How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[james bond]

How are your gods free from sin when they lied as is clearly shown in the genesis fable? Have you never read the fable?

I've answered all your questions, but rarely mine. It means that unbelief is a sin and it applies to you.

 

[james bond]

o be separated from god is hell and to be without sin means to be absolutelly free. Example: If you are free from sin then you are able to hold all energy on the universe in your hands and everyone survives this.

To be without sin is to follow Jesus.

To be honest: I never understood why you try to tell me always again something about my belief in god. In generell god loves all human beings - not only Christians. And he loves also all animals. But animals are not able to be sinners while we are not able to be no sinners. We are sinners. All of us.

Usually, believers will express their experiences to each other and use the Bible to share what they know.

What you shared is something I've not heard nor read.

First, I agree to be separated from God IS hell and with sin, one can be separated from God forever. However, we have faith in Jesus that he saves us and this belief leads to being baptized. This affirms our commitment to Jesus and washes away Adam's sin. You just continue to ramble on and offering no example of holding "all energy on the universe in your hands and everyone survives this."

I was going to ask the OP if Bart Ehrman was baptized. He is a troublesome NT Bible scholar because of his experience, knowledge, and reputation. However, the OP was contradicted early in the thread and I think we all laughed over his weak atheism. He's such a wimpy atheist. He claims he is agnostic. Then he claims he is agnostic - atheist now because of Bart Ehrman. However, his faith in no God/gods is weak and was easily contradicted. I don't think he has a Bart Ehrman book. Nor has he joined his blog. He's just going from some article haha.

Anyway, you should know what I've said even though Catholic but have your own contradictions from the Bible.

 

[zaangalewa]

Science has explanations for how each evolved that requires no supernatural intervention. That is one reason I say that there is little evidence of design.

You mean other than space and time being created from nothing and the laws of nature predestining intelligence?

Sorry but I don't know what existed before the BB and I don't believe there are such laws of nature predestining intelligence.

That's because you are intentionally ignorant. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

It's not intentional. On the trillions of planets in the universe we know of exactly one with intelligence and that took billions of years to create. If the universe is an intelligence creating machine it is a very inefficient one.

Sure it is. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature.

How?

This is what it takes to create intelligence. You are criticizing how intelligence is created. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the laws of nature strive to produce intelligence. Everything which exists exists through the laws of nature. If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

But once was nothing, what we are able to call nature. "Then" appeared space-time, energy and information and the universe started to expand.

Through everything about the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

"Before" time existaed was no time. So it makes not any sense to say something existed "before" time existed. It's "only" our belief that god made everything out of nothing.

That’s how. Every little detail. So before space and time existed the laws of nature existed

What's nearly the same as to say the word of creation is a timeless word as Augustinus said about 1700 years ago.

such that everything that was possible to exist by the laws of nature existed in potential before space and time.

... or not ... ¿Who knows? ...

 

[ding]

Science has explanations for how each evolved that requires no supernatural intervention. That is one reason I say that there is little evidence of design.

You mean other than space and time being created from nothing and the laws of nature predestining intelligence?

Sorry but I don't know what existed before the BB and I don't believe there are such laws of nature predestining intelligence.

That's because you are intentionally ignorant. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

It's not intentional. On the trillions of planets in the universe we know of exactly one with intelligence and that took billions of years to create. If the universe is an intelligence creating machine it is a very inefficient one.

Sure it is. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature.

How?

This is what it takes to create intelligence. You are criticizing how intelligence is created. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the laws of nature strive to produce intelligence. Everything which exists exists through the laws of nature. If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

But once was nothing, what we are able to call nature. "Then" appeared space-time, energy and information and the universe started to expand.

Through everything about the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

"Before" time existaed was no time. So it makes not any sense to say something existed "before" time existed. It's "only" our belief that god made everything out of nothing.

That’s how. Every little detail. So before space and time existed the laws of nature existed

What's nearly the same as to say the word of creation is a timeless word as Augustinus said about 1700 years ago.

such that everything that was possible to exist by the laws of nature existed in potential before space and time.

... or not ... ¿Who knows? ...

In the sense that things existed outside of our space and time they most certainly did exist before the creation of our space and time. It's not that complicated to understand.

The purpose of potential is realization which manifests itself in mind stuff so it goes to reason that the source of potential and realization is mind stuff. It's not that complicated to understand.

 

[james bond]

There is evidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, why did he make it appear it is so much older? Why did he make stars that we can see so far away that their light should take millions of years to reach us. Why not have them just blink into view as their 6,000 year old light reaches us. Why do we need galaxies that we can see only with modern telescopes?

