7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, by "species," you don't mean a population of animals?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
So, by "species," you don't mean a population of animals?
Right Divider
Body part
You do understand that there is disagreement as to what constitutes a species. It's an ambiguous term. And I'm not saying that "kind" is perfectly defined either, but it is used in God's Word.
iouae
Well-known member
Only very confused Christians would say that the Bible says that earth and the universe are 6000 years old. They quote Ussher.
But Earth and the universe have different times of origin. So here already they are wrong.
Reading Genesis 1:1 as saying they were created together is where their whole theology begins to unravel.
In fact the "beginning" referred to in Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of the story of the Bible, not the beginning of the story of the genesis of earth and the universe.
The Bible is in fact utterly silent as to when either the universe or the earth began. God leaves that for scientists to figure out since it has nothing to do with salvation.
But Earth and the universe have different times of origin. So here already they are wrong.
Reading Genesis 1:1 as saying they were created together is where their whole theology begins to unravel.
In fact the "beginning" referred to in Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of the story of the Bible, not the beginning of the story of the genesis of earth and the universe.
The Bible is in fact utterly silent as to when either the universe or the earth began. God leaves that for scientists to figure out since it has nothing to do with salvation.
iouae
Well-known member
Folks could throw 100 posts at trying to define what a species or Biblical "kind" represent and still end up more confused than ever. It's already been argued over on this forum. And in fact it's irrelevant. 99% more types of animals have died out than are present today. We get the picture. And yes, if they were still alive today they would occupy space and would need a niche, and it would be utterly impossible to accommodate them all living simultaneously. And the fact that say all dino fossils were laid down together shows that only dinos occupied the available niches. Then they died out and mammals now occupy the same niches preventing completion between utterly incompatible species. This is obvious to God who created dinos before mammals. But it's not obvious to young earth's who see no problem stuffing man and T rex on the same earth. Spielberg did a good job of showing the result.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Unfortunately, those whom you reverently and reflexively call "scientists" are merely lying, truth-rejecting, God-despising, satan-serving, professional Darwin cheerleaders. Accomplished showmen, I grant, seeing as, like you, many in our day are coaxed by their performance into being pleased to mindlessly perch themselves on their shoulders.
IOW, you know you've reached a dead end in your attempt to sell your Darwinismspeak to rationally-thinking people, since you have no hope of rationally addressing elementary questions about your use of the word, "species". I read you, loud and clear. Sorry, but calling such questions "irrelevant" is obviously not going to whitewash your failure to answer them.
Right Divider
Body part
No, it's quite relevant. Kinds are defined by God and they reproduce after their kind. Which is what we observe. You know... science.
Now talking about irrelevant. That is.
Right Divider
Body part
iouae
Well-known member
I am on topic. You are very confused obviously.
iouae
Well-known member
It amazes me how anti-science you are. That means you are anti-truth, because science is just a way at arriving at truths which are not revealed in the Bible. I know you use technology for which you have science to thank, but come across as an ingrate. You should thank science that you can communicate all around the world with the press of "Enter". And I don't believe in evolution, so I am anti-Darwin. I do see that God is a Creator (past, present and future). He is the "I Am" who has created new biomes and destroyed them for billions of years. He killed the dinos, He created the giant mammals. He killed the giant mammals, and created todays domestic animals.
iouae
Well-known member
Please do. I would be genuinely interested to know how you arrive at that figure. From Usher?
iouae
Well-known member
Each living species requires a sizeable population to survive. So if all 100% of species were on earth at one time, they would have had populations of their kind. And that would require space and niches. And if 1% fill the earth, 100 times that is unimaginable.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
LOL
How "amazed" are you? How "anti-science" am I? Don't just say those things; quantify them for us with some figures, and the math by which you got them.
That means you are anti-Bible, because you reject and oppose truths revealed in the Bible as you cherish and enshrine in its place the falsehood and nonsense you erroneously call "science".
To whom are you referring by your word, "science"? Anthony Fauci?
Did you want me to write a check to someone? For how much? To whom?
You should thank comedy that you can make posts as funny as you do. Your posts make it seem as though you're plagued with some sort of chronic, verbal dys⏎y.
You try to promote the billions-of-years-of-earth's-antiquity fairy tale, so you are pro-Darwin. I'll give you credit, though, for not telling us that humans are descended from non-humans.
Earlier, you seem to have been making an accusation of (and I quote) "mass murder". I questioned you about it, but, as is the case with all the other questions I've asked you regarding your ravings, you have thus far refused to answer it. Is it God you were accusing of "mass murder"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Again, like I asked you: By your word, "species," do you mean a population of animals? Yes or No?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You didn't watch the videos you said you did, or you didn't pay very good attention.
Nah. A ton of the Earth's surface right now is basically uninhabited (I'm exaggerating, but there's plenty of room in deserts for more life, there just isn't any water, which is ironic). Now go back Antediluvian, 69% of the Earth's surface isn't submerged. There's tons more land, and there's water everywhere because the invisible water vapor mist, coming through rock from the Earth's deep fountains constantly watered everything with dew. You didn't need nor have rain. There were no oceans. And there weren't any deserts either.
Says the one who tries to jam literally billions of years into a place where no room is available to even try.
Says the one who rejects what the Bible says in favor of his own beliefs.
Try starting with the Bible, rather than with secular ideas.
Quit posturing.
But you still believe in billions of years of creation, against what the Bible says.
Was He ever NOT the Creator?
I agree, so long as you're talking about the flood.
Otherwise, no.
Wrong. Do you agree with Jesus' words?
In the flood, yes.
The individuals of the kinds that survived on the ark lived long enough and reproduced long enough for Job, David, Asaph, and Isaiah to speak about them, or at least about their legends
Generally speaking, creatures that grow very large have usually lived a long time, especially reptiles.
Also, the Square-Cube law prevents any creature from growing too large without suffering serious consequences, meaning that if you double a creature's height while keeping it the same shape, you end up with four times the muscle power moving eght times the mass, resulting in the creature having only half the agility of the same creature at original size.
In other words: The reason we have fossils of large dinosaurs is not because they were created large, but because they lived a VERY long time, long enough to be killed by the flood, which buried them in the mile-deep layer of sediments for us to find later.
In the flood, yes.
Supra.
Most creatures on the earth today aren't domestic, so I'm not sure what your point is here...
Try reading a bit. Start here:
As Idolater just pointed out, you're basing your assumptions on our current earth.
The earth prior to the flood was a MUCH different place. It was not 70% covered by water, but rather, had many seas that dotted its surface instead of large interconnected oceans, and contained FAR more life than our current earth does, enough to satisfy your "99% of earth's life" claim, especially considering the 2000 years between Adam and Noah, which you still haven't addressed, by the way, so don't think I've forgotten.
Right Divider
Body part
The topic is:
How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?
I've not seen you say a single thing about it.
iouae
Well-known member
I am talking about the 99% of all species which ever lived, died out and its a mystery (a mass murder mystery) to you and all on this forum, but all palaeontologists know what killed the 99%. It's due to mass extinctions throughout the geologic column.
Right Divider
Body part
You just continue to make these FALSE claims.
iouae
Well-known member
Light taking 13.5 billion years to travel across the universe, getting red-shifted, the geologic column, with multiple biomes, and multiple mass extinctions - maybe that's not evidence of the earth being billions of years old - but then, as I said, you seem confused.