MorningGlory Posted April 10, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 10, 2010 Attacking the veracity of the Bible again, Lurker? Gosh, how uncharacteristic of you! So. . .saying the earth is not 6,000 years old is attacking the veracity of the Bible? I'm just trying to get a handle on (spoiler alert) how consistently you apply these accusations. Lurker What else CAN he accuse you of, Lurker? You ARE attacking the inerrancy of the Bible. And, according to him, so are you. You aren't as clever as you think you are, Lurker. Everyone knows the Creation happened roughly six thousand years ago. The earth itself, empty and dark, was already here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 10, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 10, 2010 So we can all agree then that the earth itself actually is around 4.5 billion years old? And we can also agree (at least MorningGlory and I can) that some forms of life have existed on earth for more than 6,000 years? Lurker The earth really IS that old; it seems that ancient forms of life existed millions of years ago but, IMO, God made all of that extinct. I don't have the timeline of course but it's obvious that life, as we know it now, began only a few thousand years ago and man has gone from prehistoric hunter/gatherers to our civilization in the proverbial blink of an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC10 Posted April 12, 2010 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 80 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2010 Why is this in "Faith vs Science"? May. . .be because its an issue that has to do with faith and science? Lurker Well, it does include the word "science" a few times, it's true, but it seems more a topic on doctrine - and it could be an interesting one at that. But if it's really about faith and science, which aspects of the science content do you think HalP was trying to bring to readers' attention? Nothing, his sole intent is to try and sow discord, and he is unable to argue something like this in a coherent manner It does seem to be promoting interesting discussion now, though. I'm very hesitant to admit this, but the whole idea of inerrancy is something I've really only come across since Googling-in to Worthy. How accurate a reflection of Worthy members' view of this matter is the "Inerrancy" article that started this thread? My guess would be "not very". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 12, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2010 Why is this in "Faith vs Science"? May. . .be because its an issue that has to do with faith and science? Lurker Well, it does include the word "science" a few times, it's true, but it seems more a topic on doctrine - and it could be an interesting one at that. But if it's really about faith and science, which aspects of the science content do you think HalP was trying to bring to readers' attention? Nothing, his sole intent is to try and sow discord, and he is unable to argue something like this in a coherent manner It does seem to be promoting interesting discussion now, though. I'm very hesitant to admit this, but the whole idea of inerrancy is something I've really only come across since Googling-in to Worthy. How accurate a reflection of Worthy members' view of this matter is the "Inerrancy" article that started this thread? My guess would be "not very". Care to elaborate on that? What is your own view? Welcome to Worthy, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted April 12, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2010 IL, Can you please clarify? In a literal Adam and Eve A less than 4.5 billion year old earth The Flood of Noah Sure. You said you have no problem with a literal Adam and Eve, but not with creation as literally written in Gen 1 & 2. Doesn't that pose some contradictions for you? If Adam and Eve were literal, we don't NEED evolution, at least not for humans. Adam and Eve also feature in the creation record. Perhaps I have missed something here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSLewis Posted April 13, 2010 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 828 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/28/1980 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Inerrancy? Too err is human... And humans wrote the Bible and rewrote it and canonized it and twisted it and translated it -and retranslated it and added to it and abridged it and threw out parts and misquoted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted April 13, 2010 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Inerrancy? Too err is human... And humans wrote the Bible and rewrote it and canonized it and twisted it and translated it -and retranslated it and added to it and abridged it and threw out parts and misquoted it. Such outrageous claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Would you care providing the evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSLewis Posted April 13, 2010 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 828 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/28/1980 Share Posted April 13, 2010 What part do you need evidence for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 13, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 13, 2010 So we can all agree then that the earth itself actually is around 4.5 billion years old? And we can also agree (at least MorningGlory and I can) that some forms of life have existed on earth for more than 6,000 years? Lurker The earth really IS that old; it seems that ancient forms of life existed millions of years ago but, IMO, God made all of that extinct. I don't have the timeline of course but it's obvious that life, as we know it now, began only a few thousand years ago and man has gone from prehistoric hunter/gatherers to our civilization in the proverbial blink of an eye. Can we also agree, then, that the life forms that existed millions of years ago had very similar DNA to modern creatures? Can we agree that in some cases, such as birds, we can see so much similarity as to make it difficult to classify some ancient critters as either strictly dinosaur or strictly bird? Can we also agree that all of the major plant and animal groups were already present prior to 6,000 years ago? And finally, can we also agree then that physical death existed prior to the fall since, as you stated, life did exist and was then wiped out? Lurker I don't know about the others but I don't agree with any of the above except similar DNA. Why would God reinvent the wheel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 13, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 13, 2010 I don't know about the others but I don't agree with any of the above except similar DNA. Why would God reinvent the wheel? Well if you think dinosaurs were here before the fall that give us reptiles, and we've already discussed algae, so there we have two sizable groups. And if you're going with dinosaurs as pre-Genesis then I don't see why we should exclude any of the other major groups we find alongside them which give us lots of plants and most of the invertebrates and even some of the mammals depending on where your imaginary cut off is. I am very curious into how exactly you think all these critters went extinct without, apparently, dying. Could you clarify? Lurker You know as well as I that 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct. How did they go extinct? They died! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts