Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

That is the problem with public forums, they are open to the public. If you didn't want anyone raining on your parade then you would be in a private place and be surrounded by those like you and there would be no problems.

---

Oh... it's you. Nobody is stopping you or even trying. I simply stated that it helps the Christian cause. It's actually a fulfillment of prophecy as it is written that there would be scoffers and that Christians would be persecuted for Christ's namesake. It's a good thing. The more you force us into the Bible the better off we are.

Not knowing exactly what was meant by a day is a sticking point as to the age of the earth in terms of when man was here, but the evidence that there has been life on earth for billions of years in scientific terms, has been put to rest by all, but the most stubborn unscientific mind. And yes dinosaurs existed in the time of man, but he called them birds. As proof go to the Chicago Museum of Natural History, and compare the Rex, that's been there forever, with the skeleton of a chicken, and only the beaks and wings and size make them different. Actually I have no problem believing the Creator is skilled enough to use evolution, or quantum mechanics, in his works. It was a piece of cake. For sure he knows more than ancient man can explain, and some modern ones. Where I can respect the bible, it is not the only book that contains the truth, nor should it be the only one when we consider science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curlyben

This may seem like an odd question, but WHERE in the Bible does it say that the world is 6,000 years old ?
Yes, I have read it, especially like the Old Testement parts, but I cannot recall ever reading anything like this.

---

You won't find just one verse in the Bible that says the age of the Earth, or how long man has inhabited the Earth. The 6000 years comes from adding up the genealogies that are given. The 6000 years is an approximation.

Hopes that helps Curly.

AJ I don't hate Christians, not at all. What I hate is when Christian theology is spread as science.

You seem to be missing the point about scientific claims and theories. A claim is not an accepted scientific theory until it has been subject to peer review. Your buddy didn't do this because he knew it would not hold up. There are a lot of well written and interesting books out there, it doesn't mean they hold scientific fact. I didn't say or imply he's lying about his findings, but if he admitted in open court, under oath, before God, that his findings were manipulated, that bears some consideration.

Quote:

---

A bunch of wishful thinking, theories, an blind faith in evolution is not science.

---

I can do that too: A bunch of wishful thinking, theories and blind faith in religion is not science. See how that works?

I'm not saying you should change your way of thinking because of what the judge ruled, but you have obviously overlooked the fact that the man you are holding as your "science expert" admitted his findings had been manipulated. Just because a judge paraphrased it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I don't dispute this guy is a scientist. BUT, he is also a religious theorist, and what he has presented as "science" is nothing more than "religion".

Let everything I say and do be recorded in Heaven, Hell, Pakistan, Mars or Omicron Persei 8, makes no matter to me.

You are free to believe what you wish, and I'm in no way trying to convince you of another belief. However, when you claim a man has presented a scientific theory and hold him in such high regard, it is probably wise to know about him from more than one angle. I didn't expect my translation of the Wiki article to change your mind, but hoped it would help you understand this is a religious theory, not a scientific one. You are a person of faith, good for you. I am not. Good for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

You won't find just one verse in the Bible that says the age of the Earth, or how long man has inhabited the Earth. The 6000 years comes from adding up the genealogies that are given. The 6000 years is an approximation.

Hopes that helps Curly.

---

I thought the question was how old is the earth, not how long man has been here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I thought the question was how old is the earth, not how long man has been here.

---

You are right, The question is about the age of the Earth, but if one follows the literal six day creation, then it relates to the age of the Earth.

[QUOTE=talaniman] but the evidence that there has been life on earth for billions of years in scientific terms, has been put to rest

You said it...I didn't. I probably would have said "laid to rest."

. And yes dinosaurs existed in the time of man, but he called them birds. As proof go to the Chicago Museum of Natural History, and compare the Rex, that's been there forever, with the skeleton of a chicken, and only the beaks and wings and size make them different.

I don't know what "he" you are talking about but it certainly wasn't "He." Just because a dinosaur had a similar skeletal structure as a chicken doesn't make the dinosaur a chicken. That would mean that all animals that had similar skeletal structures as that of a chicken would all be chickens. Colonel Sanders would have had a heyday.

Actually I have no problem believing the Creator is skilled enough to use evolution, or quantum mechanics, in his works.

Not only would that contradict what He claims to have done to bring the earth and all life into existence but it makes no sense. Why would an almighty God who can simply speak something into existence go through the tedium required to make itty bitty changes over a quintillion year period (you say billions...I say quintillion...my guess is as good as yours). So you don't agree with your cohorts that an organism sprung forth from inorganic matter by happenstance?

