Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - Page 17

[joshSCH]

Can you please give some Examples of other things that offer proof.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/Geology/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Scientology is crock though infact the only reason they call themself a church is so that they get the Tax benefits.

hah no kidding

Looking at this post, so far, you haven't dodged a single tough question.

Yes, I give you props Christina for actually staying in this debate as long as you have.. Most Christians would refuse to debate, or would just say something like 'cuz the bible says so'.. Even the tough questions that most priests and bishops wouldn't be able to answer adeptly, you tried to answer or simply said that you didn't know. :)

[christina>you]

I wasn't directing my post directly to you. But kudos to you for responding. Looking at this post, so far, you haven't dodged a single tough question.

Yes, I give you props Christina for actually staying in this debate as long as you have.. Most Christians would refuse to debate, or would just say something like 'cuz the bible says so'.. Even the tough questions that most priests and bishops wouldn't be able to answer adeptly, you tried to answer or simply said that you didn't know. :)

Thank you both. I appreciate the comments. :)

[WaltP]

WaltP - what is your belief? - are you atheist also?

No. I'm one of those agnostic thingies. I believe there is something that is God-like (it's not sentient per se) but not as defined by major religions.

From what i rember carbon dating can have a 2-300 year error margin or mayb it was in the thousands either way i rember that it was not entriely accurate.

Hmmm, so worst case scenario, the tool found that was carboon dated to 23000 years old might only be 20000. Still well beyond the 6000 defined by some Creationists.

That seems like a shallow excuse for "I don't know." So carbon dating is a lie? Who are YOU to say that millions of scientists are wrong? It Is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution happens. It is as much of a fact as the fact that I have five fingers on each hand

But its not Fact though just because alot of people say its that old does not make it true.

Science says it's true. It's not an opinion made up by people just because they want it to be true.

I also do not think that there is overwelming evidence that the earth is that old and alot of the things things like fossils and rock layers etc used as an argument for this can also be explained by a world wide flood.

Then you need to read more. For one there is no evidence of a world wide flood. And there is evidence of the age of the Earth. I find it interesting that your argument is hinges on
1) something unproven as an explanation
2) refusal to accept a proven explanation.
Sounds backwards to me...

Now im not saying that one of these Theories is more plausible then the other only saying that neither are Fact.

That is an opinion -- and an uneducated opinion at that. Do you realize the Earth is basically a ball -- it's not flat, right?

Well of course they [dinosaurs] were alive during the time of humans, I believe God created them for some kind of purpose.

What?!?!? I can't believe you believe that! I thought you believed in an honest God, not a deceptive God! It's a proven fact that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. And man showed up only 200,000 years ago. And if you honestly believe they coexisted, then the proof must be a lie. And the only one who could have fabricated the proof would be God. Science is not that inaccurate to make a mistake of over 64.8 million years...

But it isn't mentioned in detail in the Bible, since Genesis is based around mankind and God. Obviously, there were a lot more creatures than just dinosaurs that were left out of the creation account. If God were to have included every creature in the creation account (well over one billion), such inclusion would have completely lost the spiritual significance of the passage (and would be much longer than the Bible itself). The purpose of the Genesis creation account is to give a description of how God created mankind. But like I also said, dinosaurs are mentioned and described in the Bible, it's just a little vague since there wasn't a word for 'dinosaurs' in the Hebrew language.

If they existed, there would be a Hebrew word for dinosaurs. There's no word because they were unknown to the people that wrote the texts. IMO it's a nonsensical argument that the language does not have a word for something even though the people lived lived with them.

God is so unlike humans physically, that the Bible often paints word pictures to give us a glimpse of what God is like. It seems likely that "in the image of God" refers to the characteristics of the human spirit and the ability to make moral judgments - things that are not found in any animal species, even those to whom we are said to be closely related.

Completely agree. Image of God has nothing to do with physical look.

[jbennet]

Good post walt. I agree

[joshSCH]

What?!?!? I can't believe you believe that! I thought you believed in an honest God, not a deceptive God! It's a proven fact that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. And man showed up only 200,000 years ago. And if you honestly believe they coexisted, then the proof must be a lie. And the only one who could have fabricated the proof would be God. Science is not that inaccurate to make a mistake of over 64.8 million years...

um.. I'm quite sure that the dinosaurs went extinct long before the first homo sapien.

haha yea, I agree. I have no clue where they got that idea from.

[christina>you]

No. I'm one of those agnostic thingies.

