old the Earth is? I'm saying we will find out when Jesus Returns. He will speak what is true. Not voices in my head. Jesus had to hear Satan when he was being tempted while He was in the desert. But He also listens to God. And He knows His Master's voice. Oh, I forgot to mention that Jesus will still return soon. Just because I suggested it during the moon's lunar eclipses doesn't mean it will not happen. It is still very soon.
No man knows the day/date when He will return. I and many other Church thought it would be what I had said earlier. But even though we thought of it, we were wrong, because Jesus will return when God is good and ready to complete His work. Not when I or any Church says. That Jesus said He will return when none of us are expecting it. So have no fear. He'll return for us.
I still have tons of belief in the ancient book. It outsells every book. The people were not ignorant Stuu. I still believe wholly that the Earth is a young Earth. You all say that it is not. So we really need to wait and see what Jesus has to say about the matter. You believe your way and I will believe mine. My brain and gift I have used quite wisely. I am reaching people from all parts of the world. I have a website and I get a lot of people who are from different countries around the world. I am not a zealous idiot, but instead, I am a zealous person about Jesus returning soon, and as I heard it from the angels and God that the time has come. You can wait or you can go out in the foray of nonbelievers.
Stuu, I am saying that I don't believe in evolution and I know you don't believe in God. You do quote from the Scriptures quite well. Interesting. And no, I don't believe in Embryology over magic! Haa! God is not a magician. He is the real thing! He can create whatever His Being believes to believe. He has done a splendid job with Earth, starting from scratch. It is good indeed. Except for those who make it evil or bad. That will change soon enough. People that stay on Earth after the Rapture have been the meek, and they will write about Jesus' Return. And some of their descendants will believe or disbelieve just like we did. And it goes on for a bit longer.
Miracles replace magic!! And the Bible can be read to see what miracles have happened. Daniel was in a den of lions and none wanted to eat or attack him. God caused the lions to leave him alone.
Michael
gcthomas
New member
You seem to be claiming that Margoli's ideas somehow show she has rejected evolution. If that is true, you are wrong. She is convinced that evolution has occurred over great periods of time. :
All scientists agree that evolution has occurred—that all life comes from a common ancestry, that there has been extinction, and that new taxa, new biological groups, have arisen. The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? Is it the driver of evolution?
She doesn't think much of your beliefs:
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific.
You keep on quotemining, as if that is the end of it. It is dishonest.
6days
New member
I realize that is what you think, but I neither said nor implied that. *gcthomas said:
(Is 'Margoli's' the plural word for 'Margulis'?)
I realize that is what you think, but I neither said nor implied that. Also you do not know what quote mining is..... The quote of hers was accurate...and an accurate portrayal of her beliefs.gcthomas said:
I see you use this canard rather often. As an “evolutionist” I would be amazed if nature didn’t cobble together some rather ad-hoc solutions, as long as they do the job. And I would expect that nature would hit on some pretty effective solutions as well. Where you chose to say evolutionists say both good and bad design support their beliefs, I think it more accurate to simply recognize that both good and bad designs would be expected. So clarify for me, do you think that evolution must only produce primo-good designs, and never a clearly sub-optimal one (or vv)?
Inerrancy??? Much of the discussion within this thread has been specifically on how scientifically nonsensical some parts of the Bible are.
You are aligned with a rather extreme wing of Christianity. Many millions of other Bible-believing Christians take strong issue with you on what things are important within the Gospel. I don’t need to rely on atheists, I can simply spend the next 10 years watching YouTube debates between creationists and more moderate Christian scholars.
How about listing 2 important specific advances in scientific knowledge that are clearly traceable to Christianity, and the 2 most significant items of “harm” to science that you attribute the ToE?
I concur. Just think of the done you could have done over these years had you given up serving the dark side of the force.
I am no more threatened by the Biblical account that you are by the stories of the Greek Gods. As to Sagan, his comments were simply a comparison of how well some competing creation stories aligned with what science has found. He did not tailor what he said to favor any religious philosophy, all he had to do was relate the creation accounts and the relevant scientific evidence.
Oh, so you were there, so you think you know what the other religions he mentioned were?
Re science finding parts of Genesis were not factual:
Oh yes, the earth is much older than your dogma can allow.
Haha – is that like confusing creationists with Christians?
Next we see yet another example of how 6days’ intense dislike of evolution precludes him from honestly acknowledging that other branches of science conflict with his extremist interpretation of Genesis:
A couple posts back I said:
6days took exception, and (once again) claimed evolution was to blame:
That claim that “science concluded no such thing” is simply ludicrous. It has been pointed out before, contrary to 6days tunnel-vision hatred of evolution, that multiple non-biological branches of science have independently come to the conclusion that the earth is very old. To make my point, I referred to studies done by Lord Kelvin (who was a devout Christian, and did not like Darwin’s theory) and who concluded the earth was far older than 6days says it is:
So in contravention to 6days claim that it was evolutionists that believed in an old earth, and not scientists, I presented one of the premier scientists who was both a Christian and not an evolutionist who disagreed with 6days. How does 6days respond? He dismisses Lord Kelvin’s work and instead tries to twist the subject to another question about evolution:
6days, you set up the goalposts of “evolutionists, not science concluded the earth was very old”. But when I showed a Christian who was also a premier scientist who was not an evolutionist running under the goal posts, suddenly you turn the completely change the goal posts into an issue over mutations. You are phonier than a three-dollar bill.
