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

[christianperson91]

Everyone is born sinful because they're born of the line of Adam and Eve. Jesus was the only one not born sinful (being born God in the flesh) but when He came to earth, He came born of the human bloodline. Without a literal Adam and Eve, you can't have a fall into sin that affects everyone and everything. You need a literal Jesus Christ, born of this bloodline, to atone for humanity's sins

I agree we need a literal Jesus Christ, but not a literal Adam and Eve. If "Adam and Eve" say instead represented all of humanity (or say ancient humans, or the earliest humans that existed) instead of just two people, the whole Jesus Christ being biologically related to those that sinned along time ago, would still be relevant (since Jesus is human, he of course would be related to fallen humanity on the biological level).

 

[Tintin]

I agree we need a literal Jesus Christ, but not a literal Adam and Eve. If "Adam and Eve" say instead represented all of humanity (or say ancient humans, or the earliest humans that existed) instead of just two people, the whole Jesus Christ being biologically related to those that sinned along time ago, would still be relevant (since Jesus is human, he of course would be related to fallen humanity on the biological level).

I've heard it all and that's ridiculous. You can read any old bollocks into the Bible, if that's how you approach God's Word.

 

[christianperson91]

I've heard it all and that's ridiculous. You can read any old bollocks into the Bible, if that's how you approach God's Word.

How is it ridiculous?

All im trying to say is that if evolution did happen over long periods of time, and created new species (including us), that does not mean Christianity is false, no need for a savior, Jesus not existing.

I believe this because I think it is dangerous to make YEC a synonym for Christianity (and its truth), because if that is the case and YEC falls, then Christianity falls to.

It is best to have a mindset, that if your origin belief is wrong, does not mean Christianity is in vain. I really don't mind if people believe in YEC, however I do find it troubling if certain people basically say "Either YEC is true, or if false, so is Christianity".

 

[Pottyone]

Thank you Elin, Tintin christianperson91, for restoring this thread back to the real crux of the matter.....salvation and the scriptures.
heading off to church now but will catch up again in a few hours....thanks again folks

 

[Esanta]

I understand that what is proven and what is not are the same to you.

Previously addressed. . .

It's proven that the laws of physics are proven laws. If they are immutably proven laws of energy and matter in our universe, then we can base our scientific theories on those laws. If we search for answers in accordance with those laws, we conclude that the universe is much older than 6000 years old.

You can't have 'proven laws of physics' and claim that the conclusions that are formed from using them to verify Earth's age are totally, wildly off base.

It is proven that certain isotopes decay at certain rates, thus, by studying these isotopes and their relative rates of decay we can establish when they were formed. We have established numbers for these that give us clear evidence that the Earth is older than 6000 years old.

Now, if your statement that proven laws of physics are factual and true is something you are willing to stand by, then you must also accept that the Earth is older than 6000 years old. In many forms of dating, we have based our dating of the Earth upon those very laws.

If you deny the conclusions, you deny that the laws of physics are true.

If your argument is 'those law might not have always been those laws', then you genuinely don't understand just how immutable and universal those laws are. Matter is matter. Uranium is uranium, for instance. Uranium can never not be Uranium, because if it's not Uranium, then it's something else entirely.

 

[Pottyone]

Everyone is born sinful because they're born of the line of Adam and Eve. Jesus was the only one not born sinful (being born God in the flesh) but when He came to earth, He came born of the human bloodline. Without a literal Adam and Eve, you can't have a fall into sin that affects everyone and everything. You need a literal Jesus Christ, born of this bloodline, to atone for humanity's sins and to put to death - sin, death and the influences of the Enemy. Eve was 'born' of Adam too, so she could be included in this master plan of salvation. So she, Adam and all their descendants could be included in God's family, if only they accepted the grace God presented them with.

I hear you loud and clear, and understand.

So what do you think of believing Scripture based on its reasonableness?
What do you think about only a minority believing Scripture is true?
Do you think evolution, et al, is the real reason only the minority believe Scripture?


This I also understand very well.

Reasonableness....well now that depends on how you define reasonable. If you mean scientifically proven, well no. I mean sea parting,walls crashing down to trumpets, walking on water, blind people seeing and of course dead men rising. But this is the supernatural reaching down into the natural so that sounds reasonable to me....I mean this is the Saviour I am depending on for eternity.
"Water you turn into wine,
Open the eyes of the blind,
There's no one like you, none like you.

Our God is greater, our God is stronger,
Lord you are higher than any other."

