6000 year old earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know where they get the dating of a 6 day creation, because it was the Aztecs and Mayans that developed 365 day calendars.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach as a fundamental one because it goes against a lot of biological, geological, archaeological, and historical truth, which The Church supports.
** The Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis **


A powerful must see video:

**The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism **

The Similarity Between Science and Magic
  1. Science as religion
  2. Science as credulity
  3. Science as power
Evolution is an alternative religion



 
Genesis ! seems to be written from God’s perspective. Consider a rolled up tape measure 7 layers. God sees all at once. We live on the tape and have to look back past the graduations.

The 6,000 years came from Anglican Bishop Usher who calculated it from the geneoalogies. The Jewish calendar is at 5773. Sungenis says it could be as high as 12,000BC if they are ancestral relationships wherein the ancestor is the calendar marker until the birth of the next-in-line
Our King does use the Jewish calendar and like the 6 days of creation, it will be the Jewish year 6000 at the end.
I love that quote from the Pope.
I learnt a great way to explain the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion from Chuck Missler, the idiot according to some on YouTube.

It goes, if I was to ask you to lend me some money for a million seconds, you wouldn’t be too concerned as that would only amount to 30 days – I think, something close to that anyway- but if for a billion seconds
you would be uncomfortable because that would be equal to 32 years!
But for a trillion, forget it, as that would be 32,000 years. I am as surprised by the billion compound let alone the trillion one!
which brings us nicely back to the Universe age. God can and does do everything beautifully, Hallelujah
👍
 
Honest scientists Brother Rossum state with confidence that there was a sudden emergence of life around 30,000 years ago.
Dishonest YEC pseudo-scientists may possibly say that, and of course they are greatly in error. Material life on earth originated about 3.5 billion years ago.

As to the claim of God as the originator of life, I would refer you to Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added)

Since God is Himself living, then He cannot be the explanation for the origin of life, any more than living aliens can be the explanation. Creationists have no explanation for the origin of life.

You need to stop reading YEC sources. They lie to you.

rossum
 
Dishonest YEC pseudo-scientists may possibly say that, and of course they are greatly in error. Material life on earth originated about 3.5 billion years ago.

As to the claim of God as the originator of life, I would refer you to Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added)

Since God is Himself living, then He cannot be the explanation for the origin of life, any more than living aliens can be the explanation. Creationists have no explanation for the origin of life.

You need to stop reading YEC sources. They lie to you.

rossum
Are you denying abrupt appearance?
 
human civilization long pre-
dates what the Creationist Mythology claims, etc.
Human civilization certainly does not “long pre-date” what the Biblical account would have us believe. Civilization should not be confused with speculations about the origins of man as a species. In reality, the first men were simply the first people capable of civilization; and modern science and history are in agreement with the first civilizations given in the Biblical account.
 
Dishonest YEC pseudo-scientists may possibly say that, and of course they are greatly in error. Material life on earth originated about 3.5 billion years ago.

As to the claim of God as the originator of life, I would refer you to Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added)

Since God is Himself living, then He cannot be the explanation for the origin of life, any more than living aliens can be the explanation. Creationists have no explanation for the origin of life.

You need to stop reading YEC sources. They lie to you.

rossum
So because God is Himself alive He cannot possibly be the explanation for the origins of corporeal life in the universe?

Also rossum, the Christian Bible is opposed to idolatry or the worship of creatures, whether living or dead, but especially of things that are intrinsically lifeless; perhaps the term “living God” is meant in contrast to the graven or man-made idols of the nations, which were lifeless - especially insofar as they were artifacts/the work of a man’s hands.

Moreover Christians, rossum, do not believe God is corporeal. Corporal life is not the same as the incoporeal life of spirit.

