True Age of the Universe - Biblical Fact - From Age 0 to Jesus

[Kenshiro]

---

dire palang daan error naka..basta diay disputed will automatically lead to a conclusion...asa man imo logic dong?

disputed gani is to question the truth or validity or doubt..nganong conclusion man nga " therefore stands that the earth was young. " mao ni non sequitor nga reasoning bai..sama ra na nga gi dudahan ta ka nga bayot ka , there it stands that you are bayot gyud.hehehehe.. pag sure oi..



see dili nimo na ma apply ang spiritual concept sa genesis sa unit of measure to measure time sa panabot sa bag ong panahon nga atong gisunod..are you sure nga kanang 7 days pag create sa universe pareha na sa imo calendar method nga imong gigamit karon..kung sure ka tagai kog verse sa bible.

We are presenting evidences that refutes the old earth
yes if there are a lot of logical evidence and ideas that disputes a theory one can make a conclusion. Isn't that a valid process in science? we are talking about tons of evidences not mere speculation.

its more like this
dudahan tika nga bayot ka since based on some evidences you have a boyfriend that you dated and have intimate moments in plaza independencia aw maka conclude ta na bayot jud ka. ka claro na ana.

see dili nimo na ma apply ang spiritual concept sa genesis sa unit of measure to measure time sa panabot sa bag ong panahon nga atong gisunod..are you sure nga kanang 7 days pag create sa universe pareha na sa imo calendar method nga imong gigamit karon..kung sure ka tagai kog verse sa bible.

This is where you missed something. Did God tell Moses which is the seventh day? Did Jesus tell his disciples to pray that their flight may not be in the winter or in the sabbath? Did Abraham pleased God since he kept the commandments of God also
Science fills the gap on which is the seventh day


I showed you evidences of young earth theory. But I do believe you believe in a psudo science of combining religion and the theory of evolution which is basically mixing error with truth. And the result of mixing error and truth is simply error.

Why Evolution does not mix with scripture

Compromise between Creation and evolution is not possible. The Bible clearly states that Creation occurred in one week, in a sequence that does not match up with natural selection or other evolutionary processes.
Six Literal Days

Some scientists try to find common ground between Creation and evolution by converting the seven days of Genesis 1 into long time periods. This change allows for evolution to occur within the framework of the Creation story.

However, Genesis 1 clearly indicates that the Creation was in fact seven literal 24-hour days.

Consider verses 5, 8, and 13 as examples:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day...

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day...

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The use of the definite article "the" in the designation of the days implies a literal 24-hour day. Also, the specific mention of the day cycle, "the evening and the morning" further proves that the author implies literal days.
The Order of Creation

Evolution clearly cannot fit into the Creation paradigm because of the time constraints of the seven-day Creation period. Moreover, the sequence of events suggested by evolution do not align with the order in which Creation occurred.

The first three days of Creation involve the physical environment, and the next three days involve the filling of that environment.

On day one God creates light, on day two He creates the sky. On the third day, God creates the terrestrial environment by gathering the water into one place and letting dry land appear in another. He then creates the plants, which are to serve as food for the life forms to be created on the subsequent days.

This order of Creation leaves no room for co-evolution of plants and animals, which is a basic premise of the evolutionary theory. Here the plants are designed as a source of food and the animals that will make use of these for sustenance are specifically created to occupy the prepared niche. Any co-dependence is thus by virtue of Design rather than evolution.

On the fourth day, God creates the sun and the moon. If we were to suggest that the days of Creation represent long periods of time, our dilemma would be that the plants, created on day three, would have had to exist without a sun for millions of years.

On the fifth day, God creates all the creatures that swim and fly, and on the sixth day, He creates the land creatures. Here again we cannot reconcile the Biblical record of the days of Creation with the long time periods needed for evolution.

According to the theory of evolution, birds and mammals evolved from reptiles. However, birds and flying mammals were created on the fifth day—before the terrestrial reptiles created on the sixth day. Birds and flying mammals would thus have preceded their ancestors.

A similar problem is encountered when we consider the marine mammals such as the whales, dolphins, and seals which would also precede their ancestors. According to the evolutionary theory, these marine mammals evolved from land mammals that were forced to move to marine environments. But we know that sea mammals were created before land mammals.

So considering the evidences the scripture doesn't agree with the theory of Evolution. So either you believe in one of them but compromise is impossible.

I would rather question your stand of combining religion and theory of evolution.

[biano]

^^ Bro Kenshiro.. nice kaayo ni.. Gi in-ani gyd pag explain ni Kent Hovind, ect.

Di man gyd pwedi i combine ang theory of evolution and Holy Scripture "With out" destroying the Genesis account.

It's either laban ka sa Scripture or sa theory of evolution.

Billions of years is nothing more than "Long long ago, in a far far away land fairytale."

[biano]

The Evolution Formula - Eric Hovind(son of Kent Hovind).



How Big is big?



