Jesus_lol Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I think there is no quicker way to be thought of as an idiot, than to declare that the Earth is 6,000 years old. or flat, they make about as much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacredheartandbloodofjesus Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Well the flood may have put all the dinosaur bones under layers of ground, making it appear as if they had beeen millions of years ago. Plus, God is not subject to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dentarthurdent95 Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 Oh and Stormstopper, you never mentioned my point about there being no way of knowing how long adam and eve were in the garden. Their age could have been considered by when people actually aged. In the garden of Eden, there was no death, so possibly no age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Catholics are free to hold a more or less "creationist" position, or they may accept - with proper safeguards - any one of the more modern theories of evolution. Edited October 22, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dentarthurdent95 Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='21 October 2009 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1256174547' post='1989337'] Catholics are free to hold a more or less "creationist" position, or they may accept - with proper safeguards - any one of the more modern theories of evolution. [/quote] Yes, that also makes sense. I have thought about theistic evolution now and then. I don't mean to attack people who believe in YEC. I am just questioning the theory, just as any theory should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='21 October 2009 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1256174330' post='1989332'] Well the flood may have put all the dinosaur bones under layers of ground, making it appear as if they had beeen millions of years ago. Plus, God is not subject to time. [/quote] God is not subject to time, but the earth certainly is. Do you seriously believe that God simply faked all the geological time periods to fool us? I think thats rather insulting to the idea of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='21 October 2009 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1256174870' post='1989341'] God is not subject to time, but the earth certainly is. [/quote] Although the processes of decay - according to ancient tradition - are not by necessity connected to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='21 October 2009 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1256174146' post='1989328'] I think there is no quicker way to be thought of as an idiot, than to declare that the Earth is 6,000 years old. or flat, they make about as much sense. [/quote] Possibly. Though I wonder what people 1000, or even less, years from now would say about some of the major theories of today. Maybe, just like what we think now of the theories of 500-1000 years ago from today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Apotheoun' date='21 October 2009 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1256174971' post='1989342'] Although the processes of decay - according to ancient tradition - are not by necessity connected to time. [/quote] Do you have any more information on this? Sounds interesting. Edited October 22, 2009 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Fairly good summary of the different positions at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 down vote if you want but in this society it is true. sure a flood could deposit stuff deep underground(maybe? kinda doubtful to me) but it wouldn't then rearrange all the pulled up earth into clear geological layers or strata in such a way as to perfectly mesh with existing ones and fit with the geological activity of the earth. Geology is one of the better understood sciences, by scientists and me(you should take some courses in it, quite fascinating) and it is quite easy to look at the earth and see the ravages and the wonders time has wrought upon it, a beautiful process. also a Flood would not turn Bones into stone. unless you happen to believe there were 8 ton, stone boned T-Rexs' roaming the land in the past 6 thousand years. also there is Occam's Razor. the simplest explanation often turns out to be true. which makes more sense, the bible being a chronological view of the worlds entire existence, and God making up these crazy deceptions (not really his way last time i checked) and basically lying to people(also not something i associate with god) or that the earth has been around for exactly as long as it appears? the debate between Faith and Science on the existence of God is still going on because no side has definitive enough evidence to prove their point conclusively. this one however persists because people take the evidence that proves them wrong, and throw it out the window and fill the space with awkward baseless explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='21 October 2009 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1256176479' post='1989360'] down vote if you want but in this society it is true. [/quote] Not sure if this whole post was in response to me, sorry if it wasn't. However, even if I had the ability here to vote up or down for posts on this forum, I wouldn't do so simply for something I disagree with. Regardless, my only point is that, just because something is true in science at one point in time does not in any way make it the truth as to what really is the answer. Geocentrism was the truth of Galileo's society. Heliocentrism is truth in today's society. Two opposing views, both the common opinion in their times, and yet two opposing views cannot both be truth just because they are accepted by the majority of their time. Same thing with global warming or evolution or any other belief. Whether they are true or not is not dependent upon the belief of the majority of the times. My point is, saying that something is true and that we should accept it because it is the truth of the current society, is untenable. And that's the case for any belief. Besides, this inhibits the idea of progress. What would have happened if the leaders of the Heliocentrist theory had simply fallen in line with the theory of their society? What would have happened if Darwin had ignored his ideas because it contradicted his present-day society norms? Anyways, I'm not going to argue the Creationist theory because I'm not a scientist and will just make myself look even more stupid than I am if I attempt to do so. I'm just saying that just accepting something as truth because it is believed to be true today is not a good practice to get into, and actually in my opinion even violates the scientific nature which is to look at things objectively instead of just accepting the current way of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) no it wasnt aimed at you, somebody else downvoted me. which isnt a big deal. in today's society yes, it is truly thought of like that. and honestly after i have objectively looked at the available information and my own deduction, i think it is a completely false belief. So much so am i sure about this, that i doubt i could believe in YEC if i was still in possession of anything more than half of a functioning brain stem. however, not everyone has the same access or exposure to the processes or facts, or holds the same proofs in as high regard as me. so while i cant concede that the earth could ever possibly be 6,000 years old, i can concede that you and others think it is so. so carry on i would still like to see any thoughts or responses you have to the points i listed in my most recent post. (i particularily like the idea of T rexs' with stone bones.) Edited October 22, 2009 by Jesus_lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='goldenchild17' date='21 October 2009 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1256175383' post='1989349'] Possibly. Though I wonder what people 1000, or even less, years from now would say about some of the major theories of today. Maybe, just like what we think now of the theories of 500-1000 years ago from today [/quote] Honestly, there won't be any big revolutionary changes where people in the future look back and think we're all idiots for our present-day science. Scientific theories nowadays are just that: theories based on experimentation and the scientific method. There's constant refinement and increases in accuracy and understanding, but no big reversals. For example, Newton wasn't considered wrong when Relativity came about. Relativity is just more accurate across a wider range of values. It's likely that future scientific progress will continue in the same manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='philothea' date='21 October 2009 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1256181774' post='1989410'] Honestly, there won't be any big revolutionary changes where people in the future look back and think we're all idiots for our present-day science. [/quote] I have to respectfully disagree. I think its quite silly to believe that in a great amount of time our viewpoints on many scientific principles will not somehow drastically change how we view the world. Every age makes the greatest use of the knowledge that they have access to, I have no reason to believe this won't be the case centuries from now. But really its irrelevant I suppose since none of us will be alive then (or so we think based on current scientific knowledge ). Anyways, I've said my piece here I think. Just my point simply is that I see no reason to always accept the current theory as the ultimate end of the search for truth in a particular scientific matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now