Christian & Catholic
- Started
- Last post
- 262 Responses
- GeorgiePorgie0
Along the lines of my last post.
It's a 'fact' that burnt marshmallows ROCK!
- stphn0
its a fact that this thread has no resolution and could potentially continue into oblivion.
- Mimio0
Interesting idea I guess. Still doesn't help the bible out though. The age of the universe (size , motion..etc.) is all determined by the decay radiotactive and non-radioactive elements. So it's as factual as the sun is bright.
- stphn0
its a fact that this thread has no resolution and could potentially continue into oblivion.
- GeorgiePorgie0
that's called 'Absolutism' and 'Uniformitarianism' in any dimension.
;)
- stphn0
my lagging felt it needed that to be posted twice
- Mimio0
It's interesting to me.
Bring on oblivion!
- discipler0
(slaps self for walking back into discussion)
Mimio, don't yell at me because I didn't feel like making you read a summary of this in such small type here on NT. But, Dr. Sarfati has some interesting things to say about the age of the earth/universe:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/…
as well as Dr. Humphreys:
- discipler0
(slaps self for walking back into discussion)
Mimio, don't yell at me because I didn't feel like making you read a summary of this in such small type here on NT. But, Dr. Sarfati has some interesting things to say about the age of the earth/universe:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/…
as well as Dr. Humphreys:
- Mimio0
All I have to say to Dr.Safarti is learn about calcium argon & radiometric testing. Besides just anthropological evidence shows that humans have been around far longer than the bible & Dr. Safarti believe.
- plastipop0
jimeeboy, on your original question on catholicism & christianity... i'd really like to help you so please try and hear me out ok?... many christians believe that the catholic church is apostate ( http://www.gty.org/bible_faqs/bi… ), so questions about a catholic & christian getting married etc. are kind of secondary to the more pressing issue of whether the teachings of catholic church hold up to scripture. and it's not really a question of whether a catholic be a christian or not, because the answer is yes! to me the more pressing question you need to ask yourself is, are the teachings of the catholic church consistent with what the bible teaches? when you look at the many extra-biblical doctrines about the role of mary etc., you will see that these things are the things that brought about the reformation and really haven't changed all that much within the catholic church system since then. does that make sence?
- discipler0
Mimio, let's not pretend we understand these issues better than the PHD's who eat, sleep and breathe this stuff. ;)
Regarding Argon and dating:
- Mimio0
Discipler,
Let's face it he's basically saying that humans are less than 10,000 years old. I don't know if you've heard this but they've found a human skeleton in Ethipoia last month that's 160,000 years old. So if he's totally wrong about that...I tend to not really give much credence to anything he might have to say about biology or geology. Evidence speaks far more loudly.
- discipler0
Therein lies the debate though. See, modern researchers have made the old earth claim for some time now and their dating methods have been shown to be inconsistant. Don't you recall the several hundred thousand year old Hominid tooth that turned out to be Farmer Blow's pig tooth no more than 30 years old? Evidence? Read those articles about dating methods. There is, I believe, ample evidence to support a much younger earth.
(On a side note, there are Creationists who hold to an old-earth view (claiming somewhere between 60,000 and 600,000 years of earth age) just as there are evolutionists disagree about the age of the earth/universe. Its and in-house debate and both views embrace a creation model. I personally see more evidence to support a younger earth.)
- plastipop0
billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. hmmmm...
also, fossils don't date, people do. no, but reallly, there are enormous assumptions regarding dating methods used today. nobody can PROVE something is X years old. they use a circular reasoning built on the presuposition that what they are looking at is already billions of years old, and then interpert the evidence to fit their presupositions.
- danthon0
lol
another noahs ark debate, classic!
discipler, you are becoming far too predictable
- GeorgiePorgie0
Again.
"Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.
- Mimio0
Discipler,
So you're saying that discovery and countless others are frauds?
That the vast majority of archaeologists are deceiving the general public?
- discipler0
I'm not calling into question their integrity. As plastipop said, they begin with a paradigm that is not necissarily true/accurate. And more and more scientists today are calling into question the methods and resulting hypotheses surrounding such findings.
- plastipop0
evolutionist looking at the grand canyon" a little bit of water and a lot of time"
creationist looking at the grand canyon "a lot of water and a little bit of time"
same evidence, different interpretation, different presuppositions. it's not a question of bias. everyone is biased. it's really a question of which bias, is the best bias, to be biased with...