The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

.

The fact remains that you have said that those in the Rapture are presented for Judgement along with the rest of the nations and that is quite wrong. The seperation of goat from sheep is Judgement and according to what is actually written, those lucky enough to be taken by the Rapture escape Judgement and go directly to Heaven.

In any case, you have to acknowledge that dead Christians have not yet been admitted to Heaven as the Rapture has not yet taken place.

The Rapture basically constitutes a mass breakout, excuse the pun, of Hades relieving Hades of its Christian membership, at some time before the tribulations, yes? And all of these were transported bodily to heaven.

But the Christian martyrs described in Revelation dispute you.

You are quite clearly saying that all Christians in the Rapture escape the second death and yet only one group of Christians is mentioned to have escaped the second death in Revelation. For some reason, the Rapture excluded some Christians, the martyrs, the ones who reign with Christ for a thousand years.

Why were they resurrected after the other Christians? Why did God leave them in Hades for just a bit longer while busting all the others out?

And Revelation is quite clear, at the beginning of the thousand year reign, only murdered sinless Christians took part in that (third) first resurrection. All the rest of the dead in Hades, Death and the sea had to wait a thousand years to be resurrected and were subject to the second death in accordance with the book of life. And nowhere does it say that the fate of those in Hades was sealed before the thousand year reign and after the Rapture, that the reading of the books and subsequent Judgements was merely a formality.

But you have said that some, the martyrs, were not resurrected during the Rapture.

And you have said that those martyrs did appear in front of Jesus for the sheep/goat thing.

But wait a minute, if the Rapture is their first resurrection then surely they didn't die a second death so that they could be resurrected again to reign with Jesus?

But they must have, if you are right.

That is assuming that you stick by the claim that the sheep/goat thing was the Rapture event combined with a practice of the final Judgement event, otherwise there is yet another layer of death and resurrection.

But you do have to explain why the martyrs weren't resurrected in the Rapture.

Also there is a little problem for the co-martyrs of those of the fifth seal. They were told to wait until their numbers had be completed but many of their number would be survivers of the tribulation. How come they get fast-tracked into Gods service while the rest of them stayed crammed under an altar?

Seems unfair. Martrys have to languish in Hades while those who converted as the angels put them to death get a 'Go Straight To Heaven' card.

Your new religion has nothing to do with the bible that I am discussing has it?

J C

Masteroid wrote: »

The fact remains that you have said that those in the Rapture are presented for Judgement along with the rest of the nations and that is quite wrong. The seperation of goat from sheep is Judgement and according to what is actually written, those lucky enough to be taken by the Rapture escape Judgement and go directly to Heaven.

The Rapture takes place before the Great Tribulation ... while the Great Judgement takes place immediately after the Great Tribulation is ended, at the Glorious Return of Jesus Christ.
The Great Judgement judges the damned ... and rewards the Saved.

Masteroid wrote: »

In any case, you have to acknowledge that dead Christians have not yet been admitted to Heaven as the Rapture has not yet taken place.

There are no embodied Saved in Heaven yet ... but the spirits of the Saved dead are there.

Masteroid wrote: »

The Rapture basically constitutes a mass breakout, excuse the pun, of Hades relieving Hades of its Christian membership, at some time before the tribulations, yes? And all of these were transported bodily to heaven.

The Saved in Hades were brought out of Hades to Heaven by Jesus Christ at the time of Christ's death.
The Rapture has yet to take place.

Masteroid wrote: »

But the Christian martyrs described in Revelation dispute you.

You are quite clearly saying that all Christians in the Rapture escape the second death and yet only one group of Christians is mentioned to have escaped the second death in Revelation. For some reason, the Rapture excluded some Christians, the martyrs, the ones who reign with Christ for a thousand years.
Why were they resurrected after the other Christians? Why did God leave them in Hades for just a bit longer while busting all the others out?

The Great Tribulation Martyrs are given special mention as reigning with Christ during the Millennium ... but the rest of Saints also reign with Him.

