Christians: How could Earth only be 6000 years old?

[waitasec]

Nice try big daddy but it would take another moron to dismiss the fact you are referring to me. Is that the best you can do. Hurl personal insults and promulgate intellectual ridicule when someone doesn't agree with your view? I would think someone with your intellect and status would rise above that especially when it is clearly against the rules. Guess I was wrong. Oh, that's right you are a moderator so it makes it ok. You can't get banned. But I'm sure you won't hesistate to ban someone in a NY minute if this is done to you.....

Edmund Burke was right when he said, "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."

you either accept the facts or ignore 'em.
for those who ignore facts adhere to double standards in order to to reconcile inconsistency...


this is elementary

 

[waitasec]

I figure any atheist would have a more profound knowledge of such things as evolution and geology.
But moreover, one should study physics. Thinking that dating techniques are even applicable at actually 'proving' the age of something is poorly assumed.
If the instability of quantum dynamics isn't enough, The Standard Model itself has variables.
I ma not saying the Earth is only 6000 years old, but you atheists sure take a leap of faith on our primitive stage of science.

that's it!!

god did it...

 

[Sum1sGruj]

that's it!!

god did it...

The funny thing is, that is actually more probable than some of the things I've heard come from atheists

 

[darkendless]

The funny thing is, that is actually more probable than some of the things I've heard come from atheists

It however does not get anymore intellectually lazy though

I always imagine the bible authors sitting at a table proposing a creation theory. After several failed attempts and heaps of wine they simply go "**** it, God did it lets go get more wine." (this isn't meant to be offensive to christians, i'm just having a joke).

 

[james2ko]

why do you trust geological evidence? bio geography tells us there was no wide world flood after animals appeared. you are contradicting yourself...otherwise we'd find penguin, kangaroo and bear bones and other non indigenous animals in the middle east...or anywhere around that region. not one of those fossils have EVER been found and thats all it takes. don't you get that? from what i gather...you know everything there is to know about evolution, good for you...now us simpletons will just have to figure it out without your impressive knowledge and the over abundance of compelling literature you have to support your knowledge...all 66 books.

Look we can go on forever discussing our inferential evidence. At the end of the day, it comes down to which side are we going to believe. I have made my choice and you have made yours. This will all get straightened out soon. Until then...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nice try big daddy but it would take another moron to dismiss the fact you are referring to me. Is that the best you can do. Hurl personal insults and promulgate intellectual ridicule when someone doesn't agree with your view? I would think someone with your intellect and status would rise above that especially when it is clearly against the rules. Guess I was wrong. Oh, that's right you are a moderator so it makes it ok. You can't get banned. But I'm sure you won't hesistate to ban someone in a NY minute if this is done to you.....

Edmund Burke was right when he said, "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."

No, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was merely pointing out that because there are already a plethora of morons in any given group, that you aren't defacing Christianity.

(I was actually sticking up for you, and I regret that you misread me.)

And moderators have been banned from this site.

 

[james2ko]

No, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was merely pointing out that because there are already a plethora of morons in any given group, that you aren't defacing Christianity.

This is an obvious pretext..Besides, you could not be referring to a group because the third person singular was used in your description of the subject under discussion--ME:

Every religion (and group for that matter) has its run-of-the-mill-moron. No group would be able to survive without them.... and, as we know, some groups attract morons more than others. In this respect, I don't think that he demeans the religion - we should expect there to be more idiots in the group than intelligent ones. It's just common sense.

But outright lying and fraud is another matter. Even fools - well, most - have interactions with others enough to know that there are penalties for lying: lost friendships, lost jobs, etc.

If our friend here had a basic college level course in biology, and paid some attention, most of the errors in his posts would be avoided because they deal only with the most elementary aspects of evolutionary theory.

Unfortunately as it stands, I don't know of a text that is basic enough to get our friend started on basic biology. I think that the elementary errors are what makes it so frustrating to read.

(I was actually sticking up for you, and I regret that you misread me.)

By using a "group" as a pretext for calling me a moron, fool, and personally attacking my intellectuality?

And moderators have been banned from this site.

So why are you still here?

 

[waitasec]

Look we can go on forever discussing our inferential evidence. At the end of the day, it comes down to which side are we going to believe. I have made my choice and you have made yours. This will all get straightened out soon. Until then...

i guess for you, evidence that is verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment doesn't count...


not surprising

 

[angellous_evangellous]

By using a "group" as a pretext for calling me a moron, fool, and personally attacking my intellectuality?

In your determination to read my post as an insult, you have read it precisely backwards.

I was noting that because of the mass of OTHER people are morons and fools, it's impossible for you to degrade Christianity. I was DISAGREEING with someone who said OTHERWISE.

I WAS DISMISSING YOU FROM A FALSE CHARGE.

Jeez. Be nice to someone and they spit in your face.

 

[james2ko]

In your determination to read my post as an insult, you have read it precisely backwards.

I was noting that because of the mass of OTHER people are morons and fools, it's impossible for you to degrade Christianity. I was DISAGREEING with someone who said OTHERWISE.

I WAS DISMISSING YOU FROM A FALSE CHARGE.

Jeez. Be nice to someone and they spit in your face.

I will not comment any further for fear of being banned. I will let your conscious be your guide. I will simply ignore your posts from this moment forward.

 

[Looncall]

I figure any atheist would have a more profound knowledge of such things as evolution and geology.
But moreover, one should study physics. Thinking that dating techniques are even applicable at actually 'proving' the age of something is poorly assumed.
If the instability of quantum dynamics isn't enough, The Standard Model itself has variables.
I ma not saying the Earth is only 6000 years old, but you atheists sure take a leap of faith on our primitive stage of science.

More balderdash.

I have made my living working with radioactivity for almost 40 years, including a period teaching at the university level, so I think I can claim to know something about it. Radioactivity is one of the most well-understood phenomena around. If carefully applied, there is nothing wrong with the dating techniques in use these days.

Your silly word salad can only be understood as a deliberate attempt to deceive.

You should be ashamed to be seen trying to dismiss the hard work of many individuals who are dedicated to obtaining accurate information for the good of humanity. The fact that you do so in order to support mere superstition just makes your lieing worse.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Quiet as a tomb in here.

 

[waitasec]

subtle...

 

[dmgdnooc]

Will someone shut that damn cricket up.
Some of us are very tired in here and need our rest in peace.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Yeah OK, so I haven't read the entire thread.
But has it been considered that there may be an aspect of non-literality to the 6000 years?
　
Oh no, say the one party, If its not literal then we can't bag the Bible.
Oh no say the other party. If its not literal then you are bagging the Bible.
　
The Bible, I have observed, mixes the literal with the metaphorical to produce the allegories through which its truths are taught.
As such, it seems to me to be counter productive to ask 'Is the Earth 6000 years old?'
The question should be along the lines of 'What is the Bible teaching through its chronological structure?'
　
From that point I can note that the 6000 years has relation to the Kingdom of Men (6 being an imperfect number associated with man and the flesh).
That there are 2000 years from Adam to Abraham, 2000 from Abraham to Jesus, and 2000 from Jesus to his return and the destruction of the Kingdom of Men.
That there is a sabbath (day) of 1000 years following called the Kingdom of Heaven under Christ's rule.
So that the totality of the Bible's chronological scheme reflects the 'days' of creation and the Hebrew week.
　
In a nutshell, and imo, the 6000 years is not the age of the Earth, it is the duration of what the Bible terms the 'Kingdom of Men'.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah OK, so I haven't read the entire thread.
But has it been considered that there may be an aspect of non-literality to the 6000 years?
　
Oh no, say the one party, If its not literal then we can't bag the Bible.
Oh no say the other party. If its not literal then you are bagging the Bible.
　
The Bible, I have observed, mixes the literal with the metaphorical to produce the allegories through which its truths are taught.
As such, it seems to me to be counter productive to ask 'Is the Earth 6000 years old?'
The question should be along the lines of 'What is the Bible teaching through its chronological structure?'
　
From that point I can note that the 6000 years has relation to the Kingdom of Men (6 being an imperfect number associated with man and the flesh).
That there are 2000 years from Adam to Abraham, 2000 from Abraham to Jesus, and 2000 from Jesus to his return and the destruction of the Kingdom of Men.
That there is a sabbath (day) of 1000 years following called the Kingdom of Heaven under Christ's rule.
So that the totality of the Bible's chronological scheme reflects the 'days' of creation and the Hebrew week.
　
In a nutshell, and imo, the 6000 years is not the age of the Earth, it is the duration of what the Bible terms the 'Kingdom of Men'.

thats great actually.

if everybody knew that this thread wouldnt be 160 post long.

most people do forget the allegory and go straight to the literal word and run with it. Ive found this same pattern for creation as well.

 

[dmgdnooc]

thats great actually.

if everybody knew that this thread wouldnt be 160 post long.

most people do forget the allegory and go straight to the literal word and run with it. Ive found this same pattern for creation as well.

Now I'm worried, outhouse has agreed with me!
Is that a baseball bat that you have behind your back?
　
There is a good reason, imo, for beginning with a literal reading.
The Bible's world and its scheme of things is, more often than not, described in literal terms and literality is the easiest, and first, doorway by which to enter into the mode of thinking that the Bible presents.
And the metaphors and allegories of the Bible, to be truely from the Bible, must retain conformity with the literality of the reading.
So literality, as it does with me, retains a strong hold on the thought processes because it is the foundation upon which, and out of which, an understanding of the metaphor and allegory proceed.
　
The problem with literality, as I see it, is that it is often held to be the first, last and only understanding that is permitted.
That does little to explain what the Bible is teaching, but it does provide bantha doodoo enough for many fruitless, malodorous and messy discussions.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah OK, so I haven't read the entire thread.
But has it been considered that there may be an aspect of non-literality to the 6000 years?
　
Oh no, say the one party, If its not literal then we can't bag the Bible.
Oh no say the other party. If its not literal then you are bagging the Bible.
　
The Bible, I have observed, mixes the literal with the metaphorical to produce the allegories through which its truths are taught.
As such, it seems to me to be counter productive to ask 'Is the Earth 6000 years old?'
The question should be along the lines of 'What is the Bible teaching through its chronological structure?'
　
From that point I can note that the 6000 years has relation to the Kingdom of Men (6 being an imperfect number associated with man and the flesh).
That there are 2000 years from Adam to Abraham, 2000 from Abraham to Jesus, and 2000 from Jesus to his return and the destruction of the Kingdom of Men.
That there is a sabbath (day) of 1000 years following called the Kingdom of Heaven under Christ's rule.
So that the totality of the Bible's chronological scheme reflects the 'days' of creation and the Hebrew week.
　
In a nutshell, and imo, the 6000 years is not the age of the Earth, it is the duration of what the Bible terms the 'Kingdom of Men'.

not including the eastern kingdom
List of Neolithic cultures of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[angellous_evangellous]

not including the eastern kingdom
List of Neolithic cultures of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archaeological reports indicate that the Corinth area has been inhabited since at least 10,000BCE.

(Corinth is an important city for Christianity)

That's 12,000 years ago.

 

[waitasec]

Archaeological reports indicate that the Corinth area has been inhabited since at least 10,000BCE.

(Corinth is an important city for Christianity)

That's 12,000 years ago.

oooh that's cool