6000 year old earth

[Judas_Thaddeus]

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!

First, where in the video did he say anything about “But for example God is one. Is that the God who is referred to in plural.”???

Where is his pride?

I’m unsure of his “knowledge of the original language”, but assuming “no”, how is that relevant?

And when you said that “he displays a woeful lack of spiritual knowledge that there are always rich deeper meanings in all the text,” what is he missing? Further more, is this “spiritual knowledge” of which you speak the POINT of the video?
I am unable to determine what your position is, but have you ANY knowledge beyond the Bible? Any geological knowledge, knowledge of transitional fossils, DNA, anything?
You appear to be only throwing out insults, yet you fail to address the substance of what he is saying. Come on, let’s have it…

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Also who says there was a huge population back then too? why should humans be found if no transitional fossils,- which ought to be the most numerous - have been found? However there are remains of dinosaur and man fossils found together in the same time patch, and plenty of Giants too. By the way a year used to be 360 days for real!
I Love this video: youtube.com/watch?v=FdUP_N8Xgr4

Video Analysis

First, how supported is this John Morris’ view in the ACTUAL scientific community, not the one littered with nymphs and sprites and leprechauns?

And that “back problem” and “four legged animals” bit, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, to distract the ignorant who don’t like thinking!
(A Non Sequitur By The By)

He is also using over-simplification, typical of Creationists who want to make Evolution look stupid when they in fact have not many GOOD ARGUMENTS.

(Seven Minutes In…) NOW HE’S LYING!!! What he is doing is trying to get the audience to believe that the simplified illustrations of the Geologic Timescale are just as they are in reality, WHICH NO REAL SCIENTIST WOULD SAY, then he begins to sneakily lead people on to the Flood, it’s shameful!

Oh great, now we’re on the “Evolution says we’re animals” trick. Okay so you don’t believe in evolution because it makes you feel like a creature and not a God? Oy Vey! His quote mining is disgrace behavior as well.

Morris also speaks of “assumptions” going into the “Data” leading to an “interpretation”, as though this is what scientists do with evolution, NO!, that is the NONSCIENTIFIC approach of Creationists! And I don’t buy one bit into his GUESS on the 50/50 percentage of scientists who believe or disbelieve in evolution, he’s just sowing a deceptive seed.

He is also presenting a false description of the use “Observation” in the study of evolution, like “we can’t go back in time and SEE IT,” that isn’t the correct definition in the Scientific Model…WHICH NO CREATIONIST USES!!!

He admits that adaptation and MUTATION probably happened, which is good, but then he leads astray his listeners by saying “that’s not evolution,” THAT’S TOTALLY EVOLUTION!!!

I am so happy he said that he can’t prove to us SCIENTIFICALLY that the Creation[ist] Model is True or that the Evolution Model is false, HANG ON TO THAT EVERYBODY!
He’s lying again in the 14th minute… CREATIONISTS ABSOLUTELY TRY TO PROVE THE BIBLE TRUE, because they NEED it to be factual and literal, oy!

Now John is accusing us who believe in evolution of worshiping a different God, an illustration of the Geologic Column! I don’t worship the Geologic Column, who does he think he is?!

…“The Flood”…“deposited most of the world’s fossil-bearing rocks”, WHAT?! Millions and Billions of years of geological layers as dictated by science proven not so by the Flood, WHICH IS NOT SCIENCE?!

Funny how he hails the Genesis Flood book as “ground breaking” and “so world changing”…does anybody see how he is lying yet again, giving us this false impression based on a book (not the Bible), and how it had “tremendous impact”? On what? The Creationist Community?

In the “Fossils: The best test case”, again the formation of fossils defined by science is belittled and the Creationist “buried by the Flood” account is unverifiable, yet the “dr.” has both of those stories standing on equal footing saying “we just have different stories”, like the literal Creationist myth is just as likely. IT IS NOT!