Masteroid wrote: »

And Revelation is quite clear, at the beginning of the thousand year reign, only murdered sinless Christians took part in that (third) first resurrection. All the rest of the dead in Hades, Death and the sea had to wait a thousand years to be resurrected and were subject to the second death in accordance with the book of life. And nowhere does it say that the fate of those in Hades was sealed before the thousand year reign and after the Rapture, that the reading of the books and subsequent Judgements was merely a formality.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Masteroid wrote: »

But you have said that some, the martyrs, were not resurrected during the Rapture.

The Great Tribulation Martyrs aren't Saved at the time of the Rapture ... and as the Church era of Grace ends with the Rapture ... they can only be Saved at the point of death ... during the Great Tribulation ... at the hands of the Anti-christ and his agents ... when they refuse his Mark.

Masteroid wrote: »

And you have said that those martyrs did appear in front of Jesus for the sheep/goat thing.

Yes, because they have been killed and gone to Heaven by then ... and the Great Judgement takes place immdiately after the the Great Tribulation.

Masteroid wrote: »

But wait a minute, if the Rapture is their first resurrection then surely they didn't die a second death so that they could be resurrected again to reign with Jesus?

They don't die a second death ... and they will reign during the Millennium with Christ.

Masteroid wrote: »

But they must have, if you are right.

The second death ... is the death of death and Hades.

Masteroid wrote: »

That is assuming that you stick by the claim that the sheep/goat thing was the Rapture event combined with a practice of the final Judgement event, otherwise there is yet another layer of death and resurrection.

Your mental contortions are truly amazing ... and I have answered this (releatedly) already.

Masteroid wrote: »

But you do have to explain why the martyrs weren't resurrected in the Rapture.

... because they aren't dead yet ... and they aren't Saved yet.

Masteroid wrote: »

Also there is a little problem for the co-martyrs of those of the fifth seal. They were told to wait until their numbers had be completed but many of their number would be survivers of the tribulation. How come they get fast-tracked into Gods service while the rest of them stayed crammed under an altar?

This is during the Great Tribulation.

Masteroid wrote: »

Seems unfair. Martrys have to languish in Hades while those who converted as the angels put them to death get a 'Go Straight To Heaven' card.

The Saved haven't been in Hades since the Crucifixion.

Masteroid wrote: »

Your new religion has nothing to do with the bible that I am discussing has it?.

I am a Biblical Christian ... you're the guy that is apparently unable to read the Bible.
... but Jesus loves you ... and wants to Save you none-the-less !!!;)

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

Dream on!!!:D

God grants peoples wish to be Saved ... or not ... and you can't get any more democratic than that!!

... as for trying to 'gang-up' on God ... forget about it ... Lucifer tried that ... and he has been licking his eternal wounds ... ever since!!:eek:

God's people are indeed very few ... but they have the power of the living God ... and that makes them invincible ... as this thread proves!!:D

Since you stand by what you say, your position can be summed up as since you believe in creationism, the bible and prophecy are in error and should read more like the book that you are writing.

Anyway J C, it's been fun and the lack of support you have received from your colleagues speaks volumes.

For me, this has simply been an exploration of the bible and how it might be interpreted and I think that a 'true Christian' would have answered along the lines of, 'yes, this is an easy error to make but if you look at the reference...' and some sort of discussion might have broken out where views are compared, objections raised, etc.

Instead, you have given me an arena by playing devil's advocate and should really not be too proud of your performance here over the past pages of this thread.

Your demonstration of ignorance resulted from your possession of ignorance and you allowed me to present, re-present, justify and show a solid argument against your position and now, the only way you, or Christianity can get around it is by ignoring it.

'He might be right,' I hear you all say, 'but why should I be the one to tell the Pope that 2 billion humans are being led to the bosom of Satan?'

Of course, I would argue that the Pope already knows since anyone who 'plain reads' the bible can see that the final prophecies are things to be avoided, not embraced.

In any other situation, plotting the downfall of your fellow kind is treason and betrayal.

And just because God has not been defeated does not mean we should not fight.

