Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

I believe its around 6000 years - creationists follow the date set by some irish monk a few hundred years ago.

Not exactly. The various age estimates of man kind come from tracing through the lineage and time lines given in the Bible. I think that different theologians come up with slightly different numbers.

The book of Genesis certainly is not a cook book for the creation of a universe.

Gesesis 1:1 says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Genesis 1:2 continues "The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

It doesn't say when the heavens and the void formless earth were created nor does it give a very detailed definition of exactly what a void formless earth is. Genesis then goes on with the day by day account which starts with the creation of night and day.

I don't see a Biblical basis for an estimate of the actual age of the earth at all since the "void earth" and the heavens are given as a starting point.

 

[mislav]

Neither will affirmativly answer the question (as things stand today), in fact nothing but death will.

Unfortunately, even death wouldn't work. It would simply create a Schrodinger's cat superposition kind of thing from which we would still not be able to get a definite answer from.

That's why so many people have died so far and we still have no clue what '42' stands for.

 

[Thalassamania]

Ad hominem found in post #599 by caymaniac where he said that his degree superceded yours and therefore your arguement has no merit.

What do I win?

R

Actually he wrote: "I suggest you read what they have said about God and the forming of this country, receiving a PHD is this field would make me more of an expert than you."

To get technical about it he did not claim to have a PhD, he suggested that IF he had one THAT would make him more of an expert. Sort of like, "if my Grandmother had two wheels she'd be a bicycle."<G>

 

[Thalassamania]

Not exactly. The various age estimates of man kind come from tracing through the lineage and time lines given in the Bible. I think that different theologians come up with slightly different numbers.

I think that the commonly accepted biblical aging of the word by means of tracing the begats was done by one Bishop James Usher, born Jan. 4, 1581, Died Mar 21, 1656 who was the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625&#8211;1656.

In "Annalium pars Postierior" (1654) he claimed that the Earth was created at nightfall Oct 22, 4004 BC.

Wiki article on his methods

 

[H2Andy]

So please give the evidence against the First "law" of thermodynamics. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural means"

see, this is what i mean

some of you guys argue about this stuff and don't really know what you're talking about.

that IS NOT the first law of thermodynamics. look it up, please. this information is widely available.

:shakehead

 

[H2Andy]

In any case, it would seem that spontanious creation either depends on "somthing from nothing" or a "something" that has no beginning and always existed whether it was energy or mass or both.

i've said it before that this is the big question

the answers provided will vary depdending on yoru point of view.

from a scientific point of view, the answer must be (at this stage): we don't know.
we have some theories, but we don't know.

anything that happened before the Big Bang is not knowable to us, since we can only know what happens in the universe, and the universe did not exist before the Big Bang.

from a religious point of view, you could say "God created the universe."

but that's not a scientific statment; that's a statement of faith

 

[Potapko]

matter cannot be created nor destroyed but it can be turned back and forth between matter and energy.
R

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Funny!
changing back and forth does not give an iota of explanation for where it came from and therefore how it stands against the first law.

Matter nor energy in any form cannot be created by natural means. the foolish theory called the "big bang" ultimately says that nothing exploded and here we are.

Please can someone post some empirical evidence for what exploded and where it came from?
Without it your theory floats in non-existent primordial soup.

 

[H2Andy]

dude, you dont even know what the First Law of Thermodynamics is and yet you use it in an argument ... misquoted, of course ...

don't think you have much room to laugh at others

:shakehead

 

[TCDiver1]

see, this is what i mean

some of you guys argue about this stuff and don't really know what you're talking about.

that IS NOT the first law of thermodynamics. look it up, please. this information is widely available.

:shakehead

Really? What is it then?

 

[H2Andy]

jon, re-read what he wrote

"Matter can not be created or destroyed by natural means"

really?

that's the First Law of Thermodynamics?

oy vey

i'd like to see him inject some energy in there so we can get a real definition