Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Whaaaat ?
All I can tell you is that there is scientific evidence that the earth is 15 million years old, usually that means that earth didn't pop out from nowhere already being 15 millions years old. To prove how earth was formed, scientists had to discover what processes were part of the creation and how long each one lasted. As in, we do know for a fact that earth didn't take 7 days to be created and it surely wasn't how it's described in the bible.
Why I'm even responding to that is surprising to me even.
Actually, there is more and more evidence that the Earth isn't so old.
Here are a few examples. You can research for more.
1.Sahara Desert is fairly small considering the rate of desertification
2.Oil Pressure is extremely high, why haven't the Oil Fields burst yet? People who study rocks say that they can't handle that kind of pressure for long
3.Population Growth. Why isn't the earth over populated?
4.Magnetic Field Decline. New Research is showing the the Poles aren't reversing. The belief was due to folds in the rock around the trench that was actually showing strong then weak then strong areas of magnetic field strength.
5.Erosion Rates. At the rate of Erosion, why aren't the continents flat?
6.Moon getting farther away. Scientists estimate that the Moon and The Earth would have made contact about 1.4 Billion years ago.
There are many others such as Comets, Star Death (No star formation has ever been witnessed), Human made objects found in coal deposits, etc.
A lot of things could be explained by a Global flood. For example: Coal and Oil deposits. Fossils. varying rock strata. Plate Tectonics. etc.
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Originally Posted by Phredreeke Well, I guess Satan could have placed mirrors to allow Jesus to see the opposite side of Earth.
Love.
what's funny about this idiotic picture, is that it puts Jesus somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. lol.
Shouldn't be a problem considering he can walk on water.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
urbanmonk:
First off, there is a chance that there might be inaccuracies in the big bang theories since not all of it have been proven, but a good lot of it has and obviously possible inaccuracies don't disprove what's been proven before. And notice that I said "there might be inaccuracies", I didn't say there were. Until today no inaccuracies have been found and proven otherwise the theory would cease to exist and an alternative theory would have taken it's place.
There is a huge lot more to it than you or me know, so saying it conflicts with the thermodynamics because of this or that is wrong. You are making assumptions and diving in a subject you don't have a full grasp on.
All life begun on earth begun with micro-organisms and it took several billions for them to evolve into the creatures we know today.
The bible doesn't mention them (not surprising since they were first discovered in the XVII century, coincidence?), and portraits the beginning of humanity as two human beings created in one day.
I don't know why you are even attempting to explain something that is obviously false to anyone except yourself.
And to make the theory even more convenient (so it can't be proved/disproved) they claim all of the this happened over "billions of years."
So no matter how many gorillas start walking on the hind legs that doesn't mean a thing if the origin of the species can't be explained. Fossils don't prove a thing either, all that proves is that something died.
I mean, what the hell ?
You believe blindly in something that has no proof of whatsoever and simply deny the existing proof because it conflicts with what you believe in.
Saying things such as the ones you said above only reinforce the idea that you are in denial which makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. I don't know if you really believe in what you said, if you said it for the sake of the discussion or if you are simply ignorant but either way I strongly advise you to rethink your point and your overall way of thinking, for your own sake. You sound like someone who's been completely brainwashed at a early age, you can't even think logically when it comes to discuss religion. I mean this in a friendly way, I don't want to be offensive and I'm sure you'll realize that sooner or later.
edit:
"So it's pretty clear. You either believe everything came from God, or you believe everything came from nothing. "
Just saw this. Just to remind you there is no proof of god's existence, let alone that he created everything, while we do have some proof on how things begun. It's not enough yet to explain everything but enough to be sure that it wasn't some superior force who made everything in a few days.
But even if we didn't know anything, just because we can't explain something yet doesn't mean it's god's work or witchcraft. That's the logical thinking of someone who lived in the medieval era. Our knowledge is growing everyday and we can safely say we know a lot more now that we did two centuries ago.
It isn't valid regardless.
I didn't twist anything, I just pointed out what was already there.
Of course, you saying that it isn't valid obviously makes it so. Could you please tell me how it isn't valid regardless?
So please, if you really want to put your faith into this theory, prove that the law's of physics didn't exist before the big bang, or were different at some point in time.
I don't 'put my faith' into this theory. My worldview does not stand or fall with the big-bang theory. However, it serves a much more plausible view on the beginning of time than the book of Genesis(interpreted in your classic creationist way) does.
You can't, no one can
,SO
You must admit that this takes a whole lot of faith, and is indeed a religion by definition.
You're straying from the point, and according to the Oxford Dictionary, it is not by definition a religion.
So it's pretty clear. You either believe everything came from God, or you believe everything came from nothing.
Do you believe everything came from nothing EE?
