Who Believe the Earth is 6000 Years Old???

[FFH]

Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha............ :devil:



Just kidding.




Peace,
Mystic

Sorry no offense Mystic, I forget that there are Mystics on this forum, just don't like to hear poeple say that there were events that happened eons ago on this earth, when it never even existed, which is what the previous post was about...

 

[FFH]

If the Earth is only 6 or 10 thousand years old, why do so many psychics and mystics have latent memories of bygone eras predating a Young Earth?

This woman www.Sylvia.org is a perfect example of someone who mixes channeled truth with lies...

They get you hooked by channeling truth about you and your past, present and future, but then mix it up with lies.

The same thing is done with past, present and future events of this earth. They will channel truth's fed to them and mix it up with lies about the past events of this earth and the future.

Satan mixes truth with lies, this is his favorite trick and I know it makes him laugh when we buy into it...

 

[SoyLeche]

This woman is a perfect example of someone who mixes channeled truth with lies...

They get you hooked by channeling truth about you and your past, present and future, but then mix it up with lies.

The same thing is done with past, present and future events of this earth. They will channel truth's fed to them and mix it up with lies about the past events of this earth and the future.

Satan mixes truth with lies, this is his favorite trick and I know it makes him laugh when we buy into it...

Some of these people even make "prophecies" about a native from Michigan will "stand in the White House". Satan really pulled a good one there

 

[fantome profane]

Psychics and Mystics are only channeling the thoughts of Satan and his angels who do his bidding for him....Mystics and psychics are only Satan's pawns on this earth and are feeding people full of lies on a nonexistent time, with nonexistent places, people and events.

It's nothing but made up people, places and events created by the father of lies the devil/Satan...

To believe anything more than this would be to believe in the father of lies himself...

Why is it that true prophets never mention this, but we are so willing to accept false prophets, having "itching ears" ourselves...

Meaning we want to know more than what's been plainly explained to us in scritpture, so the devil is willing to tell lies just because people won't accept the truth as plainly layed out and taught in scripture.

Like you I don’t place much trust in accounts of past life experiences, but obviously for different reasons.

But I would like to ask you how you feel about the majority of scientists who have convinced me and many others that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Are they also the pawns of Satan? Are they merely doing the work of the “father of lies”?

 

[FFH]

Some of these people even make "prophecies" about a native from Michigan will "stand in the White House". Satan really pulled a good one there

Sorry no, there is a difference between a Psychic ( www.Sylvia.org ) a Mysctic (provide your own link here because I dont' have one) and a person who has the gift of prophecy ( www.KimClement.com )...

P.S. That prophecy has not been proven false, and if Mitt becomes Vice then President that particular prophecy is true and there are no loopholes in it whatsoever if looked at more closely and analyzed. At first glance I made some assumptions then realized just yesterday that it is being slowly fulfilled. Mitt announcing himself as a contender for the Presidency is just a starting point to that prophecy being fulfilled...how long it will take him to become President we don't know...

 

[FFH]

Like you I don’t place much trust in accounts of past life experiences, but obviously for different reasons.

But I would like to ask you how you feel about the majority of scientists who have convinced me and many others that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Are they also the pawns of Satan? Are they merely doing the work of the “father of lies”?

I've already explained my position on this thoroughly just a few pages back.

Scientists have their agendas, just as we all do. Many scientists readily accept that their findings are only theories and not fact, but the general public picks up on these findings and starts to pass them off as fact and there are also scientists who have theories who may decide to pass of their findings as fact to make themselves look better of for money's sake so they can sell more books, have a bigger following, aquire more frubals , etc...

See what I mean people have their reasons for lying to the public.... Money can be a big motivator, not to mention the desire to discredit Christian theories or facts so they can satisfy their own consciences...
</IMG>

 

[SoyLeche]

Sorry no, there is a difference between a Psychic ( www.Sylvia.org ) a Mysctic (provide your own link here because I dont' have one) and a person who has the gift of prophecy ( www.KimClement.com )...

You're right, there is. Although, it appears to me that the difference you are seeing at the moment is one is telling you what you want to hear and the others aren't.

