15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindshave you read your chess books yet RJ, did you understand them?
This may be difficult to explain to someone who does not know anything about
Physics, so I hope you at least had High School Physics.
The problem in dating the age of the earth is complicated by the different
world views of the creationists and the evolutionists. The creationists
view the universe and the earth as being created fully formed and ready f ...[text shortened]... atures of creation and can not be used
as valid estimators of age.
Do you understand this?
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am half way through the first one and I looked at the first Chapter of
have you read your chess books yet RJ, did you understand them?
another one. Yes, I understand everything so far. I would be better
off in learning if I would not post like I had planned, but when I am
waiting for a move I look at the posts and can't help my urge to post
something. Maybe God has other plans for me.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsMaybe God has other plans for me.
I am half way through the first one and I looked at the first Chapter of
another one. Yes, I understand everything so far. I would be better
off in learning if I would not post like I had planned, but when I am
waiting for a move I look at the posts and can't help my urge to post
something. Maybe God has other plans for me.
repentance perhaps?
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsMy BS-o-meter nearly blew a fuse reading that dung.
This may be difficult to explain to someone who does not know anything about
Physics, so I hope you at least had High School Physics.
The problem in dating the age of the earth is complicated by the different
world views of the creationists and the evolutionists. The creationists
view the universe and the earth as being created fully formed and ready f ...[text shortened]... atures of creation and can not be used
as valid estimators of age.
Do you understand this?
Do i understand what you said? Absolutely not, i think you'd struggle to find a sentient human being who would understand that nonsense. What does evolution have to do with dating the earth? Really?!
I want to knowhow these laws of physics prove the age of the earth is in the thousands of years
- Inverse Square Law, laws dealing with magnetism, movement, force and pressure to name a few.
Is was you who mentioned them after all.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsIf i post one of your games in the Chess forum maybe you could come over and talk us through it. Share some of your knowledge with us mere mortals. Whad'ya think Ron?
I am half way through the first one and I looked at the first Chapter of
another one. Yes, I understand everything so far. I would be better
off in learning if I would not post like I had planned, but when I am
waiting for a move I look at the posts and can't help my urge to post
something. Maybe God has other plans for me.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am like Bobby Fischer at this time. I am not willing to reveal any of
If i post one of your games in the Chess forum maybe you could come over and talk us through it. Share some of your knowledge with us mere mortals. Whad'ya think Ron?
my secrects, as Larry Evans said of Fischer. Evans said it was like
pulling teeth to get anything out of him for the book.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobMost scientist do not consider the creationist point of view in estimating
My BS-o-meter nearly blew a fuse reading that dung.
Do i understand what you said? Absolutely not, i think you'd struggle to find a sentient human being who would understand that nonsense. What does evolution have to do with dating the earth? Really?!
I want to knowhow these laws of physics prove the age of the earth is in the thousands of years
...[text shortened]... netism, movement, force and pressure to name a few.
Is was you who mentioned them after all.
the ages. That is where they go wrong. The scientific method requires
the correct point of view to start with to arrive at a correct conclusion.
They see Adam being formed from the sperm and egg and therefore by
todays standards there is no way he could have been created in a day.
They view everything like the evolutionist do. That is the wrong point
of view in the scientific method and must result in the wrong conclusion.
Do you get my point now?
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsIn the last, say, 60 years, don't you think the encreasing number of catastraphy theories have moved closer to an understanding of earth undergoing some kind of cataclysmic event before man appears on the earth?
Most scientist do not consider the creationist point of view in estimating
the ages. That is where they go wrong. The scientific method requires
the correct point of view to start with to arrive at a correct conclusion.
They see Adam being formed from the sperm and egg and therefore by
todays standards there is no way he could have been created in a da ...[text shortened]... view in the scientific method and must result in the wrong conclusion.
Do you get my point now?
I have heard of killer comets which caused instinctions.
I have heard of killer asteriods that devesatated the planet causing exstinctions.
I have heard of poisoness gas bubbling up from the bottom of the ocean, catching fire and killing everything practically.
As a kid a lot of the artists depictions of a prehistorical world showed an active volcano in the backround.
Do you think many theories of cataclysmic destruction devastating a previous world inches closer to what Genesis 1:1,2 says ?
15 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI don't think we need to speculate on any outside calamities occurring
In the last, say, 60 years, don't you think the encreasing number of catastraphy theories have moved closer to an understanding of earth undergoing some kind of cataclysmic event before man appears on the earth?
I have heard of killer comets which caused instinctions.
I have heard of killer asteriods that devesatated the planet causing exstinctions.
...[text shortened]... smic destruction devastating a previous world inches closer to what [b]Genesis 1:1,2 says ?[/b]
to the earth before man was created to live on it. I do not see any
evidence of any such thing happening in Genesis 1:1-2. It simply
indicates a work in progress in my opinion. I don't think there is any
justification for us to believe in any speculations that men might
dream up to explain how they imagine the earth appeared in the past.
In my opinion, all these things you have heard is science fiction and
we should treat it as such.