Ha ha, it's not pretty clear! You narrow it down to a strict materialistic view or a classic Christian creationist view. I was under the impression that the world held a lot more views on the beginning of existance than just two. Every form of belief holds a view on it, but perhaps they don't count? Maybe they are just pretending to believe like you said about other religions faith in the divine?
However things are with that, you're just sounding silly.
So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
(to end my reply in your attitude-ish manner)
How are you going to tackle that, UrbanMonk?
Originally Posted by Johnny Look First off, there is a chance that there might be inaccuracies in the big bang theories since not all of it have been proven, but a good lot of it has and obviously possible inaccuracies don't disprove what's been proven before.
What exactly has been "proven" about the big bang theory?
I read this rest of your post Johny Look, but all you did was state assumptions based on your trust in the big bang theory, so until you can show why you believe that theory the rest of your post is useless.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I don't 'put my faith' into this theory. My worldview does not stand or fall with the big-bang theory.
Enlighten us, what exactly IS your "world view?"
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Ha ha, it's not pretty clear! You narrow it down to a strict materialistic view or a classic Christian creationist view. I was under the impression that the world held a lot more views on the beginning of existance[sic] than just two.
And those views usually involve some sort of deity, whether it be one or a thousand.
So my original point still stands.
If you don't believe in God you believe everything came from nothing (big bang)
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
(to end my reply in your attitude-ish manner)
How are you going to tackle that, UrbanMonk?
I will...it's just so much to type, so I'll save that for later. Remind me.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
//EE
I'm just curious. What was the reply that you are referring to?
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Enlighten us, what exactly IS your "world view?"
What difference does it make? Your arguments are equally weak independant of my or any other's faith. And by now you really should be able to tell a few things about my "world view" anyways.
Though I'll humour you and tell you I'm neither a strict materialist nor a Christian creationist.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Ha ha, it's not pretty clear! You narrow it down to a strict materialistic view or a classic Christian creationist view. I was under the impression that the world held a lot more views on the beginning of existance than just two.
And those views usually involve some sort of deity, whether it be one or a thousand.
So my original point still stands.
Now you're confusing me. Your original point tend to take on a different shape everytime you call it. A view 'involving some sort of deity, either one or a thousand' does not equate to believing in the Christian creationist view as seen in the Genesis.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
(to end my reply in your attitude-ish manner)
How are you going to tackle that, UrbanMonk?
I will...it's just so much to type, so I'll save that for later. Remind me.
So you have to write a short novel to manage twisting and turning something completely logic and clear into an ambiguous puddle that supports your opinion?
Says something about the strength of your argument.
Also, it's not my burden to remind you. It should be of your interest to reply to it in a timely manner, otherwise one'll just assume you couldn't.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
So leave this issue for a moment and anwser my reply on the bible. I'm much more intrigued about how you are going to tackle that.
//EE
I'm just curious. What was the reply that you are referring to?
That's the downside of bursting into a discussion guns blazin'. You tend to miss out on crucial facts. Jump back to page 21-22 or something and read from there.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So you have to write a short novel to manage twisting and turning something completely logic and clear into an ambiguous puddle that supports your opinion?
lol, I'll admit that was pretty funny, but no, my reply will be as much a novel as yours was.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] What difference does it make?
I'm honestly curious. What is your world view?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Now you're confusing me....A view 'involving some sort of deity, either one or a thousand' does not equate to believing in the Christian creationist view as seen in the Genesis.
That's because we're 2 posts removed from my original statement:
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk You either believe everything came from God, or you believe everything came from nothing.
I'm not referring to the "Christian creationist view," I'm referring to the existence of God in general.
Alright, let's go back a few posts before the big bang discussion started. Back when you were trying to show contradic..er.."inconsistencies."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I stated a definiton of what I was about to point out, inconsistencies. Passages do not need to be in direct conflict or self-contradictory to be inconsistent. Both conflicting imagery and contradictions are indeed inconsistencies, but an inconsistency is not neccessarily a conflict or contradiction.
I find it funny that you suddenly "clarify" your original post of "inconsistencies" after I tore your so-called inconsistencies to shreds. That's mighty inconsistent of you.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So my main point still stands, can you give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them "everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all" as you so whole-heartedily have put it to us many times in this thread?
Your "main point" is rather silly since you're basing it on a lie. I never once said that I could "give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them..." blah blah blah. Nor do I assume that. Of course this person has to have some prior knowledge, much like they would need to have with anything else. Knowing how to read is a start.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] It is also contradictory to claim the King James version as 'un-edited'(as you did earlier with quite the zeal), when you yourself point out that you have to go back to the original hebrew and greek scriptures to gain the information that should have been obtainable in the first one, seeing as it is 'un-edited'.
