How old is the Earth?

Started by Tattoos N Scars9 pages
Originally posted by Star428
Sorry, but that's incorrect. I've seen plenty of experts online call it ID when talking about the Genesis account. Again, believing in evolution is the opposite of intelligent design. I don't really care what Surtur or anybody else on this forum says. By simple definition, intelligent design is believing that there was an intelligent being involved in creation. Sorry we disagree but I have this nasty habit of taking words at face value as they're defined in the dictionary and not what some misinformed people on the internet mistakenly think they mean. I believe in the Genesis account of creation so going by the definition in the dictionary that means I also believe in intelligent design. I couldn't care less about atheists making up their own definitions of words. Webster's definition > atheists' opinion. That's all I'm gonna say on the subject.

I don't think you quite understood me. Yes, God did design the universe. It happened the way Genesis said it did. That I'm sure we agree on. God is the intelligence behind creation. What I disagree with is the ID theory that theistic evolutionists use. They believe God created things and let evolution take over...over the course of billions of years. I disagree with that. You see what I'm saying? I disagree with ID from the viewpoint of theistic evolution.

Originally posted by Q99

Time of writing: 4 minutes. Hm, longer than I thought... still, that's with checking what you said before, and writing's more fun than watching.

Not only did you underestimate how long it takes you to write a single post, you also failed to recognize you spent time on a previous post just before that one, separate from your original reply to me. Now with at least 6-7 minutes gone, you still have failed, if I'm reading you right, to look at a clip that would have given you a summary AND proper context and enabled you to understand my point of view. It's not like I didn't already give you a HUGE concession by knocking the submission down from a full length video to something less than 10% of the whole, a ridiculously shafted summary by almost any measure.

I understand why these kinds of discussions fail now. I could understand you rejecting someone saying "I'm going to hold to what I believe regardless of what you present to me". I could understand you reacting this way if someone cursed you out. I could even understand if you simply balked at the time the original submission would take to review.

I cannot understand why you would refuse a 5 minute clip.

I would have watched from sheer curiosity by now. Truthfully, I suspect you actually have at this point and are just being ornery.
It seems more than anything, though, that, rather than get a proper understanding of the other person's point of view, you'd rather risk having them construct a straw man of sorts, one you can argue against without ever hearing the actual idea. Maybe that's not the case, and it's simply the lateness of the hour here in Michigan at the end of a long day making me think that.
You were honest to admit the writing took longer than you thought and polite enough to respond, so I'll give you the benefit of any doubt and simply wait till I'm rested before revisiting this thread once more.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I don't think you quite understood me. Yes, God did design the universe. It happened the way Genesis said it did. That I'm sure we agree on. God is the intelligence behind creation. What I disagree with is the ID theory that theistic evolutionists use. They believe God created things and let evolution take over...over the course of billions of years. I disagree with that. You see what I'm saying? I disagree with ID from the viewpoint of theistic evolution.

And that's fine. But even if that's how it's used by theistic evolutionists, that's not what the term actually means. So it's perfectly OK for Star to use it as a creationist lol.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not only did you underestimate how long it takes you to write a single post,

I have a clock. Estimation is not required.

you also failed to recognize you spent time on a previous post just before that one, separate from your original reply to me. Now with at least 6-7 minutes gone, you still have failed,

If I'd watched your second video, that'd mean I'd have spent over twice that, 14 minutes.

Are you seriously trying to argue that my time management is a problem when you can't be bothered to write out your own argument?

No matter how much time I spend writing, there remains the factor that, one, I enjoy writing, and two, a 7 minute video doesn't replace any time I spend writing, it simply goes on top of anything.

You can't go into a conversation with the idea that you're entitled to have the other person do all the work in finding your argument while you avoid spending any time on it. It just doesn't work.

It's not like I didn't already give you a HUGE concession by knocking the submission down from a full length video to something less than 10% of the whole, a ridiculously shafted summary by almost any measure.

...

The original one was 10% as long? I.e. you were getting annoyed at people for not watching an hour long video with no summary or intel on where the best parts are?

Look, it's a discussion, people don't owe you time. You get time by posting interesting arguments.

If I tell you to watch a 3 hour movie, and then knock it down to half an hour, that doesn't make me generous nor does it mean you have a free half hour.