C'mon, you keep blaming God for the contradictions when it's Satan.

The evidence of Earth as 4.5 B years old is not conclusive, but based on biased assumptions by the scientists of atheism. When one needs long time, it took a long time for them to get it for Darwin. Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth. Thus, Darwin was already dead when the atheist scientists came up with 4.5 billion years old Earth. Anyway, the Earth can be young based on time dilation of light from the distant light. In other words, your light years away is distance and not time.

You know less about Darwin, he thought the Earth was only a few hundred million years old, than you do about time dilation, a term you heard and threw in others were as ignorant of what it means as you are.

We have directly measured many natural processes (speed of light and distance to stars & galaxies, radioisotope decay, rates of sedimentation, speed of continental drift, rates of evolution, etc.) and they ALL point to a very old earth. Seems to me, either God is playing tricks on us or he has allowed Satan to play tricks on us. Personally, I'd say the buck stops on God's desk.

Fax.

I get it from my evolution website:
Clair Patterson

"Radioactivity also gave the history of life an absolute calendar. By measuring the atoms produced by these breakdowns inside rocks, physicists were able to estimate their ages (right). And by comparing the ratios of those atoms to atoms from meteorites, they could estimate how long ago it was that the Earth formed along with the rest of the solar system. In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."

Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

evolution.berkeley.edu

Not only do you not know about Darwin, you know about God even less. God would not play tricks, but we find Satan does and it's all up to him because of free will. For example, everything you just wrote is based on it and you just lied. The buck stops on your desk when the age of the Earth could doom you to a world of false science.

I doubt you got "Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth" from any website since I'm pretty sure you made that up.

You say "God would not play tricks" and blame such tricks on Satan yet you don't explain why the universe looks so old including why galaxies are so far away that it takes millions or billions of years for their light to reach us, radioisotope decay, rates of sedimentation, speed of continental drift, rates of evolution, etc.

>>I doubt you got "Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth" from any website since I'm pretty sure you made that up.<<

Haha. Your statement shows you do not understand evolutionary science at all. First, I didn't say Darwin needed 4.5 billion years. What I did say was what Clair Patterson showed with his calculations using radiometric dating. Instead, Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years. Prior to Patterson's calculation, Earth's age was estimated as 3 billion years old. Look it up. You need to learn things for yourself even if they are lies of evolution.

So Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years old Earth which is how I got my statement. Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life.

Doubling down on your lie ("Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years old Earth which is how I got my statement")? Why would you make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Or do you have a link that supports it?

In 1658, based on his reading of the Bible and on historical records, the Irish clergyman James Ussher declared that God had created the Earth on October 22, 4004 B.C. Geologists of Darwin's day begged to differ, arguing for a far older Earth. Darwin, knowing that evolution required vastly more time than just six millennia, concurred. In the first edition of the Origin of Species, he estimated our planet to be at least several hundred million years old.

Finally, you present something as a claim. According to ToE, several hundred million years old would be wrong. You mean according to Darwinism, his long time was several hundred million years old? That doesn't seem very accurate. The least he could've gave was a range. Darwin is making an extraordinary claim, so he needs to provide extraordinary evidence. In fact, William Thomson, a great physicist during Darwin's time challenged him with a younger age of Earth of a hunded million years. Isn't that what you claimed earlier?

?
you present something as a claim: According to ToE, several hundred million years old would be wrong. Got a link?

William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that?

We know Darwin was already biased of the previous consensus of 6,000 year old Earth based on the Bible. 6,000 years old Earth was what was the general belief of all scientists before the 1850s. Uniformitarianism beliefs changed all that from the 1850s. Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell and he carried his Principles of Geology book with him when exploring the Galapagos on his boat. Basically, we find faith in atheism led to the wrong assumptions made by Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin. However, this became the popular hypothesis of the time since it challenged belief in God and creation. Eventually, the creation scientists were banned from participating in peer reviews. It also shows that evolution is based on the religion of atheism. Both Hutton and Lyell were atheists and Darwin soon followed. Darwin's explanation of ToE led to atrocities in history such as eugenics, black genocide, Adolph Hitler, WW II, and the Holocaust.

 

[ESay]

sacrifices of animals was ONLY a temporary atonement for sins and were ALSO ONLY a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of GOD's SON

What makes you think so? There are several instances in the OT where after describing the way of offering sacrifices the verses end with words 'that requirement is eternal, for your generations' ( I hope I expressed it correctly in English).

Except of that, the sacrifices must be carried out in a certain place by certain people.

