Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

Excellent post. Why is it that some "non-Christians" are more familiar with real Christian philosophy that many self proclaimed Christians?

Thank you sir :up:

I find dealing with modern technology extremely interesting because it's such a moving target. I heard the other day, and I don't know how truly accurate this is but it sounds good, that we have generated more information in the last 20 years or so than all of human history prior.

The internet, and computer science generally, is fascinating and also a mine field of unexploded frustrations. But if you want to use it then you have to put your thinking cap on.

It's no secret here that I use the technology for music production and I could easily jump on my hobby horse and put the whole forum to sleep, but suffice to say it's a prime example of why the only way to proceed is grab the nettle or sit back and wonder why other producers are getting better results than I. What I really need is second USB 50 gig brain. That might help

But any way, taking a break is good but nice to see you back old friend.... :up:

Cheers.

 

[Hedshaker]

He put these words together for your purpose.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

everready

Who everready? Who put those words together?

 

[noguru]

Thank you sir :up:

I find dealing with modern technology extremely interesting because it's such a moving target. I heard the other day, and I don't know how truly accurate this is but it sounds good, that we have generated more information in the last 20 years or so than all of human history prior.

The internet, and computer science generally, is fascinating and also a mine field of unexploded frustrations. But if you want to use it then you have to put your thinking cap on.

It's no secret here that I use the technology for music production and I could easily jump on my hobby horse and put the whole forum to sleep, but suffice to say it's a prime example of why the only way to proceed is grab the nettle or sit back and wonder why other producers are getting better results than I. What I really need is second USB 50 gig brain. That might help

But any way, taking a break is good but nice to see you back old friend.... :up:

Cheers.

:up:

 

[Hedshaker]

Yesterday I was with my solicitor (lawyer) performing a legal procedure required to grant me legal probate. It required two solicitors, me and a holy Bible.
I explained that I wasn't religious nor believed in God.
I was told I could affirm instead but that would have required some altering of pre-written text so I explained that it really made no difference to me if my right hand was on a Bible or was held upright in affirmation, so I swore my oath on the Holy Bible.
The point is that for me the Bible is only a book written by men not a book of magic spells or arcane "truth", I merely went through a required procedure by civil law and no lightning bolt struck me dead.

Many years ago when I was in the process of buying a house I remember going over an insurance policy that some insurance dude mentioned some sort of claim defeater where the problem could be described as and "Act of God".

This was mid 80's but even then I insisted that it was removed or there'd be no sale. Just imagine..... yes Mr Hedshaker, sorry to hear about the wind blowing your roof off but there'll be no claim since that was clearly an act of God. Not that that would happen but all the same it struck me as bonkers.

 

[noguru]

Many years ago when I was in the process of buying a house I remember going over an insurance policy that some insurance dude mentioned some sort of claim defeater where the problem could be described as and "Act of God".

This was mid 80's but even then I insisted that it was removed or there'd be no sale. Just imagine..... yes Mr Hedshaker, sorry to hear about the wind blowing your roof off but there'll be no claim since that was clearly an act of God. Not that that would happen but all the same it struck me as bonkers.

Yes. the insurance salesman was (mis)using God for the same purpose YECs misuse God, to escape responsibility for their, well, responsibility. It is a blatant cowardly cop out.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Radiocarbon dating measures the decay of radioactive isotopes commonly found in minerals. The decay rate is measured in half-lives. The breakdown rate of radioactive isotopes is not something that can ever change, and thus an uncorrupted sample cannot be wrong by more than 1% of the total age determined.
So if a fossil is measured to be 200,000,000 years old, it is certain that the true age is between 202,000,000 and 198,000,000 years old.

Carbon 14 is the go-to for samples from 70,000 years ago or less. Uranium-lead (4 billion year half-life), potassium-argon, argon-argon, rubidium-strontium, and thorium-lead are isotope decay pairs used for anything older. To improve accuracy, results from several of these different pairs are cross checked, and only if they agree on age is the sample credible.

Dear 1God4all,

You're right. I just learned of those different types of dating. I never knew we had rubidium-strontium! And thorium-lead. Can we be sure we're using these dating methods correctly? 4 billion year half-life is a looong time. Eeeeekk!! Oh well, I must admit, sounds pretty solid. Thanks for being so kind and informative!!

Michael

:cheers:

:angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Why? An alleged quote from someone who lived years before it was written down by an author we are not even sure of? Again, why should anyone accept it as actually being said and as actually meaning anything? Because it uses old ways of sayingith?

