Greenspun is dead - A New Forum

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Sorry, I had to delete this message.

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

the new forum

-- David Ortiz (christian_moderator@yahoo.com), March 14, 2005

Answers

Response to Age of the Univese

Everything I've read seems to agree with that number. Then, there's the 6 thousand years idea. Me personally, I think that it is older than 45 years.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 14, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

But what do the cycles represent..? Days or.. seasons?

-- temple (jahsmine@netzero.com), March 14, 2005.

Response to Age of the Univese

I simp;ey differ to sicnec eon this one. currently the Universe is about 12 billion years old acodign to modern theories.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2005.

Response to Age of the Univese

Universe is less than 7,000 years old.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 15, 2005.

Response to Age of the Univese

I ifnd htat a bit hard ot beeliv ein ligh of evidence.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

12 billion or 15, still its pretty close.

David O. - I dont believe the universe is only 7,000 or even less than 10,000 years old. Mankind has been here for around 10,000 years, ill give you that. but the universe is so much older.. it takes eons to develop into this.

I live in Arizona and i can see layers on mountains which would represent eons. Its so beautiful. :)

But will anyone take the time to tell me what the 7 cycles on 7,000 years represent? I failed miserably in science and math throughout school. I even had to leave geometry in order to graduate with good grades or else ill fail. Heheh.. I never liked math or science. Im more of art/drama/literature.

-- temple (jahsmine@netzero.com), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

How old was Adam when God made him?

Not even one day old.

Did God create a newborn and name him Adam, or did God create a full-grown human being, anywhere say, from 17 to 50 years of age?

If God created a full-grown male in one day, Adam would have been less than a day old correct? But on that same day, if a group of today's scientists ran their various tests, they would determine that Adam was 40 years of age, not less than a day.

My point is, if God can create Adam "old," why not the universe and especially the Earth?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

Good theory, Temple.

The Universe is even older than that.

Good point , Luke. Was that a grown up Adam or a baby?

I will ask God that question. I don't know the answer.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

Also, neither here, nor 2 Peter 3 states that a day to the Lord is equivalent to one thousand years to man. Both in Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3, "like" or "as" is used, indicating figurative language. And, if you read 2 Peter 3, you'll see he is only reminding us of what the prophets had already stated.

A day to the Lord isn't literally 1,000 years, but the writer of Psalm 90 simply made a comparison to an eternal God, one thousand "Earth years" is simply like a day.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

My point is, if God can create Adam "old," why not the universe and especially the Earth? -Luke

You made a very good point. :P

Still, what of the dinosaurs and the pre-historic animals - hairy mammoths, etc..?

-- temple (jahsmine@netzero.com), March 15, 2005.



Response to Age of the Univese

"I ifnd htat a bit hard ot beeliv ein ligh of evidence. " - zarove

That's because you rather trust science.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

you know.. i honestly believe science has a little bit of truth in it. Notice i said "a little bit"... They rely on evidence and not God while believers rely on the bible and not science.

But if you try to link them both.. maybe we could find some truth in them both. Maybe..

Wasnt my theory. :) Im not that smart to come up with something like that.. i saw it in a website somewhere.

-- temple (jahsmine@netzero.com), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

I rley on boh the Bible and science. Afer all, God did say "Get wisdom, and with all thy getting, get undersrtanding."(Proverbs chapter 4.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 15, 2005.

Response to Age of the Univese

Exactly. :)

-- temple (jahsmine@netzero.com), March 15, 2005.

Response to Age of the Univese

News flash--

Creation Science is a scientific study of the earth and universe [not the Bible] just as secular science is. The difference is in the hypothesis we each start with.

Secular science tries to understand the earth and life--not only apart from any biblical revelation--but in denial that a creator or cosmic designer was ever involved. I think this makes them biased and can cause them to deny obvious things--such as the fact that everything in creations shouts "design!"

Can their be such fantastic design without a designer?

Creation science allows the earth to speak for itself....and finds that everything in it, is predicted in the Scriptures.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2005.



Response to Age of the Univese

News flash--

I miss my pld job... Creation Science is a scientific study of the earth and universe [not the Bible] just as secular science is. The difference is in the hypothesis we each start with.

IF that where true, you woidltn say "Jyst as secular sicnece is." The fact that creationism starts with its hypothasis that si based soel on its interpretaiton of a rleigiosu text proves it not the same thign as reuglar, "Secular" science.

Secular science tries to understand the earth and life--not only apart from any biblical revelation--but in denial that a creator or cosmic designer was ever involved.

No it doesnt.

see, the toruble is you seem to think that all sicnetisist tht arent creation sicnetisist disbeleie in God and that the goal of sicnece is to disprove God;s existance. sorry, but plenty of peopel beleive God exists that are reputable "Secular" sicnetists.

Btanists, physisists, chemists, even evolutionary bilogistss, can all be god-Fearigfn hristaisn who firmly beeliv ein a creator.

and guess what else? Physics has recetnly gturned in eh direction f theism, by daygn the Universe seems designed. this from "secular" sicnetists you cliam want o do away woth a creator.

They just want to observe the Universe apart form anythign to be objectie. Many allow agendas to get int he way, btu nto all. Lets not charecterise peoel Faith.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Univese

I think this makes them biased and can cause them to deny obvious things--such as the fact that everything in creations shouts "design!"

The problem is you asusm their biased because yo asume they are trygn t disrpive the existanc of God, which most dont.

Can their be such fantastic design without a designer?

Hypothetically tes. But I suggest you rea dup on quantum theory, secular sicnece is leanign toward theism...

Creation science allows the earth to speak for itself....and finds that everything in it, is predicted in the Scriptures.

OR, it tries to force the eidnece to fit its definition of scirotue......

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 15, 2005.


Response to Age of the Universe

Careful about using the term "secular." It does not mean "non-Christian" exclusively, but is, in essence, worship of the I AM. I'm not talking Jehovah God, I'm talking the ego.

Secularism in brief is "self-worship," or worship of the mind. It's a paradox to be sexular and God-fearing simultaneously.

I think what Zarove is saying is that there are many scientists who study in the unbelieving realm but who acknowlege a Creator of all things.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), March 15, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