I never once said that the King James version is unedited, but since you pointed that out I will. The King James version is indeed unedited since the original manuscripts that it is a translation of are.
You don't have to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek to gain the information, the information is there in English.
I used it to prove that there were no inconsistencies, but it's not required to understand what it means.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you read more of the surrounding passages it's quite clear that there is no spirit involved, but rather God directly.
God is directly involved, yes, he allows a spirit to deceive that prophet. It is accepted practice in Hebrew culture to attribute God to everything since he is the one who allows anything to take place. This view is also in the Bible itself if you'd bother to read the whole thing and not just try to disprove single sentences with "zeal."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] As you can see, sin is not even mentioned. They are portraited as offerings to the Lord, without the specific purpose of atonement. Actually, the concept of 'sin' isn't even introduced in the Bible at this point. The first mentioning of the word 'sin' in KJV is AFTER Cain has killed Abel. So it's quite hard to picture them atoning for something that isn't yet available for them, right? Of course, they could simply be bearing gifts to God, but then it would be in conflict yet again, right? How troublesome.
The concept of sin is indeed introduced, and it starts in Genesis 3:6, although it had existed since man was created even though it hadn't ever been committed.
After they committed their first sin God killed animals and clothes them, and that's where the concept of the shedding of blood to cover sins starts. (Gen 3:21)
Of course it's all explained later on in the book of Genesis and the other books of the Bible, but that hardly means that it wasn't in effect.
If you want to prove that you'll have to show a scripture that states that rather than just assuming that based on the "first mentioning" of particular words.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You really are treading on dangerous grounds with that statement, you shouldn't so hap-hazardly portrait God as a spoiled brat that can put his pet on fire if he wants to just because it's God.
I hardly implied such a thing, much less even came close. It might have such a meaning if you're looking at it from your "world view," but for everyone else it simply meant that God is confined to our human restraints.
To use your own words:
So, where were we at?
Ah yes, you didn't manage to subdue any of the consistencies satisfactory to anyone, rather, you introduced even more consistencies. So here, have a cookie since your whole argument crumbled.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] So my main point still stands, can you give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them "everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all" as you so whole-heartedily have put it to us many times in this thread?
Just one of many examples that sound like he's attacking a Straw Man.
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
urbanmonk: I won't go into every piece of evidence we have on the big bang, but with a quick google search you can find about it all in every little detail.
Of course most of the details on the evidence are almost useless to you or me since we don't really have a firm grasp on astrophysics, but knowing it exists should be enough, I think.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look urbanmonk: I won't go into every piece of evidence we have on the big bang, but with a quick google search you can find about it all in every little detail.
Of course most of the details on the evidence are almost useless to you or me since we don't really have a firm grasp on astrophysics, but knowing it exists should be enough, I think.
Or you saying that we should just... accept things that we don't understand. Whether we know them to be true or not, we should believe them because somebody wrote a paper about it?
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Drewish Philosopher: I'm sorry, I didn't see your post until now.
Earth's age is not exact, it could be slightly older or younger but that's irrelevant. Most of the points you brought have a rather simple explanation each and assume earth never changed a single bit in comparison to what it is today, they are no evidence that earth is significantly younger than the estimated else the accepted norm wouldn't be around 4 billions.
I could go into more detail on each but it's pointless since it's not really relevant to this discussion as urbanmonk's initial point was on how long it took for earth to be created but things kind of derailed from there.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Drewish Philosopher: I'm sorry, I didn't see your post until now.
Earth's age is not exact, it could be slightly older or younger but that's irrelevant. Most of the points you brought have a rather simple explanation each and assume earth never changed a single bit in comparison to what it is today, they are no evidence that earth is significantly younger than the estimated else the accepted norm wouldn't be around 4 billions.
I could go into more detail on each but it's pointless since it's not really relevant to this discussion as urbanmonk's initial point was on how long it took for earth to be created but things kind of derailed from there.
I see. I apologize. Well, not to stay off-topic much longer, If the Earth changed in any significant way (I know there are theory about Earth as a molten rock at one period and so forth, what I consider major changes in the theoretical realms) it had to be roughly 6-10 thousand years ago. And that's what those limiting factors say to me.
let's have an intelligent conversation here; I'll talk, and you'll listen.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Johnny Look
My worldview does not stand or fall with the big-bang theory. However, it serves a much more plausible view on the beginning of time than the book of Genesis(interpreted in your classic creationist way) does.
You narrow it down to a strict materialistic view or a classic Christian creationist view. I was under the impression that the world held a lot more views on the beginning of existance than just two. Every form of belief holds a view on it, but perhaps they don't count? Maybe they are just pretending to believe like you said about other religions faith in the divine?