There is the “There are no transitional form fossils (or not enough)” argument, COMMON CREATIONIST METHOD OF DECEPTION, because we DO have Transitional Forms. Granted, we don’t have EVERY transitional form that EVER EXISTED, but we HAVE ENOUGH to support Evolution. The Creationist myth has NOTHING! Still though this “Dr.” must say there are transitional forms are rare BASED ON S.J. GOULD’s words, who responds HIMSELF: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups. [Stephen Jay Gould, *Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.]
“Dr.” Morris is caught red handed again! (Quote Mining Again By The Way)

After having seen about 20 Minutes,
I cannot watch anymore of this man
and his false science!

’nother video for Creationists to enjoy: **Whale Evolution and the Lying Liars who Lie about it! **
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W3CofLozi8

WHY DO THE
CREATIONISTS
HAVE TO LIE?!

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m wondering why this gets some people all steamed up. I happen to believe the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and not 6000 years old but the Church allows us to believe either so why are some people being so heated and rude about those who are allowed by the Church to believe in a young earth?

The Church should teach what it should teach. In Church.

 

[Freekevio]

Video Analysis

First, how supported is this John Morris’ view in the ACTUAL scientific community, not the one littered with nymphs and sprites and leprechauns?

And that “back problem” and “four legged animals” bit, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, to distract the ignorant who don’t like thinking!
(A Non Sequitur By The By)

He is also using over-simplification, typical of Creationists who want to make Evolution look stupid when they in fact have not many GOOD ARGUMENTS.

(Seven Minutes In…) NOW HE’S LYING!!! What he is doing is trying to get the audience to believe that the simplified illustrations of the Geologic Timescale are just as they are in reality, WHICH NO REAL SCIENTIST WOULD SAY, then he begins to sneakily lead people on to the Flood, it’s shameful!

Oh great, now we’re on the “Evolution says we’re animals” trick. Okay so you don’t believe in evolution because it makes you feel like a creature and not a God? Oy Vey! His quote mining is disgrace behavior as well.

Morris also speaks of “assumptions” going into the “Data” leading to an “interpretation”, as though this is what scientists do with evolution, NO!, that is the NONSCIENTIFIC approach of Creationists! And I don’t buy one bit into his GUESS on the 50/50 percentage of scientists who believe or disbelieve in evolution, he’s just sowing a deceptive seed.

He is also presenting a false description of the use “Observation” in the study of evolution, like “we can’t go back in time and SEE IT,” that isn’t the correct definition in the Scientific Model…WHICH NO CREATIONIST USES!!!

He admits that adaptation and MUTATION probably happened, which is good, but then he leads astray his listeners by saying “that’s not evolution,” THAT’S TOTALLY EVOLUTION!!!

I am so happy he said that he can’t prove to us SCIENTIFICALLY that the Creation[ist] Model is True or that the Evolution Model is false, HANG ON TO THAT EVERYBODY!
He’s lying again in the 14th minute… CREATIONISTS ABSOLUTELY TRY TO PROVE THE BIBLE TRUE, because they NEED it to be factual and literal, oy!

Now John is accusing us who believe in evolution of worshiping a different God, an illustration of the Geologic Column! I don’t worship the Geologic Column, who does he think he is?!

…“The Flood”…“deposited most of the world’s fossil-bearing rocks”, WHAT?! Millions and Billions of years of geological layers as dictated by science proven not so by the Flood, WHICH IS NOT SCIENCE?!

Funny how he hails the Genesis Flood book as “ground breaking” and “so world changing”…does anybody see how he is lying yet again, giving us this false impression based on a book (not the Bible), and how it had “tremendous impact”? On what? The Creationist Community?

In the “Fossils: The best test case”, again the formation of fossils defined by science is belittled and the Creationist “buried by the Flood” account is unverifiable, yet the “dr.” has both of those stories standing on equal footing saying “we just have different stories”, like the literal Creationist myth is just as likely. IT IS NOT!

There is the “There are no transitional form fossils (or not enough)” argument, COMMON CREATIONIST METHOD OF DECEPTION, because we DO have Transitional Forms. Granted, we don’t have EVERY transitional form that EVER EXISTED, but we HAVE ENOUGH to support Evolution. The Creationist myth has NOTHING! Still though this “Dr.” must say there are transitional forms are rare BASED ON S.J. GOULD’s words, who responds HIMSELF: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups. [Stephen Jay Gould, *Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism

, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.]
“Dr.” Morris is caught red handed again! (Quote Mining Again By The Way)

After having seen about 20 Minutes,
I cannot watch anymore of this man
and his false science!

