• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

Do you believe God possibly recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago?

  • Yes, it's possible that God recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago.

    Votes: 13 11.6%
  • No, there is no way that the Earth could have been recreated 6,000 years ago.

    Votes: 99 88.4%

  • Total voters
    112

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
at the point of observation (which you only do by thinking)....

the singularity is self starting?
science would say ...no....

for every effect there is a cause.

at the point of singularity, science cannot proceed.

you can.
So again, what does this have to do with adjectives changing the meaning of noun? Or as you suggest that they don't? I argued that adjectives are modifiers of nouns, and you go on and argue Kalaam... Uh... What does syllogistic arguments for the existence of a first cause have to do with English grammar? Are you just playing pigeon chess here?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
So again, what does this have to do with adjectives changing the meaning of noun? Or as you suggest that they don't? I argued that adjectives are modifiers of nouns, and you go on and argue Kalaam... Uh... What does syllogistic arguments for the existence of a first cause have to do with English grammar? Are you just playing pigeon chess here?
I do play chess....

but for now.....you seem to be 'sliding' around....as if playing checkers
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
I do play chess....

but for now.....you seem to be 'sliding' around....as if playing checkers
I was only talking about one single thing. Adjectives modify nouns. You said they don't. Kalaam has nothing to do with it.

So you are admiting to playing pigeon chess?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
but for you....I will call it .....

God Theory

and I believe in God because of science....therefore....

it's a scientific theory

and carries sufficient weight to be true until proven false.
If you have ever study science, you would know that it is not the way science works.

In science, everything is false, until it is proven or verified to be true.

No hypothesis and no theory are ever true, until there are verifiable evidences to support the statements (or explanation or prediction) to be true.

There are no evidences to support the existence of God, because you are personally basing it on your own faith and belief.

And isn't this your favorite motto: God "needs no proof" and didn't you say:
There will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation, or a repeatable experiment.

your plea for evidence (other than what I have posted)....will forever go unanswered.

So unless you have EVIDENCES to support your biased belief, you have No SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Heck, you don't even have scientific hypothesis, because none of your claims about God are testable.

You continued to display your ignorance for all to see, thief.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
If you have ever study science, you would know that it is not the way science works.

In science, everything is false, until it is proven or verified to be true.

No hypothesis and no theory are ever true, until there are verifiable evidences to support the statements (or explanation or prediction) to be true.

There are no evidences to support the existence of God, because you are personally basing it on your own faith and belief.

And isn't this your favorite motto: God "needs no proof" and didn't you say:


So unless you have EVIDENCES to support your biased belief, you have No SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Heck, you don't even have scientific hypothesis, because none of your claims about God are testable.

You continued to display your ignorance for all to see, thief.
check wiki.....and keep that label of ignorance for yourself
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
The age of the earth and evolution is not up for debate because you don't like it

Then may I suggest you depart from this thread and cease debating me, since the case is settled as you claim.

"Where was Outhouse when I laid the foundations of this Earth?" -- Jesus
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Actually, you don't understand.

The only way, what you would call - to "study" creation - is through writings from people who have limited education, and lots of superstitious belief. And that some imaginary, invisible, all-powerful beings (eg God) are somehow responsible for this creation. That superstition, not science.

I will have as much chance of finding evidences for fairies, ghouls and goblins, mermaid and unicorn from fairytales, as much as I would find evidences for God, angels, Satan, heaven and hell, from the bible...

...meaning, I will get zero evidences, for either sources.

Believing in what people have written, simply because it is in some books, doesn't in any way mean that these supernatural beings are real. You are relying on personal belief and faith,

For it to be science, you would need the verifiable evidences for the CAUSE (eg God) as much as you would need verifiable evidences for EFFECT (eg creation, earth, nature, humans). And THEN YOU WOULD NEED EVEN MORE verifiable evidences to support and verify that the creator was responsible for such-and-such a creation.

And there are no evidences to support God, Creator, fairies, Unicorn, the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever you want to call it. And without evidences for the existence of creator god, creationism is already refuted or debunked.

There are also evidences to support that the Earth, Sun, Solar System, Milky Way, the observable universe are older than 6000-year Young Earth, which refute the Bible's narratives and calculations of all the years and generations and reigns in the Old Testament.

If you have read the Book of Job, from 38 to 41, you can see what a load of piece of craps...if you were to take it literally. It is nothing more than bunch of superstitions, in which the author know absolutely nothing about nature.

If God was real, and he really said all that stuff in JOB, then he is as stupid or uneducated as those people living in JOB's time, with no understanding of the mechanism of the natural world...and that if you can find the evidences if Job was really a person, and not some mythological character.

As thief so proudly say...a very ignorant saying, if I must brutally say...God "needs no proof". That's just show thief is biased in his belief.

