Hey creationists: 2 newly-discovered species 500 million years old

Wil,
I just typed a fairly lengthy response to you, but it went off into the ether .... moderator review ....
An earlier post on the forum was treated the same and never made it through the moderator. I am new to the forum. What are the rules? There was absolutely nothing in my post that was arbitrary or offensive.

Just letting you know I made a reflective response to your comment but it was censored for some not obvious reason.
 
why is the earth 6000 years old according to GOD?

I believe in GOD and creationism but i have no idea how old the earth is and i Believe animals came into this world before humans.

So how does this prove creationism wrong?
 
the literalist creationists count the years of life from numbers to Jesus...according to the bible... and then look at Genesis instead of evolution... there are museums in the US that 'prove' how this all transpired.
 
so you are trying to say that

No. 1 ----> Christians believe that the world is 6000 years old since it is written in the bible?.

No.2------> That man existed before animals because it is written in the bible?

I Wrote how old is the earth on Google and this is what i got ------> 4.54 billion years

As for point no .2 This is what i got from the NET :

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof" (genesis 2:19).

and this at the same time :

When God created the first man and woman, He told them to exercise "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (genesis 1:28).


PLEASE HELP I CAN"T UNDERSTAND -.-

As for point 1 :
5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years
​
​
~6,000 years






​
​
 
if you agree with me up to here i can prove to you point 1 (Philosophically and Semi-scientifically) in a different light.

Greetings from a creationist. :)
 
I'm not able to answer then, Ibrian is our fearless leader, there are no other moderators anymore as far as I know...something else may have triggered a censor...check with him and he may be able to remove it from purgatory.
 
SherryOfAsia said:
so you are trying to say that

No. 1 ----> Christians believe that the world is 6000 years old since it is written in the bible?.

No.2------> That man existed before animals because it is written in the bible?

I Wrote how old is the earth on Google and this is what i got ------> 4.54 billion years

As for point no .2 This is what i got from the NET :

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof" (genesis 2:19).

and this at the same time :

When God created the first man and woman, He told them to exercise "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (genesis 1:28).


PLEASE HELP I CAN"T UNDERSTAND -.-

As for point 1 :
5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years
​
​
~6,000 years






​
​
Click to expand...
No Sherry, I am not saying all Christians believe this... this is the belief of literal short earth creationists... while we probably have the preponderance of these folks in the US (in many denominations)...it is not all Christians. but spot on where it all came from
 
Lamson said:
Wil,
I just typed a fairly lengthy response to you, but it went off into the ether .... moderator review ....
Click to expand...

Apologies - the anti-spam script flags smiley face images as links (as they technically are) and I'm not always here to moderate posts immediately. :)
 
Lamson said "What is the correct label for someone like me who believes that the universe and our world with all it's marvelous design could not have arisen chaotically from chance. What do you call someone like me who believes that evolution does occur, but that it is according to intelligent plan."

I am not sure how to answer your question Lamson. Based upon the quote above, you do believe in intelligent design. But it is not the ID as it is identified today. In a sense you may be considered a proponent of Old School Intelligent Design. The concept that a divine source is behind everything has been around for centuries. Thomas Aquinas is one famous proponent from the past.

The problem for you is that both creationism and intelligent design have been hijacked by the Discovery Institute, which is a U.S. conservative think tank devoted to the promotion of a Christian religious agenda. The DI have essentially warped the original intent of the intelligent design concept into a Christian based argument that the Book of Genesis is literally true and that evolution is a lie.

An excellent summation of the history of ID can be found on Wiki. Worth reading through. It is quite long but I believe it will give you a solid understanding of how ID came to be how it is defined today.

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Gordion, Thanks for the link. very enlightening. Those who think intelligent design is pseudo science should read two books:
The New Story of Science: Mind and the Universe by Augros and Stanciu
The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom of Nature by Augros and Stanciu

These researchers use science to refute blind evolution and make a compelling case for an intelligence in the design of all.
 
As a Euro (Catholic/Orthodox) Christian I believe in the idea of creatio ex nihilo by an act of the Divine Will.

when it comes to things like 'Intelligent Design', even the 'old school' definition, I exercise my reserve; there's plenty of evidence of 'unintelligent design' if you want to look for it, and some processes so bizarre and distasteful and cruel that you'd wonder just who the heck thought that one up!

Also, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the eye is pretty poor design. If we'd have had any input in its evolution, we'd have made fundamental changes ... but that's from memory.

+++

The Big Problem, it seems to me, is we end up with an idea of a God who is a micro-manager, which I don't think is the case.

This has been inherited from Judaism, of course, which has the habit of reading history as 'good things happen - God is happy; bad things happen - God is angry' ... I'm not saying God does not intervene, just not on the scale or to the degree that everyone thinks.

I mean, why not design a planet that goes through it's earthquake-eruption-tsunami cycle before it begins its humanity cycle. Why not 'steer' someone to wards a cure for malaria or the common cold?
 
"I mean, why not design a planet that goes through it's earthquake-eruption-tsunami cycle before it begins its humanity cycle. Why not 'steer' someone to wards a cure for malaria or the common cold?"

Oh thats easy because This World is a test.....Duh!

:)
 
Ah the old Aye for an Eye question! It follows the following argument:

1.An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2.Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3.Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

This one is actually way more complicated to answer than one might think. Science has shown numerous examples as to why the eye in humans (and indeed all vertebrates) is poorly designed. It is essentially both upside down and backwards. Science points to this as proof that the eye happened thru natural selection, not divine origin.

If a God(s) created humans why would he give them such an awful eye design. The design we have is highly useful and successful - if we were squids! Not so good for humans. If God(s) created humans, it follows he would have designed an eye optimal for humans!

BUT

The people on the other side of the argument point out that there are a lot of reasons why the human eye is better the way it is, rather than if it were not inverted. (The human eye is called the verted eye). And it works best for a host of scientific suggestions that those who believe in divine creation use to point out. To give them credit this is one occasion where the argument by the ID side is based on different interpretations of the science - not some theological gobbldy goop that the creationists usually use.

My reading on the subject is not hugely extensive. I have read a fair amount though to the point that my opinion is that there is no clear answer available whether the human eye is better the way it is or whether it would be better if it were verted. Since no side has the upper hand, the issue of the eye is not one that can help aid either intelligent design or natural selection.

About the only fact that can be said with fair certainty is that neither the verted nor the inverted type of eye is optimal for humans. You can argue which one is better, but both have design flaws. If God created the human eye, he made it suboptimal for some reason.

There are, of course, a bunch of other examples of poor design in the human body that are much harder to explain away. Like an organ in the body that has no function whatsoever, but can get diseased and kill you. The appendix.
 
Sherry said "Oh thats easy because This World is a test.....Duh!"

Does that mean that God couldn't get it right the first time? So he has to try a few attempts at creation before he gets it right?????
 
The conceit does have its appeal.

Hey world. This is a test of the Reality Broadcast System. This is only a test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top