 

[Katzpur]

Scientists are not the enemy until they try to pass of scientific theories as fact.

I don't think they're the enemy even when they make mistakes. Most scientists are willing to say, "Okay, we were wrong about that. New evidence indicates that we come to a different conclusion on that issue." It's not as if science is out to disprove religion. Sure, there are some scientists who are atheists, and who would love to be able to disprove the existence of God entirely. Let them try. Who's it hurting?

I'm curious as to how familiar you are with the late Henry Eyring (the Apostle's father). If you haven't read his book, "Reflections of a Scientist," you really ought to see if you can find yourself a copy. It was published by Deseret Book in 1983 but had been reprinted more recently than that. You may possibly have to special-order it, but I promise it would help you to understand the point of view that most of your fellow Latter-day Saints hold. At any rate, in case you are unaware of this fact, Dr. Eyring received his Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and was a Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at the University of Utah. He served as a member of his stake high council and as a member of the Sunday School General Board. His book includes such chapters as, "Truth," "Freedom through Obedience," "Science Enhances Religion," "The Scriptures," "The Age of the Earth," and "Organic Evolution." He is one of a number of highly regarded scientists who have also held positions of authority in the Church, including James E. Talmage and John A. Widstow, who were educated at such noted universities as Harvard and Johns Hopkins. All of these individuals firmly believe that the earth is several billion years old, and none of them had any difficulty at all reconciling their beliefs with their faith in God as the Creator.

Not less of a miracle, but less likely, and Adam could have hung out in the Garden for.... (let's do the calculations: let's just say Adam hung out for 10 million earth years in the Garden, after the earth was created in 6 days/6,000 years, in including the day/1,000 years God rested, divided by 1,000 earth years to get heaven's timetable, which would give us 10,000 days as measured by heaven, divided by 365 days, which equals 27 years.

So in other words Adam and Eve waited 27 years to partake of the forbidden fruit.

Well at least they had a few good years in paradise before they had to leave that place...

Now I don't feel so bad for them...

I'm glad you've done the math and have arrived at any answer you're happy with. It's not my intention to belittle you or ridicule your point of view, but I think you are making a lot of assumptions based on your own personal interpretation of the scriptures and are simply closing your eyes to any facts that may cause you to rethink your conclusion.

But if what I have said in the past is true, the earth being only 13,00o years old, then Adam and Eve would've eaten the forbidden fruit on the day that God rested, the 7th millennium of the earth's existence, the time period from 6,000 to 7,000 in earth years.

They could have waited a day or two or a month or two or even a year or two or more, we don't know, but it seems like the pattern just would not fit, because there is nothing to back up Adam and Eve spending more than a day in the Garden....

just think about it and tell me if more than a day passed before Adam partook of the fruit....and we have to remember this was a long day, a thousand years in our time.....

Did Adam and Eve wait 2,700 years in paradise before eating the forbidden fruit or even 27 years ??? or just a day like the Bible seems to suggest, which would keep the time frame in the thousands of years not millions....

I don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, FFH, and neither do you. Furthermore, neither does President Hinckley, and I'd bet my bank account on that! This debate isn't even about how long they were in Eden before being cast out; it's about how many years the creation took, i.e. how many years elapsed from "the beginning" until God breathed life into Adam. You are obviously basing you opinion on a single verse of scripture (2 Peter 3:8) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years years as one day." The scriptures tell us that the Earth was created in six days. You have no trouble recognizing that the use of the word "day" does not refer to a 24-hour period of time or a literal "day." What you fail to realize is that the verse in 2 Peter could just as easily be the author's way of saying, "To the Lord, a single day is a much, much longer period of time." You are simply picking and chosing to interpret the Genesis account of the time involved in the creation as figurative, while at the same time insisting that the reference in 2 Peter must be interpreted literally.

[quoteThe earth is nowhere near even that old.[/quote]In your opinion.

