How old is the Earth

[Square Ninja]

He's right. This is what is called as "righteous anger"

Oh? Can't our anger be "righteous?"

 

[KrytenKoro]

Oh? Can't our anger be "righteous?"

Yes? Which was why he said that?

 

[Phoenix]

That's your choice. If you want to murder, go ahead. The only thing in your way is the law. Like I say, without religion, morals don't stand.

Why thank you for that message. We non-Christians are lucky we have our own set of morals.

Then scientific method also was not used to?
Discover electricity
Build ships
Make compasses
Use natural medicine
and other things that happened before the "scientific method" that is still used today.

What's your point? The scientific method is recent, and things have been discovered without it. Exactly what are you trying to prove?

That's not legitimacy, that's openness. And scienTISTS are not the saintly, open figures that you seem to imply - stubbornness to GREAT SCALE has been a major factor (on the part of major, respected scientists even! - see Hubble Telescope/Far Galaxy controversy) of science - and info-picking is a long-honored tradition.

Of course. The human factor does that to everything. So?

In PRINCIPLE, science is legitimate because of this. But then, so was communism.
As for religion changing when new information is discovered - Jesus Christ, Siddhartha Buddha, the Upanishads, the Jewish Prophets, Mohammed - religion is quite open to change. The Change just has to prove itself first. Unlike in science, where the change just has to not be previously disproven.

Like you said, in principle, but seeing as how you've never met this enigmatic figures, you just assume they even existed.

To wit: In religion, change is guilty until proven innocent - to much is at stake to just go along with fads. In science, change is innocent until proven guilty - a theory can survive so long as it is not conclusively disproven.

Except the whole point of science is to disprove. Why haven't creationists been able to disprove evolution in any area of science? Because they're not scientists, so they don't use science.

Though, in retrospect, the very permutability of science that you claim would make it illegitimate - it cannot be relied upon for permanent truth, as it's very foundation state that is is based on assumptions - very convincing ones, but assumptions nonetheless. On the other hand, religions state that they are based on the Truth given to them by one who is Supreme, and Divine.

But seeing as how dozens and dozens of religions exist, and they all claim to be the ultimate truth, I'd rather go with the view that changes with new information.

He's right. This is what is called as "righteous anger"

God isn't tied to his own laws. He's allowed to be angry, to be jealous, to kill, steal, and so on. So where in the Bible does it say humans are allowed any kind of anger?

and pho, theories are unlikely to be entirely wrong, but they can change, einstein changed the theory of gravity,a fter all.

Nobody denies this. The theory of gravity has changed, but gravity has remained the same. The theory of evolution has changed, but evolution has remained the same.

 

[Square Ninja]

Yes? Which was why he said that?

For those of us following along, he was implying that God's anger was okay, and ours was not. If His anger can be righteous, then so can ours.

 

[Dogenzaka]

Oh? Can't our anger be "righteous?"

Righteous Anger is defined as anger for a just cause, such as when they were turning the temple of God into a marketplace, and disrespecting God. Jesus became angry. Being angry against a sin, for example, is righteous. But in short terms, yes.

Why thank you for that message. We non-Christians are lucky we have our own set of morals.

Yes, the ones you make up for yourself. Everyone has different morals, therefore, without the law, it would be chaos.

What's your point? The scientific method is recent, and things have been discovered without it. Exactly what are you trying to prove?

That without the scientific method, both valid things have been proven, and invalid ideas said to be "truth".

God isn't tied to his own laws. He's allowed to be angry, to be jealous, to kill, steal, and so on. So where in the Bible does it say humans are allowed any kind of anger?

Being angry for a just cause is not a sin. Being angry towards a sin, or being angry towards an evil thing is not a sin. Jesus himself got angry.

Nobody denies this. The theory of gravity has changed, but gravity has remained the same. The theory of evolution has changed, but evolution has remained the same.

I'm glad you understand this.

 

[Phoenix]

Yes, the ones you make up for yourself. Everyone has different morals, therefore, without the law, it would be chaos.

I just wanted to get the message clear, that you were telling me I might as well kill and rape, since I'm going to hell anyway.

That without the scientific method, both valid things have been proven, and invalid ideas said to be "truth".

..... so?

Being angry for a just cause is not a sin. Being angry towards a sin, or being angry towards an evil thing is not a sin. Jesus himself got angry.

Jesus was special, because God is not tied to his own laws, I already said this. Where in the Bible does it say humans are allowed to anger?

I'm glad you understand this.

Ummm, hi. It's the same thing I've been saying months ago. Evolution is real, even if the theory changes on how, why and when changes.

 

[Dogenzaka]

I just wanted to get the message clear, that you were telling me I might as well kill and rape, since I'm going to hell anyway.

