It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Earth VS Old Earth and a Third point of view - the Creation Truth?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: edmc^2

1 million billion or 6000 years, the evidence for evolution is sadly lacking

Where are the bones of a million billion years or whatever "they" say it is

Why is the moon where it is?


exactly, the evidence is very scarce (and open to interpretation), especially with the so-called transition fossil.
edit on 21-11-2018 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

If we're going to argue over this then here's another cite about pi = 3.
And here's another.
Then there is the little issue of the Kingdom of Solomon, which the bible says stretched from the Egyptian border to the Euphrates. Just one problem. The archaeology says that that's a load of dingoes kidneys. There's no proof of it - no inscriptions, no stelae and no public buildings to suggest that. Here's another cite.
As for the flood myth, it's too close to the Epic of Gilgamesh to not set off alarm bells in my head.
Erm, what else? The bible says that Israel/Judea were very important states. The diplomatic correspondence says otherwise. You know, evidence.
Look, I understand that many people regard the bible as a major book. Fair enough. The Old Testament was written by a people who were passing from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age and then into the Classical Age, trying to make sense of a baffling world that they did not understand. The New Testament seems to be a document cobbled together by a religion that is trying not to get squashed by the Roman authorities and which then gets turned into the state religion of an entire empire for political reasons.
But that's all it is. Religious mythology.

edit on 21-11-2018 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: edmc^2

1 million billion or 6000 years, the evidence for evolution is sadly lacking

Where are the bones of a million billion years or whatever "they" say it is

Why is the moon where it is?


exactly, the evidence is very scarce (and open to interpretation), especially with the so-called transition fossil.


Aha, we seem to be revisiting all the old arguments that have been brought up and debunked in thread after thread after thread. But, true to form, here we once again see the usual arguments, brought up by the usual posters, who seem to forget that some of us have, you, know, memories, being resurrected like tired and threadbare ghosts.
A Forbes article.
A nice little list of transitional fossilS - note that there are a lot of them and this barely scratches the surface.
And here's a lively little piece.
I await the usual nonsense.
edit on 21-11-2018 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: edmc^2

Here's another third option where both evolution and the Bible are absolutely true. An omnipotent God does not have any limitations are definition of omnipotence. Therefore, and omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. So both it's all true once you accept our omnipotent God is capable of any possibility.





This is where I stand. Why can't the words be true as they are written? Why can't the world be created in 6 days if there is an omnipotent God? So many religions today, including Judaism, is watering down the very txt that they've learned from and their ancestors believed for thousands of years to where it's "all just a story to teach lessons but it's not actual truth". If it's not truth then what in the bible is? This is the age of picking and choosing.

Personally, I'll just keep subscribing to every word being truth, including 6 actual days of creation, simply because I believe and simply because an omnipotent God, the God of the bible, of the Jews/Hebrew, my God, can do all things without burden.

Many people can subscribe me to crazy but it's what I believe and no one has changed my mind up until now. In my belief, there is room for science but all things come from one source, ultimately. God created a world of wonder. In wonder, a world was created.

In childlike terms... Why have a goldfish in a plane jar? Don't we offer it gravel and little castles because we "think" it will enjoy its surroundings?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Genesis shows that each day is an actual day... Not a thousand years. It's not going by what a day is to God. It's based on the sun setting and rising again the NEXT DAY.

The metaphors mentioned in the scriptures you quoted are for something different. It's based on how long you'll be with Christ and how long Christ's reign will last at the "Day of the Lord".

Two totally different concepts of "days".



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767




man did not die while in Eden they did not age. So you make a great point, could Eden be a pocket reality outside of the normal flow of time?.


Very Very good point. I never thought about this. The bible never stated a period of time while in Eden...

BUT.... It does say:

Genesis 5 King James Version (KJV)
5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.



As cool as that theory sounds, it's incorrect.

