All evolutionists believe in young Earth.

All evolutionists believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In fact, the Earth is forty million billion years old as mentioned in “God’s story” wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

God said there has never been a new star in the universe. That means our sun and Earth is as old as all the other stars. At present, scientists are unable to test rocks for ages over 500 billion years old.

All human civilizations proceeded in a circular rather than linear way. All civilizations went in small cycles of 12,000 years. Many such small cycles form a large cycle of about 50 million years. At the end of each large cycle there was a mass extinction event. The latest small cycle began 6000 years ago for much area on Earth. That’s possibly why some Creationists mistook the present 6000-year-old civilization for a 6000-year-old Earth.

reply to post by linliangtai

Hi. I read the link, and it is, of course, a myth.

I think most creationists would be wise to adopt the concept that we believe God can create anything at any time and in any length of time He wants. If He wanted to create all of the universe in 6 days, no problem. That's the power of God. However, man does not respect, revere, or honor God for what He can do. Therefore, man seeks a scientific box to contain God, and to define God by the very laws of nature which He created.

The One True God is an everlasting creator. He is without beginning or end. We have trouble with that concept because our material minds cannot wrap around the idea of an immaterial everlasting being.

Some of the people on Earth are called by God to be believers. They know Him and respond to Him. The others, many of whom you will see on this forum, will not.

The original Apostles were instructed to preach the word, to gather in His sheep. Some of the words fell on deaf ears, even as they do today. Do not worry, my friend. The ones who need to hear His voice and words are hearing it loud and clear.

reply to post by linliangtai


That link is a joke.

Anyone who takes that seriously obviously has problems. Of course, people are going to start using this to mock Christians and stereotype them all again, just like they think all Christians believe the rapture is going to occur on May 21st of this year. Give me a break.

reply to post by linliangtai


'Milky way churning out new stars at a furious pace'

Link: www.spaceref.com...

It would appear man has shown this gods words to be false.

Really you do not do justice to your faith by ignoring things easily shown wrong with a simple google search. I would be more impressed if those with faith actually lived up to it.

reply to post by colin42


Science has been wrong for numerous times. Wake up, science cannot prove new stars formed in the universe.
Science just speculates.

reply to post by colin42
from the artical .. www.spaceref.com... Churchwell and his colleagues discovered more than 300 newly forming stars. Each of the stars, known to astronomers as protostars, has a swirling disk of circumstellar dust and creates ideal conditions for the formation of new solar systems ...[ with their present understanding of how stars are formed ] "In this one small area, we have a stellar nursery like no one has ever seen before," says Churchwell, an expert on star formation. "I am dead sure there are many regions like this throughout the galaxy. It is not unique." "The sheer number of objects is astounding, and may force us to rewrite our ideas of star formation and how much of it is going on in the Milky Way. ....I guess rewriting the way they think is the key here ...they were wrong about their theory threw observation so its back to the re thinking ...Oh and if this has been going on for billions of years ,when can we expect to see the new ones that were formed millions of years ago ..or why don't we observe new stars coming into view all the time ?......peace

reply to post by linliangtai


Complete and utter nonsense

You should really start getting you knowledge from proper sources instead of random hogwash blog sites

And of course there's carbon dating vs the measured expansion of the universe which reveals that the earth is a lot younger than the universe...but who cares about facts if they go against your irrational belief, right?

Originally posted by linliangtai
All evolutionists believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In fact, the Earth is forty million billion years old as mentioned in “God’s story” wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

God said there has never been a new star in the universe. That means our sun and Earth is as old as all the other stars. At present, scientists are unable to test rocks for ages over 500 billion years old.

All human civilizations proceeded in a circular rather than linear way. All civilizations went in small cycles of 12,000 years. Many such small cycles form a large cycle of about 50 million years. At the end of each large cycle there was a mass extinction event. The latest small cycle began 6000 years ago for much area on Earth. That’s possibly why some Creationists mistook the present 6000-year-old civilization for a 6000-year-old Earth.

This is how your post should have been:

All rational people think that the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years as all experiments point to this. However, some guy in the internet has written that in his opinion the proper age of the Earth is forty million billion years.

God said there has never been a new star in the universe. Based on this our sun and our planet are as old as all the other stars. However, all scientific experiments show that this is utter nonsense.

Here's some more nonsense: All human civilizations proceeded in a circular rather than linear way. All civilizations went in small cycles of 12,000 years. Many such small cycles form a large cycle of about 50 million years. At the end of each large cycle there was a mass extinction event. The latest small cycle began 6000 years ago for much area on Earth. That’s possibly why some Creationists mistook the present 6000-year-old civilization for a 6000-year-old Earth.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


You chose to treat rethinking as throwing out all they thought they knew about star formation to suit your argument.

