Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[SavedByTheLord]

You want to have it both ways. You claim there is evidence for a worldwide flood and when we show you there is no such evidence, you wave it away by claiming your god just contravenes the laws of nature

Of course He does. Read the Bible.
God is more than able to break all the laws that He created.
He is able and willing to do so.

When Christ walked on water, fed the multitudes, raised the dead, cured the sick and changed water into wine, He violated the very laws of nature.
When Christ cerated all things He violated the laws of nature.
But the laws of nature refute the Big Bang and all other evolutionists claims.

 

[Valjean]

Of course He does. Read the Bible.
God is more than able to break all the laws that He created.
He is able and willing to do so.

This is the Biblical narrative, but what makes it more reliable or authoritative than any other religious or mythological narrative?
This proposes an unfalsifiable mythology, which is entirely unevidenced.

When Christ walked on water, fed the multitudes, raised the dead, cured the sick and changed water into wine, He violated the very laws of nature.

But these things are only claims. How can they be verified? What makes them even likely to be true?

When Christ cerated all things He violated the laws of nature.
But the laws of nature refute the Big Bang and all other evolutionists claims.

No, the BB and all the other "evolutionist" claims are not only congruent with the laws of nature, they are dependent on them.
Your claim that Christ created all things is unfounded. Why do you believe it?
Your claim that the laws of nature are routinely violated is a facile ploy to circumvent any need for evidence, reason or logic. The claim is unevidenced.

 

[YoursTrue]

Although there are areas that have some disagreement, by and large they absolutely do agree. It is the consensus of the scientific community that evolution has developed all life as we know it today from a single source, via the process of natural selection. Anyhow, read my overview. I think I'm a lot easier to understand specifically because I am NOT an expert, and am able to put it in laymen's terms, rather than speak scientist-ese.

There are areas that have specific disagreements.

@IndigoChild5559 answered your question in an easy to understand way. Far better than I could have an answered. What is it about his answer you don't agree with? I'm not sure why you expect others to respond when he has already done such a good job. And he explained the disagreement.

If you want to see experts disagreeing take up bird observing and you can listen to boffins waffle on for hours about the position of a hyphen or the use of a capital letter in a name. It's much ado about nothing.

Definitions are definitions and are not consistent among scientists. As an old saying goes, and I paraphrase, ask a certain group of 3 experts, you will get 3 different answers. hehe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Although there are areas that have some disagreement, by and large they absolutely do agree. It is the consensus of the scientific community that evolution has developed all life as we know it today from a single source, via the process of natural selection. Anyhow, read my overview. I think I'm a lot easier to understand specifically because I am NOT an expert, and am able to put it in laymen's terms, rather than speak scientist-ese.

There are areas that have specific disagreements.

@IndigoChild5559 answered your question in an easy to understand way. Far better than I could have an answered. What is it about his answer you don't agree with? I'm not sure why you expect others to respond when he has already done such a good job. And he explained the disagreement.

If you want to see experts disagreeing take up bird observing and you can listen to boffins waffle on for hours about the position of a hyphen or the use of a capital letter in a name. It's much ado about nothing.

Definitions are definitions and are not consistent among scientists. As an old saying goes, and I paraphrase, ask a certain group of 3 experts, you will get 3 different answers. hehe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Although there are areas that have some disagreement, by and large they absolutely do agree. It is the consensus of the scientific community that evolution has developed all life as we know it today from a single source, via the process of natural selection. Anyhow, read my overview. I think I'm a lot easier to understand specifically because I am NOT an expert, and am able to put it in laymen's terms, rather than speak scientist-ese.

Please let me know how you feel about the following definition of species:

"An evolutionary species “is a single lineage of ancestor-descendant populations of organisms which maintains its identity from other such lineages [in space and time] and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate” (Wiley, 1981)."

Species concept and speciation

Defining and recognizing a species has been a controversial issue for a long time. To determine the variation and the limitation between species, many concepts have been proposed. When a taxonomist study a particular taxa, he/she must adopted a species ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[YoursTrue]

@IndigoChild5559 - Since you seem to believe in evolution as how things (life in particular) came about on the earth, would you know how plants and animals came about?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are areas that have specific disagreements.

Perhaps if you focused on the many areas of agreement, you would come away with a better understanding of how things work.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please let me know how you feel about the following definition of species:

"An evolutionary species “is a single lineage of ancestor-descendant populations of organisms which maintains its identity from other such lineages [in space and time] and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate” (Wiley, 1981)."

Species concept and speciation

Defining and recognizing a species has been a controversial issue for a long time. To determine the variation and the limitation between species, many concepts have been proposed. When a taxonomist study a particular taxa, he/she must adopted a species ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Too much scientisist-ese. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I have no idea what this means.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 - Since you seem to believe in evolution as how things (life in particular) came about on the earth, would you know how plants and animals came about?

Other than basic evolution, not specifically. Have you tried googling it? I only know that they have a common ancestor, but that animals did not evolve from plants and plants did not evolve from animals. That's the limit of my knowledge.

BTW, you have misrepresented me above when you say I think that evolution explains how things came about on earth. Evolution does not explain rocks. Nor does evolution explain how life came from non-life. Evolution only describes what happens to life once it exists.

 

[YoursTrue]

Other than basic evolution, not specifically. Have you tried googling it? I only know that they have a common ancestor, but that animals did not evolve from plants and plants did not evolve from animals. That's the limit of my knowledge.

BTW, you have misrepresented me above when you say I think that evolution explains how things came about on earth. Evolution does not explain rocks. Nor does evolution explain how life came from non-life. Evolution only describes what happens to life once it exists.

