X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OnYourKnees
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    Originally posted by Apollyon View Post
    It proves the Big Bang anyhow. Maybe the Lord created the Big Bang and in his wisdom programmed everything to go this/His way?
    Everything coming from a singularity doesn't prove the Big Bang. There's still no explanation for what would cause a superdense blob of matter to spontaneously explode.

    Creation from a single point, as described in the Bible, makes far more sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother John
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    It proves the Big Bang anyhow. Maybe the Lord created the Big Bang and in his wisdom programmed everything to go this/His way?

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother Temperance
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    Originally posted by Apollyon View Post
    Well, if you trace back the expansion, in whatever direction it may be going, it renders a shrinkage.. And if things shrink towards eachother, wouldn't you get a single point (singularity) in the end (beginning)?
    So you admit that God exists?

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother John
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    Originally posted by WilliamJenningsBryan View Post
    This is wrong again. The universe is expanding from the perspective of all points. That is why the red shift is seen from every direction. If you were in another galaxy you would still see the same red shift from every direction. Ever hear of the Hubble telescope? Hubble was the one that discovered the red shift and it was named in his honor.
    Well, if you trace back the expansion, in whatever direction it may be going, it renders a shrinkage.. And if things shrink towards eachother, wouldn't you get a single point (singularity) in the end (beginning)?

    Leave a comment:


  • WilliamJenningsBryan
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    We once had someone on here we called "Wrong Again Floyd". You are now vying for that title.

    Originally posted by the dud View Post
    You should know that the universe begun by the big bang and that it didn't exist for an eternity: if the universe would have existed for an eternity then all energy should've been become heat (degradation of energy says that every energy becomes heat after some very long time).
    That isn't the problem right now so: the universe began with the big bang.
    You are confusing the Einstein mass / energy equation with Thermodynamics. With respect to thermodynamics, entropy applies only to a closed system. Scientists have not determined whether the universe is a closed or open system.

    Originally posted by the dud View Post
    Research about the universe says that when you see the movement of the stars that they all are moving away from a certain point.
    This is wrong again. The universe is expanding from the perspective of all points. That is why the red shift is seen from every direction. If you were in another galaxy you would still see the same red shift from every direction. Ever hear of the Hubble telescope? Hubble was the one that discovered the red shift and it was named in his honor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother Temperance
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    Originally posted by mister A.H. View Post
    TALK LIKE A NORMAL PERSON PLEASE!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • mister A.H.
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    Originally posted by Fallen Angel View Post
    we learned in school that the earth is realy old like billions n billions of years old.........i do beleive in evoluton but i think the godess helped guide it until ppl came around coz she wanted us around.....
    TALK LIKE A NORMAL PERSON PLEASE!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • OnYourKnees
    replied
    Originally posted by the dud View Post
    You should know that the universe begun by the big bang and that it didn't exist for an eternity: if the universe would have existed for an eternity then all energy should've been become heat (degradation of energy says that every energy becomes heat after some very long time).
    How long? What's your reference? How would anyone know for a fact, or is that another "theory", like the Big Bang Theory?

    And do you suggest that the matter forming the Primeval Point of Superdense Matter didn't exist prior to the supposed Big Bang? If it didn't exist, where did it come from? If it did exist for all eternity prior to this Big Bang, why didn't it degrade into heat, as you say matter must "over a very long time"? (After all, your scientists do theorize that matter is merely another form of energy!)
    That isn't the problem right now so: the universe began with the big bang.
    Not convinced?

    Research about the universe says that when you see the movement of the stars that they all are moving away from a certain point.
    And they also calculated that when you should turn back the time towards the big bang that everything is packed on one point.
    OK, so you believe that all the matter in the entire universe was compacted into one little mass the size of the period at the end of this sentence. So, this mass would have an incredible gravitational force, and would suck anything within millions of miles into it, much like a black hole is theorized to do. Yes?

    Tell me, if something was that dense, how could it suddenly "decide" to explode? Does that make any sense at all?

    Your scientists acknowledge that they can only theorize up to the instant after the Big Bang. They have no idea what would cause a super-dense particle of matter to explode. What if the 'singularity' was God creating the universe? Hmm?
    And another thing: if god would've created the universe and if he would've existed for an eternity, why would he wait an eternity to create life(I think an eternity is quite boring without something to do).
    Are you so arrogant as to assume that this is the first universe God has ever created, or the last He will? The Bible (which I know you'd never bother to read) indicates that when God destroys this world, He will create a new Heaven and a new Earth.

    Why should He not create new universes whenever He so desires? There could be thousands right now, in other dimensions, or other parts of space.

