Christians: How could Earth only be 6000 years old?

[waitasec]

That's because biblical evidence does not support evolution.

explain biblical evidence...are you saying what the bible claims is evidence enough?

 

[james2ko]

explain biblical evidence...

Gen 1:26 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...." According to biblical chronology, this creative act occurred approximately 6,000 years ago,

are you saying what the bible claims is evidence enough?

Enough to reject the theory of evolution.

 

[darkendless]

That's because biblical evidence does not support evolution.

Gen 1:26 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...." According to biblical chronology, this creative act occurred approximately 6,000 years ago,



Enough to reject the theory of evolution.

How does the bible give any empirical evidence which allows you to make such a distinction?

The bible provides zero evidence that would assist an honest person to reject evolution without bias.

 

[elcazador]

Duh im 1 of dose cristyans who got a fish wit legz on m y bumoper

 

[waitasec]

Gen 1:26 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...." According to biblical chronology, this creative act occurred approximately 6,000 years ago,

call me crazy but that's not evidence...it's a claim.

Enough to reject the theory of evolution.

why would god create an animal that injects it's venom into it's prey causing it to become paralyzed while being eaten alive?

 

[james2ko]

How does the bible give any empirical evidence which allows you to make such a distinction?

In the same manner evolutionists use their evidence to support their theory-- Faith..

The bible provides zero evidence that would assist an honest person to reject evolution without bias.

We could also say evolution provides zero evidence that would assist an honest person to reject creationism without bias..

 

[james2ko]

call me crazy but that's not evidence...it's a claim.

So is evolution..

why would god create an animal that injects it's venom into it's prey causing it to become paralyzed while being eaten alive?

Isn't that pretty cool and might I add creative ?

 

[darkendless]

In the same manner evolutionists use their evidence to support their theory-- Faith..

They have empirical data, theres a giant difference. They use data, not faith. You use faith believing a man in the sky made everything. Thats fine, but please don't use it to argue evolution or that the world is 6000 years old, it makes my brain reject information.

We could also say evolution provides zero evidence that would assist an honest person to reject creationism without bias..

Thats wrong. Evolution is a better alternative with a truck load more evidence than creationism and is thus a useful tool to reject childsplay creationism.

 

[waitasec]

So is evolution..

evolution is supported by fact found in the
fossils, genetic, molecular, bio geography, embryology, bacteriology, virology

and what does the bible have? a tribal bronze age understanding who seems to be more impressed with the idea of a burning bush then the wonders of a black hole...

Isn't that pretty cool and might I add creative ?

well to me this debunks any claim of a benevolent creator.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's because biblical evidence does not support evolution.

I get the distinct feeling that you're being dishonest with me.

 

[james2ko]

evolution is supported by fact found in the fossils, genetic, molecular, bio geography, embryology, bacteriology, virology

Fact? Even Darwin wasn't naive or arrogant enough to believe his own ideas as fact. What you see in the fossil record is not evolution. It is a separate creative act(s) followed by its sudden destruction. The other fields only prove that living matter sometimes mutates and adapts over time but always remains the same. In other words, bacterium mutate and change but it always remains bacteria.

well to me this debunks any claim of a benevolent creator.

Benevolence is such a subjective ideology, don't you think?

Thats wrong. Evolution is a better alternative with a truck load more evidence than creationism and is thus a useful tool to reject childsplay creationism.

Tell you what, If science ever discovers how dead matter can produce something living, I'll take a closer look. Until then, in my mind's eye, evolution is as dead as a dodo..

They have empirical data, theres a giant difference. They use data, not faith. You use faith believing a man in the sky made everything. Thats fine, but please don't use it to argue evolution or that the world is 6000 years old, it makes my brain reject information.

Takes a lot less faith to believe that---- then to believe something dead can produce something living.