K go ahead. That's your moral dilemna =D

..... so?

Yeah. I don't remember why it matters o.o

Jesus was special, because God is not tied to his own laws, I already said this. Where in the Bible does it say humans are allowed to anger?

God simply has "laws" not "laws" for certain people to follow. God doesn't envy, glutton, do sexual immorality, etc. etc. I don't remember where, but I know a few places in the Bible that show that being angry against sin is far from a bad thing.

Ummm, hi. It's the same thing I've been saying months ago. Evolution is real, even if the theory changes on how, why and when changes.

Lol hai2u2. K, I agree.

 

[Square Ninja]

Righteous Anger is defined as anger for a just cause, such as when they were turning the temple of God into a marketplace, and disrespecting God. Jesus became angry. Being angry against a sin, for example, is righteous. But in short terms, yes.

So basically you completely destroy the concept of Wrath as being a sin.

Yes, the ones you make up for yourself. Everyone has different morals, therefore, without the law, it would be chaos.

Wrong. Human societies establish their own sets of rules. There would not be chaos, since humans always establish some sort of order.

 

[square-enix]

Like I say, without religion, morals don't stand.

Exactly! Everytime these immoral "people" open their mouth, they either try to cheat or lie to us. We, as god's messengers have to spread the good word. If they behave themselves, tell the truth, and be model religious figures, they'll go to heaven and get to plunk a harp and wear the latest design in halos.
But, if they steal, lie and are unfaithful, they'll suffer never ending torture in both their mortal and spiritual life.

"There is no such thing as a person who keeps his word just because he has a sense of honor. No one tells the truth just because he thinks that it is the decent thing to do. No one is kind because he feels sympathy for others, or treats others decently because he likes the kind of world in which decency exists." - Issac Asimov

Even historians lie. Their depiction of pre-historic nomads is obscene beyond proportion. They weren't these small bands of humans who helped each other simply because they needed each other. They never had strong moral and ethical responsibilities to each other even though they depended on one another for their survival. Oh, no, dear no, it would asinine to believe such a thing could have happened.
They were all savages looking out for their own hides. All were deceitful and murderous thieves without that religious, and essentially, moral support.

Now, onto the original topic. It's only about 5-10 thousand years old. How do I know this? Georgia State House Rep. Ben Bridges said so.* He said evolution was a Pharisee Jew conspiracy to bamboozle normal Americans and destroy Christianity. He also doesn't believe in the Big Bang, and as we all know, these two mythical processes take time and seeing as how they're false, we can only assume that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Being a state representative and all, he has an immense amount of credibility. The fact that he represents Georgia, a Bible Belt state, only helps to strengthen his argument.

*http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012504.php

 

[JuttingRock]

Interesting, we had a speaker at our school who talked about how he believes the world is about 6,000 years old. Many of his points weren't entirely based on the Bible either. They handed out brochures illustrating a few of the arguments he had, and I'll share some of them with you.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves." The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has be substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possible as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

Please keep in mind that this is only a fraction of the arguments he actually had, and that each one has its own set of references, so don't think that this was all made up. Also, in case you wanted to know, his name is D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

 

[Phoenix]

God simply has "laws" not "laws" for certain people to follow. God doesn't envy, glutton, do sexual immorality, etc. etc. I don't remember where, but I know a few places in the Bible that show that being angry against sin is far from a bad thing.

Your God is a Jealous God, Dogen, and your God partakes in murder, so he isn't tied to his laws.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves." The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.

"Spiral arms are density waves, which, like sound in air, travel through the galaxy's disk, causing a piling-up of stars and gas at the crests of the waves. In some galaxies, the central bulge reflects the wave, giving rise to a giant standing spiral wave with a uniform rotation rate and a lifetime of about one or two billion years.

The causes of the density waves are still not known, but there are many possibilities. Tidal effects from a neighboring galaxy probably cause some of them.

The spiral pattern is energetically favorable. Spiral configurations develop spontaneously in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics (Carlberg et al. 1999)."

One down.

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

" 1. Many more SNRs have been found, including many Stage 3 remnants older than 20,000 years. And the census is not over yet. If the universe is old, many SNRs should have reached the third, oldest stage, and that is what we see. The evidence contradicts a young universe, not an old one.

2. Davies's estimate of what proportion of SNRs should be visible to us is grossly oversimplified. It is impossible to say with certainty what proportion should be visible. Furthermore, he ignores data, including observations of possible old remnants, that would weaken his case.

