The bible says earth is only 7000 yerars old science says it is 5,000,000,000 Y.o

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In this comment:

You stated your [b]opinion that all Christians equal kindness and generosity and all non-Christians equal thieves, murderers and greedy bastards. It's not a fact it's a baseless generalisation. Imo spouting and claiming your opinion as fact is a display of arrogance. And the implication that you believe that you are better than others that do not share your beliefs, purely because they do not share your beliefs also is arrogance. Though perhaps your definition of arrogance differs from the generally accepted definition as much as your perception of science.

I missed the part where you took a worldwide census to determine the demographics of those who are law abiding and those who commit crimes. Again these are your opinions not facts. People commit crimes because they don't believe in God? In my opinion that is complete nonsense. Or people commit crimes because of a wide range and combination of economic, cultural, personality, genetic, environmental and sociological factors. In my opinion this is far more likely.

I am not religious but I don't need "the fear of God" to prevent me from committing crimes. I couldn't give a flying f*ck whether or not a book says do something or don't. Christianity does not have a monopoly on ethics. I was raised well enough to have my own personal intrinsic sense of what is ethical. I don't assume that my ethical beliefs are identical or superior to anyone else's, and I would never impose my ethical beliefs on someone else. I abide by the laws legislated by my elected parliament and administered by the judiciary and law enforcement, because I believe that doing so is correct.
[/B]

1.If you read the bible it says FORGIVENESS IS GOOD, MURDER IS BAD. They were officially not Christians because they broke the Christian rules, unlike . It's laughable that you come at me with these things without even having read the Bible, you can't prove against me if you don't even know anything really to do with Christianity to prove wrong.

2. Problem, no need to re-say what I said, let's just keep to the new things and not what i've already mentioned, i simply said what you just said.

"Christians to diminish your flawed and prejudicial statement of opinion that all Christians are kind and generous while all the world's problems are caused by non-Christians."
This sentence is also flawed. Do you think the true christians would go and cause world problems? And anyway, what does it matter to you? There is no specific reason to prevent world problems, its not like we have a destiny. And we'd not get anything for it when we die, we'll just dissapear into nowhere just like the poor people in Africa when they die, it'd just 'decrease the surplus population(quote😖crooge)' wouldn't it?

"I missed the part where you took a worldwide census to determine the demographics of those who are law abiding and those who commit crimes. Again these are your opinions not facts. People commit crimes because they don't believe in God? In my opinion that is complete nonsense. Or people commit crimes because of a wide range and combination of economic, cultural, personality, genetic, environmental and sociological factors. In my opinion this is far more likely."
People don't commit the crimes because they don't believe in god, i'm saying they wouldn't if they did. Where we lose non-christians and gives a view of no morality in those who don't.

"and I would never impose my ethical beliefs on someone else"
Then why are you here?

This is seriously losing the point, just give up with all this pointless answering of questions which don't need to be answered and give me the cold hard prove, I'm getting bored of this pointlessness.

very good chibi boy

"You stated your opinion that all Christians equal kindness and generosity and all non-Christians equal thieves, murderers and greedy bastards. It's not a fact it's a baseless generalisation. Imo spouting and claiming your opinion as fact is a display of arrogance. And the implication that you believe that you are better than others that do not share your beliefs, purely because they do not share your beliefs also is arrogance. Though perhaps your definition of arrogance differs from the generally accepted definition as much as your perception of science."
Well guess what, from all the non-christians i have ever seen it's true, greed, ignorance for no specific reason, theft. Technically all the non-christians i know.

"And the implication that you believe that you are better than others that do not share your beliefs, purely because they do not share your beliefs also is arrogance."
I never said i was better than noone, you're saying you're better than me just because i'm Christian and I believe in a god, guess what maybe you don't deserve the truth. Since it doesn't even matter to you if he is real or not, it'd atleast be smart to try christianity before bothering to enter these sort of conversations.

Originally posted by cking
very good chibi boy

Here's something to read, http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/basics.htm

very good website, everyone in this forum should read it.

True, maybe this would serve them the proof they want.

Okay, If the universe just have 5000 years, how does light from distant stars and galaxies is reaching us now. If the universe just had 5000 years it would be impossible to see anything that is more than 5000 light years from us. How can we see andromeda for example ? It is 2.9 billions of light years from us now.

Ok, if light does take billions of years to get here and the universe began in a big bang, howcome we can't see a red sky because of the big bang? Wouldn't the Big bang still be happening in other sides of the universe according to light?
Your point is an extremely good point, but i still think there's probably a conspiracy behind what the scientists say.
If the world is billions of years old wouldn't the sun be a red giant now(Near its death) which would have swallowed up earth and the other planets inside the Meteor belt? Plus, how do scientists even know how long it takes for a sun to die if they couldn't have lived long enough to have experienced it?

Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Ok, if light does take billions of years to get here and the universe began in a big bang, howcome we can't see a red sky because of the big bang? Wouldn't the Big bang still be happening in other sides of the universe according to light?
Your point is an extremely good point, but i still think there's probably a conspiracy behind what the scientists say.
If the world is billions of years old wouldn't the sun be a red giant now(Near its death) which would have swallowed up earth and the other planets inside the Meteor belt? Plus, how do scientists even know how long it takes for a sun to die if they couldn't have lived long enough to have experienced it?

Those are good questions. A year in collage, studying cosmology will answer all of those questions with no doubt. I know the answers, what we can do with light is amazing. I think you should learn it yourself.

Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Ok, if light does take billions of years to get here and the universe began in a big bang, howcome we can't see a red sky because of the big bang? Wouldn't the Big bang still be happening in other sides of the universe according to light?
Your point is an extremely good point, but i still think there's probably a conspiracy behind what the scientists say.
If the world is billions of years old wouldn't the sun be a red giant now(Near its death) which would have swallowed up earth and the other planets inside the Meteor belt? Plus, how do scientists even know how long it takes for a sun to die if they couldn't have lived long enough to have experienced it?

There are echoes of the big bang that are detected, it is called microwave background radiation, and its originated from the Big bang.

No, we cannot see the big bang happening in distant regions of the space because at the time of the big bang, the universe couldn´t transport eletromagnetic radiation.

The sun will have not become a red giant for now because it has not consumed all of its hydrogen, and it takes a long time for that.
For a star to die it needs to consume all of its combustive, the hydrogen in the case of the sun. The hydrogen is turned into helium via nuclear fusion, a well know process, even used in nuclear bombs like the H bomb. It is possible to estimate how much time a star will live knowing how much energy is released from the sun per sencond, and knowing how much hydrogen does it have. When it comsume all of its hydrogen, it will become a red giant, an it will start to comsume helium. When all helium is comsumed a supernova will occur, and them the star is dead.

good science thinking

Firstly...

Originally posted by Chibi Boy
1.If you read the bible it says FORGIVENESS IS GOOD, MURDER IS BAD. They were officially not Christians because they broke the Christian rules, unlike . It's laughable that you come at me with these things without even having read the Bible, you can't prove against me if you don't even know anything really to do with Christianity to prove wrong.

That is what is colloquially referred to as a cop out. As soon as someone does something that goes against the Christian tenets, they are deemed to be non-Christians. Thus absolving the collective Chrisianity from having to accept that good and bad exists within their community. I could paraphrase your own derisive comments to argue that it's laughable that you attempt to prove scientific theories wrong without a rudimentary knowledge of these scientific principles.

This sentence is also flawed. Do you think the true christians would go and cause world problems? And anyway, what does it matter to you? There is no specific reason to prevent world problems, its not like we have a destiny. And we'd not get anything for it when we die, we'll just dissapear into nowhere just like the poor people in Africa when they die, it'd just 'decrease the surplus population(quote😖crooge)' wouldn't it?
People don't commit the crimes because they don't believe in god, i'm saying they wouldn't if they did. Where we lose non-christians and gives a view of no morality in those who don't.

I have no idea what you're talking about with reference to the African continent. Why exactly do you assume that non-Christians have no morality. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on morals and ethics.

"and I would never impose my ethical beliefs on someone else"
Then why are you here?

Ethical beliefs and religious beliefs are not the same thing. Are you suggesting the only reason one would come onto this forum is to attempt to impose a view on another.

I never said i was better than noone, you're saying you're better than me just because i'm Christian and I believe in a god, guess what maybe you don't deserve the truth. Since it doesn't even matter to you if he is real or not, it'd atleast be smart to try christianity before bothering to enter these sort of conversations.
At no point did I state or imply I believed I was 'better' due to my religious beliefs or more rather my lack thereof. You did state several times that you believe it is fact that non-Christians are murderers and thieves and you've yet to retract that opinion so I'm assuming it still stands. You're welcome to your beliefs. Mine are different but I never said they were better.

This is seriously losing the point, just give up with all this pointless answering of questions which don't need to be answered.
For the first time I actually agree with something you've posted. This isn't the point of this thread.

and give me the cold hard prove, I'm getting bored of this pointlessness
When presented with sound scientific principles and evidence, the cold hard proof you apparently desire, you simply refuse to accept it. The pointlessness is primarily of your own creation.