Show me, the evidences to support the existence of God. Show me evidences that Earth is really as young as 6000 years. Show me evidences that adult man can be made DIRECTLY from dust. If you have no evidences, then why should I considered what you believe in, hold any substance.

If you seriously think God is real, then provide the necessary evidences for me to examine, to investigate. Without those evidences, then believing in God would indeed be like believing in unicorn.

Well, I will answer you, though you are again rather far afield of the OP.

1. I didn't ask you to study creation. Other than looking at Big Bang cosmology and comparing it to about three verses in Genesis--I'm not sure HOW we would study creation. What I am rather saying is that since the Bible chronology indicates a young Earth, let's see if we can study that by looking at data and assumptions. Now, we can certainly find evidence for a recent creation of people--even looking at what scientists have posted remarking on the age of mitochondrial Eve shows the underlying issues...

2. There is absolutely evidence that God is real. If you wish it, you can apprehend some for yourself. Here's an example... tithe. I have money coming to me from all sorts of sources. God says to TEST Him in this very thing. What PRICE--literal price--would you be willing to pay to receive a relationship with God, peace (within) and eternal life? From the first blush, it looks as though you aren't interested in paying a price at all. Good news! Jesus paid a heavy price for us both. He died a horrible death by torture and rose from the dead, taking our sin, guilt and shame--our imperfection. He received our punishment, graciously making it so that if you trust Him (and not yourself, your good deeds, your goodness) you receive eternal life!

I will disagree with thief that God needs no proof. I will agree with the scriptures that God will give you proof. My questions: Have you received any proof and did you reject it? And if you've never yet encountered proof, is your current bend such that you will receive it when it comes? If I was God and you talked about me the way you do, I wouldn't reveal myself to you. Fortunately, you cannot exhaust the great patience of an eternal God with a few forum posts...
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Well, I will answer you, though you are again rather far afield of the OP.

1. I didn't ask you to study creation. Other than looking at Big Bang cosmology and comparing it to about three verses in Genesis--I'm not sure HOW we would study creation. What I am rather saying is that since the Bible chronology indicates a young Earth, let's see if we can study that by looking at data and assumptions. Now, we can certainly find evidence for a recent creation of people--even looking at what scientists have posted remarking on the age of mitochondrial Eve shows the underlying issues...

You ignore the evidence against your view namely dating methods. Your driven by your bias that a literal interpretation of the bible is correct when it has been refuted for centuries.

2. There is absolutely evidence that God is real. If you wish it, you can apprehend some for yourself. Here's an example... tithe. I have money coming to me from all sorts of sources. God says to TEST Him in this very thing. What PRICE--literal price--would you be willing to pay to receive a relationship with God, peace (within) and eternal life? From the first blush, it looks as though you aren't interested in paying a price at all. Good news! Jesus paid a heavy price for us both. He died a horrible death by torture and rose from the dead, taking our sin, guilt and shame--our imperfection. He received our punishment, graciously making it so that if you trust Him (and not yourself, your good deeds, your goodness) you receive eternal life!

The tithe is only an example of you follow a dictate of a religion not that the religion is true. Also Jesus' sacrifice has no evidence suggesting that it did anything besides cause his death and start a new religion. You accept the narrative as true but the narrative is not evidence of truth itself.
 

outhouse

Atheistically

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Ahhhh...EVIDENCE
What can be the evidence of an absence of a presence ?
How could the 'evidence' disappear, where could it have gone ?
Maybe the scriptures written by mankind, and angels ?
Where did those angels go, invinsible as they seem to be ?
What............maybe I'll just quit now, my wife is calling !
She's always present !
~
'mud
 

gnostic

The Lost One
check wiki.....and keep that label of ignorance for yourself
I don't need wiki to understand what a "scientific theory" is.

You check wiki yourself.

And be sure to read Scientific Theory and Scientific Method. The Scientific Method showed how Hypothesis and Scientific Theory are developed. Also you might want to read up on Falsifiability, which tell you why Hypothesis and scientific theory needs to be "falsifiable" (another word for testable and refutable).

Educate yourself, because you are seriously in need to put your out of your ignorant a##.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
2. There is absolutely evidence that God is real. If you wish it, you can apprehend some for yourself.
And that's the problem with the belief in God, or faith as if you like, required people to wish it to be true.

Wishing IS NOT EVIDENCE. Wishing is in the realm of FAITH.

If you had "EVIDENCE" in God, then you would bloody well need FAITH.

Faith is believing in anything to be true, without evidences.

This is why FAITH is nothing more than wishful thinking. And that's all you are doing right now.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
check wiki.....and keep that label of ignorance for yourself
Interesting. Wiki on Scientific Theory:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through thescientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power andexplanatory capability.
Compared to Wiki regarding theory (in general):
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provideempirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[4] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis').[5]
Read especially the red part of the quote.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Interesting. Wiki on Scientific Theory:

Compared to Wiki regarding theory (in general):

Read especially the red part of the quote.

