The 6000 Year Earth

[heiscominginthe]

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz more magic man is going to spank me threats.

Let me tell you a few things.

I love you and the reason I can tell you this, not knowing you from atom, is that God loved me enough that he led me to his Son and I was saved. Now, there is a supernatural love in my heart that makes it possible for me to love you, love all.

So I will pray the Lord open up your eyes that you may see his truth, so you may find a love that so wonderful, you can’t ever imagine your life without it.

Father God, I pray you open up the eyes of this lost child. Move in his life mightilly to remove all doubt that you are real and there will be no doubt in his mind.

In Jesus name, amen. I ask all believers to pray for this person, that he may be saved before it is too late. For the day of tribulation is upon us, even at the door.

 

[look3467]

We will all get a correct answer to the question whether God exists or not! And that is a given.

But for the mean time, I mean while we don’t have positive proof, we are enabled by faith to place our trust in what we do know and understand, whether it be the sciences or God.

The matter of choice is given to some and to others a matter of heritage.

Regardless of which way it is, the one with the greatest blessings, meaning, having the best benefits for the body, mind and soul is the belief in God.

That part can only be experienced and not just text book read.

6,000 number is there for a reason, just as the the number 7 is. That is a mystery for the doubtful, but for the believer, is choice by faith.

I would rather side on the side of faith in God while I am in the flesh, simply because some have demonstrated by their lives the existence of a moral code that science can not provide.

Science is material while the moral code is spiritual, in my opinion.

The marriage of both is what we are today, a living soul.

Blessing’s, AJ

 

[rossum]

Come on, open your eyes. What about the many, many discoveries of ancient civilizations spoken of in the bible and uncovered by archeologists. There has been several uncovered, proving that the Word of God is accurate and true. So why would you doubt the story of creation?

No. Those discoveries show that those parts of the Bbile were accurate. I can read about Napoleon, the Tsar and the Battle of Borodino in War and Peace. All of those are true, but that does not make the rest of War and Peace true - Tolstoy was writing historical fiction. Homer speaks of Mycaene, Pylos and Troy. All three have been found, yet that does not make it true when Homer speaks of Zeus, Athene or Apollo. Parts of a book may be true while other parts are not.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The real problem with creation sciece is that it’s not actually science. /duck There’s no scientific theory to back any of it up. Now many people will say that evolution has many holes in it that science can’t explain…and they’re absolutely correct it does but we’re filling in those holes slowly but surely, will we figure everything out? Probably not. The problem is that lack of knowledge or lack of evidence to support certain aspects for one theory is not evidence in itself for another theory. It just means that there’s a lack of understanding about how something happened. The theory of evolution has held up for 150 years because no one has been able to propose another theory to replace it. There’s mountains of evidence to support the theory but much of it is just ignored by creationists.

Now…intelligent design is being proposed as an alternatve theory but there’s a problem with that. Intelligent design can’t be tested and there is no historical or geological record that supports it. So as it stands, intelligent design is only a hypothosys. In science, unless something can and is tested and the results support the hypothosis then it’s not a theory of anything, it’s a hypothosis.

Alot of people also say that it’s only fair have intelligent design taught along side evolution in science classes. Well, on one side of the coin depending on how you look at it, it could be argued that way. On the other hand, you need to ask yourself why things are in science books in the first place. The reason is because people have tested, written papers about, and retested various aspects of the reality we live in. Gravity is a theory but no one argues against that and talks about how false it is.

Bottom line is intelligent design is faith based because it’s based off the bible and the bible isn’t based on science.

Let’s look this for a minute. What other theories would even be possible.

Two choices exist - the universe is created by God or it isn’t. Within that framework we have materialists whose only theory possible is that of today’s evolution.

If you include God it opens it up. Macro - Evolution without God (not Catholic), Macro-Evolution with God, (not Catholic), Creation with a personal God who sustains it (Catholic).

Given that frame since God is not empirically testable our observations become rather limited. So we construct elaborate views on how this could happen without God. Because of the self imposed constraints there really cannot be another competing theory.

So to stand on the point that there isn’t another better theory is not satisfying at all.

Intelligent design - the idea that we know design when we see it is attempting to formulize it. We may never be able to distinguish it because it is all designed. But we still know it when we see it.