It was a piece of cake.

Chocolate or vanilla?

QUOTE]

So some of your buddies have faith that all living organisms sprung forth from non-organic matter by pure chance billions, and billions, and billions, and billions, and trillions of years ago (no mention as to where the carbon and other chemicals came from). You, on the other hand, have faith that God produced the first cell with His mighty power then tediously helped the poor little fella along until it was able to sprout some teeny weeny little legs. In the meantime, He created a little microscopic tree for our little ancestor to feed on. Now that does take faith. Oh, did He also take a gelatinous rib and create a little female cell He called Eve? Bottom line is that it takes a whole lot of faith to believe either of the two scenarios above. If you scoff at the faith of a Christian, you are a hypocrite.

Quote:

---

If you scoff at the faith of a Christian, you are a hypocrite.

---

Because I don't follow your path, or are as sensitive about my faith, doesn't mean I don't respect you, or your right to believe whatever you choose. But am I allowed to express my opinion, with out you feeling persecuted, and paranoid??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

AJ
You seem to be missing the point about scientific claims and theories. A claim is not an accepted scientific theory until it has been subject to peer review. Your buddy didn't do this because he knew it would not hold up. There are a lot of well written and interesting books out there, it doesn't mean they hold scientific fact. I didn't say or imply he's lying about his findings, but if he admitted in open court, under oath, before God, that his findings were manipulated, that bears some consideration.

Standing before a large group of people was Jesus Christ. Standing near Him was Pontius Pilate. Also before the group was Barabus. Barabus was a hardened criminal while Jesus Christ was innocent of any wrong doing. Pilate even stated the fact. When put to a vote of the "peers" in the audience, Christ was chosen for crucifixion while Barabus was set free. The founders of the United States understood that "democracy" was "mobocracy" thus the country was founded on the principles of a Republic. Just because a majority of people say something is so doesn't make it so. The leaders of the Romish church during the dark ages believed the world was flat. Was the majority of "peers" correct? No sir/ma'am. Have you read the book? Have any of the scoffers jabbing and jeering read the book? No? Then how can you offer a critique of his work? I did read the book and it was well written. He offers numerous facts. Also, he HAS made headway in the scientific community. Many scientists who were afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs are beginning to stir.

I can do that too: A bunch of wishful thinking, theories and blind faith in religion is not science. See how that works?

Oh, I know how it works. I've been accused of it many times by the scoffers and jabbers. All I am saying is that it works both ways. See how that works?

I'm not saying you should change your way of thinking because of what the judge ruled, but you have obviously overlooked the fact that the man you are holding as your "science expert" admitted his findings had been manipulated. Just because a judge paraphrased it doesn't mean it isn't true.

What a gigantic and obvious generalization. You make it sound like every chapter and every point made in Behe's book was "manipulated" and that he basically admitted that the book was a fraud. LOL and LOL. The judge "paraphrased" a single statement concerning a single issue. Are you going to tell me that every word out of your mouth is flawless? Come now.

I don't dispute this guy is a scientist. BUT, he is also a religious theorist, and what he has presented as "science" is nothing more than "religion".

And secular humanists aren't "religious theorists?" First plank of the Humanist Manifesto I: "Religious Humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." Firstly, Humanists regard themselves as religionists. Secondly, it takes as much faith to believe that man sprung forth from inorganic matter billions and billions and quadrillions of years ago as it does to believe that God created the universe in a lesser amount of time.

Let everything I say and do be recorded in Heaven, Hell, Pakistan, Mars or Omicron Persei 8, makes no matter to me.

Lets!

You are free to believe what you wish, and I'm in no way trying to convince you of another belief. However, when you claim a man has presented a scientific theory and hold him in such high regard, it is probably wise to know about him from more than one angle. I didn't expect my translation of the Wiki article to change your mind, but hoped it would help you understand this is a religious theory, not a scientific one. You are a person of faith, good for you. I am not. Good for me.

---

Thank you for allowing me that freedom. I certainly appreciate that. You may not be trying to convince me of another belief but you're doing your damndest to cast doubt on the one I have. Why else would you be here? I hold anyone who goes against the flow of status quo in high regard if he does so with the intention of showing new evidence not previously seen. I appreciate that in a person...not just Michael Behe. I appreciated it in Isaac Newton as well. You, my friend, have become the stubborn establishment while Behe is the fresh new voice of our changing times. We live in a world of extraordinary technical advances. Behe put the new tools to use and discovered some new facts and all of a sudden and out of the blue, he's villainized. He simply used the scientific methods that you all worship but since his findings don't adhere to your preconceived notions, he's some sort of a kook. What hypocrites!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Because I don't follow your path, or are as sensitive about my faith, doesn't mean I don't respect you, or your right to believe whatever you choose. But am I allowed to express my opinion, with out you feeling persecuted, and paranoid??