As far as trusting experts go, there are areas and areas of knowledge, including experts differing from one another. Including now I see definitions by experts about species.
Specifically it is an area of interest regarding the applications and prescribing by experts medication. Tests are done, and people can be given warnings about the meds, but sometimes one of the side effects can be death. I did specify living matter more or less in the term evolution, yes I said on the earth, I am pretty sure some think life may have evolved in outer space somewhere as well. Although I have seen people here term cultural changes in the realm of evolution. Sorry if you think I misrepresented you, didn't mean to do that. I don't want to get started on abiogenesis & evolution, so I won't at this time.
Thank you for mentioning you believe (no, sorry, you said you KNOW) that 'they' have a common ancestor since you have said, I believe, that you trust whatever experts may say about that, and that you KNOW (didn't you say that?) that plants did not evolve from animals and animals did not evolve from plants. How, may I ask, do you know this?

 

[YoursTrue]

@IndigoChild5559 In closing, because I have to go now, I by no means think you are too stupid to understand. Then again, maybe I am too stupid to understand the terms and explanations used. That is one reason why I am asking people here that believe in what some experts or scientists say about evolution. But thanks for trying. Appreciate it, and again -- have a nice evening.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As far as trusting experts go, there are areas and areas of knowledge, including experts differing from one another. Including now I see definitions by experts about species.
Specifically it is an area of interest regarding the applications and prescribing by experts medication. Tests are done, and people can be given warnings about the meds, but sometimes one of the side effects can be death. I did specify living matter more or less in the term evolution, yes I said on the earth, I am pretty sure some think life may have evolved in outer space somewhere as well. Although I have seen people here term cultural changes in the realm of evolution. Sorry if you think I misrepresented you, didn't mean to do that. I don't want to get started on abiogenesis & evolution, so I won't at this time.
Thank you for mentioning you believe (no, sorry, you said you KNOW) that 'they' have a common ancestor since you have said, I believe, that you trust whatever experts may say about that, and that you KNOW (didn't you say that?) that plants did not evolve from animals and animals did not evolve from plants. How, may I ask, do you know this?

I make every effort to be logical. When the experts disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to an expert. But when the experts are in consensus, the logical thing is to trust what they say. That's what I'm doing here.

 

[John53]

There are areas that have specific disagreements.

Great. How about some examples otherwise it's nothing more than anecdotal chit chat.

 

[YoursTrue]

Other than basic evolution, not specifically. Have you tried googling it? I only know that they have a common ancestor, but that animals did not evolve from plants and plants did not evolve from animals. That's the limit of my knowledge.

BTW, you have misrepresented me above when you say I think that evolution explains how things came about on earth. Evolution does not explain rocks. Nor does evolution explain how life came from non-life. Evolution only describes what happens to life once it exists.

I did specify life, not necessarily rocks. Please excuse if you think I misrepresented you.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

the earth does not look old at all. every river on earth excavates its drainage basin. there is simply no way that a river like the Mississippi has been dumping sediment into the gulf of Mexico for anything more than a few thousand years.
Cosmic background radiation is a lot of hoodoo arcane mumbo jumbo that people can't test for themselves and have to accept on someone else's word. there is a lot of disinformation pushed forward and very aggressively about the size, structure, and age of the cosmos aimed at severing people's relationship with their creator.

Very interesting thoughts above.
Sounds as if you doubt an ice age. How old are the dinosaurs?
I suppose CMBR can't be tested in a vacuum ?
.... and the 'water cycle' is mentioned at Job 26:8-12a but No time frame given.
To me 'age' does not separate or sever people's relationship with the Creator, but ignoring the teachings of Jesus does.
In other words, No desire to know God - Job 21:14-15 - but more concerned about the material than the spiritual.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Which creator? There's so many to choose from.

The Creator that Jesus mentioned at Revelation 4:11 aka the God of the Bible.

 

[Valjean]

The Creator that Jesus mentioned at Revelation 4:11 aka the God of the Bible.

How do you know it was not actually Brahma?

 

[Ebionite]

The Creator that Jesus mentioned at Revelation 4:11 aka the God of the Bible.

According to English common law it was Christ.

 

[John53]

The Creator that Jesus mentioned at Revelation 4:11 aka the God of the Bible.

More evidence for it being Baiame in my part of the world.

Baiame - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Where did you get this ridiculous information? What do you make of the Grand canyon? -- 6,000 years? Really?
How do you explain the radiodates of different sediments? How do you explain the ice cores or tree rings?
In other words: "I don't understand it, so I don't believe it." Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia
People don't just take the scientists' word for it. The scientists publish their work to be reviewed and tested by anyone who cares to. They invite criticism. Authority counts for nothing in science.
Science has no interest in severing anyone's relationship with any creator. Science investigates tangible phenomena and lets the chips fall where they will. If the facts threaten your faith, that's your problem.

Yes, agree with you that science has No interest in severing relationships with the Creator because science is Not the teacher or morality.
Science being more about how to do, whereas the Bible is more about should we do it.
Science to give us the world view, Bible to give us the biblical or God's view which is in harmony with proven science.
( Earth hangs upon nothing - Job 26:7 - for example )
It's propaganda that teaches 'what' to think instead of education which teaches 'how' to think.
Besides, the Bible is about the way to serve God, serve The Creator, His morality to be governed by aka Golden Rule and John 13:34-35.
So, it does make one wonder why such a hard push about earth's age being young and the length of the creative days when they are all summed up by the single word 'day' at Genesis 2:4, thus No proof found for a short time frame for creation in Scripture.