Our top soil on the earth is only inches thick not even feet thick. Farmers have a horrible time trying to keep things growing on their lands. The soil must be rested or the land rotated at least every 7 years for things to continue to grow... Remember the horrible dust storms which wiped out so many farmers earlier in the last century ???? The topsoil literally blew away and they were forced off their farms in search of another way to make a living... How is that possible after so many millions or billions of years that there is not more topsoil than we now have ???

The thickness of the Earth's top soil is not a determining factor in the age of the Earth, FFH, and never has been. According to Dr. Eyring (I quote him because I think there is at least more of a chance that you would accept his word as valid than you would some less religious scientist), "The cumulative thickness of rocks laid down as sediment is about four hundred fifty thousand feet, or eighty miles. The rate of deposition varies enormously with the time and the place, but a not unreasonable average rate is one foot every 250 years. The leads to a very rough estimate of 112 million years for the time required to deposit all the known sediments."

This is probably going to be my last post on this topic, but I just couldn't keep silent on the topic given the amount of evidence to contradict your opinion, and I definitely felt it important to establish one important fact -- not for your benefit, but for the benefit of all of the non-LDS posters on RF: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not take an official position on the age of the Earth, and FFH is certainly free, as a member of the Church, to believe that the Earth is 13,000 years old. I'm sure he's not alone in this belief, however, he is clearly in the minority, and many of the individuals in the highest positions of authority in the Church would undoubtedly disagree with him.

 

[s2a]

Hello FFH,

You had previously claimed that:

Einstein spent many hours studying the Torah in Hebrew and claimed the formula for E=mc2 is in there....

I replied:

"Please cite credible references in direct support of this claim.

I have read Einstein's "Relativity: The Special and General Theory", and (incredibly enough!) there is no mention of the Torah as either inspiration, foundation, or mathematical source of his proposed theorem. NONE.

I declare your assertion as complete and utter bunk, predicate upon your presentation of clear and readily accesible documentation to the contrary.

BUNK."

You then offered this as (presumably) a "credible reference in direct support of this claim.":

From this page: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=71692

Okay here is the explanation as to where Einstein found the E=mc2 formula.

Genesis 1:16

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

The Hebrew translation for greater light is "hama'or hagadol" (literally, the light the great)

ma'or (mem alef vav resh) is sometimes translated as sun but it is literally light or luminary.

ma (mem alef) is mass

or (vav resh) means light or fire

subtract 1, and ma'or becomes ma'har or mee'her
(vav -1 = hey)

mee-her is speed

then he applied the old Hebrew rule that says letters of the same sound are equal to each other, he reversed the word.....

rum equals "raised"

Finally, he substituted letters of the same sound

re-ba equals squared

obtaining mass times the speed of light, raised to the square for the meaning of ma'or.

This is the claim as given by Yacov Rambsel in his book The Genesis Factor.

Ahem. Some artfully articulated drawn (albeit utterly unrelated) parallel between biblical scripture and (as put by Yacov Rambsel) Einstein's "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" does NOT support any claim that "Einstein spent many hours studying the Torah in Hebrew and claimed the formula for E=mc2 is in there....".

You have provided Rambsel's "explanation", not Einstein's.

A DIRECT AND CREDIBLE reference would have documented Einstein claiming as much (you know, something akin to Einstein saying "My inspiration for Relativity Theory derived from my many hours of studying Torah").

Don't have a direct web link to this of course, because it's in this book, but if I find a good link from an internet book seller, which sometimes one can search the pages of books and get a paragraph or two as a sampler, I'll post a link to his claim that Einstein found the formula for E=mc2 in Genesis 1: 16.

Don't trouble yourself. I'm not particularly interested (and much less likely to be moved) by the biased self-interests of a religious apologist claiming to understand the mind (or sourced insiprations) of Einstein.

I can not claim ubiquitous insight as to the entirety of Einstein's published works or ruminations, so your initial failure to illustrate effectively on this point does not disallow further opportunities to "cite credible references in direct support of this claim that Einstein [Himself] claimed that (his inspiration for) E=mc2 resides within the Torah".

You have only illustrated (so far) that Yacov Rambsel has rationalized that Einstein could have found "inspiration" in Genesis 1: 16.


