Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think if that Pew Report had been around for 2000 years it would be a timeline of the "evolving mind" of man as he learned, invented, traveled, etc.
For the believer (myself included) no matter what religion he embraced he would seem to be drifting away from the literal version of the bible and is learning to align his beliefs with Science which has proved the bible wrong in the age of the earth and man.
On the other thread about Noah's Ark and using a long ago dismissed bogus claim and how someone did not get the memo, this was the other claim I had in mind that I was going to compare that one to as not getting the memo that it shouldn't be used. This is one of the "poster-children" bogus claims. Just as an FYI, since you missed the memo, so is the "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys." You really don't want to rely on these to buttress your arguments.
It would behoove you to bookmark the link AREQUIPA referenced, and keep it handy.
I read the link, what does it say. We do not know. What science said before, their must be much dust, and that is what makes sense. So than they measured the dust further on, but when God created the Heavens 6000 years ago, that can include our Milky Way. The bible is not a scientific book. Genesis is as the whole bible to be taken in faith, because God knows it even better than scientists. But Genesis does not say that God created the earth during the 6 days of creation. The creation began with "let their be light". The young earth and the old earth arguments are interpretations. The evidence in the earth speak of an old earth, the younger earth creationists have lost the battle and this causes a crises in faith. But an old earth has nothing to do with evolution. The bible is clear, God created every think, that matters.
I think if that Pew Report had been around for 2000 years it would be a timeline of the "evolving mind" of man as he learned, invented, traveled, etc.
For the believer (myself included) no matter what religion he embraced he would seem to be drifting away from the literal version of the bible and is learning to align his beliefs with Science which has proved the bible wrong in the age of the earth and man.
A believer as the word says, believes in the bible, if he is a sincere Christian. The word of God is attacked many times on this forum. But it has the truth and stands for ever. Science is changing every time, it has no authority to prove the bible wrong. I believe that the human race is 6000 years old. But the earth is older, the testimony of the earth is also evidence as Proverbs says. But I have no faith in science at all. I am an old earth creationist. What that is you can google. It has to do with what the bible says and not with science.
Well, chum, if you have no faith in science, do please say so rather than trying to prop your beliefs up with arguments that even the creationist site 'Answers in Genesis' say should not be used (because they are so easily knocked down).
Now, it occurred to me to look up 'Arguments that evolutionists should not use', frankly to see what what arguments used (or formerly used) by evolutionists are now better avoided. I found a list - guess where?... 'Answers in genesis!'
Thank you, but we don't need creationists to tell us what arguments we should and should not use. I had a look through and - well, rational wiki had a review of them, and remarked that they had the smell of the strawman.
They did indeed. They were a clever mix of arguments that really make the Creationists look silly, but presented in a way that makes them look bad.
E.g. 'Only the uneducated reject evolution'. While loaded to look as arrogant as possible, it is a valid argument. I need hardly risk running up against the velvet throatgrip of the moderators by referencing objections made against evolution that come from people who clearly haven't bothered to learn about it.
The upshot is that there is no ever - lengthening list of things in the evolutionary camp such as those that Creationism is always getting wrong. Indeed, the already impressive heap of evolutionary - supportive evidence has tripled in size over the last couple of decades.
P.s while this may seem to be a 'dismissal', googling this subject and assembling the list might well allow a poster to ask whether or not one of more of these arguments an evolutionists should not use really is such. I would undertake to explain that each one of them, at least presented reasonably, is a valid argument that evolutionists may use.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-16-2014 at 10:24 AM..
Reason: grammatical tidy -up
I do not know what you believe, creation or evolution, your faith is mystic. Spirit and soul are different, even it is hard for us to say what is of the soul and what is of the spirit.
I believe in BOTH. Consciousness is creative. God's consciousness is what establishes our reality. What is past, as they say, is prologue.
Quote:
I agree that the bible is to be interpreted spiritually and not carnally, that means by reason of our mind, what makes sense or what is logic, it is carnal. If our conscious awareness is our spirit, than this spirit has to be born again, that means to be connected, in union with the living God to be able to interpret the bible spiritually. And even than a believer can be deceived by another spirit.