Also rossum, do you believe that the intrinsically non-existent must necessarily be responsible (i.e. the cause) of that which exists? But that would be impossible: so why do you imagine it is wrong to attribute one life as the origin of another life, especially as the origin of another that is of a different and lesser kind? Or again, do you think it is a fallacy to argue that what exists must necessarily come from that which exists? Don’t you believe that a cause must somehow contain its effect, if it is to sufficiently explain it or be capable of producing it?
 
Human civilization certainly does not “long pre-date” what the Biblical account would have us believe. Civilization should not be confused with speculations about the origins of man as a species. In reality, the first men were simply the first people capable of civilization; and modern science and history are in agreement with the first civilizations given in the Biblical account.
I suppose the civilization comment was a little out of line of me, but “the
first men were simply the first people capable of civilization”?! uh, NO !!!
 
I suppose the civilization comment was a little out of line of me, but “the
first men were simply the first people capable of civilization”?! uh, NO !!!
Capable | Define Capable at Dictionary.com


adjective 1. having power and ability; efficient; competent: a capable instructor. Idioms 2. capable of, a. having the ability or capacity for: a man capable of …

Most certainly yes. Someone actually incapable by nature of civilization would not be recognized as a human; we would in fact think such a thing an animal and not a man. To be human is necessarily to be capable of civilization; anything else is not human.
 
Capable | Define Capable at Dictionary.com

dictionary.reference.com/browse/capable

adjective 1. having power and ability; efficient; competent: a capable instructor. Idioms 2. capable of, a. having the ability or capacity for: a man capable of …

Most certainly yes. Someone actually incapable by nature of civilization would not be recognized as a human; we would in fact think such a thing an animal and not a man. To be human is necessarily to be capable of civilization; anything else is not human.
Invention of civilization does not make a creature human, genes do. The genes that make a hominid a human as we are human were existent prior to civilization. I suppose such pre-civilization humans were “capable” of civilization, but just didn’t do it yet, I could grant you that, but the way it was phrased earlier implies a false idea.
 
Invention of civilization does not make a creature human, genes do.
A being can be rational without genes: God and angels are rational and neither have genes. Civilization in the first place implies rational order, which allows human beings - since we are rational animals - to flourish; or the possibility to fulfill our natures, in other words.
The genes that make a hominid a human as we are human were existent prior to civilization.
I don’t think being civilized can be equated with, e.g., techno-gadgets or the production of them or even the production of cities.
I suppose such pre-civilization humans were “capable” of civilization, but just didn’t do it yet, I could grant you that, but the way it was phrased earlier implies a false idea.
Yes we are probably arguing more over words or terms than not I think.
 
A being can be rational without genes: God and angels are rational and neither have genes. Civilization in the first place implies rational order, which allows human beings - since we are rational animals - to flourish; or the possibility to fulfill our natures, in other words.
We’re not talking about any “beings” that can be “rational”, we are talking about humans.
I would look to the first moments of “complex thought”, such as in making tools,
understanding and making art, etc as more noteworthy of human than organized
civilization. WHAT ABOUT THE ICE AGE?! No civilization then!
I don’t think being civilized can be equated with, e.g., techno-gadgets or the production of them or even the production of cities.

Yes we are probably arguing more over words or terms than not I think.
Well “civilization”, which we were talking about (not being civilized), at least implies the making of settlements. Perhaps then there is a miscommunication between us, so then I must ask: Is the forming of permanent settlements any part of your definition of civilization?
 
Textbooks under attack in Texas, dated this month.

Ideologues on official state textbook review teams are attacking the treatment of evolution and climate change in science textbooks under consideration in Texas, charged the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education in a joint press release issued on September 9, 2013. “Once again culture warriors on the state board are putting Texas at risk of becoming a national laughingstock on science education,” TFN’s president Kathy Miller warned.

rossum
“laughingstock”? That’s it? Thanks for the update. I’m sure Sunday Schools will continue to teach young people what they’ve always taught them.