Haha, I actually LOLed when I read that sentence! :)

What?!?!? I can't believe you believe that! I thought you believed in an honest God, not a deceptive God! It's a proven fact that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. And man showed up only 200,000 years ago. And if you honestly believe they coexisted, then the proof must be a lie. And the only one who could have fabricated the proof would be God. Science is not that inaccurate to make a mistake of over 64.8 million years...

Yeah, actually I do believe that. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

If they existed, there would be a Hebrew word for dinosaurs. There's no word because they were unknown to the people that wrote the texts. IMO it's a nonsensical argument that the language does not have a word for something even though the people lived lived with them.

Actually, no. At around the 1840's, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, coined the name ‘Dinosauria,’ meaning ‘terrible lizard,’ for this is what the huge bones made him think of. A lot of Scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. And there was no word for "dinosaur" in the Hebrew language... the Bible does talk about "dragons" though. There was evidence that dinosaurs did exist during the time of Job (after the flood). In Job 40:15-24, it describes an animal, called "behemoth," possibly the biggest land animal God had ever created. Impressively, in Job, it describes that this animal moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say that this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of the Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees. Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description.

Also, surprisingly, many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!

[christina>you]

-I'm definitely scared that people are gonna go crazy over my last post. Lol.

[joshSCH]

Yeah, actually I do believe that. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

wow, seriously? Scientists find evidence through science, they do not try to make things fit in their own views. There is plenty of proof that dinosaurs died out long before man ever existed. It's taught in elementary school.. I seriously recommend that you research your idea further.. Especially the scientific tests that are done. There is a tremendous amount of scientific evidence that identifies the Precambrian, Paleozoic, mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras of time. The dinosaurs existed in the mesozoic era from 245-65 million years ago. The dinosaurs went completely extinct (probably from an asteroid), and only the very small mammals survived. During the tertiary period within the Cenozoic era, mammals dominated the planet, and gradually evolved. (65-2 million years ago). And humans only came about 2 million years ago. This is scientific FACT. We discussed theory earlier in this thread, but FACT cannot be disputed. There is undeniable evidence of this... Scientists have tested and retested, and they always come up with the same results.. I mean, if the time periods of humans and dinosaurs were close, then maybe it would be subject to question.. but 2 million compared to 65 million years? come on.. And besides, what would wipe out all the dinosaurs and leave the humans alive?

Please, I ask you to research this further..

[christina>you]

Yes, I am still researching it. And I actually found a site that wasn't biased about it.

"In the 19th century, it was proposed that the Earth may be as much as 70 million years old. Then, certain evidence was brought to light indicating that evolution was not possible in so short a time. So, the age of the Earth was pushed back. During the 20th century, it was thought that the age of the Earth was as much as 1 billion years old. Now, with the development of radiometric dating and the application of that technique on the meteorite "Allende", it is thought that the world is up to 4.6 billion years old. However, this is not conclusive. The assumptions that are fundamental to radiometric dating are extremely controversial, and are not held to be reasonable by many leading scholars."

By the 21st century, "How Old is the Earth?" has become an increasingly difficult question for Old Earth advocates. Every year, more and more Natural Chronometers indicating a Young Earth are being identified. While the majority of scientists still presuppose an Old Earth, 80% of the observable data indicates a Young Earth. With the weight of evidence indicating a Young Earth, the ranks of Young Earth advocate groups has swelled.

[christina>you]

And then I also found this...

With discoveries such as the following Natural Chronometers, we are at the forefront of a Young Earth revolution:

• Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.
• Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
• The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.
• Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
• Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?
• Jupiter's moon, Ganymede, which is roughly the size of Mercury, has a strong magnetic field, a possible indication that it is still hot. Why hasn't it cooled down?
• Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings?
• The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!
• Earth's rotation is slowing down. We experience a leap second every year and a half. If the Earth is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. Besides the problem of extremely short days and nights, the increased "Coriolis Effect" would cause impossible living conditions.
• In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.

[joshSCH]

Actually, no. At around the 1840's, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, coined the name ‘Dinosauria,’ meaning ‘terrible lizard,’ for this is what the huge bones made him think of. A lot of Scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. And there was no word for "dinosaur" in the Hebrew language... the Bible does talk about "dragons" though. There was evidence that dinosaurs did exist during the time of Job (after the flood). In Job 40:15-24, it describes an animal, called "behemoth," possibly the biggest land animal God had ever created. Impressively, in Job, it describes that this animal moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say that this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of the Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees. Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description.

Also, surprisingly, many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!