’nother video for Creationists to enjoy: **Whale Evolution and the Lying Liars who Lie about it! **
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W3CofLozi8

WHY DO THE
CREATIONISTS
HAVE TO LIE?!

Are you genuinely a believer in God.
Can you point me to a decent and comprehensive website showing the many transitional forms you claim we have?
What about the snake? what did that come from? was there and evolutionary advantage to loosing all legs

 

[Freekevio]

First, where in the video did he say anything about “But for example God is one. Is that the God who is referred to in plural.”???

I]He repeatedly stated that God is one

Where is his pride?

Can you not here the arrogant way he is stating his case like he is the ultimate authority?

I’m unsure of his “knowledge of the original language”, but assuming “no”, how is that relevant?

To get the real message of the book one needs to know the original meaning of the words

And when you said that “he displays a woeful lack of spiritual knowledge that there are always rich deeper meanings in all the text,” what is he missing? Further more, is this “spiritual knowledge” of which you speak the POINT of the video?

***He is missing too much to cover here but for example where did the darkness come from in verse 2? This is about the fall of Satan. The account is not merely about God being one there is so much more.

---

I am unable to determine what your position is, but have you ANY knowledge beyond the Bible? Any geological knowledge, knowledge of transitional fossils, DNA, anything?

***I am interested in a great deal about life, my geological knowledge is limited to methodology but I know a lot about DNA, such as the fact that most "scientists thought there was a lot of junk in the code which proved out to be way off , just as they used to think that we had spare organs and body parts of no intrinsic use. I also know that the DNA traces us back to one set of parents just as the Bible tells. The beginning of space time is also now confirmed which also chimes with the creation account. The closer Science gets to reality the more the Bible is confirmed, Oh Happy day!

---

You appear to be only throwing out insults, yet you fail to address the substance of what he is saying. Come on, let’s have it…

Got it?

 

[rossum]

and what was the cause of first life?

Since, I assume, you believe that God is alive, then what was the cause of God? God existed before all other life, so “the first life” is God Himself. What was the cause of God.

rossum

 

[Freekevio]

Since, I assume, you believe that God is alive, then what was the cause of God? God existed before all other life, so “the first life” is God Himself. What was the cause of God.

rossum

Don’t you believe?

God has always existed without cause. Something had to be there at the beginning of spacetime for this Universe to begin and He is the first cause. He explains this clearly and deeply within scripture

 

[rossum]

Don’t you believe?

Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist. I believe in suffering, the Origin of Suffering, the Cessation of Suffering and that Path to the Cessation of Suffering.

God has always existed without cause.

Then life has always existed without cause, and I am correct to say that you have no explanation for the origin of life. You deny that life ever had an origin, so of course you have no explanation for it.

Something had to be there at the beginning of spacetime for this Universe to begin and He is the first cause.

Not with my definition of “universe”. I define “universe” as “all that exists.” Given that definition, then any existing God is part of the universe, and the universe is eternal, needing no cause.

He explains this clearly and deeply within scripture

Not in my scripture He doesn’t. You would need to quote from the Tripitaka if you wanted to convince me with scripture.

rossum

 

[thistle]

The Church should teach what it should teach. In Church.

Sorry but I’m sure sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what I said.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Got it?

So…you’re a polytheist?
OF COURSE GOD IS ONE! yes he’s three too, BUT that is not what the guy was addressing. He was explaining the text as it was first given to the Jews. I don’t think he was denying the Trinity.

I really sense no arrogance in that apologist, all I saw was someone speaking rationally.
I think you are over-exaggerating.

So talk about the “real message” of the book BASED on the “original language.”

I think also he was giving a simple overview of the Creation Story, not on “Satan’s Fall” or the nature of God, that wasn’t the point of his video, oy vey! And again, God is One, “Hear O Israel, the Lord out God, the Lord is ONE,” not being a unitarian, but he wasn’t addressing the Trinity, he was saying that there is only ONE GOD.
Which leads me to ask again: Are you a polytheist?

