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

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Informative.

 

[james bond]

It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

More important, physicist William Thomson with his calculations basically told Darwin he was full of sh*t, Darwin and several hundred million years old age of the Earth (300 million? Where did Darwin get that?). He had 100 million. What did Darwin do after that? You should be able to answer this. Moreover, why is the age of the Earth so important?

So my article of Darwin needing more than 3 billion years is gone. Let look at Clair Patterson's history then. Before him, it was Arthur Holmes who pegged the Earth as around 3.6 billion years old. What was he famous for regarding his age of the Earth? Before him was Bertram Boltwood. How long did he say it was?

 

[Hollie]

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.

You never answered why your gods committed sin. Per the genesis fable, they lied to Adam and Eve.

Where do you get such BS butt poop?

Unbelief is still a sin!

Did you never bother to read the Genesis fable?

 

[Hollie]

It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

More important, physicist William Thomson with his calculations basically told Darwin he was full of sh*t, Darwin and several hundred million years old age of the Earth (300 million? Where did Darwin get that?). He had 100 million. What did Darwin do after that? You should be able to answer this. Moreover, why is the age of the Earth so important?

So my article of Darwin needing more than 3 billion years is gone. Let look at Clair Patterson's history then. Before him, it was Arthur Holmes who pegged the Earth as around 3.6 billion years old. What was he famous for regarding his age of the Earth? Before him was Bertram Boltwood. How long did he say it was?

Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth. You might want to learn the subject matter before making such nonsensical comments.

 

[james bond]

It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

More important, physicist William Thomson with his calculations basically told Darwin he was full of sh*t, Darwin and several hundred million years old age of the Earth (300 million? Where did Darwin get that?). He had 100 million. What did Darwin do after that? You should be able to answer this. Moreover, why is the age of the Earth so important?

So my article of Darwin needing more than 3 billion years is gone. Let look at Clair Patterson's history then. Before him, it was Arthur Holmes who pegged the Earth as around 3.6 billion years old. What was he famous for regarding his age of the Earth? Before him was Bertram Boltwood. How long did he say it was?

Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth. You might want to learn the subject matter before making such nonsensical comments.

Jeez, this is R&E forum, but alang1216 keeps looking for science contradictions from me. Instead, he's contradicting himself and fails to answer key questions that show a young Earth. Jesus alludes to a young Earth, but you have the sins of an unbeliever.

 

[ESay]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

 

[bottlecap]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

WHO said that JESUS was NOT the SON of GOD???? Every angel has Divinity and the Bible refers to them, among other things, Sons of God.
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

JESUS, however, sits on the Right Hand of GOD, above the angels, and you can be sure that HE was the "flawless lamb.

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;:

 

[esalla]

It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

More important, physicist William Thomson with his calculations basically told Darwin he was full of sh*t, Darwin and several hundred million years old age of the Earth (300 million? Where did Darwin get that?). He had 100 million. What did Darwin do after that? You should be able to answer this. Moreover, why is the age of the Earth so important?

So my article of Darwin needing more than 3 billion years is gone. Let look at Clair Patterson's history then. Before him, it was Arthur Holmes who pegged the Earth as around 3.6 billion years old. What was he famous for regarding his age of the Earth? Before him was Bertram Boltwood. How long did he say it was?

Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth. You might want to learn the subject matter before making such nonsensical comments.

Jeez, this is R&E forum, but alang1216 keeps looking for science contradictions from me. Instead, he's contradicting himself and fails to answer key questions that show a young Earth. Jesus alludes to a young Earth, but you have the sins of an unbeliever.

LOL you post science krap here all the time doofy

 

[Hollie]

It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

More important, physicist William Thomson with his calculations basically told Darwin he was full of sh*t, Darwin and several hundred million years old age of the Earth (300 million? Where did Darwin get that?). He had 100 million. What did Darwin do after that? You should be able to answer this. Moreover, why is the age of the Earth so important?

So my article of Darwin needing more than 3 billion years is gone. Let look at Clair Patterson's history then. Before him, it was Arthur Holmes who pegged the Earth as around 3.6 billion years old. What was he famous for regarding his age of the Earth? Before him was Bertram Boltwood. How long did he say it was?

Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth. You might want to learn the subject matter before making such nonsensical comments.

Jeez, this is R&E forum, but alang1216 keeps looking for science contradictions from me. Instead, he's contradicting himself and fails to answer key questions that show a young Earth. Jesus alludes to a young Earth, but you have the sins of an unbeliever.

So then you acknowledge that Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth as you earlier claimed.

