God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[fantome profane]

oh....so you did notice....?

for years we've had this boo hoo wah wah about which type of argument is greater....

depending on what you prefer.....
it all works for me.

prove me wrong....

You are still missing the point. I can't prove you wrong, The idea of "God" cannot be proven wrong. And that is exactly why it is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories are falsifiable.

It is not about which argument is greater. But which argument is scientific or not.

 

[fantome profane]

Of course there is evidence, but God told me not to post it to you, and that He awaits a conversation with you.

lol

 

[outhouse]

Archaeologists in Jerusalem find city's oldest known settlement 7000 years old

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...wn-settlement/ar-BBpC2MK?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp


Israeli authorities announced Wednesday they had uncovered findings proving for the first time the existence of an established human settlement in Jerusalem as far back as 7,000 years ago.


So much for the idea the earth is 6000 years old that goes against facts and reason and logic.

 

[gnostic]

Interesting, I've tried to limit myself on this thread to the OP. Are you asking me to hijack this thread to provide evidence for God's existence? Surely there's a better forum for this.

What hijacking?

That reply (post 1932) that you have quoted from me, was in response to your post (1927) in this thread.

2. There is absolutely evidence that God is real. If you wish it, you can apprehend some for yourself.

I don't see how addressing one of your points in this thread, considered hijacking?

My point is that "wishing" isn't evidence, but ("wishing") would fall under the realm of faith and believing.

If you are really interested in "wishes", then you are looking in the wrong direction, because science don't deal in "wishes".

 

[Milton Platt]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

It isn't what you believe that is important. It's what is actually true that matters.

 

[Thief]

You are still missing the point. I can't prove you wrong, The idea of "God" cannot be proven wrong. And that is exactly why it is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories are falsifiable.

It is not about which argument is greater. But which argument is scientific or not.

I believe in God for cause and effect.
God is the cause ...the universe is the effect.

SCIENCE!

 

[Thief]

declaration of incompetence.

The onus is on you to prove you are right.
Since you know you are unable to prove you are right, you try to get others to prove you are wrong.

A last ditch effort of desperation.

Now comes the denial.

denial granted

 

[outhouse]

I believe in God for cause and effect.

No you have faith and faith alone.

Nothing in nature can be attributed to such, and nothing has ever been effected by such OUTSIDE mythology

 

[Thief]

No you have faith and faith alone.

Nothing in nature can be attributed to such, and nothing has ever been effected by such OUTSIDE mythology

denial granted

 

[gnostic]

"In the beginning [before Adam and Eve were made] God made the Heavens and the Earth."

He could have made them simultaneously with a younger Earth near the center and an older universe stretching out per relativity. I will not argue with you further if you deny that time is relative based on location and light.

Time may be relative, and I do understand relativity, but it is not that RELATIVE where you can squash 13.7 billion years (observable universe) or 4.6 billion years (Earth) into 6000 years.

Light speed is still a constant, and it has taken 13.7 billion years for the light to reach us.

Although science doesn't know everything, and but what we do know now is because we have the current technology that help us find the evidences.

What you are doing is making baseless claims on the young earth. Baseless because they are based on make-believe and wishes and on how you can spin misinformation to twist science to suit your agenda; they are not based on evidence, and definitely not on science.

I don't expect you to have evidences, but at the very least you could do is provide sources from real scientists and real verifiable researches or discoveries.

 

[gnostic]

I believe in God for cause and effect.
God is the cause ...the universe is the effect.

SCIENCE!

This is the sort of stupidity and dishonesty.

If you have real cause and effect, then you should have verifiable evidences for God.

But you don't have evidences for God. Therefore it is not science.

Your "God did it", is not science. And your "Spirit, first" is also not science, no matter how many times you repeat or profess your ignorance with such a lame motto.

You have admitted it time and time again, that there are no proofs and no evidences for God, so what you are really promoting is your baseless personal belief. And the worse part that you have to lie to tell us this rubbish.

And you still can't tell the differences between theory and scientific theory, and between evidences and proofs. So we have your lack of integrity, and we know lack any form of education in science.

Keep showing your ignorance to the world.

 

[Shad]

No, I'm conversant with a number of dating methods but also, their shortcomings.

Pure nonsense. The shortcomings do not invalid the dates provided at all.

No, I have not only my anecdotal evidence but the evidence compiled from other tithers. I give money away and get more money.

So? It still isn't an example of God. It is just an example of you believing in the idea that tithing that is part of a religion.

No, the narrative of the NT is true because prophecy is fulfilled. Even now, we can see prophecy fulfilled--such as the prophecies of the Bible that the Jews would be both shining lights and despised in the diaspora. This has come true in 100 countries for 2,000 years. Study prophecy, be open minded, pray, you will become a believer!