I'm going to guess that Adam and Eve spent about 130ish years in the Garden before they were booted. They didn't have kids while in there and Eve was told that birthing would be pretty painful. After they were booted, they had to work the land to survive. I think at this point they were pretty modern day kinda human in the sense that, you work, you have kids, you die.
edit on 21-11-2018 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2

If we're going to argue over this then here's a nother cite about pi = 3.
And here's another.
Then there is the little issue of the Kingdom of Solomon, which the bible says stretched from the Egyptian border to the Euphrates. Just one problem. The archaeology says that that's a load of dingoes kidneys. There's no proof of it - no inscriptions, no stelae and no public buildings to suggest that. Here's another cite.
As for the flood myth, it's too close to the Epic of Gilgamesh to not set off alarm bells in my head.
Erm, what else? The bible says that Israel/Judea were very important states. The diplomatic correspondence says otherwise. You know, evidence.
Look, I understand that many people regard the bible as a major book. Fair enough. The Old Testament was written by a people who were passing from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age and then into the Classical Age, trying to make sense of a baffling world that they did not understand. The New Testament seems to be a document cobbled together by a religion that is trying not to get squashed by the Roman authorities and which then gets turned into the state religion of an entire empire for political reasons.
But that's all it is. Religious mythology.


Well, you can cite as many as you want but the value used in the scripture is JUST an approximation. It's like saying give me a gallon of this or that. It's too silly to say give me exactly 1 gallon but not an approximate of it - maybe 1.1111 or 0.9999.

same with pi = 3, make me a bowl with a (brim) circumference of 3 (30 cubits from center or RADIUS). The builder might be off by +/- .1416 but good enough for my needs.

Now if we're talking PRECISION, then that's a different story. Unless I have the tools to achieve an accuracy of 0/+0.1416 then why not. But the builders didn't have the tools we have today for such precision. So an approximation of 3 would suffice.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Your math is approximately suspicious but precisely bogus.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Your math is approximately suspicious but precisely bogus.


cute



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
C'mon, people

This isn't the pit. Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Unfortunately, the majority if not all of the so-called "transitional evidence" we find in museums and textbooks are ALL open to interpretation. And almost all the time (unless purposefully done) they had to use words such as 'likely, probably, must have been, possibly, *"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"*, etc to describe the transition. In other words - as I said - open to interpretation.


* source:
www.forbes.com...

www.transitionalfossils.com...



Now in a million years, why don't we have transitional forms/bones that NOT open to interpretation?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

That is AFTER they were exiled from Eden, they had no children while they were in the garden so does that age before they had there son 'include' the timeless period inside the garden were they did NOT age and were therefore a measure of years did not apply to them, there long life span may also indicate a slow descent into a lower dimension we call the earth from a higher one were time was less effectual upon them so making them progressively more mortal from the time of there exile to the time of there death, residual higher dimensional nature may have lasted for many generation's until finally reaching the proverbial three score and ten.
Of course this is subjective as we try to fit worldly understanding into a book of faith - for me the real world is spirit the earth is dust and ashes and what is of the earth will return to it but what is of the spirit?.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Unfortunately, the majority if not all of the so-called "transitional evidence" we find in museums and textbooks are ALL open to interpretation. And almost all the time (unless purposefully done) they had to use words such as 'likely, probably, must have been, possibly, *"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"*, etc to describe the transition. In other words - as I said - open to interpretation.


* source:
www.forbes.com...

www.transitionalfossils.com...



Now in a million years, why don't we have transitional forms/bones that NOT open to interpretation?



"Open to interpretation" describes your opening post very well. That's why there are thousands of denominations, because interpretation. But there's only one math, one science, one answer for how old the earth is and how it formed.
edit on 21-11-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Or we could just accept the Bible is full of crap and our Earth is indeed around 4.5 billion years old.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I wonder if you even read what I posted.

Like this one:

In fact, if we align the Biblical account with geologic findings, a 4.5 billion years old earth will not conflict with Genesis 1:1. They reconcile.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I did read what you posted.

They can reconcile as much as you ""imagine"". Ones still a book(Collection of books) written by Man, a few thousands of years old, with all his fear and fallibility at play, and the other is the age of the planet in approximate calendar years.

edit on 21-11-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2

Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.


Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:

'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2

Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.


Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:

'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.



(Weary sigh)
No, because there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.
Let's get back to the archaeology shall we?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2

Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.


Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:

'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.



In many cases, science has to extrapolate probability from incomplete data. Extrapolation follows strict guidelines founded on inductive reasoning and rigorous tests. You are welcome to prove with certainty that any of those transitional fossils are wrong. The theory of evolution will thank you for your contribution. But maybe first you can prove (without speculating) the earth was made by a cosmic overlord and not formed via accretion from the solar nebula, a completely natural phenomenon.
edit on 21-11-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join