Dear Jonahdog,

We believe it because it is written in history. The Bible is a sort of history book also, JD, and it is written in it that Jesus said it, and so that is how we know it. The history book we use is the most widely sold book in our History!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Morning Michael.
Science concludes that radiometric dating and other methods all very much concur with "Deep Time".
For me there seems to be no doubt at all of the great age of the Earth based on all of the evidence, including what I can observe for myself.
It would require a very clever deception indeed to arrange things so that science was fooled by the evidence and I don't accept for a moment that science is either stupid or that it is all globally conspiring to deliberately tell us lies.
The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old Michael.

Dear Alwight,

Thanks so very much for your candid response. That's A LOT of years, eh? Even a million would be a lot! Seems like man/woman has only been on the planet for a second considering all of the time it's been here. Seems like the Earth has been just sitting here for many years with No Life on it. You're the Best, Alwight!! You're my best friend. Whenever I need someone, you are there!! You showed me how to work the quote function, which was a miracle. Thought I'd never master that one. Cool!! I managed to navigate this site pretty well, but there were some things I needed some help with. It happens. I can't thank you enough, bloke!!

Cheerio!

Michael

:cheers:

:angel:

:up:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Were you there at the launch event? Did you take photographs?

Do you not assume that all of the physical constants have remained constant?

What if the constants have changed?

Not all elements of conventional science have dismissed all notions of "time warp" or time travel or even a time machine. Have you?

Have you considered that you might have missed something in your knowledge and reasoning?

What if it turned out that there was a God who is eternally merciful to the heirs of Jesus Christ's Redemptive Work but implemented strict eternal justice with others? What if it turned out that the Bible's God was true? Would you be disappointed or glad?

Respectfully submitted.

Dear nodelink,

Now, that's what I'm also thinking. Maybe there has been a change in the constants, or a tweak in them. What I don't understand is why it is written that God said He created the Earth on the 3rd day and man on the 6th day. Something's got to give. I need an answer, but I can wait and ask Jesus for myself, if needed.

Thank you tons, nodelink,

Michael

:up:

:angel:

atrol:

 

[Hedshaker]

Yes. the insurance salesman was (mis)using God for the same purpose YECs misuse God, to escape responsibility for their, well, responsibility. It is a blatant cowardly cop out.

Still, I'll bet quite a few people might miss it or pass it off as one of those old meaningless remnants that somehow never got removed from the form, and I suspect it rarely, if ever, got invoked anyway. In fact, I can't think of a single insurance claim that could be described in that way.

You'd be hard put to find anything like that now in Britain.

 

[Hedshaker]

Originally Posted by nodelink View Post
Were you there at the launch event? Did you take photographs?

Do you not assume that all of the physical constants have remained constant?

What if the constants have changed?

Not all elements of conventional science have dismissed all notions of "time warp" or time travel or even a time machine. Have you?

Have you considered that you might have missed something in your knowledge and reasoning?

What if it turned out that there was a God who is eternally merciful to the heirs of Jesus Christ's Redemptive Work but implemented strict eternal justice with others? What if it turned out that the Bible's God was true? Would you be disappointed or glad?

Respectfully submitted.

Dear nodelink,

Now, that's what I'm also thinking. Maybe there has been a change in the constants, or a tweak in them. What I don't understand is why it is written that God said He created the Earth on the 3rd day and man on the 6th day. Something's got to give. I need an answer, but I can wait and ask Jesus for myself, if needed.

You can't be serious Michael. Someone doesn't have to be there when powerful evidence is present, otherwise no one would be convicted of crime in a court of law. Imagine if a serial killer was set free, even if there was solid evidence against him, just because the detective wasn't there. Be real Michael, people are convicted on a whole host of evidences, finger prints, DNA and so forth.

Why should we assume that physical constants may have changed for no reason other than someone wishes to hang onto cherished beliefs? The people who have studied and devoted their life's work to these sciences are not fools with an agenda Michael . If there is falsifiable evidence that these physical constants may have changed then where is it? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - Christopher Hitchens.

Of course scientists consider they might be wrong, all the time, it's at the heart of the scientific method. They bend over backward to falsify what they propose because if they miss any flaws you can guarantee their fellow scientists in the field will be the first to point them out. It's called peer review. Science is an elegant self correcting method and it's the most successful human endeavour in human history. And no, it isn't perfect, it messy, open to abuse and can go horribly wrong sometimes. But for all that it's still leagues ahead of anything else.