Yet again, I don’t feel like you attacked the substance of his reasonable points.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Are you genuinely a believer in God.
Can you point me to a decent and comprehensive website showing the many transitional forms you claim we have?
What about the snake? what did that come from? was there and evolutionary advantage to loosing all legs

I am a genuine believer in God, but who are you to question that? Such is the common
Creationist dichotomy: “To Believe in Evolution is to Be an Atheist.” Excuse Me?

Now I am not a scholar.
I’m not TOO expert in the fields of biology and evolution, so don’t expect ME to show you
everything. If you want transitional forms, go ask a real scientist ( place recommended to
search: University ), and they may help you out. Go to a Museum, SOMETHING! Run an
internet search, seriously, don’t just go for Creationist sources, you’ll find something.

Now I can’t explain the origin of the snake, but it seems so obvious that there are
advantages to loosing legs. Snakes are still hast upon the ground, can still climb
trees, swim in water, and so forth, but I think they have more freedom to do it.

 

[Freekevio]

Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist. I believe in suffering, the Origin of Suffering, the Cessation of Suffering and that Path to the Cessation of Suffering.

Then life has always existed without cause, and I am correct to say that you have no explanation for the origin of life. You deny that life ever had an origin, so of course you have no explanation for it.

Not with my definition of “universe”. I define “universe” as “all that exists.” Given that definition, then any existing God is part of the universe, and the universe is eternal, needing no cause.

The Generally and widely accepted definition of Universe is all contained within the space time continuum. it is all the material world and the dark matter, God lives in the Spiritual realm both inside and outside this universe which is why he can see the beginning and ending at one time and also explains how he could make so many accurate prophecies hundreds and thousands of years before they happened, such as the relatively recent re-establishment of Israel bang on time. Has your trippy book any such future prophecies that have been fulfilled?

Not in my scripture He doesn’t. You would need to quote from the Tripitaka if you wanted to convince me with scripture.
**Have you ever read the prophetic books of the Bible? **

rossum

 

[Freekevio]

I am a genuine believer in God, but who are you to question that? Such is the common
Creationist dichotomy: “To Believe in Evolution is to Be an Atheist.” Excuse Me?

Now I am not a scholar.
I’m not TOO expert in the fields of biology and evolution, so don’t expect ME to show you
everything. If you want transitional forms, go ask a real scientist ( place recommended to
search: University ), and they may help you out. Go to a Museum, SOMETHING! Run an
internet search, seriously, don’t just go for Creationist sources, you’ll find something.

Now I can’t explain the origin of the snake, but it seems so obvious that there are
advantages to loosing legs. Snakes are still hast upon the ground, can still climb
trees, swim in water, and so forth, but I think they have more freedom to do it.

Yes but the real pint is that Both creationist scientists and secular ones both use the same evidence and data and come to contradictory conclusions.

You earlier stated that you know that the creationist side are lying but do not know the science. Yet you have not seen the evolutionist transitional evidence you trust the evolutionist claims by faith or what?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Yes but the real pint is that Both creationist scientists and secular ones both use the same evidence and data and come to contradictory conclusions.

You earlier stated that you know that the creationist side are lying but do not know the science. Yet you have not seen the evolutionist transitional evidence you trust the evolutionist claims by faith or what?

Well first, “creationist scientists” is an oxymoron. Creationists do not USE science, yes they look at the same evidence, but NOT the same data, form their models based on the “literal interpretation” of Scripture, completely avoiding serious research and SCIENCE.

Again, I insist that you do you’re own research outside Creationist sources, but I will provide to videos with information which you can use in you’re studies:
youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ

Come on, get a library card.

 

[Freekevio]

Well first, “creationist scientists” is an oxymoron. Creationists do not USE science, yes they look at the same evidence, but NOT the same data, form their models based on the “literal interpretation” of Scripture, completely avoiding serious research and SCIENCE.

Again, I insist that you do you’re own research outside Creationist sources, but I will provide to videos with information which you can use in you’re studies:
youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ

Come on, get a library card.