Human sacrifices would, of course, be an ABOMINATION to GOD, as it is murder first, and the offering would be tainted by sin. It should be noted that JESUS could have easily avoided CRUCIFIXION but willingly laid down HIS LIFE

It may well be argued whether it was willingly or not. I highly doubt that. According to the Christian view, God sent him to be sacrificed, right?

But anyway, this isn't the point. Even if he did that willingly, it was a human sacrifice. Abomination to God. This sacrifice hadn't been made according to the requirements - not in the place, not by the people, not according to 'instructions' because there weren't them per se and couldn't be. So, this wasn't a sacrifice, but just a killing.

Jesus Teachings are super important and a guide to righteous living. They are also IMPOSSIBLE to live up to so our best human efforts fall far short. Therefore HIS Sacrifice was MORE Important

Yes a human is far from ideal and therefore in the OT the word 'try' is often used.

So, you dont find it strange when God offers the sacrifice to Himself without any efforts from humans?

 

[zaangalewa]

o be separated from god is hell and to be without sin means to be absolutelly free. Example: If you are free from sin then you are able to hold all energy on the universe in your hands and everyone survives this.

To be without sin is to follow Jesus.

To be honest: I never understood why you try to tell me always again something about my belief in god. In generell god loves all human beings - not only Christians. And he loves also all animals. But animals are not able to be sinners while we are not able to be no sinners. We are sinners. All of us.

Usually, believers will express their experiences to each other and use the Bible to share what they know.

Not so I. But my grandpa was king David - and I guess this means I'm very familiar with the stories of the bible.

What you shared is something I've not heard nor read.

Then your heard something new. By the way: God is always new.

First, I agree to be separated from God IS hell and with sin, one can be separated from God forever.

It's totally unimportant for me what you agree with or not agree with.

However, we have faith in Jesus that he saves us

Or not. The world is full of martyrdoms and many people suffer. For many people it's just simple a solace to know that god saw not any way to avoid that his son had to suffer the extremely painful death of an innocent human being as a criminal on the cross. They know god understands them.

and this belief leads to being baptized.

The belief of the parents and the world all around leads to baptism. Read the tolerance speech from Gyburc in the epos "Willehalm" from Wolfram von Eschenbach from the year 1217 AD.

This affirms our commitment to Jesus and washes away Adam's sin.

To be honest: I never was able to see a big sense in the story of the sins of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were nice. Cain, who had murdered his brother, is our all ancestor. This explains much more.

You just continue to ramble on and offering no example of holding "all energy on the universe in your hands and everyone survives this." ...

If you do not understand what I said with this words, which you teared out of context, then this is just simple evil will.

 

[zaangalewa]

Science has explanations for how each evolved that requires no supernatural intervention. That is one reason I say that there is little evidence of design.

You mean other than space and time being created from nothing and the laws of nature predestining intelligence?

Sorry but I don't know what existed before the BB and I don't believe there are such laws of nature predestining intelligence.

That's because you are intentionally ignorant. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

It's not intentional. On the trillions of planets in the universe we know of exactly one with intelligence and that took billions of years to create. If the universe is an intelligence creating machine it is a very inefficient one.

Sure it is. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature.

How?

This is what it takes to create intelligence. You are criticizing how intelligence is created. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the laws of nature strive to produce intelligence. Everything which exists exists through the laws of nature. If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

But once was nothing, what we are able to call nature. "Then" appeared space-time, energy and information and the universe started to expand.

Through everything about the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

"Before" time existaed was no time. So it makes not any sense to say something existed "before" time existed. It's "only" our belief that god made everything out of nothing.

That’s how. Every little detail. So before space and time existed the laws of nature existed

What's nearly the same as to say the word of creation is a timeless word as Augustinus said about 1700 years ago.

such that everything that was possible to exist by the laws of nature existed in potential before space and time.

... or not ... ¿Who knows? ...

In the sense that things existed outside of our space and time

To exist means for us to be here in our universe within space and time.

they most certainly did exist before the creation of our space and time. It's not that complicated to understand.

It sounds nice what you say, that's all. But you do not understand on your own, what you try to speak about.

The purpose of potential is realization which manifests itself in mind stuff so it goes to reason that the source of potential and realization is mind stuff. It's not that complicated to understand.

It is simple what you say here. A coordinate system, three coordinates: possiblity, time and space. If you draw a line into this coordinates then this line - whatever the form is - is a reality. But what do you know about the correct line - if it is not a shower of raindrops or anything else? Nothing!

 

[alang1216]

If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

Really? If I put 100 monkeys on typewriters it is possible one may write Hamlet. Is that your arguement?