But Christians don't know what the bible means, they believe what they've been told it means. That's why most don't bother even trying to analyze it, what they read is difficult to reconcile with what they 'know' so out of fear, for some, a lack of courage in most, they don't bother.

They've been told. They know. They don't have to read because holy people don't break commandments do they?

My view is that Creationism is bunkum. Its adherents openly use the bible to challenge science. Which it can't. That would be like the wind challenging the sun. It can't.

Creationism can only appeal to those who are gullible and who are prepared to ignore their senses and explain their cognitive dissonance as being due to their conditioning by Satan's Evolutionists, that the cure is to ignore it.

And you do.

The bible has been in the hands of men for thousands of years. And, believe it or not, sometimes men are corrupt. The fact that the bible has such an influence over people would make it a target for those who would seek to control men. Yes, it's true. Sometimes, people alter texts, add or remove text even, in order to promote their own agenda as being part of God's will.

A lot of what God said in the bible came through Samuel. God talked to him and he talked to kings. Do you see the opportunity for corruption there?

And this throughout human history. The bible may have been written by God originally but the bible we read today is catalogue of bent meanings put into human context in order to influence our relationship with the state and more importantly, wealth.

And they are the men who prophecied, not the prophets.

Therefore, Revelation was chosen for its impact rather than truth. Make people conform by frighening the life out of them.

Well, it works but it is what it is, extortion with the threat of violence.

Bible, Creationism and Prophesy are a threat to the progress of mankind. Only by relieving ourselves of these things can we go on and truly inherit the earth.

(And what use is the earth to the meek at the end times. They won't have it for long will they?)

Good luck and be happy.

J C

Masteroid wrote: »

Good luck and be happy.

... so you concede on the prophecy issue.

Please stop fighting God ... He speaks very highly of you!!!:):D

... be happy ... be well ... and be Saved.:)

The Concrete Doctor

JC, you say "It's all in the Word of God."

Its all the word of God. So these passages are to be obeyed because they are the word of God:

Deuteronomy 22:23 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

Of course you can interpret them and say they actually mean this or that, or this section of the Bible has been superseded etc. But these are just examples of how the Bible was written for its time and can't really all be taken seriously today.

pauldla

J C wrote: »

It is as outrageous as me posting a cartoon showing a Creationist Doctor asking an Evolutionist patient with TB why he wanted any medical treatment, in view of his belief in 'survival of the fittest'.
... and I then start justifying it on the basis that Evoutionists deserve second rate medical treatment because they are 'small-minded petty idiots' that don't know what is good for them!!!
... when they are just as intelligent and deserving of proper medical care as Creationists.

... and could I suggest that when you are in a self-dug metaphorical 'hole' ... you should stop digging!!;)

JC, you have completely misconstrued the cartoon. How can a person be so baffled by something so straightforward? If you can't follow a Doonesbury cartoon (is is Doonesbury, isn't it? It looks like his style), I can only wonder at what bizarre conclusions you come to from more complicated texts. Of course, I have this thread to assist my musings.

A telling choice of metaphor in your last comment: are you afraid of what the digging might unearth? Or is it a reference to your noted distrust of geologists?

crosstrainer1

i have to laugh at the creationism vs evaluation people of this world.IT HAS been proven time and time again that the world is millions/ billions of years old. my question is this to Creationism if god made man/ animals why doesnt he recreate the dodo or the woolly mamouth personally id like to see these animal walking about. and please dont give me that dont put the lord thy god to test crap. did you see the fella from northen ireland on the road trip programme in his red white and blue house. he had a pillow saying every dog has its day and man claiming that hes one of gods childrens and defenders with a vengeful saying displayed for all to see. How many none christians that are out there feeding the hungry caring for the sick and being there for people who have nothing in their lives they dont care if the world was made in 7 days or 7 billion years they care about people in todays word today

J C

crosstrainer1 wrote: »

i have to laugh at the creationism vs evaluation people of this world.IT HAS been proven time and time again that the world is millions/ billions of years old. my question is this to Creationism if god made man/ animals why doesnt he recreate the dodo or the woolly mamouth personally id like to see these animal walking about. and please dont give me that dont put the lord thy god to test crap.

IT HASN'T been proven that the world is billions of years old.
For example, the idea that sedimentary rocks that are hundreds of feet deep took millions of years to lay down and harden under pressure ... is disproven by polystrate tree fossils and the fact that the cementing process that produced them will harden within hours.

crosstrainer1 wrote: »

did you see the fella from northen ireland on the road trip programme in his red white and blue house. he had a pillow saying every dog has its day and man claiming that hes one of gods childrens and defenders with a vengeful saying displayed for all to see.

'Every dog has his day' ... is a fact of life and it has nothing to do with vengeance!!

crosstrainer1 wrote: »

How many none christians that are out there feeding the hungry caring for the sick and being there for people who have nothing in their lives they dont care if the world was made in 7 days or 7 billion years they care about people in todays word today

That's good ... so can we expect that all this 'millions of years' stuff will cease? ... as Evolutionists help their fellow man ... and generally have more important things to do, than confusing themselves and others, with irrational ideas about their supposedly Spontaneous origins.:D

Gumbi

JC, what is your explanation for us seeing objects at great distance? How do you quantify the fact that we see objects light years away? Magic?

J C

Gumbi wrote: »

JC, what is your explanation for us seeing objects at great distance? How do you quantify the fact that we see objects light years away? Magic?

Light years are a measure of distance ... not time.
It is believed that in the earliest stages of the Creation of the Universe that an almost instantaneous 'expansion' occurred ... and this was not in accord with current 'normal' physics and this 'stretching out' also stretched out light as well ... so that we now see stars at enormous distances.

This type of phenomenon is not unique to Creation Science ... the Big Bang Hypothesis also involves an 'inflation' phase (outside of 'normal' physics as well), shortly after the singularity that supposedly triggered the Big Bang.

Finally, I would say that the distances in deep space aren't measured by direct triangulation ... and therefore the actual distances are only as reliable as the assumptions that they are based on.

Gumbi

Dad's Silly Triangle, JC. Have you not heard of it? Distance = Speed/Time.

You're making an assumption that the speed of light isn't constant. And everything we've found so far indicates that it is. We have no reason to assume that this isn't so, nothing has contradicted this line of thinking; in addition we have consistency across more than a few other methods of dating.

The evidence is indisputable.

J C

Gumbi wrote: »

Dad's Silly Triangle, JC. Have you not heard of it? Distance = Speed/Time.

You're making an assumption that the speed of light isn't constant. And everything we've found so far indicates that it is. We have no reason to assume that this isn't so, nothing has contradicted this line of thinking; in addition we have consistency across more than a few other methods of dating.

The evidence is indisputable.

Not quite ... even conventional scientists are postulating that the speed of light was up to 60 orders of magnitude faster than its present value!!!
Prof João Magueijo who is a Portuguese cosmologist and professor of Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London has pioneered the VSL (Variable Speed of Light) theory.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/light-traveled-faster-in-the-early-universe-todays-most-popular.html

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Not quite ... even conventional scientists are postulating that the speed of light was up to 60 orders of magnitude faster than its present value!!!
Prof João Magueijo who is a Portuguese cosmologist and professor of Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London has pioneered the VSL (Variable Speed of Light) theory.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/light-traveled-faster-in-the-early-universe-todays-most-popular.html

And the point in the history of the universe they are referring to when discussing VSL? Trillions of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

You're having your cake and eating it if you're going to cite something in support in of the Big Bang as evidence for creationism.

J C

koth wrote: »

And the point in the history of the universe they are referring to when discussing VSL? Trillions of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

It went on for significantly longer than this ... and indeed The Big Bang has a similar problem to the one you cite against Creation models ... the Horizon Problem.
Quote Wikipedia:-
"The idea from Moffat and the team Albrecht-Magueijo is that light propagated as much as 60 orders of magnitude faster in the early universe, thus distant regions of the expanding universe have had time to interact at the beginning of the universe. There is no known way to solve the horizon problem with variation of the fine-structure constant, because its variation does not change the causal structure of spacetime. To do so would require modifying gravity by varying Newton's constant or redefining special relativity. Classically, varying speed of light cosmologies propose to circumvent this by varying the dimensionful quantity c by breaking the Lorentz invariance of Einstein's theories of general and special relativity in a particular way."