Are you genuinely stating that all creationists are non scientific? Care to check this list less than halfway dome the page?
creation.com/creation-scientists

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Are you genuinely stating that all creationists are non scientific? Care to check this list less than halfway dome the page?
creation.com/creation-scientists

There are scientists who are Creationists, who believe the literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 etc, but they do not use proper science. ANYONE can hold a doctorate and work in a lab and be known in history as a “scientist”, but that does not make Creationism in anyway based on Real Science.

What you are giving is the “argument of authority” approach, saying “Look at all the
scientists saying evolution is false or questionable. Ain’t they pretty?!” believing that
this proves Creationism as valid science. It does not, but rather it’s a logical fallacy.

 

[rossum]

The Generally and widely accepted definition of Universe is all contained within the space time continuum.

That is our current material universe, the STEM universe: Space, Time, Energy, Matter. It does not include any multiverse beyond that, and does not include any of the spiritual realms or spiritual beings. That is why I use my definition, and why I make my definition explicit.

… and also explains how he could make so many accurate prophecies hundreds and thousands of years before they happened, such as the relatively recent re-establishment of Israel bang on time.

You say, “bang on time”. Where in the Bible is the year 1948 after Christ specified?

Has your trippy book any such future prophecies that have been fulfilled?

I do not have a “trippy book” any more than you have a “babble book”.

Have you ever read the prophetic books of the Bible?

Some of them. I was not impressed. I am still waiting for Egypt and Tyre to be devastated. I am still waiting for the Messiah, the guy who will bring in 1,000 years of peace and rebuild the Temple. There are a great many undated prophecies in the Bible, which I mostly ignore. Where prophecies are dated they often fail, like the one in Matthew 24:34. Why would I trust a book that has a failed prophecy?

rossum

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Science confirms the creation account so use it. The book of Genesis is the foundation of the Holy Word in the world, Thats why it is important to defend. If that book is false then so are the rest, such logic goes

I don’t know if I already commented on this, but first you’re wrong, NO science confirms the Creation Account,
Creationists only SAY that science does. Yes the Book of Genesis is Holy and stuff, and it isn’t wrong, but the
Creationist interpretation isn’t spot on.

The book is not false, but that’s not the same as literal.
This is why Creationism (the modern movement) is EVIL. Because once people begin to understand science more and realize that the Book of Genesis isn’t
all literal they conclude that it’s false (that alone being a false conclusion) and thereby losing all faith and become pessimistic atheists. THAT is the fruit of Creationism. And you support it, confirmed through your own words: “If that book is false then so are the rest, such logic goes”.

 

[rossum]

I don’t know if I already commented on this, but first you’re wrong, NO science confirms the Creation Account,

Strictly speaking, there is no science that confirms the specific YEC interpretation of the Creation account. The Theistic Evolutionist interpretation of the Creation account is amply supported by science.

There are many different interpretations of the Creation account. Ludicrously literal interpretations, such as the YEC interpretation, are indeed unsupported.

The book is not false, but that’s not the same as literal.

That is a good way of putting it. Every Christian can see that some passages are not literal:

Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,”

Trees can clap their hands? Obviously poetry, not to be taken literally. Talking serpent? Obviously poetry, not to be taken literally. Magic trees in an enchanted garden? Obviously poetry, not to be taken literally.

This is why Creationism (the modern movement) is EVIL. Because once people begin to understand science more and realize that the Book of Genesis isn’t all literal they conclude that it’s false (that alone being a false conclusion) and thereby losing all faith and become pessimistic atheists. THAT is the fruit of Creationism.

Agreed. By insisting on such a ludicrously bad interpretation, YECs drive many people away.

“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

– Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

rossum

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Strictly speaking, there is no science that confirms the specific YEC interpretation of the Creation account. The Theistic Evolutionist interpretation of the Creation account is amply supported by science.

There are many different interpretations of the Creation account. Ludicrously literal interpretations, such as the YEC interpretation, are indeed unsupported.

rossum

Oh yeah, I definitely support “Theistic Evolutionist” interpretation, but I don’t like the term
“Evolutionist” because it suggests to Creationists something counter to Christianity, it is
a misleading term I feel.