Ok, you need to come to the realization that everything in the bible is not fact. Just because it says it in the bible, does not make it true. It is scientifically impossible for man and dinosaurs to have roamed the earth together. Science vs. the Bible.. Science will always come out as the victor. How could there be a human civilization and dinosaurs at the same time? What, do you imagine it like the Flinstones or something? I have seriously never heard of the idea of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time... I was taught in elementary school at a Catholic private school that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Fossils, carbon dating, advanced scientific tests all prove this. The Catholic church even acknowledges that there were no dinosaurs during the Quaternary era (the era of human rule).. A few obscure references in the bible does not mean anything. No where in the Bible does it specifically mention anything related to dinosaurs.. The Brachiosaurus reference could have been almost anything.. There is a lot more evidence that dinosaurs and humans did not coexist that there is biblical evidence that they did..
Perhaps discuss this with your pastor, I'm sure he would agree with the scientists on this one.

[christina>you]

No.. actually I'm pretty positive Protestants believe this. Unless they are so deep into science that they don't believe in the Bible.

[christina>you]

And besides, what would wipe out all the dinosaurs and leave the humans alive?

The flood described in Genesis.

[joshSCH]

And then I also found this...

With discoveries such as the following Natural Chronometers, we are at the forefront of a Young Earth revolution:

• Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.
• Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
• The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.
• Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
• Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?
• Jupiter's moon, Ganymede, which is roughly the size of Mercury, has a strong magnetic field, a possible indication that it is still hot. Why hasn't it cooled down?
• Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings?
• The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!
• Earth's rotation is slowing down. We experience a leap second every year and a half. If the Earth is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. Besides the problem of extremely short days and nights, the increased "Coriolis Effect" would cause impossible living conditions.
• In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.

Where exactly are you getting this data.. I suggest a non-biased site such as wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

[christina>you]

A few obscure references in the bible does not mean anything. No where in the Bible does it specifically mention anything related to dinosaurs..

I just discussed this in the other post.

[christina>you]

Where exactly are you getting this data.. I suggest a non-biased site such as wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

Wikipedia is non-biased... :?:

[joshSCH]

The flood described in Genesis.

There is actually no proof of a world wide flood.. And besides, wasn't Noah supposed to get a male and female from every species.. The dinosaurs would have survived if he did so.

[joshSCH]

Wikipedia is non-biased... :?:

No, wikipedia is maintained by the whole world!:)
Where did you get your information from?

[christina>you]

Where exactly are you getting this data.. I suggest a non-biased site such as wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

That site talked about the theories about an "Old Earth" and "Young Earth." It described both sides very well. I just chose to pick the part that I agreed with.

[christina>you]

There is actually no proof of a world wide flood.. And besides, wasn't Noah supposed to get a male and female from every species.. The dinosaurs would have survived if he did so.

No, although everyone thinks that is the truth, it's not.
He was to get certain species that God appointed him to receive into the ark. I have to go to class now, but I'll be back later to describe this.

[joshSCH]

That site talked about the theories about an "Old Earth" and "Young Earth." It described both sides very well. I just chose to pick the part that I agreed with.

And I quote, "Young earth creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis 1 creation story, but scientists dismiss creationism as little more than religiously motivated superstition."

[jbennet]

Hey i actually looked into some of that stuff christina said. Most of it is actually valid scientific points. Hmm, maybe ill have to rethink...

[joshSCH]

... not really...

[joshSCH]

No, although everyone thinks that is the truth, it's not.
He was to get certain species that God appointed him to receive into the ark. I have to go to class now, but I'll be back later to describe this.

...your going to class at 6:00? I thought you were still in hs

[joshSCH]

Yes, I am still researching it. And I actually found a site that wasn't biased about it.

Not biased my ass.. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-old-is-the-earth.htm

[jbennet]

the bit about the moons distance as well as the earths mangeric field and rotation is actually a scientific fact. Its happening - its just the date calculations i dont agree with.

Btw, he dragons / diasours mix up actually well documented.

[joshSCH]

the bit about the moons distance as well as the earths mangeric field and rotation is actually a scientific fact. Its happening - its just the date calculations i dont agree with.

Btw, he dragons / diasours mix up actually well documented.

Most of the stuff that was talked about in that article aren't exactly true.. for example, the earth's magnetic field is very inconstant.. it has even changed polarity several times in the past... Which may account for these inaccurate calculations.

[joshSCH]

I'll admit, theres quite a bit about it on the internet.. but it's all from bs christian website. I've yet to come across some kind of scientific hypothesis of men and dinosaurs coexisting.

[joshSCH]

This is my favorite christian website about it lol:
http://www.truechristian.com/dinosaurs.html

[joshSCH]

No, although everyone thinks that is the truth, it's not.
He was to get certain species that God appointed him to receive into the ark. I have to go to class now, but I'll be back later to describe this.

Was Job not supposedly written after the great flood?