No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[Pottyone]

Numerous individuals who have posted on your thread here have indicated that the Bible does give us a definitive age of the earth, as in around 6000 years old. Specifically, the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC if you believe Bishop Ussher. His dates were printed in the KJV for several hundred years. That is where YECs get their dating from. And here they thought it was Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.

So how old do you think the earth is? You must have some opinion. Closer to 6000 years old or closer to 3.5 billion years old? We have a rather large discrepancy here.

You indicated you are a scientist. You said you are a molecular biologist. Correct?

You don't talk like a scientist. You don't appear to know much of anything about scientific theory. Do you know anything about the criteria of falsifiability?

Are you saying that nothing can be reliably tested for age by such methods as Carbon-14 dating?

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you know why it is so important that they are accurately dated?

Well Jack, I wish I knew how to answer you but really I don't. I don't want to be sidetracked any more by you from the original question of this thread. This is not about you or me, or who is the cleverest or who sounds the most scientific. I have conceded already that I know very little about science despite having a Master of Science degree from the University of Bath. Those are my credentials but you are probably right I know very little and I don't talk like a scientist partly because this is not and never was intended to be a scientific forum. My original question was not about the intricacies and mechanisms of creation, it was more of a philosophical, spiritual question about how the evolutionary theories have a huge impact on people's willingness to accept the authenticity of the Word of God. It was about real life interactions with real life people who are often "lost" in their sins and rejecting God because of he impact of these theories on modern society.
i want to address these issues rather than trying to make myself sound good. People's eternal salvation is surely more important than our little quibbles. Here's to better relations in future, God bless. Mark

 

[JackH]

You dismiss one possibilty without consideration. That exposes you as stupid and closed minded. No one has the physical proof either way.

You go ahead and keep getting your ignorant information from ignorant people that don't know-I don't care. Just don't come over and try to tell me you know more than I.

I know how to spell possibility.

I don't dismiss the possibility that the world is 6,000 years old. The preponderance of scientific evidence, however, indicates otherwise.

You, on the other hand, will accept no scientific evidence that the world is not 6,000 years old. As time marches on and scientific dating methods become even more accurate and reliable, you still will not accept the possibility that the earth is billions rather than thousands of years old. Right?

And on the subject of the Bible being inerrant, as I recall you have indicated that the KJV is the only inerrant Bible. Is that correct?

 

[JackH]

My original question was not about the intricacies and mechanisms of creation, it was more of a philosophical, spiritual question about how the evolutionary theories have a huge impact on people's willingness to accept the authenticity of the Word of God.

The Pope accepts evolutionary theory and Catholics don't seem to have a problem with people's willingness to accept the authenticity of the Word of God.

It is mostly fundamentalists and evangelicals who stick to this 6000 year old world who are the authors of confusion.

 

[Pottyone]

The Pope accepts evolutionary theory and Catholics don't seem to have a problem with people's willingness to accept the authenticity of the Word of God.

It is mostly fundamentalists and evangelicals who stick to this 6000 year old world who are the authors of confusion.

this is a really happy moment for me Jack, you and I agree on something.....well at least in part, I take it by "Catholics", you mean "Roman Catholics"?

 

[JackH]

this is a really happy moment for me Jack, you and I agree on something.....well at least in part, I take it by "Catholics", you mean "Roman Catholics"?

I heard the Pope prefers just Catholic to Roman Catholic.

You are Catholic then?

 

[phil112]

(1)I know how to spell possibility.

I don't dismiss the possibility that the world is 6,000 years old. The preponderance of scientific evidence, however, indicates otherwise.

(2)You, on the other hand, will accept no scientific evidence that the world is not 6,000 years old. As time marches on and scientific dating methods become even more accurate and reliable, you still will not accept the possibility that the earth is billions rather than thousands of years old. Right?

And on the subject of the Bible being inerrant, (3)as I recall you have indicated that the KJV is the only inerrant Bible. Is that correct?