You know where his paper is at AIG. Read it. I already quoted passages from it where he repeatedly says the isochron dates are consistently about 4.5 billion years, and I showed where his reason for trying to rationalize that into a young-earth time frame is a religious motivation, not a scientific conclusion. Want me to post them again?
6days
New member
The 'design' argument evolutionists use is illogical...and less than honest.redfern said:
If you want to argue something like vertebrate eye design is poor and evidence against a creator, then you should also be honest and admit that good design is evidence for a creator.* Or...if you argue that non functionality is evidence against a Creator...then be honest and admit that functionality may be evidence for a creator.
Yes... I see you didn't accept the challenge.redfern said:
Sure, but I didn't say ToE...I said evolutionism. Christianity was largely responsible in founding many fields of modern science, as well as many universities. Evolutionism was largely responsible for increased racism in the world, and played a significant role in the holocaust.redfern said:
Haha...Thanks for the smileredfern said:
Funny, because the earth is much younger than your religious dogma can allow.redfern said:
Not all scientists are evolutionists. Not all Christians are creationists.redfern said:
Correct, because not all scientists believe in an old earth. All evolutionists doredfern said:
I believe God created the heaven and earth in one week as we know it but that the rock known as earth has existed for millions of years.
Just look at the moon and other planets.
The earth began similar.
LA
Just look at the moon and other planets.
The earth began similar.
LA
gcthomas
New member
Quotemining is the taking of accurate quote snippets out of context and presenting them as implying something that the author did not believe, which is exactly what everyone saw you do. She believes in evolution, while you presented her comments as if they undermined evolution. That is quote mining. You even cut'n'pasted them from a web site renowned for quote mining, without even reading the original text for context. Shameful, 6Days.
Dear Hedshaker,
How ironic! I don't have a phony belief and I think you've got going to Hell backwards. You will see. I believe in Jesus and love Him dearly. How about you? So what do you think is going to happen? I wish we were not so volatile all of the time.
Warmest Regards,
Michael
Dear LA,
Good to see you post here. It's been a while!! I need to see how Keypurr is doing also. I'd have to think about your position and see how it feels to me. It does say that God created the Earth before He created the Universe, so I'm not so sure that I can agree with you. He says He created the host of Heaven like on the 4th day. That means the other planets too. All He has to do is speak everything into existence and it is done. And it all happened in six days. Hope you stick around and enjoy yourself. Now you see how I keep busy and why I scarcely have time to post at other sites. It is all I can do to keep up with this thread. I recently had to read three pages {30-45 posts or more} all in one night, and then I made a blanket post to address most of what they were trying to present here. Life is like a box of chocolates. You get way too many and then you get fat! LOL!!
God's Very Best To You,
Michael
Dear LA,
Good to see you post here. It's been a while!! I need to see how Keypurr is doing also. I'd have to think about your position and see how it feels to me. It does say that God created the Earth before He created the Universe, so I'm not so sure that I can agree with you. He says He created the host of Heaven like on the 4th day. That means the other planets too. All He has to do is speak everything into existence and it is done. And it all happened in six days. Hope you stick around and enjoy yourself. Now you see how I keep busy and why I scarcely have time to post at other sites. It is all I can do to keep up with this thread. I recently had to read three pages {30-45 posts or more} all in one night, and then I made a blanket post to address most of what they were trying to present here. Life is like a box of chocolates. You get way too many and then you get fat! LOL!!
God's Very Best To You,
Michael
Dear LA,
Good to see you post here. It's been a while!! I need to see how Keypurr is doing also. I'd have to think about your position and see how it feels to me. It does say that God created the Earth before He created the Universe, so I'm not so sure that I can agree with you. He says He created the host of Heaven like on the 4th day. That means the other planets too. All He has to do is speak everything into existence and it is done. And it all happened in six days. Hope you stick around and enjoy yourself. Now you see how I keep busy and why I scarcely have time to post at other sites. It is all I can do to keep up with this thread. I recently had to read three pages {30-45 posts or more} all in one night, and then I made a blanket post to address most of what they were trying to present here. Life is like a box of chocolates. You get way too many and then you get fat! LOL!!
God's Very Best To You,
Michael
6days
New member
Wow... very good!!gcthomas said:
No, you didn't read well and jumped to conclusions.gcthomas said:
She believes in common ancestry...she says that in the article...and I also said she believes.gcthomas said:
You made me laugh out loud. I have the Discover magazine with the Margulis interview. And..... the whole interview is also online.gcthomas said:
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-rightq*
We are all shameful GC...and we deserve Hell. But, Jesus offers us righteousness. He offers us much better than we deservegcthomas said:
gcthomas
New member
You might deserve your fictional hell (another non-scientific concept). But do I deserve to be in fictional hell? You cannot tell. I, at least, do not act in a shameful way, and I am not ashamed of my actions — I don't need the threat of eternal torment to do the right thing. I have a built in biological need to do the right thing, like most people. YMMV.
Righteousness is not something that is limited to believers in one of the many contradictory old books. And some believers aren't righteous, but think they are. Go figure. :idunno:
Does it really say that, or does it appear that way at first reading?
Back tomorrow.
LA