Gravity is a myth my man! /takes another shot

I've been away for a bit, so apologies for the rather late reply.

I brought up Kent Hovind because some of what you say sounds very similar to the material he puts out.

The only people putting out material on dating methods being untrustworthy are those with a religious agenda . As I said in a previous post, read up all about Isochron Dating. There is very little room for large scale error. 100s of repeated tests confirm its realibility.

By saying scientists are human is of course to state the obvious. Anything is possible, but what is probable? How probable is it that scientists all over the world are all wrong and/or promoting secret agendas? How is it that evolutionary theory is taught and accepted worldwide by people of different faiths and cultures? Because of the evidence of course. To explain away this fact, you need to invoke worldwide conspiracy or worldwide error, both of which are very improbable.

I'm afraid you are just dead wrong about facts being more important than theories. Facts are only observations. Theories are explanations. The final outcome of the scientific method is a scientifc theory. You will find this in any science textbook.

Lastly, don't you think it's rather presumptious to suggest to me to "brush on genetics and DNA". Especially since you think that "computer programs written into DNA are insanely complex".

Cheers

The issue comes down to the various Christian camps in regards to the days of Creation, and how they relate to the modern scientific method.

There are generally two major schools of thought:

1) Young-Earth Creationists which reject any and all notions that the Earth is >10,000 years old, and reject any attempt to make the timeline longer, including carbon dating and other methods that state dinosaurs existed well before humans.

2) Old-Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists. People that are in this camp believe that the days of creation were not literal days, but relative to the viewpoint of God, and therefore agrees with modern scientific method. In the case of their belief, they would state that your reasoning of the Genesis account is wrong, and that the days are more inline with what science says in some form or fashion.

For cavemen, you have 2 arguments. The YEC crowd would believe they weren't humanoids at all, or died off prior to the flood. Old-Earthers and theistic evolutionists may hold to differing beliefs, that they did exist when science believes they did, and with theistic evolutionists, they were who science believes they were.

So how would such a view play into the Adam/Eve narrative? Adam and Eve would be the first humans with a soul - the first homosapiens, after whatever created them was finished (such as evolution).

Hopefully that helps explain the differing viewpoints. I don't think VGC is really the right place for this kind of discussion, because most people aren't going to give you the various Christian viewpoints..

No I don't.. that's the hole point of the post.. I believe "there are more" But i do not believe some wizards has walked the earth.. or people who could talk to.. "them".. and all other people who can talk to alien or other magicans.. so for me.. budha, allah, jesus, and loke are the same.. and i have not considered if budha has lived.. (don't even know the fairy tales) but if he lived he was just a man like jesus.. (if he even existet.. but i believe in him, becurse, he was just a normal man.. who talked about love (it was the romans 300 years after he died that made him "not human")

It sort of seems like you're just asking to be criticized.  There are a few points that you make where you seem to be aware that some of what you say doesn't make sense, yet you imply you still choose to believe it even against all evidence.

You're saying you know how long ago dinosaurs roamed the earth (last of them died out 60 million years ago), yet you do not believe the earth has been here that long?  Do I have that right or is that a typo?

Just wanted to point out that this is just not ture. Not all Christians believe in creationism, and many do accept evolution. Many Christians do not interpret the bible so literally.

Hi OP.

I for one as a Christian believe in evolution and I have a hard time understanding why some Christians will reject so many scientific facts to hold up that the Earth is rather young. Genesis was written to explain the dawn of man in simple terms to the people of the time. Large portions of the Old Testament are written in allegory to help enforce morals and good traits into the reader. And many parts were written for man of the time. The New Testament throws a lot of these beliefs and ideals out the window, because they were no longer relevant once Jesus came to teach. If you have questions for me OP, PM me and I'll give you my opinions on the matter. But if you decide to continue the belief of Creationism vs Evolution, be ready to have a lot of doubts about your beliefs over the years. As you get older, unless you live in a small town, you will have a hard time with your beliefs.

Also I feel it is very important for you to read the entire Bible yourself and reflect on it. Especially Revelations, you will see from this book that there are parts of the Bible that are definitely not to be taken literally.

Also Revelations talks about aliens, how cool is that!

Not all Christians believe in creationism. Many believe God shaped man through forced evolution, which you can debate is a form of creation. I am one of such believers.

Adam and eve is more a "story" to teach us about human nature, how we have free will and have a capacity to sin. Many parts of the bible arent real...but their lessons are. There cant be a real Adam and Eve because frankly you cant breed a sustainable population with just 2 people. Its a story with lessons, not real.

Many Christians take the bible too literally.

Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible. There is nothing in the bible that says how long a day is to God so the whole Genesis thing could have been billions of years. The bible says God created like, but it doesn't say how so there's no reason to believe it wasn't evolution.

Too many Christians take the old testament far too literally. God and science go together like peanut butter and jelly. The bible says God said "Let there be light" which sounds like the Big Bang to me. To me Adam and Eve are metaphors for the first of our ancestors to rise above ape. The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for the innocent state humanity was in as animals before evolving to self aware beings who could no long exist alongside beasts. The old testament is not a science book. It is a story. A story translated several times. It's a story designed for ancient minds to understand the basics of what God had done. If the bible was written today for our educated culture it would be less metaphorical and more scientific, but it would still leave a lot out. God has to dumb stuff down for us. Try explaining 2 + 2 to a dog. It's not unlike God trying to explain how he made everything from nothing.

I think evangelical Christians have made a mistake in thinking that the old testament is to be take literally. The new testament is the important stuff. Jesus basically came to update the word of God for a new era. If it were not for the prophecy of his coming we would not have any use for the old testament. Jesus' teachings about peace, love, understanding, and his sacrifice for our sins is what's important.

The Bible is no different from Nostradamus, entirely ambiguous in order to perpetuate a collection of nonsense.