You are invited to try again, or simply recant your spurious, and unsupportable claim.

--------------------------

I award you the most intelligent athiest debator on RF. There is none better than s2a.

How is it that the mods have overlooked your vast wealth of knowledge and understanding of the human psychi.....

Thanks s2a for cutting through all the garbage and getting to the heart of the matter with your unique insight into Christian culture....

Your posts cut me through to the core, but I'm still not budging...

Never before have such left-handed compliments inspired me to turn cheek...;-)

Would it surprise you to know that Jesus Christ actually created this world by the direction of the Father according to revelation given to Joseph Smith and recorded here in The Book of Moses, which is just Genesis 1- 13 restored.

Few religious claims "surprise" me anymore. However, some are vastly more entertaining than others...

And would it also surprise you to realize that there was/were more than one God/persons involved with creation. Adam and many of us had a say and a hand in how the earth appeared and was created...

See: The Book of Abraham

Not really. Every faith-based belief has it's own distinct and amusing creation myth. Would it surprise you to realize that the Iroquois believe that Creation was borne upon the back of a giant turtle to shore? The Sky Women made it so...

I find this adherent myth just as credible (or not) as the one offered in the Bible...

...but...

...at least I've seen a turtle or two in my days...;-)

 

[FFH]

I'm curious as to how familiar you are with the late Henry Eyring (the Apostle's father). If you haven't read his book, "Reflections of a Scientist," you really ought to see if you can find yourself a copy. It was published by Deseret Book in 1983 but had been reprinted more recently than that. You may possibly have to special-order it, but I promise it would help you to understand the point of view that most of your fellow Latter-day Saints hold. At any rate, in case you are unaware of this fact, Dr. Eyring received his Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and was a Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at the University of Utah. He served as a member of his stake high council and as a member of the Sunday School General Board. His book includes such chapters as, "Truth," "Freedom through Obedience," "Science Enhances Religion," "The Scriptures," "The Age of the Earth," and "Organic Evolution." He is one of a number of highly regarded scientists who have also held positions of authority in the Church, including James E. Talmage and John A. Widstow, who were educated at such noted universities as Harvard and Johns Hopkins. All of these individuals firmly believe that the earth is several billion years old, and none of them had any difficulty at all reconciling their beliefs with their faith in God as the Creator.

I am very familiar with him and what he's done. His son, Stewart Eyring, was in the same Tokyo South mission as I was. He was one of the greates guys I've met. Real humble and nice....I admire his father greatly and think he is the greatest. Like him a lot...

I may disagree with his theory of the earth being billions of years old, but he is still probably might favorite apostle..

Anyone can sell a book in order to make a few bucks and pass of their thoughts and theories as to the age of the earth... Can we trust the motives of individuals who sell their so-called knowledge for money. Isn't that really just taking advantage of someones ignorance for the sake of a few buchks...I'm just talking about the whole scientific community as a whole...

There are plenty of Christian scientists who would prove or suggest that the earth is VERY young. I have to go with the SPirit on this one and again reassert that the earth is thousands not millions or billions....It just doesn't compute any other way no matter how you look at it..

Carbon 14 and 12 dating systems are not accurate and can be skewed due to so many environmental factors....

I'm glad you've done the math and have arrived at any answer you're happy with. It's not my intention to belittle you or ridicule your point of view, but I think you are making a lot of assumptions based on your own personal interpretation of the scriptures and are simply closing your eyes to any facts that may cause you to rethink your conclusion.

Again look at this site www.CreationEvidence.org

I don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, FFH, and neither do you. Furthermore, neither does President Hinckley, and I'd bet my bank account on that! This debate isn't even about how long they were in Eden before being cast out; it's about how many years the creation took, i.e. how many years elapsed from "the beginning" until God breathed life into Adam. You are obviously basing you opinion on a single verse of scripture (2 Peter 3:8) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years years as one day." The scriptures tell us that the Earth was created in six days. You have no trouble recognizing that the use of the word "day" does not refer to a 24-hour period of time or a literal "day." What you fail to realize is that the verse in 2 Peter could just as easily be the author's way of saying, "To the Lord, a single day is a much, much longer period of time." You are simply picking and chosing to interpret the Genesis account of the time involved in the creation as figurative, while at the same time insisting that the reference in 2 Peter must be interpreted literally.