1. I am a mechanic, not a typist. I am a past spelling bee champion. When I, or anyone, fails to proofread, mistakes slip out.
2. That is a lie. I accept mans evidence, but it is far from fact. Man used to use leeches to treat people too, didn't they? You put your trust and faith in man, while I put mine in God.
3. I have never said the bible is inerrant. I said the KJV has no doctrinal errors. There is no such thing as an error free bible.

Your mud doesn't have enough consistincency to adhere when you sling it. Try again.

While we're chatting, why the need to lie to people you have never, and will never, see? Are you ashamed of your age? Are you a short liberal? Does it make you feel taller, or get you better accolades from your compadres (assuming you have any, that is)? Does it make you feel better to lie about what you aren't?

 

[jdbear]

Originally posted by JackH
You appear to be rather clueless. So I'll give you a clue. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Great Isaiah Scroll. Now what possible difference would it make whether that scroll was written in 400 BC or 100 AD? C'mon dude, you can do it. You can figure it out.

It doesn't make any difference Jack, because the Dead Sea scroll is practically identical to the Masoretic text. The clueless part is thinking it matters. Do you think having document copies of historical people, places, etc. automatically invalidates history?

Originally posted by JackH
What alternative explanations do you consider viable for the world being 6000 years old?

We can start with my idea that by observation, our orderly world was designed by a Mastermind who possesses the secret of life, as opposed to your idea that by chance, order ensued and lifeless components formed us.

I believe order is the result of a designer, because this is how I experience order happening and the law of biogenesis says that life only comes from other life. I observe this happening every day...and...as far as design and life are concerned...this is all I see happening. From these observations, I propose that the world was designed and life never began, but that it has always existed. (We'll be working our way up to how the earth is young, but for now...

Jack, tell me why you believe order spontaneously arises from disorder and how life spontaneously arises from non living things...and please furnish examples on which you base your hypothesis as I have done.

 

[JackH]

It doesn't make any difference Jack, because the Dead Sea scroll is practically identical to the Masoretic text. The clueless part is thinking it matters.

Yes, the Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the Masoretic text.

Exactly my point.

And how old is the Great Isaiah Scroll?

The clueless part is you thinking it doesn't matter.

 

[JackH]

as opposed to your idea that by chance, order ensued and lifeless components formed us.

Jack, tell me why you believe order spontaneously arises from disorder and how life spontaneously arises from non living things...and please furnish examples on which you base your hypothesis as I have done.

Excuse me?

Please quote something I said that resembles what you said I said.

 

[JackH]

1. I am a mechanic, not a typist.

Really?

And here I thought for a living you rode T. rex in the Dinosaur Rodeo.

You do believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6000 years ago and coexisted with man, right?

No doubt jdbear will get into this when he/she elaborates on "We'll be working our way up to how the earth is young" as promised in his/her last post.

 

[jdbear]

Originally posted by JackH
Yes, the Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the Masoretic text. Exactly my point. And how old is the Great Isaiah Scroll? The clueless part is you thinking it doesn't matter.

It wouldn't matter if the scrolls from the Dead Sea had ever been found, because the textual evidence in support of the Bible is that good. Isaiah was received by Jews before Qumran.
"Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel." 2 Ch.32:32

So you're beating a dead horse. What is your infatuation with the Dead Sea scrolls? Is it that Christians are in favor of flawed scientific dating methods when it suits them? If so, you're barking up the wrong tree with this boy...lol

Originally posted by JackH
Excuse me? Please quote something I said that resembles what you said I said.

Oh I'm sorry. You sound so much like an atheist I thought you were one, but to quote something you believe that resembles evolution, that's easy.

You believe in change over long periods of time. That's what abiogenesis is...change from lifeless to life over a long period of time. It's evolution, but you believe only God gives life, is that right?

Originally posted by JackH
...You do believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6000 years ago and coexisted with man, right?No doubt jdbear will get into this when he/she elaborates on "We'll be working our way up to how the earth is young" as promised in his/her last post.

