Attendance question

[JohnDenver]

The weakness of creationism is that it stifles knowledge. Seeking to explain it all as the beautiful creation of a higher being and then saying "so that's alright then" stops us learning any more about it. If that theory has gaps in it when scrutinised we'll (actually we have) learn more by trying to find an alternative.

The fact that there are holes in any theory should just push us to find a better one, not justify it harder.

Which is what I would have said had I not already bailed out of the debate.

 

[CG Blade]

[quote="

The fact that there are holes in any theory should just push us to find a better one, not justify it harder.[/quote]

But what if creation is correct, then why push to find a better one. Creation as far as I am aware has never changed its goal posts, evolution seems to change its goalposts. When one theory doesn't quite fit, it try's to find another.

As I said earlier we can go round in circles on this, and throw "Facts" all day. If anyone wants to discuss further then you can contact me, I am always willing to listen..... Otherwise like JohnDenver I am bailing out.

 

[Selly]

Which brings us right back to one of Darren's original points. There's little that can be achieved in the debate when one side operates using faith and the other scientific principles is right.

fixed that for you...

The fact that there are holes in any theory should just push us to find a better one, not justify it harder.

But what if creation is correct, then why push to find a better one.

There is plenty of evidence that the Universe as form approx. 14bn years ago in waht is knows as the Big Bang, Earth was formed 4.5bn years ago, and life arose from primorial goo, advancing from single celled organisms, to muti celled beings that then crawled out of the water etc etc.

Show me the evidence for the world being created in 6 days. That, despite science proving that genetically speaking you need more than 2 people to start a viable population, we are all descended from Adam and Eve. That animals could talk, that there was a flood, that Noah built an Ark big enough for 2 of every land based creature on this planet.

Show me the evidence supporting creation, disprove the current scientific theories with the same (or different) evidence.

Creation as far as I am aware has never changed its goal posts, evolution seems to change its goalposts. When one theory doesn't quite fit, it try's to find another.

Creation doesn`t try to change its goalposts because its supporters claim it doesn`t need to be proven.

Which is about as barmy as you can get...

 

[CG Blade]

fixed that for you...



There is plenty of evidence that the Universe as form approx. 14bn years ago in waht is knows as the Big Bang, Earth was formed 4.5bn years ago, and life arose from primorial goo, advancing from single celled organisms, to muti celled beings that then crawled out of the water etc etc.

Show me the evidence for the world being created in 6 days. That, despite science proving that genetically speaking you need more than 2 people to start a viable population, we are all descended from Adam and Eve. That animals could talk, that there was a flood, that Noah built an Ark big enough for 2 of every land based creature on this planet.

Show me the evidence supporting creation, disprove the current scientific theories with the same (or different) evidence.



Creation doesn`t try to change its goalposts because its supporters claim it doesn`t need to be proven.

Which is about as barmy as you can get...

The various age-dating methods are also subject to interpretation. All dating methods suffer, in principle, from the same limitations—whether they are used to support a young world or an old world. For instance, we read almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained—what method was used and what assumptions were accepted to develop this method? These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid and to determine whether the rock’s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proven that the rock is billions of years old and that the facts can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

The various age-dating methods are also subject to interpretation. All dating methods suffer, in principle, from the same limitations—whether they are used to support a young world or an old world. For instance, we read almost daily in newspapers and magazines that scientists have dated a particular rock at billions of years old. Most just accept this. However, creation scientists have learned to ask questions as to how this date was obtained—what method was used and what assumptions were accepted to develop this method? These scientists then question those assumptions (questions) to see whether they are valid and to determine whether the rock’s age could be interpreted differently. Then the results are published to help people understand that scientists have not proven that the rock is billions of years old and that the facts can be interpreted in a different way to support a young age.

What other facts do you dispute?

Do you believe in gravity?

 

[CG Blade]

What other facts do you dispute?

Do you believe in gravity?

Why wouldn't I

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Why wouldn't I

How old do you believe the earth is then?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

But what if creation is correct, then why push to find a better one. Creation as far as I am aware has never changed its goal posts, evolution seems to change its goalposts. When one theory doesn't quite fit, it try's to find another.

As I said earlier we can go round in circles on this, and throw "Facts" all day. If anyone wants to discuss further then you can contact me, I am always willing to listen..... Otherwise like JohnDenver I am bailing out.