Sorry, no, a Biblical day starts from even (6pm) and goes to the next day until 6pm. A literal day in the presence of God is 1,000 years according to the way we measure time on earth... We can't eliminate 2 Peter 3:8 which is truth. A day is as a 1,000 years with God.

The thickness of the Earth's top soil is not a determining factor in the age of the Earth, FFH, and never has been. According to Dr. Eyring (I quote him because I think there is at least more of a chance that you would accept his word as valid than you would some less religious scientist), "The cumulative thickness of rocks laid down as sediment is about four hundred fifty thousand feet, or eighty miles. The rate of deposition varies enormously with the time and the place, but a not unreasonable average rate is one foot every 250 years. The leads to a very rough estimate of 112 million years for the time required to deposit all the known sediments."

Yes, but we have to look at the flood and realize the enormous amounts of sedimentary deposits place in places that had little or none before the Great Flood.

Again I do respect his knowledge and authority as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, but never heard anyone speak of this in a conference setting, which is how I judge whether something is true or not, not to mention I sift through everything I read with the help of the Holy Ghost, whcih I have right to as a baptized and confirmed LDS member, by the proper priesthood authority.

Not going to go to Deseret Book online and order anything that was not said at conference, which is free to read on the www.LDS.org site.

I stopped spending my hard earned money at Deseret Book years ago and through out half my books and only kept the one that were conference address put into book form, with some thoughts of the past apostles and prophets, yet I never read them becuase we have plenty of info in the scriptures themselves which speak truths to our spirits as we reead them. .. Information floods into my brain when I read scripture. Why would I want to pay for someone to explain the scritptures to me when I can pretty much figure it out myself.

Like for instance how is it that Christ died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday and they say that he rose the third day or was not resurrected until a full 3 days had passed.

No one could tell me the answer until I studied it out my self and found out the answer was in scripture all along.. Christ died on Passover Wednesday, which was a holy convocation or Sabbath for the Jews and then appeared early morning, before sun up on Sunday of course, t\he day after the regular Sabbath, which was Saturday.

I'[ve done a whole study and thread on this if you care to look at it....

I don't blindly follow anyone, especially if they can't give the answers I'm so desperately looking for.

The Joseph Smith translation for instance is jam packed with stuff that I see people on the forum of all faiths stumble with, because of a simple bad translation of the King James in certain areas of the Old and New Testament.

I may appear ignorant, but that's not the case at all. I just sound young and naive, but push me a little bit and you will see a different side of me..

This is probably going to be my last post on this topic, but I just couldn't keep silent on the topic given the amount of evidence to contradict your opinion, and I definitely felt it important to establish one important fact -- not for your benefit, but for the benefit of all of the non-LDS posters on RF: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not take an official position on the age of the Earth, and FFH is certainly free, as a member of the Church, to believe that the Earth is 13,000 years old. I'm sure he's not alone in this belief, however, he is clearly in the minority, and many of the individuals in the highest positions of authority in the Church would undoubtedly disagree with him.

This is not an official LDS church website of course and we are all free to express ourselves as our consciences dictate without being stifled..

I don't think you need to worry about other people getting the wrong impression about our church. They already seem to have that anyway.

At least we can show them that we are human and can think for ourselves and are not all blindly led along into hell like most believe.

I had a co-worker tell me this just last week. He said you know all Mormons are going to hell right ??? Thinking he wasn't serious at first but then realized he really had that opinion and wanted to save me from the fiery furnace.

He is way cool though and we get along better than I've ever gotten along with anyone. He goes to the largest nondenominational church in Utah www.smccutah.org

We have good discussions similar to the ones we have here and it is refreshing for him to see a Mormon who can think for himself.

I look at patterns in scripture and deduct my own reasoning based on the patterns I see emerge from beginning to end.