Considering many of the NT prophecies are based on poor Greek translation and many of said prophecy were never fulfilled at all your claim has zero merit. Prophecy always has a way of being interpreted to fit history as those that believe in it make it this way. Ideology trumps everything when it comes to religion.

 

[outhouse]

denial granted

No you have faith and faith alone.

Nothing in nature can be attributed to such, and nothing has ever been effected by such OUTSIDE mythology

 

[Parsimony]

Time may be relative, and I do understand relativity, but it is not that RELATIVE where you can squash 13.7 billion years (observable universe) or 4.6 billion years (Earth) into 6000 years.

Indeed, since the Earth and humans are in practically the same reference frame, there should be negligible time dilation present. Therefore, we know that relativity cannot be invoked to explain billion-year-old rocks in a 6,000-year-old Universe. An observer moving relative to the Earth at great speed (above 99.999% the speed of light) could see billions of years pass by quickly, but that would only be for that external observer, not humans on Earth.

 

[gnostic]

Indeed, since the Earth and humans are in practically the same reference frame, there should be negligible time dilation present. Therefore, we know that relativity cannot be invoked to explain billion-year-old rocks in a 6,000-year-old Universe.

Yes, you are right.

Billiardsball seemed to want to use Relativity (like time dilation) on non-moving objects.

Relativity is only truly applied in with point of references to astronomical objects (such as the space, galaxies, stars, and even spacecraft) moving away or towards the observer.

Measuring the age of objects on Earth, whether they be rocks, artifacts, fossils or an excavated sites, you would use time dilation because none of them are moving towards or away from anyone. Time dilation required moving object, because velocity is essential in calculating the time dilation of gravitational masses (or objects). So like you've said, time dilation cannot apply to measuring the age of rock on Earth. You wouldn't use time dilation for radiometric dating method.

I think literalist creationists tends to overthink or over-play their hand, when attempting to mix physics with religion. It required a great deal of mental contortions to completely different approaches into one, but doing so, will take both of them out of context.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, you are right.
Billiardsball seemed to want to use Relativity (like time dilation) on non-moving objects.
Relativity is only truly applied in with point of references to astronomical objects (such as the space, galaxies, stars, and even spacecraft) moving away or towards the observer.
Measuring the age of objects on Earth, whether they be rocks, artifacts, fossils or an excavated sites, you would use time dilation because none of them are moving towards or away from anyone. Time dilation required moving object, because velocity is essential in calculating the time dilation of gravitational masses (or objects). So like you've said, time dilation cannot apply to measuring the age of rock on Earth. You wouldn't use time dilation for radiometric dating method.
I think literalist creationists tends to overthink or over-play their hand, when attempting to mix physics with religion. It required a great deal of mental contortions to completely different approaches into one, but doing so, will take both of them out of context.

Religion deals with the purpose of human life and as to how to achieve it. Physics as the name suggests deals with the physical properties of nature and as to how the physical formation of natural objects got created by G-d. It does not and cannot reflect on the purpose of life. Right? Please
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Religion deals with the purpose of human life and as to how to achieve it. Physics as the name suggests deals with the physical properties of nature and as to how the physical formation of natural objects got created by G-d. It does not and cannot reflect on the purpose of life. Right? Please
Regards

Physics does not deal with how the Universe was "created by God". God cannot be involved in the scientific process because God cannot be measured or predicted based on observation.

 

[outhouse]

Physics as the name suggests deals with the physical properties of nature and as to how the physical formation of natural objects got created by G-d

No physics does not relate to any mythology

. It does not and cannot reflect on the purpose of life

Sure it does.

Religion offers a crutch for those who need it. IT factually does not address all aspects of life with credibility.

It is ancient mens mythology that offers possible ways to live a better life. NOTHING more

Right?

Wrong

 

[BilliardsBall]

Aw gee-whiz. Not another one that says "god" talks to them.
My g-friends daughter is schizophrenic and sees "gods' messages" to her written
in the lawn.
She's better now that her meds have been adjusted.
Not suggesting YOU need meds but it helped her and she doesn't see "god" any
more either.
She is STILL quite entertaining however.

There are gods and demons. The demons work best saying they are truly gods. I pray your friend's family finds relief.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I give money to people who need it. I get money back in other ways. I do not believe in god(s). So is that evidence that there is no god?

If it's not, perhaps you could see why it's not evidence that there is a god either?

This is not a biblical tithe. However, Jesus is kind and sends gifts to the just and unjust, and I'm sure you remember that saying. God cares about your caring! Thanks for helping others.