Jump to content


Photo

six days


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#1 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 18 March 2005 - 06:32 AM

http://www.answersin...a/ISD/javor.asp

Hi everyone,

Wanted to share this article with you.



thanX
Louie Buren <><

#2 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:23 AM

http://www.answersin...a/ISD/javor.asp

Hi everyone,

Wanted to share this article with you.
thanX
Louie Buren <><

View Post



Nice article, Louie. But since the author believes what the Bible has to say, his reasons don't matter. He can't possibly be a 'real' scientist. I can't wait to read the refutations that will doubtless be advanced in this thread.

#3 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:04 PM

Nice article, Louie. But since the author believes what the Bible has to say, his reasons don't matter. He can't possibly be a 'real' scientist. I can't wait to read the refutations that will doubtless be advanced in this thread.

View Post


Wow! You’re good. :)

Looks like the same old irreducible complexity (already debunked numerous times) with a dash of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Actually, he may be an otherwise good scientist.

#4 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:17 PM

from the link:

So let us look at the world from our modern perspective, and ask whether it is reasonable to suppose that it came into being in six days.


The author makes some vague statements about cycles, dynamic equilibrium, and his own personal incredulity about some things. But how exactly does a "six day creation" follow from any of that?

How does a world created in 6 days look different from a world created in 90 days, or a million years?

#5 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 March 2005 - 04:22 PM

Wow! You’re good.  :)

Looks like the same old irreducible complexity (already debunked numerous times)...


I think 'disputed' would be a better term.


...with a dash of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam


Using Latin to camoflage calling someone, or an argument, ignorant is not acceptable.


Actually, he may be an otherwise good scientist.


"A good scientist" being defined how? Perhaps as one who does not rock the evolutionary boat?

#6 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 20 March 2005 - 05:05 AM

Using Latin to camoflage calling someone, or an argument, ignorant is not acceptable.

View Post


Sorry for the misunderstanding. "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" is a logical fallacy describing an augment claiming we (as in all of humanity) are incapable of understanding something. It was not meant to be an insult to the good Doctor, just a description of his logical position.

#7 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 20 March 2005 - 05:19 AM

"A good scientist" being defined how? Perhaps as one who does not rock the evolutionary boat?

View Post


No that’s not what I meant. Skepticism of an idea is a necessary element of good science. It forces the proponents of an idea to more closely examine their facts and logic. The best example of this was Einstein’s reluctance of accepting quantum physics. He spent the last half of his life trying to disprove it, yet the computer sitting in front of you is proof that it is a valid theory, even though one of the most brilliant minds of all times didn’t like it.

#8 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2005 - 02:26 PM

No that’s not what I meant. Skepticism of an idea is a necessary element of good science. It forces the proponents of an idea to more closely examine their facts and logic. The best example of this was Einstein’s reluctance of accepting quantum physics. He spent the last half of his life trying to disprove it, yet the computer sitting in front of you is proof that it is a valid theory, even though one of the most brilliant minds of all times didn’t like it.

View Post


But yet I hear that some of his brillant ideas are now in question. And if most end up on the wayside, I don't think science will consider him brillant anymore. Just a stepping stone to find their version of truth and reality.

#9 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 21 March 2005 - 07:19 PM

But yet I hear that some of his brillant ideas are now in question. And if most end up on the wayside, I don't think science will consider him brillant anymore. Just a stepping stone to find their version of truth and reality.

View Post


And if he were alive right now, he’d probably be the first to agree with you. He claimed to have only had one original idea in his life (I can’t remember which it was). But that’s the way science works, you do the best you can then someone else follows you and refines your work. Sometimes it’s completely overturned.

#10 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2005 - 11:53 PM

And if he were alive right now, he’d probably be the first to agree with you. He claimed to have only had one original idea in his life (I can’t remember which it was). But that’s the way science works, you do the best you can then someone else follows you and refines your work. Sometimes it’s completely overturned.

View Post


And changing God's word through personal interpitations, called translations, has done more harm to the original and it's meaning. Even to the point it mocks God. And is the reason I stick with an older version KJV. Because sometimes, the old stuff has more truth, and changing it, does more harm.

#11 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 25 March 2005 - 08:27 PM

And changing God's word through personal interpitations, called translations, has done more harm to the original and it's meaning. Even to the point it mocks God. And is the reason I stick with an older version KJV. Because sometimes, the old stuff has more truth, and changing it, does more harm.