    Originally posted by Fallen Angel View Post
    we learned in school that the earth is realy old like billions n billions of years old.........i do beleive in evoluton but i think the godess helped guide it until ppl came around coz she wanted us around.....
    Tell me, does your goddess love the earth, and want it protected and preserved?

    If so, why would she put people, who are warlike and violent (as the children of God should be, as He is), upon it?
    Last edited by OnYourKnees; 02-10-2007, 06:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fallen Angel
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    we learned in school that the earth is realy old like billions n billions of years old.........i do beleive in evoluton but i think the godess helped guide it until ppl came around coz she wanted us around.....

    Leave a comment:


  • the dud
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    You should know that the universe begun by the big bang and that it didn't exist for an eternity: if the universe would have existed for an eternity then all energy should've been become heat (degradation of energy says that every energy becomes heat after some very long time).
    That isn't the problem right now so: the universe began with the big bang.
    Not convinced?

    Research about the universe says that when you see the movement of the stars that they all are moving away from a certain point.
    And they also calculated that when you should turn back the time towards the big bang that everything is packed on one point.

    And another thing: if god would've created the universe and if he would've existed for an eternity, why would he wait an eternity to create life(I think an eternity is quite boring without something to do).

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother V
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    Originally posted by OnYourKnees View Post
    Hey, genius. Carbon dating and radio-carbon dating are the same thing.

    As for layers of sediment and the movement of mountains . . . Golly, do you think if there were a Flood across the entire planet, there'd be a lot of layers of mud laid down? I sure do. There are your layers of sediment.

    Perhaps you've not paid attention, but Mount St. Helens in Washington State (an active volcano) has a lava dome growing rapidly, and a gigantic finger of rock extending above it by several feet per week. All geologic activity isn't slow.

    Just because tectonic plates aren't moving terribly rapidly today doesn't mean they didn't in the past. The time required for things to change is only based on about 200 years worth of research; 6,000 years ago, God may have been moving things around much more frequently.

    But you prefer to believe that the earth is unchanging, eh?
    I often wonder why the Meso-American civilizations all sprang up around the same time.

    Maya (From wiki)

    Settled villages along the Pacific coast appear from 1800 BC
    Olmec (again wiki)

    The Olmec flourished during the Formative (or Preclassic), dating from 1200 BC to about 400 BC
    So why did suddenly people in this area start? Why weren't they there before?

    Of course, prior to them, there was the Norte Chico 3000-1600 BC, these people made pyramids similar to the ones in Egypt. Could it be that they knew how to do it because at the time South America was connected?

    Then when I think of Atlantis, it was a city submerged by Noah's flood.

    Everything makes sense when you add God into the equation.

    V

    Leave a comment:


  • OnYourKnees
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    Originally posted by 15.3IQ View Post
    you guys go on and on about carbon dating being inaccurate after 60,000 years but did you totally forget about radio-carbon dating? or just seeing clearly the layer of sedaments....and the heights of mountains in relation to the movement of techtonic plates....
    Hey, genius. Carbon dating and radio-carbon dating are the same thing.

    As for layers of sediment and the movement of mountains . . . Golly, do you think if there were a Flood across the entire planet, there'd be a lot of layers of mud laid down? I sure do. There are your layers of sediment.

    Perhaps you've not paid attention, but Mount St. Helens in Washington State (an active volcano) has a lava dome growing rapidly, and a gigantic finger of rock extending above it by several feet per week. All geologic activity isn't slow.

    Just because tectonic plates aren't moving terribly rapidly today doesn't mean they didn't in the past. The time required for things to change is only based on about 200 years worth of research; 6,000 years ago, God may have been moving things around much more frequently.

    But you prefer to believe that the earth is unchanging, eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S.
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    You can't really hold it against him, brother, since, after all, he appears to be a product of the public school system. It's a wonder he can even find the "power" button to his computer. Now if only he could figure out how to get his tithes in order.... I think it would be best if he just sent along some bank account numbers and we could take care of that for him -- it's just logical, since he can likely not figure out how much he owes Jesus....

    Leave a comment:


  • 15.3IQ
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    you guys go on and on about carbon dating being inaccurate after 60,000 years but did you totally forget about radio-carbon dating? or just seeing clearly the layer of sedaments....and the heights of mountains in relation to the movement of techtonic plates....
    Last edited by OnYourKnees; 02-08-2007, 06:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • OnYourKnees
    replied
    Re: Biblical Age of Earth

    Originally posted by mister A.H. View Post
    Sorry, that was a typo, I meant that I've denied it hundreds of times that I'm not a sodomist.
    So you've denied hundreds of times that you are not a Sodomist. This is a double negative. You deny NOT being a sodomist.

    Translating your original post into a more concise format:

    mister AssHat: "Sorry, that was a typo. I meant that I've insisted hundreds of times that I am a Sodomist."

    Leave a comment:

Working...