You're having your cake and eating it if you're going to cite something in support in of the Big Bang as evidence for creationism.[/QUOTE]

Delirium

Creationism has a much bigger problem with VSL because it would mean that God created the universe and purposely made it so that the age of the universe couldn't be calculated. You honestly think God is a trickster?

J C

koth wrote: »

Creationism has a much bigger problem with VSL because it would mean that God created the universe and purposely made it so that the age of the universe couldn't be calculated. You honestly think God is a trickster?

He told us in His Word what the age of the Universe is ... less than 10,000 years.

The problem of not being able to calculate the age of the Universe is an Atheist/Agnostic/Theistic Evolutionist one ... and it's not an issue for Creationism ... as we have the genealogies to prove it.:)

... give up ye'r auld sins ... and go get Saved ... before its too late.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

He told us in His Word what the age of the Universe is ... less than 10,000 years.

The problem of not being able to calculate the age of the Universe is an Atheist/Agnostic/Theistic Evolutionist one ... and it's not an issue for Creationism ... as we have the genealogies to prove it.:)

That doesn't make sense. If creationism is correct then it should be no problem to prove the age of the universe. The speed of light and fossil dating are two very big flies in the creationist ointment.

That's before we even scratch the surface of minimum populations required for survival of the human species. Creationism contends it took just over 4400 years for one family to populate the world. But yet we have no population records that confirm that idea.

Doc Farrell

I guess this is as good a thread as any to post a quote from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

In his magnum opus, Teilhard writes: "Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforth if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow....The consciousness of each of us is evolution looking at itself and reflecting upon itself....Man is not the center of the universe as once we thought in our simplicity, but something much more wonderful--the arrow pointing the way to the final unification of the world in terms of life. Man alone constitutes the last-born, the freshest, the most complicated, the most subtle of all the successive layers of life....The universe has always been in motion and at this moment continues to be in motion. But will it still be in motion tomorrow?....What makes the world in which we live specifically modern is our discovery in it and around it of evolution....Thus in all probability, between our modern earth and the ultimate earth, there stretches an immense period, characterized not by a slowing-down but a speeding up and by the definitive florescence of the forces of evolution along the line of the human shoot."[3] No doubt, the evolutionary stance of this work was sufficient enough to warrant its being condemned by the dogmatic religionists of that time.

Taken from a fascinating article that discusses the criticisms that Fr Pierre faced in his lifetime from both scientists and his superiors.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/birx.html

By the way, I'm not suggesting that all his views were right, that's certainly not the kind of unthinking view that Teilhard de Chardin would have encouraged, but I have no doubt he is a brilliant visionary, similar in some ways to Galileo or the fascinating Dominican Giordano Bruno.

J C

Doc Farrell wrote: »

By the way, I'm not suggesting that all his views were right,

On this we can agree!!

Doc Farrell wrote: »

that's certainly not the kind of unthinking view that Teilhard de Chardin would have encouraged, but I have no doubt he is a brilliant visionary, similar in some ways to Galileo or the fascinating Dominican Giordano Bruno.

Chardin was no Galileo or Bruno.

J C

koth wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. If creationism is correct then it should be no problem to prove the age of the universe. The speed of light and fossil dating are two very big flies in the creationist ointment.

The speed of light is now regarded as varying by up to 60 orders of magnitude in the early Universe ... so, as you have already said, this certainly doesn't support 'long ages'.
... and fossil 'dating' is circular logic in action.

koth wrote: »

That's before we even scratch the surface of minimum populations required for survival of the human species. Creationism contends it took just over 4400 years for one family to populate the world. But yet we have no population records that confirm that idea.