 

[Pottyone]

Everyone is born sinful because they're born of the line of Adam and Eve. Jesus was the only one not born sinful (being born God in the flesh) but when He came to earth, He came born of the human bloodline. Without a literal Adam and Eve, you can't have a fall into sin that affects everyone and everything. You need a literal Jesus Christ, born of this bloodline, to atone for humanity's sins and to put to death - sin, death and the influences of the Enemy. Eve was 'born' of Adam too, so she could be included in this master plan of salvation. So she, Adam and all their descendants could be included in God's family, if only they accepted the grace God presented them with.

It's proven that the laws of physics are proven laws. If they are immutably proven laws of energy and matter in our universe, then we can base our scientific theories on those laws. If we search for answers in accordance with those laws, we conclude that the universe is much older than 6000 years old.

You can't have 'proven laws of physics' and claim that the conclusions that are formed from using them to verify Earth's age are totally, wildly off base.

It is proven that certain isotopes decay at certain rates, thus, by studying these isotopes and their relative rates of decay we can establish when they were formed. We have established numbers for these that give us clear evidence that the Earth is older than 6000 years old.

Now, if your statement that proven laws of physics are factual and true is something you are willing to stand by, then you must also accept that the Earth is older than 6000 years old. In many forms of dating, we have based our dating of the Earth upon those very laws.

If you deny the conclusions, you deny that the laws of physics are true.

If your argument is 'those law might not have always been those laws', then you genuinely don't understand just how immutable and universal those laws are. Matter is matter. Uranium is uranium, for instance. Uranium can never not be Uranium, because if it's not Uranium, then it's something else entirely.

Esanta, can I just ask you a question...are you a believer in The Lord Jesus Christ, do you believe that He died for you, do you believe that E rose again and that He is coming ack to reign for eternity with His Church?

 

[Elin]

It's proven that the laws of physics are proven laws. If they are immutably proven laws of energy and matter in our universe, then we can base our scientific theories on those laws. If we search for answers in accordance with those laws, we conclude that the universe is much older than 6000 years old.

You can't have 'proven laws of physics' and claim that the conclusions that are formed from using them to verify Earth's age are totally, wildly off base.

Previously addressed.

The proven laws of physics do not prove evolution of one species into another.

It is proven that certain isotopes decay at certain rates, thus, by studying these isotopes and their relative rates of decay we can establish when they were formed. We have established numbers for these that give us clear evidence that the Earth is older than 6000 years old.

Carbon 14 dating shows the earth is not hundreds of thousands of years old.

 

[Esanta]

Previously addressed.

The proven laws of physics do not prove evolution of one species into another.


Carbon 14 dating shows the earth is not hundreds of thousands of years old.

Evolution and Earth age aren't the same things. You haven't addressed anything properly. You've just replied to my whole post about Earth age with an argument against evolution. I never mentioned evolution once in the post you replied to. You're changing goalposts again. Re-reply to my post and actually ​address what I wrote about.

Carbon 14 dating isn't meant to. You can't carbon date Uranium, just like you can't carbon date rocks. Carbon dating only works on once-living things and since C14 decays to N14 with a half life of 5,730 years, after a few half-lifes there's going to be so little C14 left that measuring it is impractical.

That's why we don't measure the age of the Earth with carbon dating. We use Uranium dating or some other method where elements have half lives of almost a billion years, sometimes more.

 

[Elin]

So what do you think of believing Scripture based on its reasonableness?

Reasonableness....well now that depends on how you define reasonable. If you mean scientifically proven, well no. I mean sea parting,walls crashing down to trumpets, walking on water, blind people seeing and of course dead men rising. But this is the supernatural reaching down into the natural so that sounds reasonable to me....I mean this is the Saviour I am depending on for eternity.

I had in mind those who are unfamiliar with Scripture.

What do you think about only a minority believing Scripture is true?
Do you think evolution, et al, is the real reason only the minority believe Scripture?

I assume you agree that the majority do not believe Scripture is true
because belief is the work of the Holy Spirit, not human reason.

 

[Elin]

​address what I wrote about.

Previously addressed.

Carbon 14 dating isn't meant to. You can't carbon date Uranium, just like you can't carbon date rocks. Carbon dating only works on once-living things and since C14 decays to N14 with a half life of 5,730 years, after a few half-lifes there's going to be so little C14 left that measuring it is impractical.

The point exactly. . .where you find N14, you know the maximum age is not hundreds of thousands of years.

That's why we don't measure the age of the Earth with carbon dating. We use Uranium dating or some other method where elements have half lives of almost a billion years, sometimes more.

