The Creationism Museum

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Again, I'll ask, what Chapter and Verse in the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old

HINT : The Creation Museum is not the Bible.

Like Vic, I defer that question to the 17th century scholar who obviously spent a great deal of time studying the bible to come up with a date for the creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

ask him what chapter and verse.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Corbett
science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

I'm pretty sure that the scientific community and the spiritual/religious/creationist community use the word "proof" in entirely different contexts and entirely different ways and expect entirely different things when one group or the other asks for "proof."

The two different expectations are entirely incompatible. Science will never "prove" anything in the Bible, right or wrong, because science doesn't use the same definition of "proof" that believers in the Bible think/want? science to use.

I think you are confusing faith with proof.

Well, I'm not confusing the two---my point was that neither "side" of the discussion, creationism and evolution (this seems to be the dichotomy being discussed), can agree on what "faith" means and what "proof" means. But both sides continually use the two terms and expect the other side to agree with those usages, which I think will never happen.

Yes, faith and proof are different things. Science and religion do not agree on what the differences are.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Has it proven anything wrong in Greek or Norse Mythology?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Has it proven anything wrong in Greek or Norse Mythology?

So then we agree for once? Science has not proven anything in the Bible wrong.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Has it proven anything wrong in Greek or Norse Mythology?

So then we agree for once? Science has not proven anything in the Bible wrong.

Yeah if you don't include Genesis

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Corbett
What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

I still don't see where you're going with this.

I understand that the bible does not explicitly give an exact date for the moment of creation. However, Ussher's method of deducing the age of creation by cross-referencing the old testament with known events in history seems pretty straightforward and easy to comprehend.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Has it proven anything wrong in Greek or Norse Mythology?

So then we agree for once? Science has not proven anything in the Bible wrong.

Yeah if you don't include Genesis

I'll be waiting for your evidence.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Wait, so the genealogy given in the bible is subject to human error, but there are no proven errors in the bible?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett
What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

I still don't see where you're going with this.

I understand that the bible does not explicitly give an exact date for the moment of creation. However, Ussher's method of deducing the age of creation by cross-referencing the old testament with known events in history seems pretty straightforward and easy to comprehend.

Great, so Ussher's theory is wrong, not the Bible.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Has it proven anything wrong in Greek or Norse Mythology?

So then we agree for once? Science has not proven anything in the Bible wrong.

Yeah if you don't include Genesis

I'll be waiting for your evidence.

WTF, get real. you actually believe in talking snakes and that a woman was created by using the rib of a man?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett
Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Wait, so the genealogy given in the bible is subject to human error, but there are no proven errors in the bible?

Nothing in the Bible is subject to error, only man's interpretation of it (Ussher's theory).

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you talking to someone else because I never said that in this thread?

So you're not one of those guys that believes in a literal interpretation of the events in the bible? If so, why..

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
That doesn't change the fact that science has not proven one thing in the Bible wrong yet.

Science has proven that the earth (and the universe) are older than 6,000 years.

Chapter and Verse where the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old?

do you ask this?

Why do you jump into a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible, seemingly, on the side of the literals?

It's Corbett...nothing is suppose to make sense with this guy. He is so far right that he makes Sean Hannity look like a moderate.

What you two are not understanding is that I made the claim that nothing in the Bible has been disproven by science to which Vic commented that the earth being 6,000 years old theory has been proven wrong. Problem is, nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6,000 years old. Why is that so hard for you two to understand?

Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Because they believe they traced the geneology down from Noah to Adam as discussed earlier, which is subject to HUMAR ERROR! Meaning, the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, therefore, the claim of it being 6,000 years old is only man's theory and not the infallable Word of God. But I dont see what that has to do with my point. My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Has it proven anything wrong in Greek or Norse Mythology?

So then we agree for once? Science has not proven anything in the Bible wrong.

Yeah if you don't include Genesis

I'll be waiting for your evidence.

WTF, get real. you actually believe in talking snakes and that a woman was created by using the rib of a man?

WTF, get real. You actually believe a random explosion created everything and we evolved from Apes?

 

[mxyzptlk]

Above all else, how do you get around the fact of the bible being a work made entirely by humans?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Above all else, how do you get around the fact of the bible being a work made entirely by humans?

It's the inspired Word of God. Ussher's theory is not.

 

[mxyzptlk]

But it was written by men and men are fallible.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

WTF, get real. You actually believe a random explosion created everything and we evolved from Apes?

I don't know if the Big Bang theory is correct but common sense tells me that the myth those Bronze Age Sheep Herders came up with for our origins is laughable. Hey believe what you want, your beliefs are meant to give you comfort, obviously you need it

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
WTF, get real. you actually believe in talking snakes and that a woman was created by using the rib of a man?

WTF, get real. You actually believe a random explosion created everything and we evolved from Apes?

there is direct evidence for both the big bang and a striking genetic similarity between humans and other primates.


edit: stupid quote pyramids.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Above all else, how do you get around the fact of the bible being a work made entirely by humans?

It's the inspired Word of God. Ussher's theory is not.

Waiting for proof of this, o biblical scholar.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Not being well versed in the Christian Mythology, why would the Fundies claim the Earth is only 6000 years old?

The Bible never says that the earth is 6000 years old. It just happens to be that the geneology of the people in the Bible goes back about 6000 years to Adam and Eve.

An atheist tends to confuse this Biblical claim with the Bible saying the earth is 6000 years old. So when they find scientific evidence of distant stars not possible to be visible in only 6000 years, let alone 6,000,000, they disbelieve under the weight of their own bad assumptions.

What is easier, to believe God created the world in 6 days, or in the blink of an eye? Both are possibilities, yet I'd wager a guess that the blink of an eye is easier to comprehend than God using 6 days instead. Who are we to tell God that he should have just created it all in the blink of an eye? We can't even comprehend such power, nevermind comprehend the motives behind it's display enough to say "he should have done it this way..."

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Corbett
My point, AGAIN, was that science has not proven anything wrong in the Bible.

Umm... The bible does say god created man in his image. Science has proven that we all evolved apes. Proof. Now go bible thump elsewhere to a less intelligent audience.

You and Dewelon keep ignoring facts like the fact that DNA, geologic, and fossil evidence prove that evolution happened... But then again, ignoring facts is a pre-requisite for being Christian these days. I can understand that in the first 18-19 hundred years AD, but today, we know better.,