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.
Not sure how you dug that out of my post but, no, that's not what I am saying.
I am saying that we both have something we fall back on when we're in these debates.
Some fall back on 'well, this must be happening much slower than we thought' and some fall back on 'God did it".
That's all.
Self-serving....maybe.....deluded....not sure where you got that that.....
It seemed like you meant that the "ace in the hole" that each group has is something that is made up to serve their arguments.
If so, creationists delude themselves that "God did it" while evolutionists delude themselves that "this" is happening much slower than we thought.
That's where I picked up your implication that both sides (or at least one) are delusional about their respective aces-in-the-hole. Both aces can't be correct.
It seemed like you meant that the "ace in the hole" that each group has is something that is made up to serve their arguments.
If so, creationists delude themselves that "God did it" while evolutionists delude themselves that "this" is happening much slower than we thought.
That's where I picked up your implication that both sides (or at least one) are delusional about their respective aces-in-the-hole. Both aces can't be correct.
I understand. No, I didn't really mean 'deluded' like that....on either side.
Time is relative, not variable. Claiming the earth to be both 6000 and [4.5] billion years old is indeed contradictory.
Right you are, NVX, I should have used the word relative, not variable.
Time doesn't vary, but it is completely relative to the location where you are observing it from. The age of the earth can indeed be two different things under one condition: if the two ages measured are from two different locations, that are not stationary with respect to each other. If the universe is expanding outwards as fast as the scientists say it is, then I am not surprised that billions of years have passed (in time as we measure it on earth), whilst an observer at the point of origin (God's creation point) could honestly look at a calendar and say about 6000 years, give or take a few, have passed...
Are the scientists wrong? Nope...the earth really is billions of years old, as we measure time here on earth. So, is the Bible wrong then? Nope again. I believe it is simply quoting time as God saw it, from His location, not time as we observe and measure it on earth. If we want earth time to keep "track and sync" with God's time, then you would have to stop the expansion of the universe...making everything stationary. Unless and until that happens, there will continue to be a huge difference, and people will go on arguing about it...
Right you are, NVX, I should have used the word relative, not variable.
Time doesn't vary, but it is completely relative to the location where you are observing it from. The age of the earth can indeed be two different things under one condition: if the two ages measured are from two different locations, that are not stationary with respect to each other. If the universe is expanding outwards as fast as the scientists say it is, then I am not surprised that billions of years have passed (in time as we measure it on earth), whilst an observer at the point of origin (God's creation point) could honestly look at a calendar and say about 6000 years, give or take a few, have passed...
Bud
Yes but the whole 6000 year figure is based on (supposed) events here on Earth. GOD never said the earth or the universe is 6000 years old. He's a bit smarter than that
Right you are, NVX, I should have used the word relative, not variable.
Time doesn't vary, but it is completely relative to the location where you are observing it from. The age of the earth can indeed be two different things under one condition: if the two ages measured are from two different locations, that are not stationary with respect to each other. If the universe is expanding outwards as fast as the scientists say it is, then I am not surprised that billions of years have passed (in time as we measure it on earth), whilst an observer at the point of origin (God's creation point) could honestly look at a calendar and say about 6000 years, give or take a few, have passed...
Are the scientists wrong? Nope...the earth really is billions of years old, as we measure time here on earth. So, is the Bible wrong then? Nope again. I believe it is simply quoting time as God saw it, from His location, not time as we observe and measure it on earth. If we want earth time to keep "track and sync" with God's time, then you would have to stop the expansion of the universe...making everything stationary. Unless and until that happens, there will continue to be a huge difference, and people will go on arguing about it...
Bud
Yes, I understand this, but we are not measuring the age of the earth from two different perspectives. We are measuring it from one. From our perspective, the earth cannot be both 6000 and 4.5 billion years old.
You can arbitrarily choose any perspective you want, and arrive at any one of virtually an infinite number of measurements. Such an exercise would be meaningless and useless.
If God transcends spacetime, as many claim, and if he is omnipresent, then it becomes nonsensical to claim, "God saw it, from His location."
I'm secretly hoping that somebody discovers that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Earth is exactly 1,000,000 years old. That throws a wrench in all theories.
I don't necessarily see any likelihood of that happening. One can dream, though.
I'm secretly hoping that somebody discovers that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Earth is exactly 1,000,000 years old. That throws a wrench in all theories.
I don't necessarily see any likelihood of that happening. One can dream, though.
Actually Kelvin found, in his thermodynamics formulas that the Earth was 20,000,000 years old. Of course, this was fine until that whole pesky discovery of radioactivity led everyone to realize that the earth's core was radioactive.
I've been out of grade school for roughly 25 years, in that span of time the earth has aged billions of years. I think when I was in about the 6th grade, it was only a few million years old, now it's much older.
I'm thinking we're going to see it get older and older exponentially as 'science' strives to answer the question of how we're here.
Time is an evolutionists 'ace in the hole', just like God is a creationists.
Just because something in science changes doesn't mean that there's just a bumbling bunch of PhD's who have no idea what they're doing. New evidence dictates new research and new answers. 500 years ago people buried goat kidneys in the ground to fix certain ailments. 120 years ago doctors prescribed Cocaine and Lard for patients with ailments. What changes is the amount of discovery beyond sheer guesswork.
In fact, I have no qualms whatsoever if science is "questioned". I don't think institutions like CRI are a bad thing in entirety. I don't have a problem with them questioning science or the methods used. That is how advancement is made. However, advancement is not made by simply questioning the framework of science, coming up with your own theory, asserting that's it true, and yet have no testing to independently verify your results.
Ok so, why can't science and religion co-exist in some people's eyes? Science can only deal in the measurable, testable world... if it is not testable or measurable its not science. So science will not be able to answer if there is a God, if ghosts exist, or what happened last Tuesday in the 6th parallel dimension of the universe because those are not testable. You cannot use science to answer questions of faith and you cannot not use faith to answer questions of science. You do not need to believe or pray that gravity will make your pencil fall to the floor when rolled off your desk, because that will happen and it is measurable and testable. Both have their place in this world, but need their separation from one another; neither should be use to try and explain the other.
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.
