By: xavarian1
24/03/2009
11:04 am Yahoo! Profile:
xavarian1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
deecee
Well, even your 32,000 years old is an improvement on the miserly 10,000 years you first suggested. And in a very much wider sense...
1) blades and pigments...250,000 years
2) exchange (trade), fishing...140,000 years
3) bone tool, mining...100,000 years
4) bead making...40,000 - 50,000 years
5) representational art (images)...30,000 - 40,000 years.
A piece of ochre, with a regular series of crosses engraved on it with other marks has been dated at 77,000 years but there is debate as to whether it anything more than a sort of 'doodle'.
Perhaps all this practical stuff was more demanding than a bit of art in a cave? That the art itelf was so demanding that it required an *artist* --- after all, I don't think that any old cave-man could produce such masterpieces. If this was the case, a tribe would have had to reach an econmic level that enabled it to support an artist, a flint worker and a shaman. All full time positions. |
|
By: bcfairlie
24/03/2009
11:11 am Yahoo! Profile:
bcfairlie Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
deecee
""3.And god provided, in advance, a solution, the death and resurrection of Christ as a substitute for the rebellion of man.""
Not much of a substitute is it? So far it hasn't worked.2000 years later.
This god of yours does not seem very clever. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
12:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
hi jeff...<<"Nothing happens but for Gods will">>
This is a very good question, and to answer it we have to understand what is meant by Gods will. In any given situation, God will have a preferred outcome, but our free will is a crucial element of our relationship to God (in other words our free will is God's will). When we choose to disobey Gods will, he says, ok, but we will experinece the consequences. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
12:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| hi xav...(re the proposition) You miss the point entirely. When mankind believed the earth was flat, they couldn't photograph it. There was no 'proof' available to them, only logic. So people can disbeleve something that is true. To argue otherwise is illogical. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
1:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
hi xav...replace the word 'granted' with bestowed, if that helps.
Other points:
2) Genesis 2:17 says "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.."; fairly clear to me. And yes God is a jealous God(Exodus 20:45), but not in an envious sense, more in a possessive sense.
3) God sacrificed His Son (one God, three persons) to atone for our disobedience. Noting psychotic about that, if you understand the nature of God and the purity of God. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
1:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Hi Jeff..."earlie in this thread" doesn't cut it. If scientific proof has been proferred for the age of the universe, post it, or tell us the reference. Then we can tell all those detaing this issue elsewhere the problem has been solved. |
|
By: locomotif
24/03/2009
1:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
locomotif Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| This was on the other Jesus thread: "while its true that the age of the earth is speculative, it is CERTAIN that it is billions of years old. A combination of scientific techniques, including carbon dating, radiometric dating and stratigraphy prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the earth was formed billions of years ago. I understand the need to believe in the creation story in the Bible, I just don't understand how you can believe it..if the Ark story was in any other book instead of the Bible, surely you can agree that no-one would take it literally?" |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
1:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
hi xav...The point is not how demanding it was, the point is old it was! Also, you have misquoted my original post, in which I said 'up to 32,000 years', and I have quoted my sources for the dispute. There is no concrete evidence they are more than 10,000 years old, and even at 32,000, my question has not been answered. What happened in between?
Now to your latest claims. Where is the substantiation? I'm partiuclarly interested in the estimate re the blades, as this exceeds the oldest estimated date for hsapien bone fragments (http://anthro.palomar.ed u/ *** 2/mod_ *** _4.htm). |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
1:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| hi bc...yes perhaps not that well worded. By 'substitute' I meant in a vicarious sense. He took our sins on himself, so that the permanent consequences of those sins would not fall on us. But it all depends on what we do with Jesus. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
1:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| hi locomotif...are you submitting this as evidence or as humour. This is all unsubstantiated rhetoric, and if a ceationist posted nonsense like this we'd be rightly laughed off the boards. I'll accept the billions of years when the evidence is presented. I'm still waiting. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
1:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Sick to death of this topic too. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
1:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Sick to death of this topic too. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
1:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Sick to death of this topic too. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
1:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Sick to death of this topic too. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
1:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Sick to death of this topic too. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
1:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Sick to death of this topic too. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
1:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Sick to death of this topic too. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
2:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| And ya can get rid of this rubbish too, been on message board for years. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
2:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| And ya can get rid of this rubbish too, been on message board for years. |
|
By: golfers248
24/03/2009
2:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
golfers248 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| And ya can get rid of this rubbish too, been on message board for years. |
|
By: locomotif
24/03/2009
2:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
locomotif Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
Hi Deecee, wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the overwhelming scientific evidence for the earth being 5 billion years old: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age _of_the_Earth
A variety of different scientific techniques, reviewed and refined over decades, done by the best scientests in their fields, all giving pretty much the same answer..pretty solid proof to anyone who thinks logically and rationally about this issue. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
3:30 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| hi locomotif...thanks for the link, the material is interesting. I want to take some time to better understand particularly radiometric dating, a concept often disparaged by young earth creationists. Can I also ask a question? Wiki says <<It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine.>> Does this mean this is the range of possible ages of the earth? |
|
By: jamezzz13@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
4:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jamezzz13@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
I dont need no one to tell me about heaven
I look at my daughter and I believe
I Dont need no fool to tell me about god & truth
I can see the sunset & I believe.
(live) brilliant. |
|
By: locomotif
24/03/2009
5:33 pm Yahoo! Profile:
locomotif Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| I understood that it took between a few million years to a hundred million years for the material that makes up the Earth to have 'condensed' together; doesn't affect the age of the material that makes up the Earth, just the range of time the Earth took to form and become a planet. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
24/03/2009
6:33 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
thanks locomotiv. I have lots more research to do, and there seems to be two very distinct and competing views within Christian scientific circles. Two such examples are:
(pro radiometric dating)http://www.asa3.or g/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.htm l
(anti radiometric dating)
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
It's hard reading, but I genuinely am curious about this, so I'll persevere as long as my patience allows. |
|