Evidence of God



Six Types of Evolution

[rodsky]

Well that's it. With that series of videos, I don't see this as a discussion thread anymore but a propaganda thread. As an astronomy educator, I take offense to this latest round of videos, especially to the one that uses the comparative sizes of objects in the universe as a springboard to quote Isaiah. I also take offense to the next video that implies that people of science are actively 'suppressing' the existence of (a) god--from our vantage point, the notion is quite ridiculous, I mean why should we suppress knowledge of something that we consider to be non-existent in the first place?

If biano's continued presence in these boards mean the continued posting of such videos that twist the current scientific knowledge into one that attempts to cunningly 'blend' and 'weave' creationism into scientific principles (which can stand alone without any support from mysticism), then I consider this as a threat to science. iStorya.net considers science too important to be muddled by ideas that run contradictory to its nature (which is why iStorya.net considered putting up a science section in the first place).

Therefore I am banning biano. Anyone who protests me banning him, should consult the mods and admins of iStorya.net.


Ok ra man unta mag discuss ug creationist ideas purely from the perspective of theology, but once you MIX science into creationist ideas in the hopes of 'passing it up' as something 'scientific', ay Dodong, magka-problema jud ka sa ako diha.

-RODION

[SioDenz]

People like to simplify things. Thus from your argument, people who have read your post will just conclude that anything that "saves human beings" is a "good" thing and everything that kills human beings (esp. things brought about by science) as a bad thing. The reality is, you cannot simplify things like that, but you are correct that you can fool simple people into thinking that what you just posted is 'right', that science does more harm than good. However, I'm confident that most people are smart enough and have capability to see beyond what you're trying to imply.

-RODION

I am not saying I am right, and I am not saying Science is all Bad. What im trying to say is that when we define the reason of existence to just because of Curiosity or just to simplify things - it will do more harm than Good, that we will sacrifice a lot of peoples lives just to satisfy some peoples curiosity.

[MeaCulpa]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

since from the ancient days, wew. still arguing. Why can't we live in Harmony? Mr. Rods, you are a true athiest. not just "wannabes" . I appreciate your ideas but as how you believe in Science, so do we in our GOD. All the fact that science produced, comes from the people who unitedly approved it is fact, all the truths that we believer have comes from our GOD. All of us has something or SOMEONE, we believe in, it's just, they're too different. Science gives satisfaction to our curios mind, FAITH, is an aural silhouette of hope and contentment in our lives.

There's should be no banning here. We both just express our thoughts. Mr. Rod, join the loudmouth atheist group in facebook, i;ve been there, and there's only few of them who i can compare to you. GOD bless.

[rodsky]

There lies the difference. You always talk of belief. I do not "believe" in science. Belief requires faith. I see science as a tool, like everything else is just a tool for existence, but that doesn't make me less human or less 'good' than anyone else. Do I have faith in a hammer? Why should I? As long as I know how to use it, I will use the hammer in the right way, to get the job done. And that, is what it is all about.

The case with biano is different--what he just did is downright propaganda, and a twisted one at that. You may continue with your discussions, but if your posts turn into a vein similar to what biano has just done, then be prepared for the consequences.

-RODION

[Grammaton]

@rodsky

mas makasabot man gud ang tawo kung dunay graphical presentation or videos than mere words. if you think mas rational ang taw being atheist, then ayaw gamita imong alas nga i-ban dayon nimo! diba mao man sad imong goal nga masabtan sa schools ang evolution theory? how come i embrace na sa taw when in fact, dili man gani ka rational modala ug discussion, mura kag mahadlok makakita ang taw sa mga presentation sa christian POV. Kung pwede warningan lang usa kay daghan sad baya diri mohatag ug video links.

[rodsky]

@rodsky

mas makasabot man gud ang tawo kung dunay graphical presentation or videos than mere words. if you think mas rational ang taw being atheist, then ayaw gamita imong alas nga i-ban dayon nimo! diba mao man sad imong goal nga masabtan sa schools ang evolution theory? how come i embrace na sa taw when in fact, dili man gani ka rational modala ug discussion, mura kag mahadlok makakita ang taw sa mga presentation sa christian POV. Kung pwede warningan lang usa kay daghan sad baya diri mohatag ug video links.

Videos, yes. But with the intent of blatant misuse of scientific facts for creationist purposes? I will not tolerate that.

-RODION

[MeaCulpa]

expression. deprivation. istorya ta. i maybe pages behind you Mr. Rod, and i respect you, i respect everyone's thought in here. i understand that Biano did a beat terrific deed on this page (maybe in your own perspective sir) and i know that science and religion are two different worlds, and biano tried to make it one--maybe it could mislead others but that's why you are here sir, to defend and to correct things must be corrected (Basing on what you know or your tools). banning him is like removing one letter from the alphabet. i'm not defending him or his ideas, (i also don't like his ideas) but for it's not an apt action. Sir, you know how to ban, you know how to him back again, if you want to. thank you.