SNRs are relatively hard to see. They would not be visible for one million years, the figure Davies used in his calculations. A million years is the theoretical lifetime of a remnant; it will be visible for a much shorter time because of background noise and obscuring dust and interstellar matter. Fewer than 1 percent of SNRs last more than 100,000 years. It may be that as few as 15-20 percent of supernova events are visible at all through the interstellar matter.

3. Supernovas are evidence for an old universe in other ways:
* Supernovas are evidence that stars have reached the end of their lifetime, which for many stars is billions of years.
* The formation of new stars indicates that many are second generation; the universe must be old enough for some stars to go through their entire lifetime and for the dust from their supernovas to collect into new stars.
* It takes time for the light from the supernovas to reach us. All supernovas and SNRs are more than 7,000 light-years from us. SN 1987A was 167,000 +/- 4,000 light years away. "

Two down.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has be substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

"The comets that entered the inner solar system a very long time ago indeed have evaporated. However, new comets enter the inner solar system from time to time. The Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt hold many comets deep in space, beyond the orbit of Neptune, where they do not evaporate. Occasionally, gravitational perturbations from other comets bump one of them into a highly elliptical orbit, which causes it to near the sun."

Three down.

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possible as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

I don't think I even need the site for this one, since it's BS right off the bat. What experts agree that DNA can't survive for more than 10,000 years?

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

.... what? The Stone Age people didn't have coffins, and a body buried under the Earth decomposes 8 times faster than normal.

 

[square-enix]

Your God is a Jealous God

Well, of course he is. What's that first commandment all about?

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

Eight billion eh? I guess this man doesn't know his historical background either. These people didn't have the capabilities to have a population of eight billion (which is more then our current) when they were barely getting enough food for themselves. A food surplus is a population increase, it's not that hard of a concept to understand.
Now, these artifacts he mentions. Is he talking about primitive wooden spikes, throwing rocks, skin hides, what? Most, if not all would have decayed.

 

[Phoenix]

Well, of course he is. What's that first commandment all about?

Therefore, we are God's toys, he is allowed to do anything with us, as he isn't tied to his own laws.

 

[JuttingRock]

"The comets that entered the inner solar system a very long time ago indeed have evaporated. However, new comets enter the inner solar system from time to time. The Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt hold many comets deep in space, beyond the orbit of Neptune, where they do not evaporate. Occasionally, gravitational perturbations from other comets bump one of them into a highly elliptical orbit, which causes it to near the sun."

He already addressed this, the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt are both unobserved areas of space.

Other than that, I can't really comment on the others since I don't actually agree with this guy either. A few times during his lecture he referred directly to the Bible witch lost a few respect points from me. In fact, he started his lecture by saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old because the 4th Commandment says so.

 

[violent_anger]

just wondering, anyone here heard of kent hovind? or soemthing like that, i'm not even sure that's his name.

and also, pho, isn't the oort cloud unproven?

edit: lawl, the problems that arise when your dont make your own posts

 

[Dogenzaka]

So basically you completely destroy the concept of Wrath as being a sin.

Lol I can't believe you don't understand the difference between righteous anger and sinful anger. Wrath is sinful anger. Now, while you're on the topic, please tell me what this has to do with the age of the Earth.

Wrong. Human societies establish their own sets of rules. There would not be chaos, since humans always establish some sort of order.

That is called "law". Without law, and religion, there are no morals.

 

[violent_anger]

so square, what if a group of humans created a society where selling crack to 8 year olds would be ok?

 

[square-enix]

Wrath is sinful anger.

Well, golly. When could we make up definitions?
You posted the following "Righteous Anger is defined as anger for a just cause, such as when they were turning the temple of God into a marketplace, and disrespecting God. Jesus became angry."
which simply meant that God could inflict his punishment because he was angry.
Coincidently that's the definition of wrath

Without law, and religion, there are no morals.

Right, just refer to my post or Thomas Hobbes. There are no moral people without the surveillance camera in the sky or the heavenly court to smite us.

so square, what if a group of humans created a society where selling crack to 8 year olds would be ok?

It would be helpful if you could post within context, because I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to address.

 

[Phoenix]

He already addressed this, the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt are both unobserved areas of space.

That's called "argument from ignorance". It states: "Because I don't know x, y must be false". A logical fallacy.

and also, pho, isn't the oort cloud unproven?

a. No.
b. How can you disprove a nebula? That's like disproving a rock.

edit: lawl, the problems that arise when your dont make your own posts

???

 

[violent_anger]

well pho, i've never seen that specific nebula, could you tell me if anyone else has?

It would be helpful if you could post within context, because I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to address.

my mistake
you said that humans can create their own morals based on whatever society they end up making, well what if that society that the humans made involved sweat shops, child abuse, drug dealing,a nd so on? would that still be morally correct?