The article shows rethinking the amount of star formation which is much larger than they thought.

I suppose this is why the holy books are open to interpretation. You get religion then you can read red and see blue.

Now matter what your spin is 'Milky way churning out new stars at a furious pace' means that the bloke pretending to write for some god saying no new stars was not just wrong but wildly wrong.

Our own star has a finite fuel and its life span can be calculated forwards and backwards and its future predicted because it can be observed in other stars.

As I said above you do your beliefs no justice with these ridiculous arguments just leave them open to ridicule and then cry persecution when you are laughed at.

reply to post by colin42
"You chose to treat rethinking as throwing out all they thought they knew about star formation to suit your argument." first of all I am not arguing anything ..so tell me how are stars formed according to them,because they say "may force us to rewrite our ideas of star formation"

"I suppose this is why the holy books are open to interpretation. You get religion then you can read red and see blue." How does holy books and religion come into what I wrote ? You may chose to Interpret what ever you want ,I will chose to try and understand ..

" Now matter what your spin is 'Milky way churning out new stars at a furious pace' means that the bloke pretending to write for some god saying no new stars was not just wrong but wildly wrong. " can you clarify this statement ?

"Our own star has a finite fuel and its life span can be calculated forwards and backwards and its future predicted because it can be observed in other stars." So how big was it when it started ?

" As I said above you do your beliefs no justice with these ridiculous arguments just leave them open to ridicule and then cry persecution when you are laughed at." I have not cried persecution and I am unaware of the sound of laughter ...care to share .....peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Your the one defending the stance of no new stars. You explain.

reply to post by colin42
I was not defending anything ...I made a comment about the for most expert on the theory of how stars are formed ...theory, being the key word I guess .I think far to much credit is given to theory as being fact then it should .I am not a educated person so sometimes I would do better to just not comment at all .After reading your reply to me I had to go and read a whole bunch of stuff I never intended to ...thanks .I now have a little better understanding of the subject but still have no idea how stars are formed ,unlike some who claim they do ...go figure ....peace .

Originally posted by linliangtai
reply to post by colin42

 

Science has been wrong for numerous times. Wake up, science cannot prove new stars formed in the universe.
Science just speculates.

you do know the scientific method right?

or are you just trolling?

Originally posted by linliangtai
reply to post by colin42

 

Science has been wrong for numerous times. Wake up, science cannot prove new stars formed in the universe.
Science just speculates.

Yes science has been wrong plenty of times. On the rare occassion completely wrong. Mainly though its the gears not the machine that needs altering.

Guess what though. In science when they find an error they correct it. test it. Repeat it, publish it and then keep testing it.

If the same was done to the bible it would be one page long. 'First there was god'. After that pretty much everything has been shown as groundless.

So if anyone needs to wake up it would be you.

Answer me this. If all stars have always been there from day one how do you know their age at all to be able to make your thread title?

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Sorry if I seemed short but answering questions with questions seems to be a tatic used by many and it is not my place to teach others.

I am glad you looked for the answers yourself, exercise is good Lol. I actually enjoy searching for and makeing my own conclusions right or wrong and am open to question what I think I know when valid points are made.

As for theory. The definition has been done to death. All I can say nothing in this world is 100%. The Sun may have risen every morning but tomorrow morning there is a chance it may not. So the theory that the sun rises every day is just a theory, one you live your life by.

reply to post by colin42
Question ...would death be a 100% theroy? peace

reply to post by colin42


" In science when they find an error they correct it. test it. Repeat it, publish it ...."
You forgot to mention this forum, where they cover it up as top secret.

reply to post by colin42


"Answer me this. If all stars have always been there from day one how do you know their age at all to be able to make your thread title?"

I said elsewhere long ago that all life is eternal and that rocks have life too, although I often exclude rocks when I referred to life, in order not to cause confusion. God wrote about the age of the universe. You can't beat God. Stop beating God even when everybody is actually beating God. How pitiful is God and everybody.

reply to post by linliangtai

Stop beating God even when everybody is actually beating God.

For some reason this reminded me of this:



Seriously though, it isn't the scientists' goal to disprove god...they just look at the objective evidence and draw conclusions for that. If those conclusions disprove some religious claims, then that's simply an uncomfortable reality. Take Noah's global flood for example...we KNOW for a fact that a global flood didn't happen. So either whoever wrote about it was blatantly lying, or he was overstating the size of the flood and was talking about a local flood.

What do you want scientists to do? Not look at objective evidence?

Your blog sucks OP. And man created God, not the other way around.
2nd line