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

[megaman125]

Let me fix that statement for you, as it applies to you and many others here:

Right, because believing the earth is 6,000 years old without question as you're told to by Ken Ham and clones is having original thoughts. All you do is repeat the thoughts of young earth creationists.

Right, because going with the masses who believe without question that the earth is billions of years old because that's what you were told to believe for years in public schools is so much more of an original thought.

I would rather believe that Genesis is a literal and historical account and be wrong than to believe in the billions of years fantasies and have God say to me on judgment day, "Why didn't you believe my Word?"

 

[Pottyone]

And you thought that all up on your own?

Of course not. You copy and pasted most of it from the Answers in Genesis website.

I don't think any of you YECs have an original thought of your own. You copy and paste or paraphrase from YEC sites like Answers in Genesis.

Please JackH...will you try not to be so high and mighty in the dismissive way you treat others on this site...especially as I would have to say you have such weak evidence to support many of your arguments

 

[Pottyone]

Please JackH...will you try not to be so high and mighty in the dismissive way you treat others on this site...especially as I would have to say you have such weak evidence to support many of your arguments

Jack....I suspect that along with the rest of us on this forum your thought processes are the product of a mental "cutting and pasting" of pioneers who have gone before us in the fields of life lessons, sociology, theology and even scientific academia, so I would respectfully suggest that you get down off your high horse and show a little more humility. You strike me as a person who passion form the inflation their ego is at least equal to their passion for the truth....at least your version of the truth. I don't know if you know much about Robert Burns a famous Scottish Poet but perhaps all of us, myself included should mentally "copy and paste" a few lines of his...
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie usTo see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!"
i trust I have broken no copyrights lol

 

[JackH]

In My opinion a rejection of creation is possibly Satan's greatest achievement and one which he has successfully propagated throughout history......

evolution is Satanic in origin and must be tackled everywhere it is encountered!!

I do NOT reject creation.

I reject YOUR interpretation of creation, and that of the other Young Earth Creationists who are posting here.

Let me summarize a few points: You believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old. You believe that Noah’s Flood was global. You believe that dinosaurs coexisted with man. Right?

The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates otherwise. There never is “absolute truth” with respect to science. You do know what “falsifiability” with respect to scientific theory is, right?

There is NO evidence that will change your dogma pertaining to young earth creationism. Right?

I asked you about your statement that “evolution is Satanic in origin.”

What, exactly, do you mean by that?

 

[JackH]

I would rather believe that Genesis is a literal and historical account and be wrong than to believe in the billions of years fantasies and have God say to me on judgment day, "Why didn't you believe my Word?"

What do you believe is God's Word?

Is there some Bible that you believe is the inerrant Word of God?

Or are you getting this Word from some other source?

 

[Pottyone]

I do NOT reject creation.

I reject YOUR interpretation of creation, and that of the other Young Earth Creationists who are posting here.

Let me summarize a few points: You believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old. You believe that Noah’s Flood was global. You believe that dinosaurs coexisted with man. Right?

The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates otherwise. There never is “absolute truth” with respect to science. You do know what “falsifiability” with respect to scientific theory is, right?

There is NO evidence that will change your dogma pertaining to young earth creationism. Right?

I asked you about your statement that “evolution is Satanic in origin.”

What, exactly, do you mean by that?