 

[alang1216]

God will be better than you. Trust me.

I love how you have constructed a narrative of something you don't believe in. What could possibly go wrong with that.

I am still not seeing where God told you He will judge you. Was that in a phone call with Him?

Why should I trust you? Has God phoned you?

I'm not the one stating as fact that God will judge you, now am I?

So again... how do you know that God will judge you?

Everything I know about God is admittedly hearsay. Can you say anything different?

Yes. I can. Through reason and experience.

I've seen examples of your reasoning so I'll ask what in your experience could only have been from God?

 

[alang1216]

There is evidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, why did he make it appear it is so much older? Why did he make stars that we can see so far away that their light should take millions of years to reach us. Why not have them just blink into view as their 6,000 year old light reaches us. Why do we need galaxies that we can see only with modern telescopes?

C'mon, you keep blaming God for the contradictions when it's Satan.

The evidence of Earth as 4.5 B years old is not conclusive, but based on biased assumptions by the scientists of atheism. When one needs long time, it took a long time for them to get it for Darwin. Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth. Thus, Darwin was already dead when the atheist scientists came up with 4.5 billion years old Earth. Anyway, the Earth can be young based on time dilation of light from the distant light. In other words, your light years away is distance and not time.

You know less about Darwin, he thought the Earth was only a few hundred million years old, than you do about time dilation, a term you heard and threw in others were as ignorant of what it means as you are.

We have directly measured many natural processes (speed of light and distance to stars & galaxies, radioisotope decay, rates of sedimentation, speed of continental drift, rates of evolution, etc.) and they ALL point to a very old earth. Seems to me, either God is playing tricks on us or he has allowed Satan to play tricks on us. Personally, I'd say the buck stops on God's desk.

Fax.

I get it from my evolution website:
Clair Patterson

"Radioactivity also gave the history of life an absolute calendar. By measuring the atoms produced by these breakdowns inside rocks, physicists were able to estimate their ages (right). And by comparing the ratios of those atoms to atoms from meteorites, they could estimate how long ago it was that the Earth formed along with the rest of the solar system. In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."

Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

evolution.berkeley.edu

Not only do you not know about Darwin, you know about God even less. God would not play tricks, but we find Satan does and it's all up to him because of free will. For example, everything you just wrote is based on it and you just lied. The buck stops on your desk when the age of the Earth could doom you to a world of false science.

I doubt you got "Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth" from any website since I'm pretty sure you made that up.

You say "God would not play tricks" and blame such tricks on Satan yet you don't explain why the universe looks so old including why galaxies are so far away that it takes millions or billions of years for their light to reach us, radioisotope decay, rates of sedimentation, speed of continental drift, rates of evolution, etc.

>>I doubt you got "Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth" from any website since I'm pretty sure you made that up.<<

Haha. Your statement shows you do not understand evolutionary science at all. First, I didn't say Darwin needed 4.5 billion years. What I did say was what Clair Patterson showed with his calculations using radiometric dating. Instead, Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years. Prior to Patterson's calculation, Earth's age was estimated as 3 billion years old. Look it up. You need to learn things for yourself even if they are lies of evolution.

So Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years old Earth which is how I got my statement. Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life.

Doubling down on your lie ("Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years old Earth which is how I got my statement")? Why would you make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Or do you have a link that supports it?

In 1658, based on his reading of the Bible and on historical records, the Irish clergyman James Ussher declared that God had created the Earth on October 22, 4004 B.C. Geologists of Darwin's day begged to differ, arguing for a far older Earth. Darwin, knowing that evolution required vastly more time than just six millennia, concurred. In the first edition of the Origin of Species, he estimated our planet to be at least several hundred million years old.

Finally, you present something as a claim. According to ToE, several hundred million years old would be wrong. You mean according to Darwinism, his long time was several hundred million years old? That doesn't seem very accurate. The least he could've gave was a range. Darwin is making an extraordinary claim, so he needs to provide extraordinary evidence. In fact, William Thomson, a great physicist during Darwin's time challenged him with a younger age of Earth of a hunded million years. Isn't that what you claimed earlier?

?
you present something as a claim: According to ToE, several hundred million years old would be wrong. Got a link?

William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that?