---

You wield your sword and I wield mine. It's a spiritual battle that we're in. I simply can't blend my beliefs with yours. I'm not entitled to. When a Christian puts his faith in God and the Holy Bible, there is no room for compromise on issues of this magnitude. Paranoid? Where did you come up with that? I'm fearless when it comes to matters of this importance. I'll stand toe to toe with anyone in defense of Christ and matters related to His Word. It's what I love to do. You don't "respect" me for one moment. That's clear by the wording of many of your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PortalWriter

I wasn't going to go any further posting on this thread, I have enough ideas, theories, speculations, and yes even facts on the subject of the "pre-history" of the earth to fill a whole book. And probably cause this thread to go into at least 30 different side topics.

But this thread seems to be going in this direction anyway so here are a couple of things to ponder.

Firstly, let us all not forget that the book of Genesis was not originally written in English. Contrary to popular belief it was not even originally written in Aramaic, but in a combination of very very ancient Chaldean and Egyptian. And if you don't believe me about the Egyptian just look at the name of Israel. (Is)is (Ra) (El)Yon. Remember the book of Genesis is believed to be written by Moses and he was raised a Prince of Egypt. Sometimes to fully understand the Bible you have to do a little word study, sometimes a cultural and literary study as well. I could go further on this but like I said have enough for a whole book. I'll just give you a clue to work with.

Look at the words "day" and "creation".
When you look at these words remember they are English. Could there be two different meanings for the same word even in the same chapter?

Secondly, here is a question for everybody why does God ask Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth not "populate" it?

---

Excuse my language here, but what the hell happened to this poster? You hook us in deep but then you do not explain yourself. Still waiting here for an answer, I am not interested in some of the arguments that have gone on since then, but I would like to know your answer to that last question that you left us with.

Joe

AJ you continue to miss the point. Your "science guy" admitted he ignored accepted scientific principles to fit his idea.

Quote:

---

Just because a majority of people say something is so doesn't make it so

---

Correct. What "makes it so" is the evidence which supports it.

Quote:

---

You make it sound like every chapter and every point made in Behe's book was "manipulated" and that he basically admitted that the book was a fraud.

---

I make no such assertion. I assert that Behe ADMITTED IN OPEN COURT he manuipulated accepted scientific principles to fit his idea.

Quote:

---

The judge "paraphrased" a single statement concerning a single issue.

---

Correct. Just so happens it's a rather important one to your claim this is a scientific theory.

Quote:

---

Are you going to tell me that every word out of your mouth is flawless?

---

Is that your way of admitting Behe might have been wrong? Good for you! Bravo! And no, I don't make any claim whatsoever that every word out of my mouth is flawless. Anyone who does so is a fool. Anyone.

Quote:

---

it takes as much faith to believe that man sprung forth from inorganic matter billions and billions and quadrillions of years ago as it does to believe that God created the universe in a lesser amount of time.

---

The difference is you attribute it to an unseen, invisible being. I just say we simply haven't figured it out yet. If it is proven that "God did it" I'll give you a big 'ol greenie. Promise.

Quote:

---

You may not be trying to convince me of another belief but you're doing your damndest to cast doubt on the one I have.

---

Nope, simply providing you with information you may not have had access to. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Quote:

---

Behe put the new tools to use and discovered some new facts and all of a sudden and out of the blue, he's villainized. He simply used the scientific methods that you all worship but since his findings don't adhere to your preconceived notions, he's some sort of a kook. What hypocrites!

---

Well, see that's the thing. Behe DIDN'T use new tools to discover anything. He took old tools and just didn't follow their directions and came up with new findings. Is a screwdriver a hammer if I use it to beat a nail into the wall? I don't think he's a kook; I just think he's a religious theorist. I never said religious people were kooks. You've made the assumption that because I am not a Christian that I hate Christians and everything they stand for. I have respect for other people's views, but when presented in an advice thread (which has turned into a debate thread) I see no problem with presenting my side of things.

Quote:

---

I simply can't blend my beliefs with yours.