Now to the point. Those who argue the Earth is 7000 years old seem to constantly ask for explanations of the science behind why the Earth is much older. For the most part the scientific theory and evidence behind the Earth being much older has been presented and is sound. So may I ask where the physical, biological, chemical, or even purely logical evidence of the Earth being only 7000 yo is?

the earth is billions and billions and billions of years old.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Firstly...

Now to the point. Those who argue the Earth is 7000 years old seem to constantly ask for explanations of the science behind why the Earth is much older. For the most part the scientific theory and evidence behind the Earth being much older has been presented and is sound. So may I ask where the physical, biological, chemical, or even purely logical evidence of the Earth being only 7000 yo is?

I'd just expect someone who lives what I'm saying not to understand what i'm saying.
The soul, which is ones purpose in life, does not exist according to what you say + the theory of evolution, what's the point if there's nothing to work for in life? So nobody has a purpose = Poor people dissapearing won't change anything else in the world because they don't have a purpose, yet there's no purpose to the world either so if everyone on earth died it wouldn't make a difference, no unhappiness, no anger, no wars etc because everyone wouldn't exist nomore which means that there is no such word as everyone because noone exists in your so called 'reality', Is this the way world peace should be?

Plus, the main thing we(you) are not believing in here is supposed to created everything, including science, so science won't work on me. How can science work against GOD?

is this supposed to mean that the findings of the Ark are just as likely as the findings of the laws?

It ain't arrogance, it's called stating a fact, there's a difference.

The soul, which is ones purpose in life, does not exist according to what you say + the theory of evolution, what's the point if there's nothing to work for in life? So nobody has a purpose = Poor people dissapearing won't change anything else in the world because they don't have a purpose, yet there's no purpose to the world either so if everyone on earth died it wouldn't make a difference, no unhappiness, no anger, no wars etc because everyone wouldn't exist nomore which means that there is no such word as everyone because noone exists in your so called 'reality', Is this the way world peace should be?

I never said I did not believe in the concept of a soul. I may not believe in your concept of a soul, but that does not mean I do not believe in a concept of a soul. You simply assumed that I lacked such beliefs and again assumed Christianity holds a monopoly over such concepts. Which it does not.

I don't know why you keep referring to the "the poor people". By your logic you could just as easily refer to any other demographic and yet you choose to refer to "the poor people" being eradicated from the world. 🤨

I'm not entirely sure if your implying that if I don't believe in your god that I don't believe that people have a soul or purpose or value and therefore I would not care if a large population of people dies. Or whether you're implying that if people do not believe in your god that they lack a soul or purpose or value in which case it would not matter if a large population of the people who do not believe in your god died. Either way this is fallacy because both are based merely on your assumption of a Christian monopoly over the concept of a soul, purpose or value. (btw these three words are not synonyms)

Plus, the main thing we(you) are not believing in here is supposed to created everything, including science, so science won't work on me. How can science work against GOD?

No real answer to my question, then again I can't really say I expected one. And imo answering a question with a question is an overused diversionary tactic.

You believe he is supposed to have created everything including science. I do not.
Therefore there is no conflict of interest in my eyes when scientific evidence disproves scripture, which it does... a lot.
This also relies on an assumption that a theory cannot disprove a prior theory. Which is an incorrect assumption.

Besides science has never set out with the implicit goal of disproving the existence god, but scientific concepts and theories that have been produced by luminaries in their respective fields have disproved among other things that the age of the earth can be counted in thousands.

Originally posted by Chibi Boy
I'd just expect someone who lives what I'm saying not to understand what i'm saying.
The soul, which is ones purpose in life, does not exist according to what you say + the theory of evolution, what's the point if there's nothing to work for in life? So nobody has a purpose = Poor people dissapearing won't change anything else in the world because they don't have a purpose, yet there's no purpose to the world either so if everyone on earth died it wouldn't make a difference, no unhappiness, no anger, no wars etc because everyone wouldn't exist nomore which means that there is no such word as everyone because noone exists in your so called 'reality', Is this the way world peace should be?

Plus, the main thing we(you) are not believing in here is supposed to created everything, including science, so science won't work on me. How can science work against GOD?

No one I know being chirstian or not, believe in what you say, that nothing has a purpose, and soul does not exist. Science doesn´t work against God, its just your opinion. Science just not interfere. But religion does interfere, and in my opinion it caused much trouble to "God" whatever it is. God is not something that can be diminished into a simple book.

yes the soul does exist, without the soul the body wouldn't exist.

every person has an eternal spirit that is trapped in the body. when the body dies the spirit is released.