Science does not consider supernatural explanations because they cannot be falsified. If a scientific idea or hypothesis is wrong and it is shown to be wrong, or falsified, then it is wrong period. Back to the drawing board. Likewise if new evidence comes to light that is in conflict with an earlier accepted theory then, no ifs no buts, back to the drawing board we go. Compare that to religion and theology where differences are just argued on and on forever. How many different Christian denominations are their now? Hell, just read this board and you'll soon get the picture.

But anyway: Age of the Earth

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4] The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.[5][6][7] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.

It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact amount of time this accretion process took is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages

Sourse

Of course there is much more information out there on tinternet if you are genuinely interested. Just type Age of the Earth into google and enjoy. But again, please give creationist sites a miss. Looking for information on the Age of the Earth on a creationist site is a bit like reading an Astrology site for information about the universe, or looking for medical advice from a Homoeopathy site.

Hope that helps a little :up:

All the best.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Excellent post. Why is it that some "non-Christians" are more familiar with real Christian philosophy that many self proclaimed Christians?

Dear noguru,

If you mean 'me,' I'll have you know that I learn on my own most things that I believe in. I have only needed help with how to make quote boxes from Alwight. I figured out how to do all of the rest myself, except blogs. I have learned how to fish, for I am a fisher of men, just as Jesus taught us. I am doing just fine, thanks!!

Selah!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, you seem to have a very pliable mind and seem to find contractions that I don't think exist.
I've never told you not to believe in God or Jesus, I only ever say that empirical reality should matter to you as well and that religious people should perhaps take heed of it rather than look for comfort in a fantasy version from an ancient scripture.

Yesterday I was with my solicitor (lawyer) performing a legal procedure required to grant me legal probate. It required two solicitors, me and a holy Bible.
I explained that I wasn't religious nor believed in God.
I was told I could affirm instead but that would have required some altering of pre-written text so I explained that it really made no difference to me if my right hand was on a Bible or was held upright in affirmation, so I swore my oath on the Holy Bible.
The point is that for me the Bible is only a book written by men not a book of magic spells or arcane "truth", I merely went through a required procedure by civil law and no lightning bolt struck me dead.

Dear Alwight,

I am glad for you. Of course, no lightning bolt is going to strike you dead. God gives everyone free will or free choice. Just because the age of the Earth is in question, for whatever reason, does not nullify all of Christian beliefs. The Bible also says that Jesus, God's Son, will return for us. You don't believe that, but I KNOW it's going to happen soon. I also believe in the Flood. It happened. Salt is salt, just because it has one pepper flake in it. The Bible remains because it is accepted as truth by tons of people and is the most bestselling book in History. There is a reason, Al. Don't give up the ship.

Best Wishes,

Michael

:cheers:

:angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

You can't be serious Michael. Someone doesn't have to be there when powerful evidence is present, otherwise no one would be convicted of crime in a court of law. Imagine if a serial killer was set free, even if there was solid evidence against him, just because the detective wasn't there. Be real Michael, people are convicted on a whole host of evidences, finger prints, DNA and so forth.

Why should we assume that physical constants may have changed for no reason other than someone wishes to hang onto cherished beliefs? The people who have studied and devoted their life's work to these sciences are not fools with an agenda Michael . If there is falsifiable evidence that these physical constants may have changed then where is it? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - Christopher Hitchens.

You will get your Evidence, Hedshaker. You will discover that very soon. So then, I ask you that, once you get the Evidence you seek, you will change YOUR mind. Bargain? Science takes many years sometimes to 'prove' something. So allot the same to the Bible. If I say within this year, you will wait to see if it happens. If I say next year, you will say, that is too far off; that is more than what you originally said. So that's fine. I've told you now that you will get your evidence. Cool, now??

Of course scientists consider they might be wrong, all the time, it's at the heart of the scientific method. They bend over backward to falsify what they propose because if they miss any flaws you can guarantee their fellow scientists in the field will be the first to point them out. It's called peer review. Science is an elegant self correcting method and it's the most successful human endeavour in human history. And no, it isn't perfect, it messy, open to abuse and can go horribly wrong sometimes. But for all that it's still leagues ahead of anything else.

I regret to say Hedshaker, that the most successful human endeavor in human history is the bestselling book called the Bible. It has outsold any of anyone's science books. Even Africa doesn't know about Science, but they BEG for copies of the Holy Bible. Jesus is much better than Einstein or Darwin, by far. So, even though I can agree with much you say here, I cannot agree with this, with respect.

Science does not consider supernatural explanations because they cannot be falsified. If a scientific idea or hypothesis is wrong and it is shown to be wrong, or falsified, then it is wrong period. Back to the drawing board. Likewise if new evidence comes to light that is in conflict with an earlier accepted theory then, no ifs no buts, back to the drawing board we go. Compare that to religion and theology where differences are just argued on and on forever. How many different Christian denominations are their now? Hell, just read this board and you'll soon get the picture.