We know Darwin was already biased of the previous consensus of 6,000 year old Earth based on the Bible. 6,000 years old Earth was what was the general belief of all scientists before the 1850s. Uniformitarianism beliefs changed all that from the 1850s. Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell and he carried his Principles of Geology book with him when exploring the Galapagos on his boat. Basically, we find faith in atheism led to the wrong assumptions made by Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin. However, this became the popular hypothesis of the time since it challenged belief in God and creation. Eventually, the creation scientists were banned from participating in peer reviews. It also shows that evolution is based on the religion of atheism. Both Hutton and Lyell were atheists and Darwin soon followed. Darwin's explanation of ToE led to atrocities in history such as eugenics, black genocide, Adolph Hitler, WW II, and the Holocaust.

You have it backwards. Again.

Darwin never claimed an age for the Earth, he only believed that 6,000 years was not enough time for evolution to have taken place. The 300 million year figure was the scientific consensus of the day (one estimate was based on the assumption that the Sun was made of coal and was burning, radioactivity and fusion were unknown). Creationism fell out of favor due to the preponderance of evidence against it.

 

[james bond]

Not so I. But my grandpa was king David - and I guess this means I'm very familiar with the stories of the bible.

Not really.

Then your heard something new. By the way: God is always new.

Meh. This means that you don't explain and can't explain well statements you make and people inquire about.

>>Me: First, I agree to be separated from God IS hell and with sin, one can be separated from God forever.<<

It's totally unimportant for me what you agree with or not agree with.

It goes to show you don't believe what you state as important.

>>Me: However, we have faith in Jesus that he saves us<<

Or not. The world is full of martyrdoms and many people suffer. For many people it's just simple a solace to know that god saw not any way to avoid that his son had to suffer the extremely painful death of an innocent human being as a criminal on the cross. They know god understands them.

Now blasphemy. Might as well stop right here. You're aligning yourself with the Bart Ehrman even though he argues differently from in and in a scholarly manner.

What matter of faith do you profess as a Catholic? Are you facetious and/or wrong about both religion and science ?

 

[james bond]

There is evidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, why did he make it appear it is so much older? Why did he make stars that we can see so far away that their light should take millions of years to reach us. Why not have them just blink into view as their 6,000 year old light reaches us. Why do we need galaxies that we can see only with modern telescopes?

C'mon, you keep blaming God for the contradictions when it's Satan.

The evidence of Earth as 4.5 B years old is not conclusive, but based on biased assumptions by the scientists of atheism. When one needs long time, it took a long time for them to get it for Darwin. Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth. Thus, Darwin was already dead when the atheist scientists came up with 4.5 billion years old Earth. Anyway, the Earth can be young based on time dilation of light from the distant light. In other words, your light years away is distance and not time.

You know less about Darwin, he thought the Earth was only a few hundred million years old, than you do about time dilation, a term you heard and threw in others were as ignorant of what it means as you are.

We have directly measured many natural processes (speed of light and distance to stars & galaxies, radioisotope decay, rates of sedimentation, speed of continental drift, rates of evolution, etc.) and they ALL point to a very old earth. Seems to me, either God is playing tricks on us or he has allowed Satan to play tricks on us. Personally, I'd say the buck stops on God's desk.

Fax.

I get it from my evolution website:
Clair Patterson

"Radioactivity also gave the history of life an absolute calendar. By measuring the atoms produced by these breakdowns inside rocks, physicists were able to estimate their ages (right). And by comparing the ratios of those atoms to atoms from meteorites, they could estimate how long ago it was that the Earth formed along with the rest of the solar system. In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."

Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

evolution.berkeley.edu

Not only do you not know about Darwin, you know about God even less. God would not play tricks, but we find Satan does and it's all up to him because of free will. For example, everything you just wrote is based on it and you just lied. The buck stops on your desk when the age of the Earth could doom you to a world of false science.

I doubt you got "Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth" from any website since I'm pretty sure you made that up.

You say "God would not play tricks" and blame such tricks on Satan yet you don't explain why the universe looks so old including why galaxies are so far away that it takes millions or billions of years for their light to reach us, radioisotope decay, rates of sedimentation, speed of continental drift, rates of evolution, etc.

>>I doubt you got "Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth" from any website since I'm pretty sure you made that up.<<

Haha. Your statement shows you do not understand evolutionary science at all. First, I didn't say Darwin needed 4.5 billion years. What I did say was what Clair Patterson showed with his calculations using radiometric dating. Instead, Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years. Prior to Patterson's calculation, Earth's age was estimated as 3 billion years old. Look it up. You need to learn things for yourself even if they are lies of evolution.

So Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years old Earth which is how I got my statement. Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life.

Doubling down on your lie ("Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years old Earth which is how I got my statement")? Why would you make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Or do you have a link that supports it?