I understand why these kinds of discussions fail now. I could understand you rejecting someone saying "I'm going to hold to what I believe regardless of what you present to me". I could understand you reacting this way if someone cursed you out. I could even understand if you simply balked at the time the original submission would take to review.

I cannot understand why you would refuse a 5 minute clip.

Because 5 minutes is a time when I can do a fair amount of stuff, and it's a one-way time commitment, you're not devoting time to your argument, you're just demanding my time.

This is a discussion, anyone can quit at any time for any reason. If I post a link and it's 10 pages, then you don't have to read through the whole thing. Heck, that's why when I post links, I also post descriptions on what's on the other side and often choice snippets, so people don't have to go through the whole thing.


I would have watched from sheer curiosity by now. Truthfully, I suspect you actually have at this point and are just being ornery.

Do you really watch every video linked to you? It doesn't even sound like an interesting video to me- in part, mind you, because you've said almost nothing about the contents, just asked me to watch

Again, Time-Immemorial on this forum gets annoyed at me for posting *single page* arguments and says they're too long. Which I find kinda pushing it considering it's a text based forum, but 5 minutes is a fair chunk of time for most people to sit around passively when they could be doing a lot more online.

Heck, consider Youtube ads. Do you watch every youtube ad without skipping? I almost always skip, and those are normally 30 seconds-a minute. And what you're telling me to watch is also an ad, just an ad for someone's point of view.


It seems more than anything, though, that, rather than get a proper understanding of the other person's point of view, you'd rather risk having them construct a straw man of sorts, one you can argue against without ever hearing the actual idea.

Whoa there, I'm repeatedly asking you for your words on what your argument is.

When you actually posted some words (on the importance of Saturn and how it's a day), I responded on-topic with information, which you, in turn, have not responded to. And I had to bug you in order to get you to say that much of your argument after you expressed nonspecific disagreement of mine.

The rest? Sure, it's guesses, but explicitly so, and still contains general information on the subject of planets and beliefs. I don't pretend to know your side, I can just lay down some knowledge and ask for usable info.

To put it another way, you're putting barriers up to me getting your argument. If you want me to argue your argument, stop trying to hide it.

And heck, on the time management front- in the time you've spent complaining about not watching a video, you could've just told me what you believe.

If you want people to listen to you, you need to speak to them, not put all the onus of research on them and then get annoyed when they don't want to spend that time. It's not that people are rejecting arguments because they disagree with them, it's that people are not even knowing about the arguments because it's rather inconvenient.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
The reason why the Earth would be 6000 years old, is because Christians measure by "God Days".

Apparently, 1000 Earth Years, is a day to God.

...This.

This answers the question guys.

Besides, Earth has been "6,000" years for a long friggen time, not just this year.

I remember back in 2005, when my religious grandmother told me the Earth was 6,000 years old. You'd think it would be at least 6,001 by now.

I mean, I don't know much, but I know what I'm talking about with the whole 6,000 years thing.

God Days = 1000 Years each. 365,000 x 6,000.

Thats how long the earth has been around biblically.

@Q99 Get Adblock. Took me a few years to decide to download it, once I did I regretted not doing it sooner. Save yourself some time on the Internet...

DEW IT!!!

Yes, Adblock is essential for any browser.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I don't think you quite understood me. Yes, God did design the universe. It happened the way Genesis said it did. That I'm sure we agree on. God is the intelligence behind creation. What I disagree with is the ID theory that theistic evolutionists use. They believe God created things and let evolution take over...over the course of billions of years. I disagree with that. You see what I'm saying? I disagree with ID from the viewpoint of theistic evolution.

Why do you think they go out of your way not to name a specific intelligence behind said ID?

Originally posted by Jmanghan
...This.

This answers the question guys.

Besides, Earth has been "6,000" years for a long friggen time, not just this year.

I remember back in 2005, when my religious grandmother told me the Earth was 6,000 years old. You'd think it would be at least 6,001 by now.

I mean, I don't know much, but I know what I'm talking about with the whole 6,000 years thing.

God Days = 1000 Years each. 365,000 x 6,000.

Thats how long the earth has been around biblically.

Prove it.

