Roll over from "Does God Exist" - How old is the Earth?

[Gunny]

I think you're confusing facts w/ evidence.....

Neither side has any "facts" - both sides are, however, supported by the interpetation of the same evidence as both sides have the same evidence...

Evidence is fact. It cannot be anything else. If it is not verifiable fact, it cannot be used as evidence.

[Missileman]

I think you're confusing facts w/ evidence.....

Neither side has any "facts" - both sides are, however, supported by the interpetation of the same evidence as both sides have the same evidence...

With the exception, of course, of all of the evidence that creationists pretend doesn't exist because it doesn't fit their theory. A trait that renders creationism totally unscientific.

[manu1959]

With the exception, of course, of all of the evidence that creationists pretend doesn't exist because it doesn't fit their theory. A trait that renders creationism totally unscientific.

i can argue creationism caused evolution and you have no evidence or facts that can dispute the theory....and i don't have to prove it because it is only a therory

[Mr. P]

i can argue creationism caused evolution and you have no evidence or facts that can dispute the theory....and i don't have to prove it because it is only a therory

But does that make both true? Time will tell as facts evolve.

[manu1959]

But does that make both true? Time will tell as facts evolve.

yes my therory would allow everyone to be right.......

[Mr. P]

yes my therory would allow everyone to be right.......

I said it first..somewhere in this mess.

[-Cp]

Evidence is fact. It cannot be anything else. If it is not verifiable fact, it cannot be used as evidence.

Umm.. no... one uses Evidence to try and determine fact....

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

[Insein]

Bottomline is, the world is not 6000 years old and don't call me closed-minded for saying it.

[manu1959]

Bottomline is, the world is not 6000 years old and don't call me closed-minded for saying it.

how old is the world?

[Insein]

how old is the world?

25 years, 7 months, 15 days as far as I'm concerned.

[Mr. P]

how old is the world?

I know but I won’t tell you. I like watching you guys try to figure this crap out, it gives me something to do all day, I don’t just float around you know and my days drag on forever.

You’re not doing so well though. You have other stuff that’s more important than how old the earth is. Like Hillary, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, taxes and that damn Global warming crap, I knew I should have installed a larger capacity cooler but I just didn’t have the bucks, that boat was expensive to build you know?…Geeeeezzz, and the animals! They had to be fed! I sent all the poop to New Jersey as a joke, and they kept it! I sent the whiners that hugged the ships railing every day moaning about the smell to California, where they seem to have thrived. Talk about a place of sin, when did you see a good movie last? I gotta do something about that. I’m thinking a quake to cut it off and just float em all out to sea. Hey, it’ll be like the old days!

Look people, get over this petty BS, you’ll have your answers soon enough, life is short you know, that’s what I hear anyway. Live, be happy and stop this I’m right your wrong stuff, I’ll set you all straight when then time COMES, if I'm here.

Good Night

[Missileman]

i can argue creationism caused evolution and you have no evidence or facts that can dispute the theory....and i don't have to prove it because it is only a therory

True enough...but that particular theory isn't being touted by most creationists.

[darin]

T
2. I believe in Day-Age Creationism. This simply states that the "days" in Genesis are actually eons/eras. The Hebrew word "yom" used in Genesis 1 is accurately translated with either 'day' or 'age.'

And what tells the reader which definition is right? Context.

The Day-Age hypothesis insisted with at least a semblance of textual plausibility that the days of creation were long periods of time of indeterminate length, although the immediate context implies that the term yôm for “day” really means “day”. Having devised a means for allowing Genesis 1 to be in harmony with an ancient planet, Day-Age advocates needed to demonstrate that the sequence of creative activities of Genesis chapter 1 matched the sequence of events deciphered by the astronomers and geologists. Well, Day-Agers outdid themselves in constructing impressive correlations. Of course, these correlations … all differed from each other. While a fairly convincing case could be made for a general concord, … specifics of these correlations were a bit more murky.

There were some textual obstacles the Day-Agers developed an amazing agility in surmounting. The biblical text, for example, has vegetation appearing on the third day and animals on the fifth day. Geology, however, had long realized that invertebrate animals were swarming in the seas long before vegetation gained a foothold on the land. This obvious point of conflict, however, failed to dissuade well-intentioned Christians, my earlier self included, from nudging the text to mean something different from what it says. In my case, I suggested that the days were overlapping days. Having publicly repented of that textual mutilation a few years ago, I will move on without further embarrassing myself.

Worse yet, the text states that on the fourth day God made the heavenly bodies after the earth was already in existence. Here is a blatant confrontation with science. Astronomy insists that the sun is older than the earth. How do Day-Agers worm out of this? The usual subterfuge involves the suggestion that the light originally visible on earth was sunlight that was obscured and diffused by the thick atmosphere that began to dissipate with the separation of the waters on the second day. Not until the fourth day, however, had the mists thinned to the point where the sun became visible from the earth. …

Genius as all these schemes may be, one is struck by the forced nature of them all. While the exegetical gymnastic manoeuvres have displayed remarkable flexibility, I suspect that they have resulted in temporary damage to the theological musculature.’

Reference

Young, D., The harmonization of Scripture and science, science symposium at Wheaton College, 23 March 1990.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...avis_young.asp

[Gunny]

Umm.. no... one uses Evidence to try and determine fact....

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

If evidence can prove or disprove something, then it is in fact "fact."

[5stringJeff]

So evolution does not deny the existance of a God or other supernatural.

Evolution also does not deny that a God or supernatural may be responsible for it's (evolution's) creation/existance.

What evolution does deny is the idea that species have been, are, and will be vaccuum packaged - they may not have all been created the same day, but they were all each uniquely created.

So, basically, depending on your interpretation of the Bible, evolution only disagrees with how each individual specie came to be, as opposed to how life in general came to be. Correct?

You are correct as far as theistic evolution goes.