---

How come you let tal off the hook but you seem determined to beat a dead horse with me? There is no way you will bring me to your line of thinking. Contrary to what you may think, I'm not trying to get you to believe what I believe. You provided Behe's name as a authority, and I've shown you that perhaps, he's not one. I'm trying to make you think, to reconsider. You have no support to your argument that Behe's theory holds any water in the scientific sense. If you simply say, "I believe his theory because I have faith" I can accept that, but as long as you claim science has anything to do with it, when clearly it has been demonstrated to the contrary, I have to insist you are mistaken. Want to prove yourself right? Get the scientific community to agree with you instead of me.

Right before this degenerates into a free for all I'd like to make something perfectly clear.
I AM technically a Christian, BUT, and here's the kicker, I don't allow religion to run my life.
One of then tenets of christianity is TOLERANCE, now that isn't being displayed here.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how flawed.

I believe in what I can see and can be proved with HARD evidence.

Now when this comes to creation then the evidence for this world points towards the widely held theory of Evolution and not some creator being.
Now when it comes to the universe as a whole I'm not so sure.

There could well of been a creator that started the Big Bang, could well of fired the stars, could well of seeded life on the planets, BUT until there is HARD proof it's all belief.

Have a look at the ancient civilizations, Maya, Egypt, etc.
In their histories there are MASSIVE leaps forward, now is this due to "god" or some other outside influence?

Who nows, we can only guess as there in NO hard proof.

Look at it this way.
If it LOOKS like a duck, SOUNDS like a duck, then it must be a DUCK.

Now there are fanatic zealots on both side of this debate. Either agree to disagree (without contradicing yourself) or STOP posting.
Simple really.

Ben,

Many people think of belief as fact. When somebody believes so strongly in something and they have the evidence through life experiences and within their hearts and minds and bodies they feel moved with the spirit of God. Who can really prove such a thing. It is such an individualized experience and I do believe God has given us a chanch to learn here.

Belief needs to have faith. To be able to see what is not seen takes faith. I believe in focusing on the spiritual, the unseen. We are effected by each other.

I also do know that no matter what differences there are or how many people get heated up and bothered about it. We need to treat each other respect and understand we all have our differing beliefs or opinions on this. Especially with God there are so many different wide open beliefs.

So each individual needs to stand up for what they believe in, at the same time respect each others beliefs.

I also take to your point Ben about how many of the theories that scientists have mention, example evolution, or big bang. That if such a process really did occur, who was behind it. I do believe that God is the answer.

As far as the very fast advances in civilizations. That has been the question for ages, who or what was responsible for these revelations.

Joe

In a way this thrwead has been enlightening to me as a parent. It certainly has given a clue in which direction I do not want to raise my children. I love tha fact that this earth is populated with a wide variety of interesting people, I take them as individuals not as groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tessy777

I was a leader in VBS this year at my church. We did the 7 c's of History... Creation, corruption, catastrophe,confusion, Christ and the Cross, Consummation. It was really interesting.

I was wondering how many Christians believed that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old and that God made the dinosaurs when he made man.? We taught that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark with him. They had scientific evidence, facts about fossils. Ken Ham's group recorded it and it will be shown all over the world. Did you know that they recently found dinosaurs bones that still had blood cells and tissue in it? Interesting huh?

I was raised to believe in the"gap" theory. this is all new information for me to be honest but I am being really open to it. Any thoughts?

---

Yes the world is very much more then 6000 years old. I don't want to get into it too much but, have you ever thouhtg that what you just talkd about was fake and is being use to control you and your money. Why don't you find out what existentialisam means and try to believe in something that is real, like yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

In a way this thrwead has been enlightening to me as a parent. It certainly has given a clue in which direction I do not want to raise my children. I love tha fact that this earth is populated with a wide variety of interesting people, I take them as individuals not as groups.

---

We are all individuals with our individual choice to chose what we do and/or do not believe.

Nk, I agree with you here.

Joe

I tried to rate you but got the spread the love first message.

JH,
It's so obvious we have kids 'cause we're both up early (crazy maritimers we are).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curlyben

One of then tenets of christianity is TOLERANCE

---

I wish that this were true, but I've searched in vain for evidence of it. The absence of it in Christian writings and discourse is one of the main reasons I left the fundamentalist Christian church of my youth. The fundamentalist belief system requires a life of conflict and enmity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

You wield your sword and I wield mine. It's a spiritual battle that we're in. I simply can't blend my beliefs with yours. I'm not entitled to. When a Christian puts his faith in God and the Holy Bible, there is no room for compromise

---

AJ, this is a wonderfully succinct statement of the fundamentalist approach to religion and the spiritual life. May you find fulfillment and satisfaction in your battles.