You do know in a blind test, dinosaur bones were dated to only thousands of years old, don't you? (Whoops...better not do that again...whoops...it has been done again...proving dino bones aren't millions of years old.) Maybe they should drill into them where they might find soft tissue (as has already been done...whoops....don't do that again.) Testing on actual dinosaur bones shows they aren't millions of years old. Testing on rocks for which the date was actually known shows the flawed results of scientific dating. Please remember Jack, these dating methods are what you put your faith in.

(Btw, I'm a guy...boys are in blue, girls are in pink.)

 

[JackH]

Oh I'm sorry. You sound so much like an atheist I thought you were one

You probably think Pat Robertson sounds like an atheist too. When he says things like: "I don't believe in so-called evolution as non-theistic. I believe that God started it all and he's in charge of all of it. The face that you have progressive evolution under his control."

You probably think the Pope also sounds like an atheist.

Aquinas nailed it when he said: "One should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous."

That is what you and others are doing with this dinosaurs and the earth are 6000 years old pseudoscience.

That is why many reasonable people are alienated from the Bible and Christianity, in my opinion.

 

[Pottyone]

You probably think Pat Robertson sounds like an atheist too. When he says things like: "I don't believe in so-called evolution as non-theistic. I believe that God started it all and he's in charge of all of it. The face that you have progressive evolution under his control."

You probably think the Pope also sounds like an atheist.

Aquinas nailed it when he said: "One should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous."

That is what you and others are doing with this dinosaurs and the earth are 6000 years old pseudoscience.

That is why many reasonable people are alienated from the Bible and Christianity, in my opinion.

You probably think the Pope also sounds like an atheist. Oh no Jack! not an atheist...even the devil knows that there is a God, but knowing there is a God and trusting in Christ and Christ alone for one's salvation are not the same thing.
Jack getting back on thread though, tell me this, what do you say to someone who asks, "if death entered the world as a result of sin and that through one man Adam" how come you say that the world is a world under the effects of "progressive evolution" as you call it and which surely has as its mechanism, the death of millions of organisms prior to the "evolution of mankind". How do reconcile this with mankind, created in the image of God, if "he" evolved from a primordial soup"?
Romans 5 12-19
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[JackH]

how come you say that the world is a world under the effects of "progressive evolution" as you call it and which surely has as its mechanism, the death of millions of organisms prior to the "evolution of mankind". How do reconcile this with mankind, created in the image of God, if "he" evolved from a primordial soup"?

Did I say mankind evolved? Did I say mankind evolved from a primordial soup?

Show me where I said that, with a quote.

 

[Pottyone]

Did I say mankind evolved? Did I say mankind evolved from a primordial soup?

Show me where I said that, with a quote.

Sorry Jack didn't mean to misquote you, but where do you think that mankind "evolved" from then in this theory of "progressive evolution".
i would still be interested to learn how you reconcile death entering the world through the sin of one man Adam, with an evolved world where death occurred prior to mankind.
Also what about Man being created in the image of God. If evolution states that mankind came about from primitive protocells how do you figure that out?
im only saying!

 

[jdbear]

Originally posted by JackH
You probably think Pat Robertson sounds like an atheist too. When he says things like: "I don't believe in so-called evolution as non-theistic. I believe that God started it all and he's in charge of all of it. The face that you have progressive evolution under his control."
You probably think the Pope also sounds like an atheist.
Aquinas nailed it when he said: "One should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous."
That is what you and others are doing with this dinosaurs and the earth are 6000 years old pseudoscience.
That is why many reasonable people are alienated from the Bible and Christianity, in my opinion.

What's unreasonable about finding evidence which might indicate that a certain group of people could have an ulterior motive for not telling you the whole truth?

 

[JackH]

What's unreasonable about finding evidence which might indicate that a certain group of people could have an ulterior motive for not telling you the whole truth?

You must be talking about Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.

 

[jdbear]

You must be talking about Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.

Are they atheists?

 

[JackH]

Are they atheists?

I dunno, but one is currently incarcerated in a federal prison, and the other one should be.

 

[jdbear]

I dunno, but one is currently incarcerated in a federal prison, and the other one should be.

Far be it from us to question the integrity of the IRS!