Previously addressed.

You don't address the assumptions on which the dating is based.

 

[Esanta]

Previously addressed.


The point exactly. . .where you find N14, you know it is less than 5,730 years old.


Previously addressed.

You don't address the assumptions on which the dating is based.

Look, the 238U to 206Pb isotopic decay chain, when dated inside Zircon is extremely accurate because Zircon rejects Lead, therefore any 206Pb inside the zirconium structure has to be radiogenic. We know from laboratory experiments that 238U has a half-life of 4.47 billion years thus if half the metallic structure in a specific capsule inside the zircon is lead, then at least 4.47 billion years have passed.

I'm really getting quite tired of dulling this down, as it's obvious you haven't put any effort into studying the material in order to make the claims you're making.

Return to me when you understand what you're saying.

 

[Pottyone]

I had in mind those who are unfamiliar with Scripture.


I assume you agree that the majority do not believe Scripture is true
because belief is the work of the Holy Spirit, not human reason.

Sorry Elin , didn't mean to be controversial. I think we are both "singing off the same hymn sheet" or actually reading from the same scriptures my friend.
yes the majority do not believe scripture is true, why would they. Without the Holy Spirit to open our eyes how will we see.

 

[Pottyone]

Look, the 238U to 206Pb isotopic decay chain, when dated inside Zircon is extremely accurate because Zircon rejects Lead, therefore any 206Pb inside the zirconium structure has to be radiogenic. We know from laboratory experiments that 238U has a half-life of 4.47 billion years thus if half the metallic structure in a specific capsule inside the zircon is lead, then at least 4.47 billion years have passed.

I'm really getting quite tired of dulling this down, as it's obvious you haven't put any effort into studying the material in order to make the claims you're making.

Return to me when you understand what you're saying.

Esanta, we are more interested in whether or not you believe Gods Word not your untestable, unprovable theories on the age of the Earth....
do you trust Gods word? Do you believe that Lord is Omnipotent, do you believe that He is able to do all that He wants by simply speaking it into being. Do you believe He is Eternal, do you believe we have souls, do you believe in the ressurection of the dead?

 

[Elin]

Look, the 238U to 206Pb isotopic decay chain, when dated inside Zircon is extremely accurate because Zircon rejects Lead, therefore any 206Pb inside the zirconium structure has to be radiogenic. We know from laboratory experiments that 238U has a half-life of 4.47 billion years thus if half the metallic structure in a specific capsule inside the zircon is lead, then at least 4.47 billion years have passed.

I'm really getting quite tired of dulling this down, as it's obvious you haven't put any effort into studying the material in order to make the claims you're making.

Return to me when you understand what you're saying.

Address the assumptions on which this dating is based.

 

[Esanta]

Address the assumptions on which this dating is based.

What 'assumptions', Elin? Lay out the assumptions you perceive, and I'll address them.

 

[Elin]

What 'assumptions', Elin? Lay out the assumptions you perceive, and I'll address them.

Your ignorance of them explains your error.

 

[Esanta]

Esanta, we are more interested in whether or not you believe Gods Word not your untestable, unprovable theories on the age of the Earth....
do you trust Gods word? Do you believe that Lord is Omnipotent, do you believe that He is able to do all that He wants by simply speaking it into being. Do you believe He is Eternal, do you believe we have souls, do you believe in the ressurection of the dead?

I believe, regarding the context of this thread, that your questions are misframed. I believe, regarding the context of this thread, that if God did indeed create the Earth, that he created the laws that govern it, which can be studied, learned and testified to, daily, in mathematical experimentation concerning the matter and energy of our world.

I believe that to ask such questions as yours precludes only one answer to this thread: none of it matters because God could have made the Earth in whatever way it seems to look today.

However, that answer ignores many factors, not only the varying interpretations of Hebrew scripts pertaining to creation, interpretations which genuinely allow for the theories of evolution and the old Earth, but also ignores the complexity and testable nature of the scientific theories upon which the consensus of the Earth's age is based. It shows unrelenting bias towards one interpretation of a text written many years after Moses' death, but more than anything it shows an unwillingness to look at other valid theories for the sake of one you find easy to digest.

 

[Esanta]

Your ignorance of them explains your error.

Elin, be reasonable. If you simply lay out the assumptions you perceive in Uranium dating, I will address them just as you've asked.

 

[Elin]

Elin, be reasonable. If you simply lay out the assumptions you perceive in Uranium dating, I will address them just as you've asked.

Thanks, but I don't have time to do your homework.