Geez so now 4 people think the Earth is 6,000 years old. I just have to ask how people apparently lived during the time of the dinosaurs and we have no actual evidence of people and dinosaurs co-existing. Nothing about pet dinosaurs. Nothing about villages being attacked by a hungry T-Rex. No mention of the dino's being hunted for food.

96% of human history is forever lost to us, but if the planet is only 6k then there should be some evidence that people and dinosaurs existing at the same time was a thing.

Also wait to those who think the planet is 6k then what do you feel happened to the dinosaurs?

Originally posted by Surtur
Geez so now 4 people think the Earth is 6,000 years old. I just have to ask how people apparently lived during the time of the dinosaurs and we have no actual evidence of people and dinosaurs co-existing. Nothing about pet dinosaurs. Nothing about villages being attacked by a hungry T-Rex. No mention of the dino's being hunted for food.

96% of human history is forever lost to us, but if the planet is only 6k then there should be some evidence that people and dinosaurs existing at the same time was a thing.

Also wait to those who think the planet is 6k then what do you feel happened to the dinosaurs?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

Originally posted by Surtur
Geez so now 4 people think the Earth is 6,000 years old. I just have to ask how people apparently lived during the time of the dinosaurs and we have no actual evidence of people and dinosaurs co-existing. Nothing about pet dinosaurs. Nothing about villages being attacked by a hungry T-Rex. No mention of the dino's being hunted for food.

96% of human history is forever lost to us, but if the planet is only 6k then there should be some evidence that people and dinosaurs existing at the same time was a thing.

Also wait to those who think the planet is 6k then what do you feel happened to the dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs are imaginary.

Dinosaurs are somewhat described in the book of Job.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

But that is just one sample. They also give a potential explanation for how such tissue could be found on such an old sample.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Dinosaurs are somewhat described in the book of Job.

You mean Leviathan and Behemoth?

Bit of a stretch.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
😂

I feel like there's some joke here I'm not getting.

Sometimes I feel the same way. I was reviewing another thread I participated in and was thinking of that today:

---------------------

Stoic: I am not a satanist, but I was wondering what people thought of the subject, and those who subscribe to this theology?

Symmetric Chaos: Which kind of Satanism?

Stoic: Judeo Christian perspectives, are all I've got. So the terms used in the Bible/Torah precepts, would be the perspective of this thread ...
Unless ... Do you have any other perspectives on the subject?

----------------------------------------------------------------

I sometimes wonder if something happened while I was asleep or if someone put a Mickey in something I drank when I visit this place.

A Religion forum, run by avowed atheists?
Where many of the people name themselves after demons? Or even for the disguised form of "father of demons" in the case of one lapsed Mormon?
There's a lapsed Catholic telling me no one here is a Satanist despite this 5 year old thread being bumped by a person who claims he is one. Then again, that same lapsed Catholic currently has an altered form of the All-Seeing Eye as an avatar, and tells me a conglomeration of several thousand people is all but insignificant in a year where I've seen the will of exactly ONE person override the voting objections of millions. Then I am presented with a shield bearing the image of the Serpent when reading the posts of one claiming to be Christian as another poster with "Jesus" being part of his screenname gives welcome greeting to the Devil himself. Considered seriously, even for a moment, it's ... a bit much to take in. I'm tempted to say it makes little sense. Unfortunately, that's not true. It's absurd, to be sure, but it makes quite a bit of sense, if, going by the original poster, it is genuinely considered from a Biblical perspective.

Stoic, if you're actually curious and taking your definitions of "good and bad" from the perspective of the Bible (as alluded to in your second post in this thread), your premise might be wrong.

"Does being a Satanist make you a bad person?" presupposes there is such a thing as a good person who can be examined for contrast.

Does that idea find support in the Bible?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-3-10/

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=538162&pagenumber=7

Originally posted by Bardock42
You mean Leviathan and Behemoth?

Bit of a stretch.

They were very long creatures, both of them, yes.

Originally posted by Surtur
But that is just one sample. They also give a potential explanation for how such tissue could be found on such an old sample.

How is it you missed the clear implication of Tatto's submission that evidence is actively suppressed when it IS presented?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
They were very long creatures, both of them, yes.

👆

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Dinosaurs are somewhat described in the book of Job.

I've posted plenty of links in the past to articles that show where the Bible refers to dinos but of course atheists stubbornly refuse to check them out.