Peace,
Ed
 
We’re not talking about any “beings” that can be “rational”, we are talking about humans.
I would look to the first moments of “complex thought”, such as in making tools,
understanding and making art, etc as more noteworthy of human than organized
civilization. WHAT ABOUT THE ICE AGE?! No civilization then!
So yes rationality; but I originally said capable of civilization. So we are not in disagreement.
Well “civilization”, which we were talking about (not being civilized), at least implies the making of settlements. Perhaps then there is a miscommunication between us, so then I must ask: Is the forming of permanent settlements any part of your definition of civilization?
That is an extremely difficult question: a bigger one than meets the eye.

A civilization seems to be more of a rational unity and order than anything. Take, for example, an (albeit imaginary) space-faring civilization that deliberately moved from one planet/homeworld to another every so many years and were more content to be in their luxurious ships than “tied down” to any one planet - they spent more time roaming about than located on any one planet. Now does that mean they necessarily aren’t a civilization? I, at least, wouldn’t think so.
I think it is because we, as animals, have certain basic needs that must be met that makes it almost impossible not to realize our natures without something like a permanent settlement - so long as that settlement can provide for our needs via local production and/or trade. Though to what extent that is necessary is difficult to say: I think it wasn’t uncommon for the earliest civilizations to frequently have to relocate owing to wars and environmental issues.
 
So because God is Himself alive He cannot possibly be the explanation for the origins of corporeal life in the universe?
No, that is not what I am saying. What I say is that because God is Himself alive He cannot possibly be the explanation for the origin of life in the universe. Note that I have omitted the word “corporeal” from your sentence. It was you who added that word, not me. I was very careful to omit it when starting this sub-thread of the discussion.
Also rossum, do you believe that the intrinsically non-existent must necessarily be responsible (i.e. the cause) of that which exists?
No, I do not. I define the universe as “all that exists”, and as far as I can tell that universe is eternal, with no beginning.
Don’t you believe that a cause must somehow contain its effect, if it is to sufficiently explain it or be capable of producing it?
A cause cannot exist without its effect. In the absence of the effect, there can be no cause. We cannot have a “creator the universe” unless there is a universe that has been created. A child must have parents, and similarly a parent must have children, otherwise it is false to call them a parent. A creator who has not created anything is obviously not a creator.

Cause and effect are mutually conditioning and are mutually contingent. The effect is contingent on the cause, and the cause is contingent on the effect.

rossum
 
No, that is not what I am saying. What I say is that because God is Himself alive He cannot possibly be the explanation for the origin of life in the universe. Note that I have omitted the word “corporeal” from your sentence. It was you who added that word, not me. I was very careful to omit it when starting this sub-thread of the discussion.

No, I do not. I define the universe as “all that exists”, and as far as I can tell that universe is eternal, with no beginning.

*Don’t you think all the evidence is in now on the Universe having a beginning?
This is but one eternity. Why do you think the like of Hawkins et al is scrambling for an alternative such as multiverses? sheer desperation!
*

A cause cannot exist without its effect. In the absence of the effect, there can be no cause. We cannot have a “creator the universe” unless there is a universe that has been created. A child must have parents, and similarly a parent must have children, otherwise it is false to call them a parent. A creator who has not created anything is obviously not a creator.

Cause and effect are mutually conditioning and are mutually contingent. The effect is contingent on the cause, and the cause is contingent on the effect.

rossum
and what was the cause of first life?
 
Sorry i could pick so many holes in his talk i hardly know where to begin, But for example God is one. Is that the God who is referred to in plural. His pride puts me in mind of the father of lies first sin. Has he any knowledge of the original language and what was actually said and he displays a woeful lack of spiritual knowledge that there are always rich deeper meanings in all the text.
For example that idiot chuck missler worked out from the original Hebrew that chapter 5 of Genesis is the first Gospel message when you take the the meanings of the name in the geneolgy.
He is basically dissing the Holy Spirit which is the inspired word of God. My God does not waste anything!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top