In 1658, based on his reading of the Bible and on historical records, the Irish clergyman James Ussher declared that God had created the Earth on October 22, 4004 B.C. Geologists of Darwin's day begged to differ, arguing for a far older Earth. Darwin, knowing that evolution required vastly more time than just six millennia, concurred. In the first edition of the Origin of Species, he estimated our planet to be at least several hundred million years old.

Finally, you present something as a claim. According to ToE, several hundred million years old would be wrong. You mean according to Darwinism, his long time was several hundred million years old? That doesn't seem very accurate. The least he could've gave was a range. Darwin is making an extraordinary claim, so he needs to provide extraordinary evidence. In fact, William Thomson, a great physicist during Darwin's time challenged him with a younger age of Earth of a hunded million years. Isn't that what you claimed earlier?

?
you present something as a claim: According to ToE, several hundred million years old would be wrong. Got a link?

William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that?

We know Darwin was already biased of the previous consensus of 6,000 year old Earth based on the Bible. 6,000 years old Earth was what was the general belief of all scientists before the 1850s. Uniformitarianism beliefs changed all that from the 1850s. Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell and he carried his Principles of Geology book with him when exploring the Galapagos on his boat. Basically, we find faith in atheism led to the wrong assumptions made by Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin. However, this became the popular hypothesis of the time since it challenged belief in God and creation. Eventually, the creation scientists were banned from participating in peer reviews. It also shows that evolution is based on the religion of atheism. Both Hutton and Lyell were atheists and Darwin soon followed. Darwin's explanation of ToE led to atrocities in history such as eugenics, black genocide, Adolph Hitler, WW II, and the Holocaust.

You have it backwards. Again.

Darwin never claimed an age for the Earth, he only believed that 6,000 years was not enough time for evolution to have taken place. The 300 million year figure was the scientific consensus of the day (one estimate was based on the assumption that the Sun was made of coal and was burning, radioactivity and fusion were unknown). Creationism fell out of favor due to the preponderance of evidence against it.

So you can't answer my question of what Darwin did after Thomson falsified his explanation of age of Earth?

And you're wrong about the scientific consensus; The consensus was a 6,000 years old Earth at the time per the estimates of the Bible. It shows that you're just making up your arguments to explain several hundreds of millions of years. Are you saying it was 300 millions years that Darwin stated as hundreds of millions.

The > than 6,000 years is a clever ruse in stating belief in long time. He's following Lyell in not claiming hundreds of millions of years with his Darwinism in the beginning. Instead, they let others judge for themselves whether to stick to a young Earth or listen to the new hypothesis of geology (uniformitarianism) and new hypothesis of how life originated (Darwinism) and consequently the time it would need.

Furthermore, you are wrong creationism fell out of favor. It still was an opposing view of Darwinism and uniformitarianism. However, the scientists started to consider the new hypotheses and evidence and were quickly buying into that due to the strength of natural selection. Creationism also consolidated natural selection from the views of Wallace.

I think you lack the conviction of your faith in atheism. Thus, your science nor your religion has a forceful argument and knowledge behind it. You were quickly contradicted in this thread and Bart Ehrman is one who presents misleading, but forceful arguments against Christians and the Bible.

You ended up with egg on your face.

 

[alang1216]

There is evidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, why did he make it appear it is so much older? Why did he make stars that we can see so far away that their light should take millions of years to reach us. Why not have them just blink into view as their 6,000 year old light reaches us. Why do we need galaxies that we can see only with modern telescopes?

C'mon, you keep blaming God for the contradictions when it's Satan.

The evidence of Earth as 4.5 B years old is not conclusive, but based on biased assumptions by the scientists of atheism. When one needs long time, it took a long time for them to get it for Darwin. Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth. Thus, Darwin was already dead when the atheist scientists came up with 4.5 billion years old Earth. Anyway, the Earth can be young based on time dilation of light from the distant light. In other words, your light years away is distance and not time.

You know less about Darwin, he thought the Earth was only a few hundred million years old, than you do about time dilation, a term you heard and threw in others were as ignorant of what it means as you are.

We have directly measured many natural processes (speed of light and distance to stars & galaxies, radioisotope decay, rates of sedimentation, speed of continental drift, rates of evolution, etc.) and they ALL point to a very old earth. Seems to me, either God is playing tricks on us or he has allowed Satan to play tricks on us. Personally, I'd say the buck stops on God's desk.

Fax.

I get it from my evolution website:
Clair Patterson

"Radioactivity also gave the history of life an absolute calendar. By measuring the atoms produced by these breakdowns inside rocks, physicists were able to estimate their ages (right). And by comparing the ratios of those atoms to atoms from meteorites, they could estimate how long ago it was that the Earth formed along with the rest of the solar system. In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."

Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

evolution.berkeley.edu

Not only do you not know about Darwin, you know about God even less. God would not play tricks, but we find Satan does and it's all up to him because of free will. For example, everything you just wrote is based on it and you just lied. The buck stops on your desk when the age of the Earth could doom you to a world of false science.

I doubt you got "Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth" from any website since I'm pretty sure you made that up.

You say "God would not play tricks" and blame such tricks on Satan yet you don't explain why the universe looks so old including why galaxies are so far away that it takes millions or billions of years for their light to reach us, radioisotope decay, rates of sedimentation, speed of continental drift, rates of evolution, etc.

>>I doubt you got "Evolution needed around 4.5 billion of years for it to happen according to Darwin; he would not accept 3 billion years old Earth" from any website since I'm pretty sure you made that up.<<

Haha. Your statement shows you do not understand evolutionary science at all. First, I didn't say Darwin needed 4.5 billion years. What I did say was what Clair Patterson showed with his calculations using radiometric dating. Instead, Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years. Prior to Patterson's calculation, Earth's age was estimated as 3 billion years old. Look it up. You need to learn things for yourself even if they are lies of evolution.

So Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years old Earth which is how I got my statement. Thus, what does evolution come up with? That life first appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Finally, why would I make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Everyone knows Darwin needed long time, common descent, and tree of life.

Doubling down on your lie ("Darwin said he wanted over 3 billion years old Earth which is how I got my statement")? Why would you make stuff like that up when anyone can look it up to verify? Or do you have a link that supports it?

In 1658, based on his reading of the Bible and on historical records, the Irish clergyman James Ussher declared that God had created the Earth on October 22, 4004 B.C. Geologists of Darwin's day begged to differ, arguing for a far older Earth. Darwin, knowing that evolution required vastly more time than just six millennia, concurred. In the first edition of the Origin of Species, he estimated our planet to be at least several hundred million years old.

Finally, you present something as a claim. According to ToE, several hundred million years old would be wrong. You mean according to Darwinism, his long time was several hundred million years old? That doesn't seem very accurate. The least he could've gave was a range. Darwin is making an extraordinary claim, so he needs to provide extraordinary evidence. In fact, William Thomson, a great physicist during Darwin's time challenged him with a younger age of Earth of a hunded million years. Isn't that what you claimed earlier?

?
you present something as a claim: According to ToE, several hundred million years old would be wrong. Got a link?

William Thomson with his hundred million years age of Earth estimate falsified Darwin's claim of several hundred million years. What did Darwin do after that?

We know Darwin was already biased of the previous consensus of 6,000 year old Earth based on the Bible. 6,000 years old Earth was what was the general belief of all scientists before the 1850s. Uniformitarianism beliefs changed all that from the 1850s. Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell and he carried his Principles of Geology book with him when exploring the Galapagos on his boat. Basically, we find faith in atheism led to the wrong assumptions made by Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin. However, this became the popular hypothesis of the time since it challenged belief in God and creation. Eventually, the creation scientists were banned from participating in peer reviews. It also shows that evolution is based on the religion of atheism. Both Hutton and Lyell were atheists and Darwin soon followed. Darwin's explanation of ToE led to atrocities in history such as eugenics, black genocide, Adolph Hitler, WW II, and the Holocaust.

You have it backwards. Again.

Darwin never claimed an age for the Earth, he only believed that 6,000 years was not enough time for evolution to have taken place. The 300 million year figure was the scientific consensus of the day (one estimate was based on the assumption that the Sun was made of coal and was burning, radioactivity and fusion were unknown). Creationism fell out of favor due to the preponderance of evidence against it.

So you can't answer my question of what Darwin did after Thomson falsified his explanation of age of Earth?

And you're wrong about the scientific consensus; The consensus was a 6,000 years old Earth at the time per the estimates of the Bible. It shows that you're just making up your arguments to explain several hundreds of millions of years. Are you saying it was 300 millions years that Darwin stated as hundreds of millions.

The > than 6,000 years is a clever ruse in stating belief in long time. He's following Lyell in not claiming hundreds of millions of years with his Darwinism in the beginning. Instead, they let others judge for themselves whether to stick to a young Earth or listen to the new hypothesis of geology (uniformitarianism) and new hypothesis of how life originated (Darwinism) and consequently the time it would need.

Furthermore, you are wrong creationism fell out of favor. It still was an opposing view of Darwinism and uniformitarianism. However, the scientists started to consider the new hypotheses and evidence and were quickly buying into that due to the strength of natural selection. Creationism also consolidated natural selection from the views of Wallace.