At a net average of only 2.5 children produced per couple, 7 billion people would be produced in only 99 generations ... or 3,465 years, if the average generation length was 35 years.
... so there is no difficulty whatsoever in producing the present World population starting with one man and one woman in a few thousand years.

maguffin

I'm just throwing this in to add more fuel.....read entire article...

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The speed of light is now regarded as varying by up to 60 orders of magnitude in the early Universe ... so, as you have already said, this certainly doesn't support 'long ages'.

I've said no such thing.

Fossil 'dating' is circular logic in action.

as opposed to "I know that Genesis is true because it's in the bible"? Have you some alternative that you can share with the scientific world instead of fossil dating?

At a net average of only 2.5 children produced per couple, 7 billion people would be produced in only 99 generations ... or 3,465 years, if the average generation length was 35 years.
... so there is no difficulty whatsoever in producing the present World population starting with one man and one woman in a few thousand years.

Presuming 2 people at year zero, how many people do you have after 200 years?

Doc Farrell

J C wrote: »

Chardin was no Galileo or Bruno.

I agree in the sense that they're not quoted by theologians the world over every week, including the current Pope.


In July 2009, during a vespers service held in Aosta Cathedral in northern Italy, Pope Benedict XVI, reflecting on the Epistle to the Romans in which "St. Paul writes that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship", commented on Teilhard:[18]
It's the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. Let's pray to the Lord that he help us be priests in this sense, to help in the transformation of the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.
[edit]

Taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenon_of_Man

Gumbi

JC, your views are so far detached from reality... I don't know what to say really. Fossil dating is circular logic?

J C

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I agree in the sense that they're not quoted by theologians the world over every week, including the current Pope.


In July 2009, during a vespers service held in Aosta Cathedral in northern Italy, Pope Benedict XVI, reflecting on the Epistle to the Romans in which "St. Paul writes that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship", commented on Teilhard:[18]
It's the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. Let's pray to the Lord that he help us be priests in this sense, to help in the transformation of the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.
[edit]

Taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenon_of_Man

Given the fact that Chardin's writings were treated as heretical by his Religious Superiors in the Jesuits, at the time, and by other Popes, like Pius XII ... I guess, as a Roman Catholic, you can 'pay your money and take your pick' on the issue of Papal endorsement ... or not ... of Chardin (and Spontaneous Evolution)!!!:):D

Quote:-
"After The Phenomenon of Man was denied publication by his superiors, Teilhard then wrote Man's Place in Nature: The Human Zoological Group (1950) as a more scientific statement of his interpretation of evolution (focusing on our species) in terms of teleology and spiritualism. With controlled enthusiasm, he writes: "Man is, in appearance, a 'species,' no more than a twig, an offshoot from the branch of the primates--but one that we find to be endowed with absolutely prodigious biological properties....Without the earth could there be man?"[4] Unfortunately, the publication of this book was also denied along with his request to teach in Paris.

On 12 August 1950, Pope Pius XII issued the Encyclical Letter Humani generis in which he gave priority to a Thomistic interpretation of Divine Revelation as contained in the Holy Scriptures over the growing empirical evidence of the special sciences concerning earth history and life forms upon it. In this document, he warned that opinions on the theory of evolution may be erroneous, i.e., fictitious or conjectural. Briefly, for him, evolution was held to be merely a questionable hypothesis and possibly even sterile speculation or only false science. Obviously, this Papal warning from the Vatican was (at least in part) a direct result of Teilhard's unsuccessful request for the publication of his slightly revised version of The Phenomenon of Man in 1948. "
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/birx.html

J C

koth wrote: »

I've said no such thing.

You Said:-
"Creationism has a much bigger problem with VSL because it would mean that God created the universe and purposely made it so that the age of the universe couldn't be calculated."
... and I pointed out that VSL means that he problem of not being able to calculate the age of the Universe is an Atheist/Agnostic/Theistic Evolutionist one.

koth wrote: »

as opposed to "I know that Genesis is true because it's in the bible"? Have you some alternative that you can share with the scientific world instead of fossil dating?

... as opposed to ... "it must be millions of years and therefore that fossil is millions of years old".

koth wrote: »

Presuming 2 people at year zero, how many people do you have after 200 years?