Again look at this site www.chabad.org The Biblical record is undeniable and speaks against an "'old" earth...

The flood made it appear old on the outside but if you dig a little deeper we can see the evidences of a world wide flood and it's affects.

 

[FFH]

The earth was literally tilted on it's axis which brought the waters from the oceans and the earth up and over the earths surface, with the help of some rain too of course, but the world was literally moved or tilted, wheras before it was parallel or only slightly tilted in it's rotations on it's axis in relation to the sun.

That will sink in later, hopefully I described it so it is understood,.

Were there seasons prior to the flood or was the earth's axis parallel or almost parallel to the sun's axis, which would have made the seasons if there really were any more mild and much less harsh, which would have allowed vegetation to flourish which would have been able to supports such large creatures as described in Job 40 and 41, which were as large as any dinosaur we could imagine...

 

[FFH]

A DIRECT AND CREDIBLE reference would have documented Einstein claiming as much (you know, something akin to Einstein saying "My inspiration for Relativity Theory derived from my many hours of studying Torah"). I realize what I provided would not suffice, but it was the best link I could post at the moment...

I realize that link was invalid to you and will keep searching for a direct quote from Einstein on the web...

I can not claim ubiquitous insight as to the entirety of Einstein's published works or ruminations, so your initial failure to illustrate effectively on this point does not disallow further opportunities to "cite credible references in direct support of this claim that Einstein [Himself] claimed that (his inspiration for) E=mc2 resides within the Torah".

Will do

You have only illustrated (so far) that Yacov Rambsel has rationalized that Einstein could have found "inspiration" in Genesis 1: 16.

I realize that it's just the best I can do until I find a direct link to Einsteins quotes in which he readily admitted to finding insporation to many of his descoveries in the Torah...

He was also working on an alternative automobile bio fuel source in which many are scrambling at this moment to try and put together and produce as an alternative to fuel derived from oil.

You are invited to try again, or simply recant your spurious, and unsupportable claim.

No I've posted enough on that,.

Never before have such left-handed compliments inspired me to turn cheek...;-)

Yes and I hold no ill feelings against you in any way. You are cordial and well spoken even when insulting anothers beliefs, which seems to take the sting out of it.... I really feel you sincerely beleive what you believe and you have a good practical way of looking at things which is an extremely useful quality to have, just need to let lose and see the unseen links to the puzzle of creation and other unknowns with your spiritual eyes, which I know you have they just have not been tapped into yet...Let lose into the realm of the unseen/spirit world and you will find it most rewarding.. That's the best way I can describe it..

Few religious claims "surprise" me anymore. However, some are vastly more entertaining than others...

Just wanted to run that stuff by you and see what your thoughts were...

...at least I've seen a turtle or two in my days...;-)

Well then you have seen one of God's magnificent creations. A turtle is evidence of an intelligent designer, not the evidence of evolutionary principles.

Evolution within species is possible, but not from one species to another.

A cat will always be a cat no matter how many years pass by. Dog's will not mate with cats and so forth....

 

[s2a]

I realize that link was invalid to you and will keep searching for a direct quote from Einstein on the web...

Will do

OK. I'll be waiting, and watching. I promise not to hold my breath in the meantime...;-)

I realize that it's just the best I can do until I find a direct link to Einsteins quotes in which he readily admitted to finding insporation to many of his descoveries in the Torah...

He was also working on an alternative automobile bio fuel source in which many are scrambling at this moment to try and put together and produce as an alternative to fuel derived from oil.

The Nazis acheived that estimable goal almost sixty years ago...

You are cordial and well spoken even when insulting anothers beliefs, which seems to take the sting out of it.... I really feel you sincerely beleive what you believe and you have a good practical way of looking at things which is an extremely useful quality to have, just need to let lose and see the unseen links to the puzzle of creation and other unknowns with your spiritual eyes, which I know you have they just have not been tapped into yet...Let lose into the realm of the unseen/spirit world and you will find it most rewarding.. That's the best way I can describe it..