I am always open to looking at evidence from any source.... But it is what it is...EVIDENCE not proof, unless it can be verified or tested and that we both know is impossible to do outside of our present time frame. I am persuaded however that based on the complexity of life, right from the cellular level ( and I am a molecular cell biologist) right up to the macular multicellular level, together with the fine tuning of the universal constants as we perceive them and the laws of entropy as we understand them, that a creative model rather than an evolutionary neo- Darwinian model, provides the best fit for the evidence we have.
as for the theory of young earth vs old earth I am in a quandary. Dating techniques have proven to be highly susceptible to error and many anomalies are found which place doubt on their voracity. I do concede however that I cannot reconcile a number of observations such as our ability to see light from far away galaxies, the sculpting of the countryside by the effects of ice etc with an earth that is only 6000 odd years old. For me the exact age off the earth is less important than the principle that death did not enter this world until the fall, and therefore the death of our Lord Jesus Christ puts an end to the effects of sin and restores us back to the way we were always meant to be pre fall.
For me I wonder whether or not there could have been a period of time ( I know not ho long but certainly many thousand of years) when Adam, Eve and their descendants walked this earth pre fall, in perfection and in fellowship with The Lord prior to disobedience and sin taking a grip of creation. From this point onward however I believe that evidence supports a constant degradation of all life on this earth up until and including this present age?

 

[JackH]

I am a molecular cell biologist

I do concede however that I cannot reconcile a number of observations such as our ability to see light from far away galaxies, the sculpting of the countryside by the effects of ice etc with an earth that is only 6000 odd years old.

For a molecular cell biologist, you sure didn't have much to say on the subject of abiogenesis and related matters when they came up here. On your own thread.

You would agree then that an Ice Age occurring after Noah's Flood/Tower of Babel as depicted by some on this thread recently is highly improbable?

 

[INTJer]

why do you not think this?

If God places living things on earth, He would HAVE to make things with an appearance of Age would he not?

This is the only logical conclusion.

So why do YEC followers keep insisting that God's other book (nature) is full of illusions and lies (everything is young but made to look old)? Some of you have nothing but the sternest condemnation for anyone who does not see in Genesis your 6k year timetable, and yet some of your arguments call into question God's truthfulness and you seem to have no problem with that.

 

[JackH]

I like the way you said that I have said nothing about evolution, YET. The old age earth and evolution usually go hand in hand, though not necessarily. This is because Neo Darwinian theories require a great amount of time to increase their probabilistic resources.

superdave5221, would you mind explaining this post by you? I never would have noticed it, but Fishbait resurrected a thread from 3 years ago today so he could copy and paste some info from CMI.

It would appear that you agree with me regarding Noah’s Flood and the dinosaurs.

Is that correct?

Could you repeat that last sentence of yours please?


Re: Dinasarus!!!!!!!! IN book of Job too.
Originally Posted by Slepsog4
There is no 65 million years. The majority of what is in the fossil record is the result of the world wide flood of Noah.

superdave5221:

Do not deceive yourself. The flood did not create the fossil record, or the geological features that we have today. There is nothing in the bible that limits God as far as time.

The age-day theory is the closest that conforms well with the biblical record, as well as the geologic record. This corresponds with a term called "progressive creationism", in which God created the earth in a series of steps, in which the earth was prepared for human existence. Life was also created in this way, with the first of each of the "kinds" (Hebrew "min") being created (sometimes Heb. "bara", ex nihilo, such as the sea creatures, and sometimes "asah" made from preexisting materials), with the following members of that "kind" evolving (microevolution) to fit environmental conditions in different parts of the earth. Man was created "bara" spiritually, and then breathed by God into a body made "asah" from earth materials. The "hominids" and other creatures designated as "homo" in the taxonomy existing before "homo sapiens" are not human, but are animals only.

To discount geologic evidence as nonexistent, when it is, is bad theology, and creates unnecessary contention between the bible record and science.

 

[megaman125]

So why do YEC followers keep insisting that God's other book (nature) is full of illusions and lies (everything is young but made to look old)?

Well, I guess according to old earth believers, God just tricked everyone into believe the earth was young until the 1800's by your view, right?

Some of you have nothing but the sternest condemnation for anyone who does not see in Genesis your 6k year timetable, and yet some of your arguments call into question God's truthfulness and you seem to have no problem with that.

And you have nothing but the sternest condemnation for anyone who doesn't believe in the billions of years timetable.

There is NO evidence that will change your dogma pertaining to young earth creationism. Right?