 

[waitasec]

james,
what is your understanding of the scientific method?
fyi, the understanding of evolution has been scrutinized ever since darwin discovered it, so saying

Darwin wasn't naive or arrogant enough to believe his own ideas as fact

in light of the evidence we have that supports evolution since it's discovry isn't really fair, is it? this was a long time ago and ever since that time many other scientific fields supports evolution..consider all those i listed...

you seem to be adhering to a double standard. you seem to be fine that the earth is older than 6,000 so the geological evidence that supports this is fine, but then dismiss it when it supports evolution. even the catholic church supports it...
consider this, if one fossil is found that contradicts evolution, just one fossil... evolution is over...
what would be the point of science if it didn't shut down...sure there are hypothesis about evolution being shut down just as there are hypothesis that support evolution...but evolution is an observable fact.
i suggest, if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself...do some unbiased research...go to museums and ask scientist questions rather than depend on biased literature that doesn't adhere to the scientific method.

i don't think you know what evolution is...
it's not about finding the origin of life, it's about how life evolves over time.

right now we are witnessing the effects of what poaching elephants is doing.
they are growing smaller, or not developing tusks at all, because the DNA of the elephants that are not poached do not have the tusk characteristic...
natural selection...cofirmed.

think of embryology for instance. in the 5th of gestation in the womb the fetus develops lanugo (hair that covers the entire body) then sheds it by the 7th month.

bio geography, if you find a fossil of penguin in switzerland, it's over...evolution is over. if you find bones that belong to kangaroos in the south africa..it's over. evolution involves many many interconnected sciences which has provided evidence to support it.

so again. evolution is not about the origin of life it's about how life evolves.
many many scientists are observing it in the perfect lab....little islands.

please realize the scientific community adheres to the scientific method, if a hypothesis does not follow suit it is debunked. science is about unbiased truth other wise we wouldn't be able to have open heart surgery or find cures for diseases...

the scientific method is your friend...

 

[Where Is God]

Fact? Even Darwin wasn't naive or arrogant enough to believe his own ideas as fact. What you see in the fossil record is not evolution. It is a separate creative act(s) followed by its sudden destruction. The other fields only prove that living matter sometimes mutates and adapts over time but always remains the same. In other words, bacterium mutate and change but it always remains bacteria.



Benevolence is such a subjective ideology, don't you think?



Tell you what, If science ever discovers how dead matter can produce something living, I'll take a closer look. Until then, in my mind's eye, evolution is as dead as a dodo..



Takes a lot less faith to believe that---- then to believe something dead can produce something living.

So God made a mistake? Where is the evidence for this sudden destruction?

 

[james2ko]

james, what is your understanding of the scientific method? fyi, the understanding of evolution has been scrutinized ever since darwin discovered it, so saying in light of the evidence we have that supports evolution since it's discovry isn't really fair, is it? this was a long time ago and ever since that time many other scientific fields supports evolution..consider all those i listed...

And over a century-and-a-half later it still cannot explain how organisms arise above the species level (e.g., genus, family, order, etc.). It cannot explain how, when the large majority of mutations are "bad" (and most of the rest are neutral), "good" results are required to change one type of animal or plant into another type of animal or plant. It cannot explain the origin, much less the complexity, of the genetic code. It cannot explain the "Cambrian Explosion" in the fossil record, where incredibly complex "early" structures and organisms suddenly appear fully formed and completely functional (such as the dual lens system and accompanying refractive interface of the trilobite’s eye)...Just too many holes, not enough plugs.

you seem to be adhering to a double standard. you seem to be fine that the earth is older than 6,000 so the geological evidence that supports this is fine, but then dismiss it when it supports evolution.

Not at all. The age of the earth and the origin of man are two separate observations that require their own set of questions and variables.

even the catholic church supports it... consider this, if one fossil is found that contradicts evolution, just one fossil... evolution is over...what would be the point of science if it didn't shut down...sure there are hypothesis about evolution being shut down just as there are hypothesis that support evolution...but evolution is an observable fact.

And that is all I need. Especially when you have a much more compelling alternative.

right now we are witnessing the effects of what poaching elephants is doing. they are growing smaller, or not developing tusks at all, because the DNA of the elephants that are not poached do not have the tusk characteristic...natural selection...cofirmed.

Wiping out the tusked elephant population decreases and limits the gene pool to only non-tusked ones. The non-tusked elephants are younger and smaller so two smaller, non-tusked elephants, over a short period of time, will naturally produce other small, non-tusked elephants. This is simple genetic mutation being pawned off as evolution.

think of embryology for instance. in the 5th of gestation in the womb the fetus develops lanugo (hair that covers the entire body) then sheds it by the 7th month.