Being born again is the goal of this life . . . NOT something that occurs in this life. It occurs after our death. This life is a developing and maturing of our embryo Spirit to make that happen successfully.
This secularist at least is fine with your attitude. As regards the evilushun debate, look at the facts, the argument from both sides, the evidence and make up your own mind. You will find that, if you have a god -belief, it will stay there, no matter whether you accept the case for evolution or not.
I have made up my mind... I have God and I trust in Him. I am still open to new truths the universe holds.
Everyone views the same finite universe from where they "stand"... but not everything is finite.
I read the link, what does it say. We do not know. What science said before, their must be much dust, and that is what makes sense. So than they measured the dust further on, but when God created the Heavens 6000 years ago, that can include our Milky Way. The bible is not a scientific book. Genesis is as the whole bible to be taken in faith, because God knows it even better than scientists. But Genesis does not say that God created the earth during the 6 days of creation. The creation began with "let their be light". The young earth and the old earth arguments are interpretations. The evidence in the earth speak of an old earth, the younger earth creationists have lost the battle and this causes a crises in faith. But an old earth has nothing to do with evolution. The bible is clear, God created every think, that matters.
You may be ill-equipped to discern shoddy science. Have you looked into the details of the claim? The devil is in the details.
Have you wondered where this argument came from? In the 1950’s before satellites were available to take direct measurements, geophysicist Hans Pettersson estimated the influx to Earth of material from meteors by measuring the quantity of nickel in the material passing through dust filters on top of Hawaii’s Mount Mauna Loa. Since nickel is less abundant in terrestrial dust than in meteorites, he assumed that all nickel came from space. Knowing that meteoric material is composed of 2.5 percent nickel, he used the amount of nickel collected to calculate that some 14 million tons of space dust settles on the earth every year. Applied to a 4 billion year old moon, this would add up to 145 feet of space dust on the moon. Since we know now of only about 2 ½ inches of surface dust on the moon, this would imply and age for the moon of 6,000,000 years. Pettersson warned of possible large errors and questionable assumptions. These were used by young-earthers to whittle the age down to about 10,000 years.
This argument draws on flawed data, and ignores subsequent precise, pure measurement. As Pettersson himself was aware, his ground-based measurements also included dust from wind erosion and volcanic eruptions — after all, he was on Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii — a volcano. Fortunately, about a decade after Pettersson’s estimates were published, direct measurements by satellites of cosmic dust inflow were available. Instead of a 14-million ton annual accumulation on the earth, only 23 thousand tons were indicated (11 thousand for the moon). This quantity would translate to 1.2 inches of dust for a moon 4.5 billion years old. When other sources of inflow and outflow are accounted for (decomposition from ultraviolet radiation, other sources of erosion, inflow from larger meteorites and comets, and outflow from debris ejected from meteors impacts, the 2.5 inches of lunar dust adds up to an age for the lunar surface of 4.25 billion years (a value in agreements with several other measurements of the moon’s age).
Being an old earth creationist, why would you even use a long ago failed and discarded Young Earth Creationist argument in the first place? Are you trying to convince yourself of a young earth. Isn't that counterproductive?
I have made up my mind... I have God and I trust in Him. I am still open to new truths the universe holds.
Everyone views the same finite universe from where they "stand"... but not everything is finite.
If you believe in a god, but do not use that as a reason to reject the 'new truths' of science, then I have no real quarrel with you, so long as you do not tell me that I should believe in a god too, on the grounds of the unknown infinite.
You may be ill-equipped to discern shoddy science. Have you looked into the details of the claim? The devil is in the details.