The problem is that Thief don't know how to read and understand the whole articles, let alone a sentence that you have highlighted in red.

So I am not going to whole my breath for him to have his epiphany. He is not just being ignorant, thief is actually fighting it, and won't see the difference between common usage of "theory" and the "scientific theory". This fighting common sense is his bias; his religious belief won't allow him to grasp the differences.

His whole self-labelled of "I am a rogue theologian", is nothing more than a sham, because he is dogmatic as any scientific illiterate creationist, when it come to dealing with science.
 

Paleo

Primitivism and chill
See anything is possible in the realm of religion but...do I believe that as of current? Nope.

I mean I'm sure I'm supposed to take this from a Biblical perspective but I don't believe my God recreated the earth 6,000 years ago nor to I believe that the Biblical, Christian god did.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Well, I will answer you, though you are again rather far afield of the OP.

1. I didn't ask you to study creation. Other than looking at Big Bang cosmology and comparing it to about three verses in Genesis--I'm not sure HOW we would study creation. What I am rather saying is that since the Bible chronology indicates a young Earth, let's see if we can study that by looking at data and assumptions. Now, we can certainly find evidence for a recent creation of people--even looking at what scientists have posted remarking on the age of mitochondrial Eve shows the underlying issues...
If you ever study the Big Bang cosmology, THERE WAS NO EARTH at the beginning.

Genesis 1:1 clearly stated that "heaven" or "heavens" (which originally mean what you could only see - the "sky"; but theists now (so modern theists) associated with outer space and the "universe") and earth, at the same time.

Genesis 1:1 said:
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth

But in the beginning of our observable universe (13.7 billion years), there was no Earth shortly after the Big Bang. In fact there were no stars, no galaxies, no planets.

The first generation of stars didn't form and lit up UNTIL 560 million years AFTER the Big Bang, according to ESA (European Space Agency), from their space telescope Planck that was recently decommissioned.

Our solar system is probably a 3rd generation (or even 4th generation). Our Earth didn't exist 13.2 billion years ago, with the 1st stars; nor did our Sun exist at that time. Our Earth and the solar system didn't form until 9 billion years AFTER the Big Bang.

So basically, Genesis 1:1 is wrong, scientifically, cosmologically and even philosophically. Genesis 1:1 and the Young Earth Creationism (YEC) are wrong on the Big Bang front.

Now, we can certainly find evidence for a recent creation of people--even looking at what scientists have posted remarking on the age of mitochondrial Eve shows the underlying issues...

The estimated number of years from the Bible, depending on the sources, like the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), put the creation of Adam to less than 6000 (for MT; I have not calculated the generations within the Septuagint, but I think it probably 7500 years at the most).

(Note that in the Greek Septuagint, tends to add a hundred years to generations of most of each patriarch of Genesis. Unfortunately, we don't have complete genealogy in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), but what we do have, seemed to indicate that the DSS was more aligned with the Masoretic Text. Also the genealogy given in the Latin Vulgate Bible is also more in align with the MT too. So I suspect that when they originally translating from Hebrew to Greek, the translators made errors to Genesis in the Septuagint.)

Genesis 1 only say that man and woman were created, but doesn't how. Genesis 2 is a different version of creationism, stated that the 1st man (Adam) was created directly from dust.

It is scientifically impossible to create adult man from dust. That's because creation of man in Genesis 2 is like the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian myths. They are all primitive and have no understanding of biology that you can't make whole adult human being directly from dust. That's because prophets like the people of those time, have no understanding of nature, so they make up stories. Just because there are lot of myths out there, doesn't make any of them - true.

The ancient settlements of Jericho, Uruk and Aleppo are all older than 6000 years (4000 BCE).

But man (Homo sapiens; the modern humans is a subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens) have being around over 200,000 years. That's a huge difference between 200,000 years and 6000 years. The last I have heard, the mitochondrial Eve have been estimated as far back as 240,000 years, or at the very least 99,000 years.

Even with the lesser figure of 99,000 years, that still a huge gap of 93,000 years. This mitochondrial Eve refute the YEC's claim of young earth.

The Australian natives (or Australian Aborigines) have been on this continent, at most 48,000 years, or the minimum of 44,000 years ago. This too refute the whole YEC's claim.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I read Genesis to say .....
God separated the heavens from the earth.....

that might be energy and substance.....
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.[29]
.........wiki

but since no one can prove there is no God.....

it's valid to theorize.....there is a God
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
you skipped the part about .....sure until proven false.
Your skipped the part that there's a difference between the terms based on the leading modifier, which also called an adjective.

Besides, it doesn't say "sure until proven false". In other words, you're misquoting Wikipedia to argue your point.
 
Top