But it is still a human baby when it is born! And this is considered evolutionary evidence?

bio geography, if you find a fossil of penguin in switzerland, it's over...evolution is over. if you find bones that belong to kangaroos in the south africa..it's over. evolution involves many many interconnected sciences which has provided evidence to support it.

Two world-wide floods many years apart--as the bible and geologic evidence indicate-- with its associated currents and sedimentary deposits could easily explain this, wouldn't you agree?

so again. evolution is not about the origin of life it's about how life evolves.many many scientists are observing it in the perfect lab....little islands.

There is no direct evolutionary evidence (no transitional life forms). Just like there is no "direct" evidence proving God created all matter. The only evidence for both is inferential. This leaves us with a choice. I examined both sides and the overwhelming evidence of creationism prevailed--- this is where I choose to place my faith.

i suggest, if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself...do some unbiased research...go to museums and ask scientist questions rather than depend on biased literature that doesn't adhere to the scientific method.

I have and found nothing compelling enough to warrant a change in my views. And I'm really surprised you, a former aspiring minister attending church 2-3 days a week, would even entertain such an ideology.

 

[Looncall]

And over a century-and-a-half later it still cannot explain how organisms arise above the species level (e.g., genus, family, order, etc.). It cannot explain how, when the large majority of mutations are "bad" (and most of the rest are neutral), "good" results are required to change one type of animal or plant into another type of animal or plant. It cannot explain the origin, much less the complexity, of the genetic code. It cannot explain the "Cambrian Explosion" in the fossil record, where incredibly complex "early" structures and organisms suddenly appear fully formed and completely functional (such as the dual lens system and accompanying refractive interface of the trilobite’s eye)...Just too many holes, not enough plugs.



Not at all. The age of the earth and the origin of man are two separate observations that require their own set of questions and variables.



And that is all I need. Especially when you have a much more compelling alternative.



Wiping out the tusked elephant population decreases and limits the gene pool to only non-tusked ones. The non-tusked elephants are younger and smaller so two smaller, non-tusked elephants, over a short period of time, will naturally produce other small, non-tusked elephants. This is simple genetic mutation being pawned off as evolution.



But it is still a human baby when it is born! And this is considered evolutionary evidence?



Two world-wide floods many years apart--as the bible and geologic evidence indicate-- with its associated currents and sedimentary deposits could easily explain this, wouldn't you agree?



There is no direct evolutionary evidence (no transitional life forms). Just like there is no "direct" evidence proving God created all matter. The only evidence for both is inferential. This leaves us with a choice. I examined both sides and the overwhelming evidence of creationism prevailed--- this is where I choose to place my faith.



I have and found nothing compelling enough to warrant a change in my views. And I'm really surprised you, a former aspiring minister attending church 2-3 days a week, would even entertain such an ideology.

The number of lies you have presented here is astonishing. Almost everything you have written is inaccurate. You demean the religion you purport to follow.

 

[waitasec]

Two world-wide floods many years apart--as the bible and geologic evidence indicate-- with its associated currents and sedimentary deposits could easily explain this, wouldn't you agree?

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?

There is no direct evolutionary evidence (no transitional life forms). Just like there is no "direct" evidence proving God created all matter. The only evidence for both is inferential. This leaves us with a choice. I examined both sides and the overwhelming evidence of creationism prevailed--- this is where I choose to place my faith.

from what i gather...
you know everything there is to know about evolution, :sarcastic
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.

 

[David M]

No, I have a pretty good knowledge of it.

From whaty you have posted so far I'd say the opposite is true.

For a majority of dating techniques any object of a known age, lets say 10 years, will likely come back with a ridiculous number. For others, an object must be at least a certain age to be tested.

And neither of these are problems with the dating method but either of the ability of our instruments to measure isotopes or due to the fundamental laws of physics.

As for the majority of these systems, they conclude that re-testing is a way of making evolution unfalsifiable rather than 'proving' their intended hypothesis. As for the others, the minimum age factor shows exactly how they only adjust mathematical values for their intended hypothesis, making nothing be able to date less than 10,000 years old, for example.

And this is plain untrue, there are dating methods suitable for things less than 10,000 years old just as there are methods suitable only for things much older.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The number of lies you have presented here is astonishing. Almost everything you have written is inaccurate. You demean the religion you purport to follow.

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.

 

[james2ko]

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.

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. *edit*

 

[Sum1sGruj]

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.