Hi BX7. Since you seem to be hanging around more often than not, I figured Id start a thread just for your enjoyment.

I believe it took Billions of years for Earth to be stable enough to sustain life. Additional evidence, at least to me <(cuz Ark will have a cow if my lauguage suggests definitive proof), that your god never created Earth because the Bible said it was finished. Welp, what about Earth Quakes? Earth is still forming brotha! So, what do you think, BX7?

they either believe the Truth, or they believe foolish myths about origins

yup.

oh, you don't want to know what I think...

there is no empirical evidence to support this position, so the argument is worthless

LOL its worthless to you because you believe that if you hold your interpretation true, you will go to heaven. The fact that you close your eyes to the empirical evidence of origins, of the universe, evolution, etc, only means that you are a fool for closing out the gifts that God have given you for reasoning and assertions.
We talked about this several times and you still want to use the bible as a scientific document, which it is not and which you yourself acknowledged.



speed of light extrapolations involving light from distant stars prove nothing, the Biblical Creationist understands God created the heavens and instantaneously inflated the cosmos in a moment...during that moment time did not exist


There is no proof of that and there is nothing in the bible that states this. Its made up. BTW, isnt the Big bang an inflation in itself?




this gets back to my ongoing assertion that everyone is religious to one extent or another, they either believe the Truth, or they believe foolish myths about origins

Your assertions???
LOL, everything that you spew out is regurgitation of the YECs, not you are taking credit for it? And this cut and dry assertion is foolish in itself.

If we were to believe your assertions then you would be 5'11" tall :blah:

once again, it has nothing to do with "my interpretation"

Your right be cause they are not 'your' interpretations but the YECs


and everything to do with what God's Word says...in striking, undeniable clarity

Vague... again. What point are you trying to make?

Hi BX7. Since you seem to be hanging around more often than not, I figured Id start a thread just for your enjoyment.

I believe it took Billions of years for Earth to be stable enough to sustain life. Additional evidence, at least to me <(cuz Ark will have a cow if my lauguage suggests definitive proof), that your god never created Earth because the Bible said it was finished. Welp, what about Earth Quakes? Earth is still forming brotha! So, what do you think, BX7?

First, Czarofzar, I want to thank you personally for thinking of me. It gives me warm fuzzies down deep inside to know that other forum members truly care for me. What's really great is that while you and I differ from one extreme to the other on this topic, we don't have to engage in offensive langauge to debate each other, like some other forum members around here who are uncivilized.

Now onto your question. Let me re-word your question into a more simple statement. Since the "earth quakes", it is still "forming", which is evidence that the biblical record of creation is fallible because it (the bible) claims that the earth was "finished".

I think your source is most likely Gen 2:1, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.". Hmm. My first thought is does the earth remain as it was the very moment it was created? No it does not, for if no other physical change occurred, (i.e. sun effects, wind, tide) would the earth still be the same? Obviously not since we live in a 4 dimensional world and the earth does not exist as it were from creation for the mere fact that time has passed. At the very least it has accumulated "age".

Does the verse indicate that the earth would never change? No it doesn't. What it states is that the creation account for the heavens and the earth was complete. All material and life necessary to maintian the order of the Orderer was inplace. The proof of this is the answer to the question "Have we observed the creation of new life or new matter in the universe?". Intrinsic to this creation, or any creation for that matter, is it's potentiality for change. Everything created is a potential before it is actualized. All potential objects that are actualized continue to have the attribute of potentiality. Since the earth was created, it continues to have the potential for change. That the earth changes, i.e. erosion, platetectonics, is a proof of it's creation, and this agrees with the bibical acount of creation. That's what I think.

well, I was going to post some kind of rant about the improper use of scientific references, and blah blah, but my mind kind of wondered, so here's some conclusions I came to. I just felt like sharing:

1.Mark makes this forum interesting. As frustrating as all your scripture referencing is(it's not a legitimate reference. Work with theories, since what you beleive can't actually be proven; hence the idea of beleif.), you've kept my mind busy comparing both sides of the argument, so thanks.

2.People dont know nearly as much about science as they think they do. I'm not getting into that one, it's a hot topic lol

I believe it took Billions of years for Earth to be stable enough to sustain life. ~1 billion, actually.

3.People try to use big words to sound smart and forget to use direct language.

there is no empirical evidence to support this position, so the argument is worthless lol the same goes for your beleifs, don't be a hypocrite. You're smarter than that

Well, what about Earth Quakes? Earth is still forming brotha! just to reiterate, plate tectonics accounts for this. Quakes are caused by the butting/subduction of plates, as well as a few other scenarios. Make sure you understand what you're talking about. Fair enough, you can be forgiven for thinking this indicates incompletion, but we're really in a state of completed incompleteness. One of the benefits of a liquid core :)

4.I will never slander the credability of religion(anything is possible, all be it, unlikely), but in keeping with scientific method, which is the best approach to anything and not just science, I have to say I can't really subscribe to any religion. I suppose thats why these arguments interest me.

that was definately tl;dr, but i felt like getting that in writing. Anyway, whatever

First, Czarofzar, I want to thank you personally for thinking of me. It gives me warm fuzzies down deep inside to know that other forum members truly care for me. What's really great is that while you and I differ from one extreme to the other on this topic, we don't have to engage in offensive langauge to debate each other, like some other forum members around here who are uncivilized.
Aw come on. You know why I dont cuss at you, its because you are sensitive and I would hate for you to avoid me and go back into hiding.


Now onto your question. Let me re-word your question into a more simple statement. Since the "earth quakes", it is still "forming", which is evidence that the biblical record of creation is fallible because it (the bible) claims that the earth was "finished".

I think your source is most likely Gen 2:1, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.". Hmm. My first thought is does the earth remain as it was the very moment it was created? No it does not, for if no other physical change occurred, (i.e. sun effects, wind, tide) would the earth still be the same? Obviously not since we live in a 4 dimensional world and the earth does not exist as it were from creation for the mere fact that time has passed. At the very least it has accumulated "age".

Does the verse indicate that the earth would never change? No it doesn't. What it states is that the creation account for the heavens and the earth was complete. All material and life necessary to maintian the order of the Orderer was inplace. The proof of this is the answer to the question "Have we observed the creation of new life or new matter in the universe?". Intrinsic to this creation, or any creation for that matter, is it's potentiality for change. Everything created is a potential before it is actualized. All potential objects that are actualized continue to have the attribute of potentiality. Since the earth was created, it continues to have the potential for change. That the earth changes, i.e. erosion, platetectonics, is a proof of it's creation, and this agrees with the bibical acount of creation. That's what I think.

I really apreciate you putting a lot of time into answering this topic. To be honest, it was a goof question just to troll you. While reading, I was getting nervous since you mention we live in a 4th dimensional world for I swear to god that Ark insisted that you place that in there. But as I continue to read your reply, you actually took careful steps on answering it and your conclusion made sense.

well, I was going to post some kind of rant about the improper use of scientific references, and blah blah, but my mind kind of wondered, so here's some conclusions I came to. I just felt like sharing:

1.Mark makes this forum interesting. As frustrating as all your scripture referencing is(it's not a legitimate reference. Work with theories, since what you beleive can't actually be proven; hence the idea of beleif.), you've kept my mind busy comparing both sides of the argument, so thanks.

2.People dont know nearly as much about science as they think they do. I'm not getting into that one, it's a hot topic lol

~1 billion, actually.

3.People try to use big words to sound smart and forget to use direct language.

lol the same goes for your beleifs, don't be a hypocrite. You're smarter than that

just to reiterate, plate tectonics accounts for this. Quakes are caused by the butting/subduction of plates, as well as a few other scenarios. Make sure you understand what you're talking about. Fair enough, you can be forgiven for thinking this indicates incompletion, but we're really in a state of completed incompleteness. One of the benefits of a liquid core :)

4.I will never slander the credability of religion(anything is possible, all be it, unlikely), but in keeping with scientific method, which is the best approach to anything and not just science, I have to say I can't really subscribe to any religion. I suppose thats why these arguments interest me.

that was definately tl;dr, but i felt like getting that in writing. Anyway, whatever

Hey there :)
Oh, did you have something important to say? Didn't read.