[wajibu]

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who sailed in 1492.
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].” HA HA HA HA
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

The world is only 6000 years old, so the mountains and the sea are just that old, who would have thought?

[reggie_woic]

All you have said only proves that Adam would be 6000 years now; not the world.
The "days" in creation are not to be taken literally; i.e they aren't 24 hours. each "day" could be the equivalent of thousands or even millions of years.

So i refuse to believe that the world is 6000 years old by your explanation.

[ATLian]

>The "days" in creation are not to be taken literally; i.e they
>aren't 24 hours. each "day" could be the equivalent of
>thousands or even millions of years.


Reggie,

you may have a point. When god warned Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree, he told him that "the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Well, we all know Adam didn't die on that day he ate the fruit, he actually lived for 930 years. So maybe in god's eyes, a day is 930 years...

But seriously, your viewpont above is a Christian apologist's viewpoint. The men who wrote the fable that we now know as the Biblical version of creation had no idea that there would come a time when we would prove beyond any doubt that the earth has been around for millions of years, not 6,000 years. When that was proved, then there was only two choices for Christians - either admit that the Bible is a hoax, or bring in a new re-mix to show how those days are actually not days as we know them, but are are instead periods that do add up to the millions of years proved by science.

The Bible clearly shows that those days were literal, not figurative:

Exodus 20:8-11: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

This clearly shows that the days he used to create the universe and our days are one and the same. Otherwise they wouldn't put both in the same breath if they meant different time frames. Think about it, it's ludicrous to say we should keep the sabbath day holy, then claim that the sabbath is a 1,000 year period instead of just Sunday (or Saturday for SDAs).

Also, the Bible says that god rested on the 7th day after creating man. If you claim that 7th day was a 1,000 year period, then you're claiming that for those 1,000 years god had no contact with Adam. That's obviously not true, we know he used to holla at and walk with Adam in Eden every day.

Plus, like I mentioned above, Adam lived to be 930 years old. Since he lived through both the 6th day (when he was created) and the 7th day (when god rested), then any change to those days screws up Adams age. If those days were millions of years, then suddenly Adam lived to be a million years old. Clearly that can't be the case.

Finally, since you argue that those days could actually be longer - as in years or generations - then can't I also argue that the days could be shorter i.e. each day could have been only 2 minutes long, or even just a nanosecond. If anything, that's a more feasible argument, coz why would an almighty god need eons to create something as miniscule as the earth? For him, a finger-snap would have achieved it all, ama?

[reggie_woic]

I can't argue with that ATLian.

But then again, when the dating in the bible was done, they didn't have a universal calendar then.

If you look at it this way, there are 2 explanations: A book (bible-6000 years), and a proven facts (science-4.5 billion years). One doesn't have to disprove the other, although clearly Science has the upper hand in all this.

That's why my way of reasoning is to assume that the "days" in creation were longer; otherwise the bible, when it comes to matters of the world's age, is mistaken.

[Americanized]

Some guy tells you that by studying geology and astrology, and by using carbon dating techniques, they can come up with the exact age of the earth and the universe, and you just believe him. It's all just theory. Ever notice how they keep changing the dates that the earliest humans roamed the earth and the age of dinosaurs? They'll say that a certain species of dinosaur first appeared 20 million years ago, then later change it to, like 30 million. Nothing is conclusive. Even their carbon dating techniques are error prone

The Bible's creation story might sound far-fetched to some, but the evolution theory is even more ludicrous! The Big Bang theory assumes that celestial matter already existed in the universe, and that was the building blocks of the universe. Where is the starting point? What are the chances of a cosmic explosion taking place, the flying debris forming into perfectly shaped planets, one of which is earth, The earth forming an atmosphere with just the right balance of gases to support biological life, some microscopic organisms somehow surviving the big exlosion which must have been accompanied by heat in the order of millions of degrees, these cells somehow finding the perfect environmental conditions to survive and thrive, and somehow evolving to the millions of plant and animal species populating the earth? If you can believe that, then you can believe anything!

[wajibu]

@ATLian that was a good analysis; no need to say more
@ Americanized- we had this conversation before. For now stick to the topic

[Americanized]

>@ATLian that was a good analysis; no need to say more
>@ Americanized- we had this conversation before. For now stick
>to the topic

I'll try to stick to the topic, kind Sir...

http://www.funny-games.biz/pictures/idiot/violet2.jpg

[reggie_woic]

Stewie echos that, Americanised.

http://www.poster.net/family-guy/fam...ck-9918298.jpg

[ATLian]

>The Bible's creation story might sound far-fetched to some,
>but the evolution theory is even more ludicrous! The Big Bang
>theory assumes that celestial matter already existed in the
>universe, and that was the building blocks of the universe.
>Where is the starting point? What are the chances of a cosmic
>explosion taking place, the flying debris forming into
>perfectly shaped planets, one of which is earth, The earth
>forming an atmosphere with just the right balance of gases to
>support biological life, some microscopic organisms somehow
>surviving the big exlosion which must have been accompanied by
>heat in the order of millions of degrees, these cells somehow
>finding the perfect environmental conditions to survive and
>thrive, and somehow evolving to the millions of plant and
>animal species populating the earth? If you can believe that,
>then you can believe anything!