View Post


No offence, but how did this discussion morph into a critique of the various translations of the Bible (which I admit to being completely unqualified to judge)? Just for the record, I was talking about human scientific endeavor, not Holy Scripture.

#12 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 March 2005 - 12:33 AM

No offence, but how did this discussion morph into a critique of the various translations of the Bible (which I admit to being completely unqualified to judge)? Just for the record, I was talking about human scientific endeavor, not Holy Scripture.

View Post


Sorry, should have been more clear. I was comparing an ever changing scientific theory, to something that also happened to God's word, and how changing it messed it up through personal translation texts. So it was meant as a comparison, not a subject change on the thread.

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2005 - 12:10 AM

Um, getting off topic. If you'd like, I can start another thread on this subject in the bible section, and move these post to it and you two can continue discussing this. It would only take me about two minutes to do.


Added: I went ahead and moved the last three posts to the bible section so that things discussed here can be continued there without changing the subject of this thread. Here's the link: http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=251

#14 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 11:56 AM

Nice article, Louie. But since the author believes what the Bible has to say, his reasons don't matter. He can't possibly be a 'real' scientist. I can't wait to read the refutations that will doubtless be advanced in this thread.

View Post

So if a an atheist thinks the earth evolved,we would not listen to him because he is an atheist.We would by your reasoning. :)

#15 Raelian1

Raelian1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2005 - 01:31 PM

http://www.answersin...a/ISD/javor.asp

Hi everyone,

Wanted to share this article with you.
thanX
Louie Buren <><

View Post


Actualy, that part about six days was grossly misinterpreted (as well as a lot of other remarks in the Bible). The original Bible doesn't mention God but Elohim which means "Those that came from the sky". They created all life on Earth, not the universe and Earth. The six days mentioned weren't days but periods. These periods represent about 1000 to 2000 years each. These periods are separated by the varying complexity of the organisms created (plant or animal). I'm sure you asking how these scientists lived so long given that I told you the range of the periods. They can extend their life to 700 to 1200 years with a surgical implant. But that doesn't explain how they lived through each period. Also, they can clone themselves a new body and transfer their memories and personalities into this new body and that's how they lasted so long to create all these lifeforms (including us).

#16 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:27 PM

Please ignore posts by raelian1.

#17 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 28 June 2005 - 10:42 PM

Man, that guy is just a clown. I'm glad he's banned. Lol. His ideas are somewhat amusing, though they are completely offtopic.

#18 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 29 June 2005 - 04:27 PM

Actualy, that part about six days was grossly misinterpreted (as well as a lot of other remarks in the Bible). The original Bible doesn't mention God but Elohim which means "Those that came from the sky". They created all life on Earth, not the universe and Earth. The six days mentioned weren't days but periods. These periods represent about 1000 to 2000 years each. These periods are separated by the varying complexity of the organisms created (plant or animal). I'm sure you asking how these scientists lived so long given that I told you the range of the periods. They can extend their life to 700 to 1200 years with a surgical implant. But that doesn't explain how they lived through each period. Also, they can clone themselves a new body and transfer their memories and personalities into this new body and that's how they lasted so long to create all these lifeforms (including us).

View Post


I mean no offense, but seriously, do you really belive in what you say? Or are you just joking around?

#19 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 29 June 2005 - 10:28 PM

That's why he's banned. He was just here to annoy people I think.

#20 Mikel Sevrel

Mikel Sevrel

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio Rancho, New Mexico

Posted 07 July 2005 - 11:31 AM

Well, I think to follow an accurate account of Genesis 1 it would indicate that the six days of creation cannot be 24 hour days and must, in some manner, be allegorical. That is not to say that creation did not occure, but it did not occur in the manner that modern people believe it; just look at Christ's parables to understand that something can both be true and not literal. There is also scientific facts which indicate that the creation account cannot be For example, the way that we measure time is based on the earth's rotation, and since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, we can reasonably ascertain that the passage of time is not literal as we perceive it to be. Also, we must recognize that the ancient Hebrew/Egyptian mindset is much different than that of modern societies, and may call for a greater amount of interpretation than we traditionally give to literary works.

Also, life could not survive on the earth without the sun and the moon. This indicates to me, that the creation account cannot be taken as literal through the modern mindset of what is literal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users