 

[look3467]

What came first, life or knowledge? Hmmmmm…good topic starter.

Life was here first and knowledge has been progressively gain by time, experience and bits of knowledge given via the entity (spiritual) which is in the realm of no time.

Philosophers of both the spiritual and of the sciences begin to first make its presence known around the seventh century BC.

Known as Presocratics.Quote: “Presocratics took baby steps into natural law. They sought to to explain what it’s all about via a scientific method.”…in Essentials of Philosophy-by James Mannion…pge. 2.

We can see that knowledge came as a result of the flesh first being created.

Is it hard to understand that the spirit within us is what drives us to inquire about our existence and the things around us?

Hence: Philosophers of the ages whose attempts was to explain in human terms what is.
Knowledge of the real God was first begun with the selecion of one individual, called out of a common stock of people in Abraham.

There, with Him came the promise of revelation of the true entity od the existence of a creaor.

The only problem was that these revelations had to e taken by faith and not by material substances.

That became the counter theory to the existing world, yet in concert with the existing world.

Your choice. You may believe in God or not, that is a God given ability.

The 6,000 year theory is believable without so much as a second thought by the faithful believer.

I don’t see any condemnation, of eternal consequences, for those who don’t believe, but do see a loss of blessings that otherwise can be gained if one became a believer.

Today, in this world of technology, there is no excuse of either accepting the theory of God’s existence or of the sciences.

Again, your choice.

Blessing’s, AJ

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

LOL sorry thats not how science works. If you eliminate evolution you STILL have to produce evidence for creationism, and there is NONE!

Hey Charles,
Evolution:shrug: Hmm, I thought I was merely discussing logic not evolution???
But I do believe you are mistaken because science does both use the laws of induction and deduction to prove out hypothesis’ and theories as well as create proofs & axioms that can be used as tools for further discovery.
When someone proposes an explanation to an unknown they usually start with a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis has been challenged by a broad number of tests (both mind experiments & physical experiments) it then usually gets promoted as a viable theory. If eventually there are competing theories the two are juxtaposed against new challenges - the one answers more unknowns by experimentation then becomes the leading theory - but that still doesn’t mean it is complete.
(e.g a case in point is Newtonian celestial mechanics certainly explained planetary movements pretty well, until some anomalies were discovered that could not be explained by it. Still it was the prevailing theory for over two centuries. That is when Einstein’s theory of general relativity was tested against those anomolies and today we use Einstein’s method when speaking of space/time and no longer Newtons. Although every freshman physics class still studies Newton - and as they should - since it works for almost everything, except the subatomic domain and in the bigger picture of astrophysics.
Since Darwin stated that his hypothesis would either hang or fall based on the transitional forms that would be found in the fossil record - I’d say he has failed. Of course the hunt still goes on ~150 years later.
A simple analogy of deduction used as a tool of science is the classic logic problem.
Easy Logic:

The Monthly NYPD blog reported the retirement of 3 long serving members of the force. From the clues below can you reconstruct the man’s nickname, surname, rank, and duty station form the given clues?

1. None of the 3 men were based at a station whose name begins with their Nickname
2. Inspector Vance was based in the South Bronx station
3. “Sailor” Marlowe was never stationed at Hillside.
4. It is not the constable who last served at Wall Street station.
   Nicknames are: “Danny boy”, “Lefty”, “Sailor”
   Surnames are: Archer, Marlowe, Vance
   Stations are: Wall Street, Hillside, South Bronx
   Ranks are : Constable, Inspector, Sergeant

Of course the problem only serves as a quick 3-5 minute example into methods of elimination by logic and truth tables. Real science is far more complex. But it is illustrative enough to counter the 2nd statement you made and show the point that you can indeed eliminate possibilities by the use of truth tables, even when you are missing clues. So I still stand by my original point in refuting your second point.

As far as a created universe, where God is the first cause of all things Einstein himself believed it was designed. There are many evidences that point that way and many arguments from both philosophy and logic that would lead to that conclusion. One can never disprove that hypothesis nor can they prove it. But the evidences are certainly there.

May the God of Truth help all who search for truth,
In Christ, Erchomai Kyrios

 

[Michaelo]

Intelligent design - the idea that we know design when we see it is attempting to formulize it. We may never be able to distinguish it because it is all designed. But we still know it when we see it.