Ah...and so you see...the difference in our perspectives...

I ask only that you embrace what can be seen, and that you may fit the puzzle pieces as to complete whatever unforseen picture may prospectively unfold and/or reveal...

...you ask that I see the picture first, and mold the many pieces I may find to fit the picture you describe as "being there". If they don't "fit", then they are to be discarded as not a part of the puzzle...

Well then you have seen one of God's magnificent creations. A turtle is evidence of an intelligent designer, not the evidence of evolutionary principles.

Evolution within species is possible, but not from one species to another.

When I see evidence of "intelligent falling" (as contrary to what is understood about gravity and it's accordant theories), I may then look for answers in some "intelligent designer" that inexplicably continues to create and destroy stars and galaxies millions of light-years way. If a "god" created a cosmos in an instant of thought and spoken word, what purpose then would be served in sustaining a dynamic and ever evolving/changing observable cosmos?

Genesis 1:14-17

If the placed "Firmament" in the sky was but a "fixture" in the sky to provide light in the night [for Adam and Eve], what purpose would be then served in constantly altering that source of provided light?

Of what human need, use, or purpose would other planets, stars, or galaxies provide or imply--beyond illumination--in the night sky?

Is an ever-evolving cosmos intended to confuse mankind, or merely entertain him?

You need not answer the last rhetorical inquiries...they are but ruminations of which religion offers no compelling argument or answer...

 

[FFH]

The Nazis acheived that estimable goal almost sixty years ago...

This bio fuel that Einstein was working on, just before he died, was/is different than our current technologies/discoveries. Scientists have not been able put together or finish Einstein's work on this yet, but they will soon, I think, it's just a matter of time and money...

 

[SoyLeche]

I am very familiar with him and what he's done. His son, Stewart Eyring, was in the same Tokyo South mission as I was. He was one of the greates guys I've met. Real humble and nice....I admire his father greatly and think he is the greatest. Like him a lot...

I may disagree with his theory of the earth being billions of years old, but he is still probably might favorite apostle..

Anyone can sell a book in order to make a few bucks and pass of their thoughts and theories as to the age of the earth... Can we trust the motives of individuals who sell their so-called knowledge for money. Isn't that really just taking advantage of someones ignorance for the sake of a few buchks...I'm just talking about the whole scientific community as a whole...

You should really at least look at the book that Katz has suggested before making any judgements about it. First of all, she wasn't talking about the Apostle, she was talking about his father. I doubt any of his sons (who would be brothers of the Apostle) are of the right age to have been in the mission at the same time as you.

Second of all, I don't recall him ever offering a theory about the age of the Earth in the book.

 

[Rough_ER]

Enjoy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

[SoyLeche]

Here's another website you might enjoy FFH: http://www.fixedearth.com/

If we're going to throw science out the window, might as well go the whole way

 

[michel]

I can't help it; of course the Earth is 6000 years old..and some.......:help:

 

[YmirGF]

I can't help it; of course the Earth is 6000 years old..and some.......:help:

Hehe. Nice to see the voice of reason enter into such a silly discussion. Kudo's Michel. :bow:

 

[s2a]

This bio fuel that Einstein was working on, just before he died, was/is different than our current technologies/discoveries. Scientists have not been able put together or finish Einstein's work on this yet, but they will soon, I think, it's just a matter of time and money...

1) Just to clarify, you misquoted (by something I said, to stwoa instead).

2) Develoment of synthesized petroleum by the Nazi's is not a matter of debate...it's a matter of fact. Your rebuttal is irrelevant.

3) Technology marches on, in step with scientific discovery. No doubt that future synthetic fuels will differ from those postulated/developed over 60 years ago. So what?

Einstein is not relevant to the larger debate at hand, for his revelations of imagination were not borne of any theistic beliefs (in essence, none) that you would even care to foster in others.

Either concede fault and error of judgment acknowleging that you can not provide ANY credible substantiation for the claim that Einstein was inspired IN ANY WAY by Torah in his proposed Relativity Theoreom, or present direct and and referenced supprt of same.

I still say...BUNK.