Dear Dan,

1. There is some history going back to earlier related OLO threads on "fundamentalist" belief regarding a literal Bible.

2. My side-bar was extended when you said "no" Christian takes the Bible literally. Some do. That is why I am prompting runner, as a candidate, to poll our regulars.

3. While Genesis is not where the flat earth emphasis is (other parts of the OT and NT make better citatios), there is a "hint" (your word).

4. Assuming some of out OLO friends do believe divine creation c. 4004 BCE, it is valid to recognise this situation.

5. I was "not" clear to me clear that you take OT miracles as allegory, yet NT miracles, as fact. Actually,I was leaning towards a your belief that Jesus' death on the Cross made other miracles rather obsolete/unnecesaary.

6. If one takes an "historical" view, scriptures were being re-written all the time. The OT and Dead Scrolls show this. Moreover, some pre-Nicaean gospels (e.g. Thomas)are not as definite on the divinity of Christ.

7. The notion of how gods create life and messiahs defy physics is intertwinned with ID, I suggest. A god who could create everything would be acting out of the character/synch. of the divine creation, suspending physics. Would be a man? It is something a mendicant might appear to do, though.

8. Looking at ID requires dissecting religions.

Hello Vanna,

1. If there is natural antimatter in our universe, it is probably typically kept apart by the expansion of the 4-D universe itself.

2. I would be cautious about seeding planets. If we introduce cells, exo-planetary viruses on a host plane if these exist could invade Johnny's apple seeds.

In classical times there were tales of gods romping around on Mt. Olympus. No doubt some people believed the stories of the gods were true. As far as I know nobody around today regards them as truth in any way.

Other tales from that time and earlier of miracles have been preserved in the Bible. From the postings on this list it is evident that some people believe that those miracles actually happened.

People believe in one set of ancient legends but not the other.

Makes no sense to me.

runner,

Very quickly because Dan and I tring to ascertain if there are Biblical literalists, not debate the age of the earth. So, assuming you will respond in as agreed:

What is known about the BB and visible universe horizon, places the universe at around 12-15 billion years. The sun as a third generation star that has been around for say 5 billion years. The previous star would have produced heavy metals that formed the earth. The half-life of uranium is known and the residue would suggest that earth is around 4-5 billion years old. We can regress to DNA back at least 3 billion years and before that time, the plane would not have a pleasant place.

The background radiation of from the BB was predicted and later confirmed, so our starting point for the universe seems okay.

Some atoms would be older than the earth.

I recall reading somewhere that the cooling of the earth was a problem of the Christian, Isaac Newton, who realised that earth must have taken epochs to cool.

I have done as you asked. We can discuss the detail another day.

-How old do you believe the earth is? One one million years?

oh..oliver...if science replictes research..thats good science..[yet cold-fusion hasnt been able to be replicted..lol]..

why if one res-erection..preceeds..the better known one..is this 2de/a copy...some bias..perhaps?

i have explained/the wine/thing..being an egsample of perception...
further..the walking on water thing..[people needing miracles]..[just like evolutionists...need their missing/link..or to be decieved/re dna=creating life...

human nature..covers both sides..[pride goeth/before the fall]

appoligies/to those believing in miracles...[i saw the vile-ffects of booze]..read how jesus/would only drink-new/wine..

[that makes sense..as grape/juice..cant ferment in heaven]...walking on water..was a translation for dock...anyhow it is a minour point..jesus specificly rebuked/those needing miracles[oh ye unbelieving nations]

science witnesses matter./
but anti-matter is yet a theory.

..same with dark-matter..[that is simply/a mechanism..to explain/away..the flaws in scienctheories/modeling...when their science dont confirm their theory/..human-nature/creates explanations..where we should be lusting after truth

as to why life egsist's...shouldnt be complicated..it does..
yet science confirms..only life can come from living/
let the dead tend the dead..

any theory/unable to prove itself..cannot be anything more than a hoper/belief...life egsiasting..is a fact...thus must have an inteli=gent...cause...if only that life teaches...every affect/had a cause...action/re-action

eliminate..all the possabilities...and you get left with some/intelligence/cause..hence the sustain-ability of ID..evolution hass validity/at the species/level...there has never been any observed/proven..mutation..exta genus

a warm-blood..from a cold-blood..is an insane possability...that some cow type/creature...that evolved into some carnivore..before 'returning'..to the sea...to become a whale...lol

thats just so nuts/insane..see how the truth needs to be stretched beyond logic...?

no i guess many of you decieved/by the science spin...cant see that

god..has been missrepresented...he sustains our every heartbeat/sustains every action of the autonimous bio=logical function..in every life...isnt that enough

my theory..being in time..we all harmonise...as one..living loving being...being one under/god.../as this occurs..the big bang reverses...

till in time...with a big bang..the next satan...falls to earth..[with half the angels]..

yet again..and we begin the next/big expansion/bang

the back/presure..of the fall/
big bang..affects all time[my theory being ..time is relitive..,as to where/we are...in the bigbang/expansion...

in its earlier stages..darkness must abound...

at the at/one-ness state..all is light..
its a theory..
lets get to the oneness/state...and test my hypo=thesus

Dan,

At my Anglican church yesterday our regional bishop preached a sermon that touched on the replication of artificial DNA announced this week and the billions of years it has taken for stars to grow and collapse and hence create the heavier elements necessary to human life and the solar system itself. Part of his message was that science and religion need not be enemies, and we should not look to science to verify literal interpretations of the bible.

Anyway, back to the dinosaurs.

The problem with your first argument is this – it may be possible to prove that a meteor did not cause the extinction of the dinosaurs, but I think it extremely unlikely that we’ll ever get hard, verifiable, scientific evidence that God was the “something else” that did it instead. Hence this is not, properly speaking, a scientific theory.

Your flood example is more promising, because it holds propositions that can be tested by scientific inquiry. If humans and other animals had all but died out a few thousand years ago, and we are all descendents of a handful of survivors, then this would be evident in our DNA. It isn’t. If a flood had covered the highest mountains on earth to a height of 15 cubits, it would be evident in geological and archaeological records. It isn’t. All that water would have to have come from, and gone to, somewhere. There is no evidence that the earth has ever had so much water, and no conceivable way that such a volume of water could subside in time for survivors to re-establish on land. Hence the flood example qualifies as a scientific theory to the extent that it can be disproved – which it has.

Oliver

I believe the earth is much younger than a million years. More than likely less than 10000 years. And yes I have no reason to doubt the 7 day literal creation. In my view this is the most rational account for one to place their faith in. Faith in evolution is not only unscientific but also illogical.