Do you believe the earth is flat as well?

 

[CG Blade]

Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.
God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation . From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.
The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.
Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11. Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years​

~6,000 years​

At this point, the first five days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and with careful attention to the biblical details, they have arrived at the same time frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4000 B.C. Perhaps best, to check a recent work by Dr. Floyd Jones (Google it you will find him)

As I say I don't have all the answers but then neither does anyone, you make the assumptions that the figures given by evolutionists are correct, I have the assumption that what creationists say is correct, and no one has yet given me evidence to show that those assumptions are incorrect. It is about belief, my belief there was a creation
You believe differently not a problem to me.

 

[blade too long]

the bible is like a Gorgonzola cheese theres so many holes in it,

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.
God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation . From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.
The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.
Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11. Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So a simple calculation is:

5 days​

+ ~2,000 years​

+ ~4,000 years​

~6,000 years​

At this point, the first five days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and with careful attention to the biblical details, they have arrived at the same time frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4000 B.C. Perhaps best, to check a recent work by Dr. Floyd Jones (Google it you will find him)

As I say I don't have all the answers but then neither does anyone, you make the assumptions that the figures given by evolutionists are correct, I have the assumption that what creationists say is correct, and no one has yet given me evidence to show that those assumptions are incorrect. It is about belief, my belief there was a creation
You believe differently not a problem to me.

How do you explain this then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

 

[CG Blade]

Do you believe the earth is flat as well?

Again why would I, strange line of questioning here.
Bailing out me, (as I said before) as it is taking alot of space on what is supposed to be a Mighty Blades site. If you want to continue then please PM me, or ask me where I sit, and I will gladly talk it through, I am open to any theory others have.

 

[CG Blade]

the bible is like a Gorgonzola cheese theres so many holes in it,

So is evolution, so we agree on something many holes everywhere.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Again why would I, strange line of questioning here.
Bailing out me, (as I said before) as it is taking alot of space on what is supposed to be a Mighty Blades site. If you want to continue then please PM me, or ask me where I sit, and I will gladly talk it through, I am open to any theory others have.

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

 

[blade too long]

no evolution is factual , based on scientific proof , it only changes when theories are proven , altered slightly then changed accordingly , the bible and creationism is stoic , unbendable , based on faith , ie totally unproveable, if it needs to lie it will and cover it with well its what we believe, the fact they say earth only started with genisis 8 10 12 even thousand years ago lets it down immediately ,as we can measure the solar system expanding and using something as simple as maths work out some timelines, 10000 years is but a speck on time

 

[blade too long]

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

typical of early shepherd speak , the world was what they could see from a hill top, moses took 40 years to cross a desert , surely a kind God could have invented a sat nav a bit earlier for him

and in the beginning , sun came first, weve seen it happen elsewhere
let there be light , who makes something in the dark , then puts on a light what a numpty
no wonder theres so much goes wrong , shoddy goods made in poor light

 

[Mad Mick]

C G Blade I admire your pluck and respect your views. But one of your posts concerned me.
You seemed to intimate that one day we will find out the truth. Agree with you there totally, but do you hold Christians as the ones who are right, and every one else is wrong?
If so what happens to none believers?

 

[Selly]

Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.
God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation . From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.
The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.
Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11. Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So a simple calculation is:

5 days​

+ ~2,000 years​

+ ~4,000 years​

~6,000 years​

At this point, the first five days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and with careful attention to the biblical details, they have arrived at the same time frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4000 B.C. Perhaps best, to check a recent work by Dr. Floyd Jones (Google it you will find him)

As I say I don't have all the answers but then neither does anyone, you make the assumptions that the figures given by evolutionists are correct, I have the assumption that what creationists say is correct, and no one has yet given me evidence to show that those assumptions are incorrect. It is about belief, my belief there was a creation
You believe differently not a problem to me.

It is not an assumption that the dating methods used to define the age of anything on earth, or in the rest of the universe are correct. I know this because they have been peer reviewed by other scientists, and a consensus has been reached that the methods are accurate. And more importantly the findings can be repeated by other scientists, and theories altered as required.

Whereas you are varying your figures on something written down.

A similar approach in 6000 years would see us thought to be muffles in a world full of magicians, or political machiavellians in Westeros, or residents of the shire.