I think you lack the conviction of your faith in atheism. Thus, your science nor your religion has a forceful argument and knowledge behind it. You were quickly contradicted in this thread and Bart Ehrman is one who presents misleading, but forceful arguments against Christians and the Bible.

You ended up with egg on your face.

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

 

[ding]

Science has explanations for how each evolved that requires no supernatural intervention. That is one reason I say that there is little evidence of design.

You mean other than space and time being created from nothing and the laws of nature predestining intelligence?

Sorry but I don't know what existed before the BB and I don't believe there are such laws of nature predestining intelligence.

That's because you are intentionally ignorant. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

It's not intentional. On the trillions of planets in the universe we know of exactly one with intelligence and that took billions of years to create. If the universe is an intelligence creating machine it is a very inefficient one.

Sure it is. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature.

How?

This is what it takes to create intelligence. You are criticizing how intelligence is created. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the laws of nature strive to produce intelligence. Everything which exists exists through the laws of nature. If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

But once was nothing, what we are able to call nature. "Then" appeared space-time, energy and information and the universe started to expand.

Through everything about the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

"Before" time existaed was no time. So it makes not any sense to say something existed "before" time existed. It's "only" our belief that god made everything out of nothing.

That’s how. Every little detail. So before space and time existed the laws of nature existed

What's nearly the same as to say the word of creation is a timeless word as Augustinus said about 1700 years ago.

such that everything that was possible to exist by the laws of nature existed in potential before space and time.

... or not ... ¿Who knows? ...

In the sense that things existed outside of our space and time

To exist means for us to be here in our universe within space and time.

they most certainly did exist before the creation of our space and time. It's not that complicated to understand.

It sounds nice what you say, that's all. But you do not understand on your own, what you try to speak about.

The purpose of potential is realization which manifests itself in mind stuff so it goes to reason that the source of potential and realization is mind stuff. It's not that complicated to understand.

It is simple what you say here. A coordinate system, three coordinates: possiblity, time and space. If you draw a line into this coordinates then this line - whatever the form is - is a reality. But what do you know about the correct line - if it is not a shower of raindrops or anything else? Nothing!

Apparently I was wrong. It was too complicated for you to understand.

 

[ding]

If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

Really? If I put 100 monkeys on typewriters it is possible one may write Hamlet. Is that your arguement?

Ok, prove it. Because I don't believe that is possible.

The laws of nature, however, are hardwired to produce intelligence.

 

[ding]

God will be better than you. Trust me.

I love how you have constructed a narrative of something you don't believe in. What could possibly go wrong with that.

I am still not seeing where God told you He will judge you. Was that in a phone call with Him?

Why should I trust you? Has God phoned you?

I'm not the one stating as fact that God will judge you, now am I?

So again... how do you know that God will judge you?

Everything I know about God is admittedly hearsay. Can you say anything different?

Yes. I can. Through reason and experience.

I've seen examples of your reasoning so I'll ask what in your experience could only have been from God?

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

 

[alang1216]

If it is possible for it to exist through the laws of nature it eventually will.

Really? If I put 100 monkeys on typewriters it is possible one may write Hamlet. Is that your argument?

Ok, prove it. Because I don't believe that is possible.

The laws of nature, however, are hardwired to produce intelligence.

If you're willing to wait an infinite amount of time everything is inevitable. Including both of these.

 

[alang1216]

God will be better than you. Trust me.

I love how you have constructed a narrative of something you don't believe in. What could possibly go wrong with that.

I am still not seeing where God told you He will judge you. Was that in a phone call with Him?

Why should I trust you? Has God phoned you?

I'm not the one stating as fact that God will judge you, now am I?

So again... how do you know that God will judge you?

Everything I know about God is admittedly hearsay. Can you say anything different?

Yes. I can. Through reason and experience.

I've seen examples of your reasoning so I'll ask what in your experience could only have been from God?

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

So you judge the universe and demand it have purpose?

 

[james bond]

I think you'll understand if I don't trust your judgements.

What judgments?

I already said you don't answer my questions and you ignored the last one. Why are you such a wimpy atheist?

That's at least three questions now you misleading faker. If you really had strong faith in no God nor gods, then you'd answer those questions and have a nice rebuttal. In fact, I gave you credit for this thread, but you haven't taken advantage. Instead, you got pwn3d by ding. You discuss science in the R&T forum. If that isn't wimpy and misdirection, then what is? Thus, I said you don't have a Bart Ehrman book nor have subscribed to his blog.