 

[alang1216]

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?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: 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? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: 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. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

 

[alang1216]

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

Archeology, paleontology, and geology.

 

[BreezeWood]

It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

More important, physicist William Thomson with his calculations basically told Darwin he was full of sh*t, Darwin and several hundred million years old age of the Earth (300 million? Where did Darwin get that?). He had 100 million. What did Darwin do after that? You should be able to answer this. Moreover, why is the age of the Earth so important?

So my article of Darwin needing more than 3 billion years is gone. Let look at Clair Patterson's history then. Before him, it was Arthur Holmes who pegged the Earth as around 3.6 billion years old. What was he famous for regarding his age of the Earth? Before him was Bertram Boltwood. How long did he say it was?

Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth. You might want to learn the subject matter before making such nonsensical comments.

Jeez, this is R&E forum, but alang1216 keeps looking for science contradictions from me. Instead, he's contradicting himself and fails to answer key questions that show a young Earth. Jesus alludes to a young Earth, but you have the sins of an unbeliever.

.

- he's contradicting himself and fails to answer key questions that show a young Earth.

.
what is a young Earth -
.

.
primordial Earth ... between the two, 6000 year genesis loses hands down.

 

[BreezeWood]

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son

Actually, that is one of the most important parts of the Christian doctrine. If we drop away the Trinitarian point of view, then we will have to admit that the sacrifice was meaningless according to the Christian point.

What was the main reason for 'divine' Jesus to become a human? To make a perfect human, a lamb without any flaw.

If Jesus was any less than 'the Son of God', we cant be sure he was a flawless lamb.

WHO said that JESUS was NOT the SON of GOD???? Every angel has Divinity and the Bible refers to them, among other things, Sons of God.
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

JESUS, however, sits on the Right Hand of GOD, above the angels, and you can be sure that HE was the "flawless lamb.

"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;:

.

in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things,

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

.
christians are beyond loony ...
.
“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” - - “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
.
knowing perfectly well their entire paragraph is a 4th century forgery written for the very purpose they are using it - for those that have any sanity left whatsoever - and for the manifestation of the roman empire.

 

[zaangalewa]

Do you expect an answer now?

I thought you provide an answer earlier. How much time do you need?

What do you like to know from me, wrangler?

Yes, I understand at your age of 80s that the memory goes (soon after your legs).

Let me refresh your memory.

? You are an evil willing idiot, aren't you? The bible is an extremely small window - a kind of very important rear-view mirror - but life is in front, Darth Vader.

 

[zaangalewa]

It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

More important, physicist William Thomson with his calculations basically told Darwin he was full of sh*t, Darwin and several hundred million years old age of the Earth (300 million? Where did Darwin get that?). He had 100 million. What did Darwin do after that? You should be able to answer this. Moreover, why is the age of the Earth so important?

So my article of Darwin needing more than 3 billion years is gone. Let look at Clair Patterson's history then. Before him, it was Arthur Holmes who pegged the Earth as around 3.6 billion years old. What was he famous for regarding his age of the Earth? Before him was Bertram Boltwood. How long did he say it was?

It's a total nonsense, what you say here. This is no basis for anyone, who likes to speak about real serios problems in this context, as for example the problem "real scientific theory of evolution vs counterproductive racist Darwinism". For example speaks nearly never anyone about the fact of evolution that we and all other creatures are biologically indeed sisters and brothers, what's very similiar to this what Saint Francis said once. But nearly everyone speaks about a materialistic fight and war and to be strong on reason of a fight for survival - what has in such forms to think not a lot to do with the real scientific theory of evolution. A simple virus for example could be a cause that all human beings die out - if we "fit" not with this, what needs to be done to win against a virus. For example if we "fit" not to wear masks, because bullshit is propagated and believed.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

.
“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” - - “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
.

With the words "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani ..." starts Psalm 22.

-----
To the choirmaster: according to The Doe of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help. Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet — I can count all my bones — they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. But you, O Lord, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen! I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you: You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. From you comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will perform before those who fear him. The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the Lord! May your hearts live forever! All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.
-----

-----

 

[james bond]

It was you who first talked about Darwin requiring 3 billion years before the discovery of radioactivity. I'm not surprised at your confusion since you can write "No one can do a scientific method experiment that's over a lifetime". Maybe someday you'll realize how silly that sounds.

First, what is a scientific experiment that has gone on for over a lifetime? Name three if it is so silly you wimpy atheist.

More important, physicist William Thomson with his calculations basically told Darwin he was full of sh*t, Darwin and several hundred million years old age of the Earth (300 million? Where did Darwin get that?). He had 100 million. What did Darwin do after that? You should be able to answer this. Moreover, why is the age of the Earth so important?

So my article of Darwin needing more than 3 billion years is gone. Let look at Clair Patterson's history then. Before him, it was Arthur Holmes who pegged the Earth as around 3.6 billion years old. What was he famous for regarding his age of the Earth? Before him was Bertram Boltwood. How long did he say it was?

Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth. You might want to learn the subject matter before making such nonsensical comments.

Jeez, this is R&E forum, but alang1216 keeps looking for science contradictions from me. Instead, he's contradicting himself and fails to answer key questions that show a young Earth. Jesus alludes to a young Earth, but you have the sins of an unbeliever.

So then you acknowledge that Charles Darwin did not make predictions on the age of the earth as you earlier claimed.

Let's take Darwinism to the S&T board. What Jesus said alludes to a young Earth in the Bible as he states people were there from the beginning in Adam and Eve. He also was the creator so he knew humans were there from the beginning. OTOH, too much long time is required for humans with the science of atheism. Humans didn't just appear 3.6 billion years ago. The science of atheism states life appeared 3.6 billion years ago.

 

[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?

I answered your questions, I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Your judgement of me as a 'wimpy atheist' (whatever that is) is a good example of one of your judgements I don't trust.

Here's one you missed:

>>Me: 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? <<

A great physicist of his time falsified or debunked Darwin. C'mon Darwin had to respond.

Here's another of my argument which you missed and didn't provide an answer:
>>Me: 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. <<

What did evolution came up with after the 4.5 B age of the Earth? That's much more than several hundred million years, 300 million years, that Darwin first stated. Wouldn't that be after he thought > 6,000 years old? Now, he's got his best selling science books (the second one being racist) and Hitler wanting him. He even makes friends with a future leader of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. He gets "survival of the fittest" to explain evolution by natural selection from new buddy Spencer and uses that in a later publication of Origin of the Species. That is hidden racism right there.

Finally, I gave you the Clair Patterson paragraph and link. It stated, "Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved." This was after Patterson showed the Earth was 4.5 B years old from radiometric dating. Do you see how several hundred million years went to 300 million years according to you and then > 3 billion before Darwin died? It still wasn't enough as verified by evolution berkeley edu.

I judged you as a "wimpy atheist" and gave you a reason for it. It is because you do not put the time in to follow your faith of no God/gods. Ehrman would be a great example. What about others? Another troubling one was Victor Stenger, a physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. He's another good example.

It should be me who doesn't trust your judgements. That's why you get the Ivy League equivalent of LMAO.

You're way more interested in the history of science and the works of Darwin than I am. The answer to your questions is "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". Darwin was a scientist who made a major contribution to it. He got some things right and he got some things wrong. What he got wrong doesn't negate what he got right.

I understand Darwinism and the lies of the science of atheism. They need long time and more, so it's easy logic to see that it is tied to the age of the Earth.

Your "I don't know and I don't care shows enough to research it" shows your lack of faith in having no God/gods and the science of atheism. You just don't know much of anything and shouldn't even be participating in the R&E nor S&T forums with that kind of attitude. Your "I don't know much of anything and don't care enough to research it" is what most of us here have figured out on R&E and S&T.

Can we just engrave "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it." for alang1216 on his usmessageboard tombstone haha?

 

[james bond]

? You are an evil willing idiot, aren't you? The bible is an extremely small window - a kind of very important rear-view mirror - but life is in front, Darth Vader.

It's a total nonsense, what you say here. This is no basis for anyone, who likes to speak about real serios problems in this context, as for example the problem "real scientific theory of evolution vs counterproductive racist Darwinism". For example speaks nearly never anyone about the fact of evolution that we and all other creatures are biologically indeed sisters and brothers, what's very similiar to this what Saint Francis said once. But nearly everyone speaks about a materialistic fight and war and to be strong on reason of a fight for survival - what has in such forms to think not a lot to do with the real scientific theory of evolution. A simple virus for example could be a cause that all human beings die out - if we "fit" not with this, what needs to be done to win against a virus. For example if we "fit" not to wear masks, because bullshit is propagated and believed.

Heh. It's total nonsense what you just posted. Nobody understands much of what you post in S&T nor can you explain what you say in R&E when asked. Who knows what you believe with your Catholicism? Do you even know what Pope Francis said about the age of the Earth?

 

[james bond]

LOL you post science krap here all the time doofy

I would say you're the doofy as you, too, can't explain Bart Ehrman's beliefs nor what Jesus said regarding humans on Earth from the beginning in the Bible. You may as well be ignored by everyone.