Americanized,

to you it's absolutely inconceivable that single celled organisms, the simplest living things ever, could have just been created by the right conditions existing. You argue that the cells must have been created by something. Yet, you still have no issue believing that god, the most complex and powerful organism ever, could have created itself, and has always been there. That is just absurd. Remember those paper boats we used to make in primo by folding up a piece of paper? You are like a person who just cannot believe that those paper boats could have created themselves, then turn around and argue that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier carrying 100 planes and enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world 50 times over could have created itself. Hello?????

I know the probability of the stars aligningby themselves is low, but events with low probabilities have been shown to work numerous times. There are some things that have an "impossible chance" of happening, but they do happen.

Think about this - for you to be here, only ONE specific sperm from one specific man had to meet this ONE specific egg from this one specific woman at a perfect time when the eggs was ready for fertilization. If another sperm had hit that egg, or if your sperm hit the egg when it wasn't ready, or if another sperm outsped yours and hit the egg first, or if your mum had a headache, or if your dad used a condom, or if he had decided to masturbate, or if -----, there would be no you right now.

Now when you consider that a man ejaculates about a billion sperm during every sexual encounter, and that people have sex many times with many other peoples over many years before getting this one "correct" woman pregnant, then of course that reduces the probability of what I outlined above (your one sperm hitting the one egg) to inconceivable figures.

To make it more complex - when you count backwards and think of the probability of your folks being born and then meeting to produce you, then your grandfolks being born and then meeting to produce your folks, etc, it even looks bleaker. If your relative in 4,000 BC performed coitus interuptus that one afternoon, you'd not be here. If he had chosen a different chic, you'd not be here. etc etc etc You get my point. For you to be here, those people all had to meet, agree to have sex, and your ancestral sperm is the only one that could have won the race. What I'm saying is it's almost mathematically impossible for you to have been born. But the fact it you were born, meaning that such odds, despite being that low, are conceivable.

[Americanized]

>>The Bible's creation story might sound far-fetched to some,
>>but the evolution theory is even more ludicrous! The Big
>Bang
>>theory assumes that celestial matter already existed in the
>>universe, and that was the building blocks of the universe.
>>Where is the starting point? What are the chances of a
>cosmic
>>explosion taking place, the flying debris forming into
>>perfectly shaped planets, one of which is earth, The earth
>>forming an atmosphere with just the right balance of gases
>to
>>support biological life, some microscopic organisms somehow
>>surviving the big exlosion which must have been accompanied
>by
>>heat in the order of millions of degrees, these cells
>somehow
>>finding the perfect environmental conditions to survive and
>>thrive, and somehow evolving to the millions of plant and
>>animal species populating the earth? If you can believe
>that,
>>then you can believe anything!
>
>
>Americanized,
>
>to you it's absolutely inconceivable that single celled
>organisms, the simplest living things ever, could have just
>been created by the right conditions existing. You argue that
>the cells must have been created by something. Yet, you still
>have no issue believing that god, the most complex and
>powerful organism ever, could have created itself, and has
>always been there. That is just absurd. Remember those paper
>boats we used to make in primo by folding up a piece of paper?
>You are like a person who just cannot believe that those paper
>boats could have created themselves, then turn around and
>argue that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier carrying 100
>planes and enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world 50
>times over could have created itself. Hello?????
>
>I know the probability of the stars aligningby themselves is
>low, but events with low probabilities have been shown to work
>numerous times. There are some things that have an "impossible
>chance" of happening, but they do happen.
>
>Think about this - for you to be here, only ONE specific sperm
>from one specific man had to meet this ONE specific egg from
>this one specific woman at a perfect time when the eggs was
>ready for fertilization. If another sperm had hit that egg, or
>if your sperm hit the egg when it wasn't ready, or if another
>sperm outsped yours and hit the egg first, or if your mum had
>a headache, or if your dad used a condom, or if he had decided
>to masturbate, or if -----, there would be no you right now.
>
>Now when you consider that a man ejaculates about a billion
>sperm during every sexual encounter, and that people have sex
>many times with many other peoples over many years before
>getting this one "correct" woman pregnant, then of course that
>reduces the probability of what I outlined above (your one
>sperm hitting the one egg) to inconceivable figures.
>
>To make it more complex - when you count backwards and think
>of the probability of your folks being born and then meeting
>to produce you, then your grandfolks being born and then
>meeting to produce your folks, etc, it even looks bleaker. If
>your relative in 4,000 BC performed coitus interuptus that one
>afternoon, you'd not be here. If he had chosen a different
>chic, you'd not be here. etc etc etc You get my point. For you
>to be here, those people all had to meet, agree to have sex,
>and your ancestral sperm is the only one that could have won
>the race. What I'm saying is it's almost mathematically
>impossible for you to have been born. But the fact it you were
>born, meaning that such odds, despite being that low, are
>conceivable.


Just tell me how life could have evolved from an explosion generating heat in the order of millions of degrees. Show be a living organism that can thrive in an environment exceeding 200 deg.F.