Have you wondered where this argument came from? In the 1950’s before satellites were available to take direct measurements, geophysicist Hans Pettersson estimated the influx to Earth of material from meteors by measuring the quantity of nickel in the material passing through dust filters on top of Hawaii’s Mount Mauna Loa. Since nickel is less abundant in terrestrial dust than in meteorites, he assumed that all nickel came from space. Knowing that meteoric material is composed of 2.5 percent nickel, he used the amount of nickel collected to calculate that some 14 million tons of space dust settles on the earth every year. Applied to a 4 billion year old moon, this would add up to 145 feet of space dust on the moon. Since we know now of only about 2 ½ inches of surface dust on the moon, this would imply and age for the moon of 6,000,000 years. Pettersson warned of possible large errors and questionable assumptions. These were used by young-earthers to whittle the age down to about 10,000 years.
This argument draws on flawed data, and ignores subsequent precise, pure measurement. As Pettersson himself was aware, his ground-based measurements also included dust from wind erosion and volcanic eruptions — after all, he was on Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii — a volcano. Fortunately, about a decade after Pettersson’s estimates were published, direct measurements by satellites of cosmic dust inflow were available. Instead of a 14-million ton annual accumulation on the earth, only 23 thousand tons were indicated (11 thousand for the moon). This quantity would translate to 1.2 inches of dust for a moon 4.5 billion years old. When other sources of inflow and outflow are accounted for (decomposition from ultraviolet radiation, other sources of erosion, inflow from larger meteorites and comets, and outflow from debris ejected from meteors impacts, the 2.5 inches of lunar dust adds up to an age for the lunar surface of 4.25 billion years (a value in agreements with several other measurements of the moon’s age).
Being an old earth creationist, why would you even use a long ago failed and discarded Young Earth Creationist argument in the first place? Are you trying to convince yourself of a young earth. Isn't that counterproductive?
I believe that God created this world we live in 6000 years ago in 6 days. That includes the moon, but not the planet earth itself and the universe, they are created in the beginning (Gen 1:1), another world we do not know much about. That world of old (2.Peter 3:5-7) was destroyed totally by God`s judgement (Gen 1:2) including the moon, if there was one. God will create another world after the Millennium on the old earth. That means there will be 3 generations of the earth, that are 3 different worlds God created on planet earth. The world before us was destroyed by water and this world will be destroyed by fire. That means this planet earth can be billions of years old.
I believe that God created this world we live in 6000 years ago in 6 days. That includes the moon, but not the planet earth itself and the universe, they are created in the beginning (Gen 1:1), another world we do not know much about. That world of old (2.Peter 3:5-7) was destroyed totally by God`s judgement (Gen 1:2) including the moon, if there was one. God will create another world after the Millennium on the old earth. That means there will be 3 generations of the earth, that are 3 different worlds God created on planet earth. The world before us was destroyed by water and this world will be destroyed by fire. That means this planet earth can be billions of years old.
Can't be 6 literal days.
Read at the end of each "day" and it says an evening and a morning a ... Day. That is NOT 24 hours. In addition the Biblical Day started at sundown and ended at the next sundown, so 24 hours for a full day.
The creative days are whatever God wanted them to be, as he tells us a thousand years are as a day and a day as a thousand years to him. It was God's time until the creation of Adam and then our time started for us.
Also note Adam was created in the evening and had to name about 16,000 kinds of animals and I doubt God had him go, rabbit, mouse, deer, fox, bear, etc. in the dark. Then within the same "day" (night) God made him go to sleep and made Eve and then brought her to him and he said .... "at last". It wasn't just a few minutes or hours that had passed.
God is not stupid or capricious. He would have Adam come to know the animlas so as to give them meaningful names and that could take literally years. During that time he would see male and female everything and even mating and birth. Makes sense he would wonder "what about me". Then Eve shows up YEAH "AT LAST". Not just a few hours or less than a single day going by.
Now if you want to postulate God did all His creating in daylight, then it was still less than 24 hours because Genesis 1:5 tells us God called only the lighted period "Day", showing the variation in what a "Day" was even then. Adam still had to name some 16,000 kings (basic kinds not the vast number around today as variations of a kind), take a nap and then see Eve. The "at last" would be meaningless if just a few hours had passed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