What criteria do you use to determine whether something is the product of ID?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

And that’s why you lot continue to look for one and hailing any new find as the real one.

One what?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

---

My post was addressed to articulate people not to ignorant foul mouth

??? Your post made no sense, a smart 10 year old would have ripped it to shreads.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Let me tell you a few things.

I love you and the reason I can tell you this, not knowing you from atom, is that God loved me enough that he led me to his Son and I was saved. Now, there is a supernatural love in my heart that makes it possible for me to love you, love all.

So I will pray the Lord open up your eyes that you may see his truth, so you may find a love that so wonderful, you can’t ever imagine your life without it.

Father God, I pray you open up the eyes of this lost child. Move in his life mightilly to remove all doubt that you are real and there will be no doubt in his mind.

In Jesus name, amen. I ask all believers to pray for this person, that he may be saved before it is too late. For the day of tribulation is upon us, even at the door.

Ok dude you pray for ME, i will THINK for YOU.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Let’s look this for a minute. What other theories would even be possible.

Two choices exist - the universe is created by God or it isn’t.

Wrong, Education is your friend.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Hey Charles,
Evolution:shrug: Hmm, I thought I was merely discussing logic not evolution???
But I do believe you are mistaken because science does both use the laws of induction and deduction to prove out hypothesis’ and theories as well as create proofs & axioms that can be used as tools for further discovery.
When someone proposes an explanation to an unknown they usually start with a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis has been challenged by a broad number of tests (both mind experiments & physical experiments) it then usually gets promoted as a viable theory. If eventually there are competing theories the two are juxtaposed against new challenges - the one answers more unknowns by experimentation then becomes the leading theory - but that still doesn’t mean it is complete.
(e.g a case in point is Newtonian celestial mechanics certainly explained planetary movements pretty well, until some anomalies were discovered that could not be explained by it. Still it was the prevailing theory for over two centuries. That is when Einstein’s theory of general relativity was tested against those anomolies and today we use Einstein’s method when speaking of space/time and no longer Newtons. Although every freshman physics class still studies Newton - and as they should - since it works for almost everything, except the subatomic domain and in the bigger picture of astrophysics.
Since Darwin stated that his hypothesis would either hang or fall based on the transitional forms that would be found in the fossil record - I’d say he has failed. Of course the hunt still goes on ~150 years later.

You are wrong on so many levels i don’t know where to start. Einstein did NOT falsify Newtonian mechanics he built on them. His laws still stand up today, and i for one have worked with them, i wonder if you have?

You also seem to have little to no understanding of biology. Evolution has not only progressed exponentially in the last 150 years, but your claim we have no transitional fossils is nothing short of obtuse. Ignorance is NOT a good argument.

 

[buffalo]

What criteria do you use to determine whether something is the product of ID?

When you see writing, a code or a symbol do you attribute that to natural causes? We intuitively know an intelligent being was responsible. How do we know this? That is the key.

What ID is trying to do is to reduce this to an empirical test.

 

[buffalo]

Wrong, Education is your friend.

You have a third option?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You have a third option?

I could give you 10000000000000000 options if i had time.

Magic green bunny did it.
Magic pink dog did it.
Magic brown cat did it.
Magic god man did it.

etc etc.

 

[buffalo]

I could give you 10000000000000000 options if i had time.

Magic green bunny did it.
Magic pink dog did it.
Magic brown cat did it.
Magic god man did it.

etc etc.

That would be in the multiverse scenario. So God did it or He didn’t. You did not post an alternative. All of your silliness fell under God did not.

 

[John7]

god man did it.

THAT’S IT !! good boy

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

 

[Michaelo]

When you see writing, a code or a symbol do you attribute that to natural causes? We intuitively know an intelligent being was responsible.

What natural phenomena do you consider to be analogous to the manifestations of human intelligence that you refer to?

 

[buffalo]

What natural phenomena do you consider to be analogous to the manifestations of human intelligence that you refer to?

None - Things that occur in nature like hurricanes, snowflakes, crystals are patterns.

Codes, language and symbols always come from a mind.

 

[Michaelo]

None - Things that occur in nature like hurricanes, snowflakes, crystals are patterns.

Codes, language and symbols always come from a mind.

So do you think ID attempts to explain the origins of natural phenomena?