Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
Trying to lump me in with Ahma...jad actually illustrates Onelifetogive's point very well. Thanks for the ping.
I think the evidence offered for the earth being between 6-10 thousand years old, is based on the genealogies in the Bible, from Jesus, back to Adam, coupled with the idea of a 6 day 24 hour day time frame of creation...
I dont know of any strictly scientifc evidence or argument for an Earth of only 6-10 thousand years of age...
I have received radiocarbon dates in the 10-11,000 year range. My immediate colleagues have some even older.
Anything else?
Ann Coulter doesn't cut the darwiniacs (her word) much slack in her latest book.
The honest ones might consider that the "day of Man" is about 6000 years according to Genesis (and a bit of counting,) and the dishonest ones who refuse to look at that text will continue to say things that it does not really say.
S.J. Gould at least had that part correct when it came to people actually refusing to look inside of a horse's mouth in order to determine how many teeth were inside of it.
According to John, the "Logos" was there in the beginning.
Of course nobody reads that thing anyhow.
Everybody is waiting around for the next 400 hitter in Major League Baseball to show up, because everybody knows that things are always getting better. Another S.J. Gould gem.
The 6,000-10,000 date has always seemed to me to be a closer depiction of how old the Jewish religion was thus how old the bible is and right about when the first worshippers of yahweh started writing down their beliefs.
I could be wrong but its just the way that rubbed me when I first heard about a "young earth theory".
That's my point. A literal interpretation of Genesis is irreconcilable with scientific observations. If you want to say that the Bible trumps the evidence from geology, paleontology, and physics, that's fine. I disagree, but at least it's a coherent position. It's when people start misrepresenting the evidence that I have a problem.
Prhaps you should read this article from the Lodon Times.
I've found God, Says Man Who Cracked the Genome - The Sunday Times
God just appeared out of nothing, and created Satan, who in turn created logic.
Oh never mind, that is the Big Bang theory.
Actually, a literal interpretation might make things go a lot easier among reasonable persons.
Just as we can't say if the chicken or the egg came first, we can acknowledge that the Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve were created as a man and a woman. None of that puberty stuff for those two.
By rationalizing that, one might be able to stipulate that the entire planet was made as a mature entity and indeed never had to go through the Pleistocene, Precambrian ages, and all that other stuff evidentialized by strata.
Hey, if I were going to make an argument about the matter, thats probably the position that I'd prefer to hold in a debate.
It can't really be argued as I see it.
On the other hand, something coming from nothing seems pretty far fetched to me.
WOW!! That's a landslide in favor of evolution. Empressive.
Has to be fact!!!
OK It's the meaning of "theory" and "scientific method" that you're shaky on.
“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he [Collins] says.
Religious prosyletizers are often very cruel. They claim that their belief allows them to transgress every element of privacy and common decency. I think that if they are content with THEIR souls, they should leave mine alone.
And trying to turn a difficulty or tragedy into a 'missionary moment' is unethical and unChristian.
Thank you for a thoughtful and heartfelt post.
Itsahoot...I have to agree with Doctor Stochastic, that your last paragraph in your post #48 does NOT represent the view of Francis Collins....
I myself went to the link your provided in your post #129, and from there I quote Collins who says..."“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says."
In other words, Collins himself, by his own words, never says he supports Intelligent Design...in fact, he says he supports evolution...there is no other way to read this quote...
Another quote from the article that you linked to reads, "Among Collins most controversial beliefs is that of 'theistic evolution', which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further"
Again, Collins asserts his support of evolution...
How you arrived at the conclusion that Collins supports Intelligent Design, is something I wonder about...your own links to that article show just the opposite...that Collins was an atheist until he was 27, and then after that, due to various experiences, he came to a belief in God...but nowhere in this article, does it ever say that he believes in Intelligent Design...your own linked article, shows that Collins supports evolution, proven by his own words...
This is going to upset the darwin fundamentalists.
Ah, you beat my reply to Itsahoot by a few minutes...please see my post #137....you and I think alike, regarding this matter...we even posted the very same quotes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.