But anyway: Age of the Earth



Sourse

Of course there is much more information out there on tinternet if you are genuinely interested. Just type Age of the Earth into google and enjoy. But again, please give creationist sites a miss. Looking for information on the Age of the Earth on a creationist site is a bit like reading an Astrology site for information about the universe, or looking for medical advice from a Homoeopathy site.

Hope that helps a little :up:

All the best.

Thanks so much for all of your work writing this post to me, Hedshaker. I know it takes some doing. There are some secrets going on that we still don't know the answers to. I know that much, at least.

Cheerio!!

Michael

 

[Hedshaker]

You will get your Evidence, Hedshaker. You will discover that very soon.

And as I keep pointing out Michael, "soon" is a cop out. It means nothing. Anyone could say "soon" about anything because it's a soon that never comes. I'm so sick of repeating this that I'm beginning to wonder if you have memory a problem. So do me a favour and keep your "soon" to yourself cause I ain't interested any more.

So then, I ask you that, once you get the Evidence you seek, you will change YOUR mind. Bargain?

Michael, I am absolutely certain there isn't going to be any second coming, ever. I could say the same to you ie will you change your mind when your predictions do not happen? But we both know that when this November comes and goes and Jesus doesn't show you will simply extend your time line. But of course, it will still be soon, won't it? It will always be soon. Not interested.

Science takes many years sometimes to 'prove' something.

Science deals with evidence not proof, remember?

So allot the same to the Bible. If I say within this year, you will wait to see if it happens. If I say next year, you will say, that is too far off; that is more than what you originally said. So that's fine. I've told you now that you will get your evidence. Cool, now??

There is no evidence Michael. Just your say-so is not evidence for anything. Soon, this year, next year is not evidence, it's just a bunch meaningless words, much like the promise of wonders to come, but not until after death. Well golly-gee, who'd have thunk it?
I can tell you one thing for certain Michael, lots of things will happen after your death. Just none of them will include you. If you don't much care for any of that then now you know how I feel having to suffer your tedious proselytising.

I regret to say Hedshaker, that the most successful human endeavor in human history is the bestselling book called the Bible. It has outsold any of anyone's science books. Even Africa doesn't know about Science, but they BEG for copies of the Holy Bible.

Sorry but the amount of Bibles sold says nothing about its truth value

Jesus is much better than Einstein or Darwin, by far.

Well at least we know for sure, based on multiple souses both contemporary and other-wise, that Einstein and Darwin both existed as real people. There is no contemporary evidence for an historic Jesus outside of the Bible, written by anonymous authors. That's not to say there wasn't an historic figure on whom the myths were based, there might have been, just that there is no extra-biblical contemporary evidence. For more information type "Christ myth theory" into your google search engine and see what comes up :up:

So, even though I can agree with much you say here, I cannot agree with this, with respect.

Facts are fact whether one agrees with them or not Michael. If you really want the truth you would do well to do a honest critical study of the origins of Christianity and how the Bible came into existence. For example, there are other gospels that didn't get canonised to make it into the Bible. There are no original books that made the Bible and stories were passed down by aural tradition. Funny that Paul's Jesus doesn't resemble the Jesus of the gospels. Paul seemed to have not been aware of alleged miracles like feeding 5000 hungry men to their fill with a fish sandwich. Food for thought, if you'll forgive the pun.

Click here: What Did Paul Know About Jesus

Thanks so much for all of your work writing this post to me, Hedshaker. I know it takes some doing. There are some secrets going on that we still don't know the answers to. I know that much, at least.

Yes there is plenty about reality that we don't know yet and it's absolutely fine to admit we don't know. What is thoroughly dishonest is pretending we do know. For me, the claim that the world we experience came about by some sort of supernatural magic just kills the mystery stone dead. Don't buy it for a micro-second. Once we give up and say things like.... there you go, God-did-it, end of story. Or, I guess I'll know when I meet Jesus so I need not be concerned for now, then all is lost. I will never, ever subscribe to such delusion.

And yes, I did put some effort into providing you with information you requested that you then swiped aside that which didn't conform to your pre-conceived cherished beliefs. That was a little disappointing but now I know not to bother in future.

Cheers :up:

 

[everready]

Who everready? Who put those words together?

The same one that said these words.

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

everready

 

[Jonahdog]

The same one that said these words.

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

everready

Well, who was that? who put pen to paper, or papyrus, or a scroll and wrote those words? And I dont think that Jesus actually spoke in King James English did he?

 

[Hedshaker]

The same one that said these words.

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

So that's it, is it? That's your apologetic regarding who put words into the mouth of an alleged Biblical character?

So long as it's always "the same one that said......" <post verse here> we could spend the rest of 2015 sifting through the whole book without having to make a commitment about who actually might have said what.

Talk about having confidence in your convictions.... :bang:

 

[6days]

What I don't understand is why it is written that God said He created the Earth on the 3rd day and man on the 6th day. :

It would be confusing if God created humans on the 3rd day and dry land on the 6th day...So, He did it the other way.
Genesis 1
"And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

 

[MichaelCadry]

And as I keep pointing out Michael, "soon" is a cop out. It means nothing. Anyone could say "soon" about anything because it's a soon that never comes. I'm so sick of repeating this that I'm beginning to wonder if you have memory a problem. So do me a favour and keep your "soon" to yourself cause I ain't interested any more.

Dear Hedshaker,

"Soon" is not a cop out. How's this YEAR feel to you? Good enough? I don't mean any offense about this. Also, I don't mean to proselytize to you. I have no intention of doing that. I'm not trying to convert you.

Michael, I am absolutely certain there isn't going to be any second coming, ever. I could say the same to you ie will you change your mind when your predictions do not happen? But we both know that when this November comes and goes and Jesus doesn't show you will simply extend your time line. But of course, it will still be soon, won't it? It will always be soon. Not interested.

Hedshaker, I care a lot about you and I know you know that. I am absolutely certain there IS going to be a Second Coming. I won't change my mind after November.

Science deals with evidence not proof, remember?

Well then, that changes everything!

There is no evidence Michael. Just your say-so is not evidence for anything. Soon, this year, next year is not evidence, it's just a bunch meaningless words, much like the promise of wonders to come, but not until after death. Well golly-gee, who'd have thunk it?
I can tell you one thing for certain Michael, lots of things will happen after your death. Just none of them will include you. If you don't much care for any of that then now you know how I feel having to suffer your tedious proselytising.

Be sure that I am not proselytizing to you. If you want to remain skeptical, it's fine with me. Don't believe me.

Sorry but the amount of Bibles sold says nothing about its truth value.

I think otherwise, bloke. Of course, it says something!!

Well at least we know for sure, based on multiple souses both contemporary and other-wise, that Einstein and Darwin both existed as real people. There is no contemporary evidence for an historic Jesus outside of the Bible, written by anonymous authors. That's not to say there wasn't an historic figure on whom the myths were based, there might have been, just that there is no extra-biblical contemporary evidence. For more information type "Christ myth theory" into your google search engine and see what comes up :up:

You just wish Jesus never existed. Yes, if the person is from long ago, her/his existence is in question. But we still can believe in Vincent van Gogh, or Michelangelo.

Facts are fact whether one agrees with them or not Michael. If you really want the truth you would do well to do a honest critical study of the origins of Christianity and how the Bible came into existence. For example, there are other gospels that didn't get canonised to make it into the Bible. There are no original books that made the Bible and stories were passed down by aural tradition. Funny that Paul's Jesus doesn't resemble the Jesus of the gospels. Paul seemed to have not been aware of alleged miracles like feeding 5000 hungry men to their fill with a fish sandwich. Food for thought, if you'll forgive the pun.

Click here: What Did Paul Know About Jesus

I am aware of the other books that didn't make it to the Bible. Only the certain books made it to the Bible. They were also passed down by oral tradition.

Yes there is plenty about reality that we don't know yet and it's absolutely fine to admit we don't know. What is thoroughly dishonest is pretending we do know. For me, the claim that the world we experience came about by some sort of supernatural magic just kills the mystery stone dead. Don't buy it for a micro-second. Once we give up and say things like.... there you go, God-did-it, end of story. Or, I guess I'll know when I meet Jesus so I need not be concerned for now, then all is lost. I will never, ever subscribe to such delusion.

And yes, I did put some effort into providing you with information you requested that you then swiped aside that which didn't conform to your pre-conceived cherished beliefs. That was a little disappointing but now I know not to bother in future.

Cheers :up:

Hedshaker, I know you spent a lot of time on this post. Be sure that I appreciate it. It is about your beliefs this time. That is good. It's about bashing my beliefs. That isn't good, but expected. You are proselytizing to me about your beliefs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You know I truly Love to hear from you and I think that it is wonderful that we can agree to disagree. Weren't you raised as a Catholic or is that my imagination?

Cheerio Mate!!

Michael

:angel:

:bang: