AGE OF THE EARTH...

[Oroblanco]

Funny you should bring up the pre-determination idea, Mr. Saturna. I've been thinking the samething. You see, that description covers all. As I wrote before, I believe what I believe and have no intentions of trying to convert anyone else. The statements made on this thread have fairly well covered all areas and have returned to covering topics already covered. So, rehashing them will not change the status quo.

I do find it amusing that you folks are quoting the Bible so emphatically. The next question is, do you BELIEVE it? Or, are you still picking and choosing what you will and what you won't? Cherry picking verses because they seem to support your argument. Apparently, you believe the verses purporting that the earth took billions of years to get to were we are today. You know, 1000 years to God is as 1 day to man. Well, now, Do you believe that a man died, and three days later, arose from the dead? Talk is cheap.

In your researching the Bible to buttruss your arguments for "old earth", did you by chance notice any of the scientific statements strewn within? Such as, "the earth is as a sphere hanging in nothingness." Or the mention of "stars that sing". How about Jonah's report that there are "mountains beneath the sea".

Lastly, I have access to surveillance photos showing artificial structures on Mars, as well as the Moon.

I realize your reply here is addressed to our mutual amigo Saturna, but indeed you have pointed out some of the examples of hidden knowledge which are in scripture - these tidbits really support science, and vice versa, yet for centuries they were deliberately ignored by the "cherry pickers" who insisted the world was flat and you could fall off the edge etc and they pointed to the passages which are clearly written in poetic terms, the "four corners" of the Earth, etc and ignoring those troubling bits like "hanging the Earth on nothing". If we are to be atheists and dismiss any belief in a Creator, then how do we explain that such knowledge was held by people living thousands of years ago, without telescopes or satellites to measure and photograph the world? How would a shepherd, spending his life tending livestock and herding them from pasture to pasture, have gotten the information that in fact the world is not standing on any "pillars" as we find in ancient Greek myths, but really hangs in space supported by nothing? This alone suggests that information came from some other intelligence which had the capability to view the Earth from a vantage point OFF the planet, and there is no reason to suppose that ancient Hebrews were flying space capsules so..... who or whom is that "other intelligence"?

We may laugh at such a quaint notion as a flat Earth, but such beliefs were held as undeniable truths in their time and it was risking life and limb to question them. I don't see the Young Earth theory in the same class as a flat earth idea - this Young Earth theory has alternate explanations for many of the evidences we see in support of an Old Earth. I don't agree with them but clearly there are reasons why people accept it over the Old Earth theory. I am not sure why there cannot have been an Ice Age in the Young Earth theory though. There are parts of scripture which certainly can be used to argue for a Young Earth too, as has been pointed out (adding up the years of the patriarchs etc) but in my opinion the other passages which support an Old Earth make more sense; and nowhere in scripture does it say exactly how old the Earth or the Universe is in human-Earth years.

I don't see that a religious person is automatically going to have any dilemma or quandary should life be found elsewhere than on Earth, for at the very root of most major religions is a "god" who is quite literally, an Extra-terrestrial being; so a belief in a "god" really includes a belief in extra-terrestrial life. Where is the quandary then, if life should be found on Mars or on Alpha Centauri?

Lamar wrote

There exists no evidence of artificial structures on either the moon or mars, except for what we've recently put there, my friend.

Have you seen the photos of what looks like TREES on Mars amigo? Not an artificial structure for sure, but they certainly are curious. If you have not yet seen them, I will be happy to post links; I can't say for absolute certainty that they ARE trees, but if I were head of NASA I would sure wish to send an exploration mission to examine those cites more closely.


Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar, I just informed you that certain types of photos exist that might actually support your claim that signs of life has been found on Mars, and you dispute that? Just like you've been disputing everything else I've been writing about concerning the age of the earth.

Mr. lamar, do you actually support SOMETHING or are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable?

 

[Saturna]

Funny you should bring up the pre-determination idea, Mr. Saturna. I've been thinking the samething. You see, that description covers all.

Not necessarily. I don't already believe one way for another reason and then say OK, let's see your evidence. I look at what's available and then decide what I think based on what seems most plausible to me.

Whether it's Earth age, who discovered North America first, or many other debates I've read about here, much of it can't be absolutely proven either way. I don't always have a definite opinion on much of it - I just don't know the answer for sure.

Some stuff seems plausible to me and some doesn't. The stories in the book you mentioned seem the LEAST plausible to me, therefore I don't believe much of it. You may base your whole life around it, I don't know.



Jay

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. O,
You have some very plausible observations concerning the Bible and the old earth ideas and I DO understand your curiosity about the discrepancies. A lot of your and my beliefs may be different, but in the end that can be a good thing. You and I can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I appreciate that and the courtesy you and Mrs. Oro have demonstrated on this thread.

As you can see, I just posted a comment that actually supports the "possible life on Mars", theory and Mr. lamar jumps on it as an untruth; without knowing where the proof comes from. So, I'm thinking of putting him back on "Ignore" because his objective seems to be directed at disagreeing with everything just to argue. We'll see.

Mr. O, I almost forgot. Those objects that were thought to be trees have been identified as areas of rock exposed through the ice covering. They sure do look like trees until you take a closer look. Those pictures are in the same sources as the photos of structures that lamar says are not real.

Funny you should bring up the pre-determination idea, Mr. Saturna. I've been thinking the samething. You see, that description covers all.

Not necessarily. I don't already believe one way for another reason and then say OK, let's see your evidence. I look at what's available and then decide what I think based on what seems most plausible to me.

Whether it's Earth age, who discovered North America first, or many other debates I've read about here, much of it can't be absolutely proven either way. I don't always have a definite opinion on much of it - I just don't know the answer for sure.

Some stuff seems plausible to me and some doesn't. The stories in the book you mentioned seem the LEAST plausible to me, therefore I don't believe much of it. You may base your whole life around it, I don't know.Jay

I believe "the book" you mentioned is a compilation of historical truths and stories about historical places and people. It is one volume of earth's history among many volumes produced by various other folks. My life does not revolve around this book, although it should. I happen to believe the information for reasons I won't go into here, but I do believe. Whether or not anyone else does is entirely their own personal choices. Belief in Creation is considered a religion. What is a little irksome is that the "belief" in the big bang is ALSO a religion; since neither theory can be proven beyond any doubt.

Mr. Saturna, you write that you are basically open-minded. GOOD. Please stay that way because when a person becomes closed minded, education bogs down and stops.

 

[Shortstack]

Funny you should bring up the pre-determination idea, Mr. Saturna. I've been thinking the samething. You see, that description covers all. As I wrote before, I believe what I believe and have no intentions of trying to convert anyone else. The statements made on this thread have fairly well covered all areas and have returned to covering topics already covered. So, rehashing them will not change the status quo.

I do find it amusing that you folks are quoting the Bible so emphatically. The next question is, do you BELIEVE it? Or, are you still picking and choosing what you will and what you won't? Cherry picking verses because they seem to support your argument. Apparently, you believe the verses purporting that the earth took billions of years to get to were we are today. You know, 1000 years to God is as 1 day to man. Well, now, Do you believe that a man died, and three days later, arose from the dead? Talk is cheap.

In your researching the Bible to buttruss your arguments for "old earth", did you by chance notice any of the scientific statements strewn within? Such as, "the earth is as a sphere hanging in nothingness." Or the mention of "stars that sing". How about Jonah's report that there are "mountains beneath the sea".

Lastly, I have access to surveillance photos showing artificial structures on Mars, as well as the Moon.

Dear Shortstack;
There exists no evidence of artificial structures on either the moon or mars, except for what we've recently put there, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Mr. lamar, I noticed you ignored the more important question in order to respond to a far lesser topic. Again, Do you believe that a man died and 3 days later, arose from the dead? Simple question.

 

[Oroblanco]

Thank you Shortstack, and I appreciate that you also are able to carry an intelligent debate without animosity. I don't understand why some folks get angry if someone doesn't agree with their views - we don't all like the same flavors of ice cream, so should I be angy that my friend likes chocolate and I like coffee? There are different methods in math and in science, which some favor and some don't - so there is no reason to be angry simply because one accepts one version over another.

You mentioned the structures on Mars - that "face" on Mars really had me puzzled for some time. I know, NASA has dismissed it as just a trick of light and shadow, but there appears to be an un-natural "frame" surrounding that mountain that doesn't go away with a change in light. Robot exploring machines are great of course, but until we can put a man on Mars, I don't think we are going to have all the answers to the many mysteries there.

Oh and for the record, I am no atheist - I do believe that a man died on the cross and somehow came back to life three days later. At one point in life I counted myself among the atheists, but the evidence changed my mind. Miracles do happen, even today.

Thanks again for the interesting and thought-provoking discussion, really got the old brain working!
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Thank you, Mr. O, and for the record, I, too believe that a certain man died and 3 days later arose from the dead.

The photos I referred to a little while ago, are not the ones of the "face"; although that pyramid shape is NOT a natural shape. These newer pics are photos taken by the Japanese satellite that is in orbit around Mars. There are square and rectangular shaped buildings and what looks like travel tubes running for hundreds of miles. There are also photos of structures on the moon that appear to be mining sites. Back to Mars; there are photos of what appears to be tailing's piles that are MILES long. I won't post any of them on this forum, but I'll PM you with the information.

 

[lamar]

Funny you should bring up the pre-determination idea, Mr. Saturna. I've been thinking the samething. You see, that description covers all. As I wrote before, I believe what I believe and have no intentions of trying to convert anyone else. The statements made on this thread have fairly well covered all areas and have returned to covering topics already covered. So, rehashing them will not change the status quo.

I do find it amusing that you folks are quoting the Bible so emphatically. The next question is, do you BELIEVE it? Or, are you still picking and choosing what you will and what you won't? Cherry picking verses because they seem to support your argument. Apparently, you believe the verses purporting that the earth took billions of years to get to were we are today. You know, 1000 years to God is as 1 day to man. Well, now, Do you believe that a man died, and three days later, arose from the dead? Talk is cheap.

In your researching the Bible to buttruss your arguments for "old earth", did you by chance notice any of the scientific statements strewn within? Such as, "the earth is as a sphere hanging in nothingness." Or the mention of "stars that sing". How about Jonah's report that there are "mountains beneath the sea".

Lastly, I have access to surveillance photos showing artificial structures on Mars, as well as the Moon.

Dear Shortstack;
There exists no evidence of artificial structures on either the moon or mars, except for what we've recently put there, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Mr. lamar, I noticed you ignored the more important question in order to respond to a far lesser topic. Again, Do you believe that a man died and 3 days later, arose from the dead? Simple question.

Dear Shortstack;
The question, in the way that you asked it, can only beckon one reply from me. No, I do not believe that a man died and 3 days later arose from the dead. I do however believe with all my heart that the SON OF GOD was cruxified, buried and 3 days later arose from the dead.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Ss, lamar is ROMAN CATHOLIC...

 

[lamar]

Mr. O,
You have some very plausible observations concerning the Bible and the old earth ideas and I DO understand your curiosity about the discrepancies. A lot of your and my beliefs may be different, but in the end that can be a good thing. You and I can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I appreciate that and the courtesy you and Mrs. Oro have demonstrated on this thread.

As you can see, I just posted a comment that actually supports the "possible life on Mars", theory and Mr. lamar jumps on it as an untruth; without knowing where the proof comes from. So, I'm thinking of putting him back on "Ignore" because his objective seems to be directed at disagreeing with everything just to argue. We'll see.

Mr. O, I almost forgot. Those objects that were thought to be trees have been identified as areas of rock exposed through the ice covering. They sure do look like trees until you take a closer look. Those pictures are in the same sources as the photos of structures that lamar says are not real.

Funny you should bring up the pre-determination idea, Mr. Saturna. I've been thinking the samething. You see, that description covers all.

Not necessarily. I don't already believe one way for another reason and then say OK, let's see your evidence. I look at what's available and then decide what I think based on what seems most plausible to me.

Whether it's Earth age, who discovered North America first, or many other debates I've read about here, much of it can't be absolutely proven either way. I don't always have a definite opinion on much of it - I just don't know the answer for sure.

Some stuff seems plausible to me and some doesn't. The stories in the book you mentioned seem the LEAST plausible to me, therefore I don't believe much of it. You may base your whole life around it, I don't know.Jay

I believe "the book" you mentioned is a compilation of historical truths and stories about historical places and people. It is one volume of earth's history among many volumes produced by various other folks. My life does not revolve around this book, although it should. I happen to believe the information for reasons I won't go into here, but I do believe. Whether or not anyone else does is entirely their own personal choices. Belief in Creation is considered a religion. What is a little irksome is that the "belief" in the big bang is ALSO a religion; since neither theory can be proven beyond any doubt.

Mr. Saturna, you write that you are basically open-minded. GOOD. Please stay that way because when a person becomes closed minded, education bogs down and stops.

Dear Shortstack;
You seem to have a habit of placing words in my mouth or attributing quotes to me which I emphatically did NOT write! I never stated that the artifacts on Mars were not *real* merely that there is no EVIDENCE which states that they may have been made by an intelligent life form. This is ALL I stated, nothing more and nothing less.

I spoke about the possibility of life on Mars, NOT the possibility of some prior form of intelligent being building structures on Mars, because to date there exists NO EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THAT THEORY! The life which Oroblanco and myself are discussing are possibility of BACTERIA existing on Mars! Nothing more than this, nor nothing less, my friend.

Also, the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest and it is most definitely NOT a religion, it is nothing more than a theory. It is a good theory because it fits into the model of our current Universe and thus far it has not been proven as false or untrue, therefore it remains valid.

I also do not argue, I merely present the facts of the matter. This is not arguing, it is looking at a subject from a realistic point of view.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Ss, lamar is ROMAN CATHOLIC...

Dear Rebel-KGC;
Was there a doubt in someone's mind prior to me having wrote what I did?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar,
When I asked that question, I was unaware of your's or anyone else's religious background. If I insulted you, I apologise. When I used the term "man" it was with the full belief that Jesus is God born of man and the words I used were of respect for that fact. He over came the body's death; then transformed to heaven in his physical body.
As a Roman Catholic, you must be interested in Cardinal Balduci's UFO comments. (I probably misspelled his name)

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar,
The Theory of Creation and the Theory of the Big Bang, both, meet the basic requirements of a "religion". Both have their vigorous proponents and neither can be proved as fact.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

I guess that the "big bang" theory and the creationist theories could be merged - it is conceivable, to me anyway (also Catholic), that God's days were VERY long (compared to ours), and evolution was actually GOD'S method of creating what we have.

I see no other way for there to be so many thousands of intricate parts of our universe. The "Big Bang" being the same as the "hand of God", and the ONLY way, imo, that anything at all could have happened, because before you can have any dust, dirt, star, universe, water or BIG BANG, is to have had someone put the raw materials in place first. It didn't "just exist".



B

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. O,
You are very welcomed.


Mrs. O,
You could be correct. There are certainly a LOT of folks who subscribe to your thoughts. It's those people who believe that everything JUST HAPPENED, are the ones that amaze me. They believe that nothing exploded billions of years ago and created everything spontaneously. And what TOTALLY amazes me is that they think life started on it's own.

I am open to the idea that God took a little bit longer than a day to make everything, but I totally refuse to believe in biogenesis. Life DID NOT just kick off from some random combinations of chemicals.

 

[lamar]

Mr. O,
You are very welcomed.


Mrs. O,
You could be correct. There are certainly a LOT of folks who subscribe to your thoughts. It's those people who believe that everything JUST HAPPENED, are the ones that amaze me. They believe that nothing exploded billions of years ago and created everything spontaneously. And what TOTALLY amazes me is that they think life started on it's own.

I am open to the idea that God took a little bit longer than a day to make everything, but I totally refuse to believe in biogenesis. Life DID NOT just kick off from some random combinations of chemicals.

Dear Shortstack;
There does exist another viable theory, in which life on Earth was *seeded* from somewhere else. In other words, DNA, which are the building blocks of all life, came to Earth via a meteorite. DNA CAN survive space travel therefore the theory is plausible, although unlikely at this point.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Mr. O,
You are very welcomed.


Mrs. O,
You could be correct. There are certainly a LOT of folks who subscribe to your thoughts. It's those people who believe that everything JUST HAPPENED, are the ones that amaze me. They believe that nothing exploded billions of years ago and created everything spontaneously. And what TOTALLY amazes me is that they think life started on it's own.

I am open to the idea that God took a little bit longer than a day to make everything, but I totally refuse to believe in biogenesis. Life DID NOT just kick off from some random combinations of chemicals.

Dear Shortstack;
Also, when scientists state that "Before the Big Bang, there was nothing" what they are stating is that before the Big Bang occurred, nobody knows what before, or to re=phrase it slightly "Before the Big Bang, there was ?" because that's the best that anybody can do, my friend.

We simply do not know what existed before the Big Bang, or if anything existed at all. We do not know and the odds of finding out in the future are very slim. My own theory is that there was another Big Bang before this one, and after the Universe stopped expenading, it remained stable for a while, then started to contract.

Finally, it reached the point of contraction where the entire Universe was the size of a grapefruit, and then friction overcame gravity and BANGGGGGG!!! The Universe exploded and was re-born once again. At this point that theory seems to be as valid as any other, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar,
I am aware of the "seeding" idea, but that still doesn't explain HOW life started. I don't care how far back you go and to what location. Somewhere, life BEGAN and required the actions taken by the Grand Designer, Lord God Jehovah, or anyother name He's known by.

My basic belief is still that life began HERE and that water will be found throughout the universe, but NOT animal and / or human life. Since I am not perfect, I MAY be wrong, but unless life is actually found somewhere else, other than this planet, I will continue to believe that Earth is IT.

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar,
Your reoccurring universe does not explain "life". Only God can do that.

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

Dear Shortstack;
There does exist another viable theory, in which life on Earth was *seeded* from somewhere else. In other words, DNA, which are the building blocks of all life, came to Earth via a meteorite. DNA CAN survive space travel therefore the theory is plausible, although unlikely at this point.

That is another interesting theory, but hard for me to accept; how would any form of life survive the passage through the atmosphere, which generates tremendous HEAT, for instance, or the massive amounts of radiation it would have received while passing through space un-protected by any planetary atmosphere/magnetosphere for another. I suppose it is possible, as they found "life" growing on one of our Moon lander vehicles, some kind of bacterium apparently can survive even there. Even if this explanation were true however, then we are back to "how did THAT life get started"? I know the theory about a chemical soup, lightning giving it a "shot" of electricity etc but this has been tried in the lab without generating life. There seems to have been "something" extra that caused life to be generated, something tough to explain for an atheist.

On the other hand, considering the extremophiles that live here on Earth, and the sheer numerical odds that there are other planets very like Earth out there, I think it is almost a certainty that other life exists than here on Earth. And this is not in contradiction with scripture either - for nowhere in scripture does it say that ONLY Earth was seeded with life. Now that I think of it, I believe there is a passage in one of the apocryphal books (left out of the bible) that mentions the saviour having "other worlds" he had to visit, which could be referring to heaven and the infernal reaches, or perhaps it meant other planets? I lent out my book which had that passage or I could look it up. Anyway I don't see any problems in this either.
Oroblanco