There is NO evidence that will change your dogma pertaining to earth being billions of years old. Right?

 

[JackH]

Well, I guess according to old earth believers, God just tricked everyone into believe the earth was young until the 1800's by your view, right?

And you have nothing but the sternest condemnation for anyone who doesn't believe in the billions of years timetable.

There is NO evidence that will change your dogma pertaining to earth being billions of years old. Right?

Why do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, specifically?

Personally, I don't care if the earth is billions of years old, millions of years old, or 543,231 years old. I'll believe what the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates, as long as it is consistent with God's Word. Unlike you.

 

[Kerry]

Why do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, specifically?

Personally, I don't care if the earth is billions of years old, millions of years old, or 543,231 years old. I'll believe what the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates, as long as it is consistent with God's Word. Unlike you.

The Earth is untold years old. From the time that God created man is about 6,500 or more years old Approaching the seventh day. Israel is at war as we speak.

 

[christianperson91]

From the time that God created man is about 6,500 or more years old

But were older then 6,500 years old. There are even man made structures/items that date back farther then that.

 

[christianperson91]

But were older then 6,500 years old. There are even man made structures/items that date back farther then that.

List of the oldest buildings in the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scrolling down to the "Other Structures" area, you can see that we have found some constructs that are older then 6,500 years.

 

[Esanta]

Right, because going with the masses who believe without question that the earth is billions of years old because that's what you were told to believe for years in public schools is so much more of an original thought.

I would rather believe that Genesis is a literal and historical account and be wrong than to believe in the billions of years fantasies and have God say to me on judgment day, "Why didn't you believe my Word?"

I actually find this argument absolutely hilarious, because for the majority of the past 2000 years 7-day creation and young Earth theory was the majority view that people believed without question, until scientific evidence to the contrary was presented and was allowed to be heard.

 

[Elin]

Right, because going with the masses who believe without question that the earth is billions of years old because that's
what you were told to believe for years in public schools is so much more of an original (new) thought.

I would rather believe that Genesis is a literal and historical account and be wrong than to believe in the billions of years fantasies and have God say to me on judgment day, "Why didn't you believe my Word?"

I actually find this argument absolutely hilarious, because for the majority of
the past 2000 years 7-day creation and young Earth theory was the majority view that people believed without question, until scientific evidence to the contrary was presented and was allowed to be heard.

You just stated you own argument is hilarious, because your argument is precisely what he is saying.

 

[Esanta]

You just stated you own argument is hilarious, because your argument is precisely what he is saying.

Actually, if you look back at the first arguments there is a complex linguistic syntax of the English language going on. 'Original' is actually inferred several times as an afterthought, and often in the context of being of 'origins', as in, 'old' and 'first', not original as in 'inventive'. Though primarily the term 'original' was used as a point of argument by the YEC believer. As in, 'you aren't having any original thoughts', thus it had negative connotation as opposed to your inference that it was a positive connotation. The YEC guy wasn't saying 'you're old Earth belief is original', he was saying 'it's unoriginal'.

Right, because believing the earth is billions of years old without question as you're told to do in the public education system is having original thoughts. All you do is repeat the thoughts of old earth believers.

 

[Elin]

Actually, if you look back at the first arguments there is a complex linguistic syntax of the English language going on. 'Original' is actually inferred several times as an afterthought, and often in the context of being of 'origins', as in, 'old' and 'first', not original as in 'inventive'. Though primarily the term 'original' was used as a point of argument by the YEC believer. As in, 'you aren't having any original thoughts', thus it had negative connotation as opposed to your inference that it was a positive connotation. The YEC guy wasn't saying 'you're old Earth belief is original',

Agreed. . .he was was saying the belief itself is the new kid on the block.

 

[Esanta]

Agreed. . .he was was saying the belief itself is the new kid on the block.

No, Elin, clearly not.

supprimi correlativum

 

[Elin]

No, Elin, clearly not.

supprimi correlativum

Ask megaman which it is.