At a net average of only 2.5 children produced per couple, 8 people would be produced after 6 generations ... or approximately 200 years, if the average generation length was 35 years.
However, reproductive performance would be much greater than 2.5 children per couple in the earlier generations of Mankind, when they 'went forth and multiplied' at that time.
If there were 10 children per couple, there would be 31,250 people in the sixth generation, at about 200 years from 'Year Zero'

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You Said:-
"Creationism has a much bigger problem with VSL because it would mean that God created the universe and purposely made it so that the age of the universe couldn't be calculated."
... and I pointed out that VSL means that he problem of not being able to calculate the age of the Universe is an Atheist/Agnostic/Theistic Evolutionist one.

See? I said creationism has the problem with it. I've no seen any mention anywhere that VSL suggests that the universe could possibly be less than 10,000 years old.

But at least we've established that VSL does nothing for the creationist argument.

... as opposed to ... "it must be millions of years and therefore that fossil is millions of years old".

That isn't how fossil dating works and you would know that if you ever decided to read any of the replies that you've been given that show how it works.

At a net average of only 2.5 children produced per couple, 8 people would be produced after 6 generations ... or approximately 200 years, if the average generation length was 35 years.
However, reproductive performance would be much greater than 2.5 children per couple in the earlier generations of Mankind, when they 'went forth and multiplied' at that time.
If there were 10 children per couple, there would be 31,250 people in the sixth generation, at about 200 years from 'Year Zero'

But that doesn't allow for war or disease with regards to population over time. You presume that 100% of the population procreates with 100% efficiency

AFAIK Noah only had 3 sons but by your reasoning he should have had something closer to 30 (he did live to be about 500 years old)?

Doc Farrell

That's why I compared his relationship with the Catholic Church as similar to Galileo's. in both cases their views were considered heretical in a period of history and in both cases the Church officially accepts that they were right.

I guess this isn't really going to matter to you but I think it might help others who might not understand how human history works ie things change.

For the record, and again this doesn't apply to your position, but for others reading the Catholic Church has no interest in denying the scientific reality of our current understanding of how evolution works.

J C

koth wrote: »

See? I said creationism has the problem with it. I've no seen any mention anywhere that VSL suggests that the universe could possibly be less than 10,000 years old.

But at least we've established that VSL does nothing for the creationist argument.

The VSL completely debases the argument that the existence of 'millions of years' is implied by the light from distant stars being seen on Earth.

koth wrote: »

That isn't how fossil dating works and you would know that if you ever decided to read any of the replies that you've been given that show how it works.

That's exactly how it works ... we don't know the ratio of parent to daughter material that was there at the start, whether any parent of daughter material was physically added or subtracted over time ... and we don't even know that the rate of radioactive decay was even constant over time.

When you think about it we know so little that nothing definitive can be said about the ages of fossils ... or the rocks in which we find them.
Indeed we even find so called 'living fossils' from the so-called 'Age of the Dinosaurs' and earlier alive today ... and completely unchanged in comparison with their supposed 'millions of years' old fossils!!!

koth wrote: »

But that doesn't allow for war or disease with regards to population over time. You presume that 100% of the population procreates with 100% efficiency.

Bump it up to 3 children per woman ... and you have millions of extra people to allow for war, disease, etc.

koth wrote: »

AFAIK Noah only had 3 sons but by your reasoning he should have had something closer to 30 (he did live to be about 500 years old)?

Noah had only 3 sons who accompanied him on the Ark. The Bible records the age of each Patriarch when the son in the genealogy was born. This doesn't mean that other children weren't also born to these people ... indeed the Bible records that other sons and daughters were also born to most of them.
It would appear that Shem, Ham, and Japheth (who accompanied Noah on the Ark) were triplets!!!

Gerry T

If we all descended from such a small family group, how can you explain the diverse types of people living today, Black, White, Chinese, Aboriginal, pigmy, Swiss -- all from the same family ??? Creationist would have to beleive in evolution for that diversity but is it possible to have such diversity in such a short time frame.