Basically the bible and other religious texts are not a reliable source of information.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I can't be arsed to read all 12 pages, just PM me who wins.

 

[Gavlar]

this debate may well have run it's course now, Can I be very soft and thank all you guys for contributing, esp darren and sellyoake even if i disagree with you .

here's a few final thoughts of mine from the bible basher camp:

the debate over the existence of God has raged for centuries, intelligent and well meaning folks are on both sides.

For the record I admire athiests for wanting evidence to backup claims and for thinking points through.
I also think Science and God can co-exist in harmony .

There are lots of things i dont understand about the Bible and about God and suffering, but I believe
if the God of the Bible exists he would be far far above our knowledge and understanding, he also would care deeply for the people he has made and have something far better in store for us when this world is over.

I think its apt that were talking about this subject so close to Easter, which is as you probably know the story where Gods son died on the cross to save us from the mess we have made of this world.

If im wrong and athiesm is right and there's nothing after this life, there is no consequence for me.
If athiesm is wrong and im right, then rejecting Jesus could be the worst decision anyone ever makes.

So what have you got to lose by believing in Jesus?

See you on the boards and up the blades!!

All the best
gavlar

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

If im wrong and athiesm is right and there's nothing after this life, there is no consequence for me.
If athiesm is wrong and im right, then rejecting Jesus could be the worst decision anyone ever makes.

So what have you got to lose by believing in Jesus?

Bam! Pascal's Wager.

We win. You lose.

 

[Darren]

this debate may well have run it's course now, Can I be very soft and thank all you guys for contributing, esp darren and sellyoake even if i disagree with you .

here's a few final thoughts of mine from the bible basher camp:

the debate over the existence of God has raged for centuries, intelligent and well meaning folks are on both sides.

For the record I admire athiests for wanting evidence to backup claims and for thinking points through.
I also think Science and God can co-exist in harmony .

There are lots of things i dont understand about the Bible and about God and suffering, but I believe
if the God of the Bible exists he would be far far above our knowledge and understanding, he also would care deeply for the people he has made and have something far better in store for us when this world is over.

I think its apt that were talking about this subject so close to Easter, which is as you probably know the story where Gods son died on the cross to save us from the mess we have made of this world.

If im wrong and athiesm is right and there's nothing after this life, there is no consequence for me.
If athiesm is wrong and im right, then rejecting Jesus could be the worst decision anyone ever makes.

So what have you got to lose by believing in Jesus?

See you on the boards and up the blades!!

All the best
gavlar

Why?

Are you suggesting that God punishes people who have conscientiously examined the evidence and have come to the honest conclusion that he doesn't exist, yet reward those who are prepared to dishonestly pretend to believe in him because that thats the best gamble?

If thats the case, he sounds a foolish insecure tyrant and I don't think I would want to spend all eternity with him, thank you very much.

 

[super_pig]

C G Blade I admire your pluck and respect your views. But one of your posts concerned me.
You seemed to intimate that one day we will find out the truth. Agree with you there totally, but do you hold Christians as the ones who are right, and every one else is wrong?
If so what happens to none believers?

and what happens to the Chinese??

 

[Northyorksblade]

Why?

Are you suggesting that God punishes people who have conscientiously examined the evidence and have come to the honest conclusion that he doesn't exist, yet reward those who are prepared to dishonestly pretend to believe in him because that thats the best gamble?

If thats the case, he sounds a foolish insecure tyrant and I don't think I would want to spend all eternity with him, thank you very much.

You really didn't think Darren would let you have the last word did you gavlar?

 

[JJ Sefton]

Why?

Are you suggesting that God punishes people who have conscientiously examined the evidence and have come to the honest conclusion that he doesn't exist, yet reward those who are prepared to dishonestly pretend to believe in him because that thats the best gamble?

If thats the case, he sounds a foolish insecure tyrant and I don't think I would want to spend all eternity with him, thank you very much.

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”

- Exodus 34:14

 

[Highbury_Blade]

For the faithful in this thread; what version of the bible do you use?

 

[Jon Bon]

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Another 26,000 children died of starvation today.

Nice one God.

 

[Jon Bon]

Another 26,000 children died of starvation today.

Nice one God.

Yeah, where's the fucking fish and loaves now then you fucking trickster? You slyboots, you four-flusher..