Old Earth/Young Earth

[Calminian]

Say what?

I'm not speaking for the person you addressed (Bowman), but the your last sentence in particular makes no sense to me.

You are the one with the time constraints. Specifically, you are stuck with the universe, earth, dinosaurs, and humans all being created 6,000 (which you stretch to 10000) years ago.

Not at all. The YEC position is not about an exact number of years, but rather the sequence of events. All death in the world must come as a result of Adam's sin. Whether that is 6000 years ago (which is what I believe) or if there are huge gaps in the genealogies and it was 10 or 20 thousand years ago, makes no difference. The issue is not counting up years, but the theology of death and suffering, which is a key aspect to the gospel.

But if you accept the secular view of origins, that man was a late comer in the creation, then you have a totally different view of death and suffering. In your view, suffering and death came first, and sin followed. In your view, cancer and cannibalism and every other horrible thing we find in the fossil record pre-existed Adam's sin, and is to be considered "very good."

But that goes against God's word, and therefore is an attack on the authority of the Word of God.

Personally, I don't care much if the earth is billions or millions or hundreds of thousands years old. I don't care much if humans first appeared on the earth 10000 or 20000 or 100000 years ago. I'll go with what the preponderance of credible scientific evidence indicates.

Exactly. You'll choose man's word over God's word. That's the main problem with the church today. Forgive me, but that's my sincere conviction, and is likely contributing to why the youth in today's churches are leaving at such high rates. We're basically telling them we don't believe the very book we're asking them to believe.

 

[Calminian]

I could have just as easily said he moved like an elephant to suggest he's heavy footed - which means he stomps his feet around.

But what does it mean to move a tail like a tree? What sound does a tree make that makes you think it's analogous to your example?

(This is how we generally imagine elephants, but elephants are actually quite careful when they walk considering their size).

Which is yet another reason why your analogy breaks down. Elephants are not noisy, and I've never thought of them as such.

The tree itself hardly moves at all, so even if the tail looked like a tree - it surely doesn't move like the tree...

Actually trees move all the time, particularly when they are cut down and used for various things. Trees were often utilized in biblical times for building, and men observed them moving quite often.

So again, how does the tail of an elephant move like a tree would? What aspect of an elephants tail would God be speaking of? But if this was a dinosaur, like a sauropod, it makes perfect sense. They had giant tree-like tails, which they swayed behind them like trees.

Again, my friend, faith is clouding your reason. I have to keep brining you back to that.

Saying I rely on faith would be like me claiming you rely on faith not to believe in Vishnu, Ra, Odin, etc.

No, I'm speaking more about your faith in things like the Big Bang and millions of years and that men and dinosaurs never lived at the same time. This is what's driving your interpretation of Job. These are things you've chosen to believe. Like it or not, you are a man of faith.

It wasn't science that lead to the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was religion!

What? Are you not aware that at one time, astronomers were virtually unanimous that the sun rotated around the earth? And I would contend that this idea is no where found in scripture. If you disagree, I'm challenging you to offer a single verse to support this.

Trust and faith are not the same thing....

Biblically they are. The biblical word faith, simple means trust, and I'm speaking of the biblical definition. Faith, in the sense of blind trust, is not a biblical concept. This is a meaning that developed over time in english, but was not what the ancients had in mind. Here's a good article on that for further reading.

Fallacious Faith? -- an essay on the definition of "faith"

Ray Comfort is a lying nitwit...

And yet look how easily he handled some of the best and brightest of your religion.

Ray Comfort is trying to make a point that we "trust" science,...

Not at all. You're trusting in a set of presuppositions by which you filter all evidence. You're engaging in classic circular reasoning, in that you reach a naturalistic conclusion based on naturalistic premises.

 

[Bookends]

Not at all. The YEC position is not about an exact number of years, but rather the sequence of events. All death in the world must come as a result of Adam's sin. Whether that is 6000 years ago (which is what I believe) or if there are huge gaps in the genealogies and it was 10 or 20 thousand years ago, makes no difference. The issue is not counting up years, but the theology of death and suffering, which is a key aspect to the gospel.

But if you accept the secular view of origins, that man was a late comer in the creation, then you have a totally different view of death and suffering. In your view, suffering and death came first, and sin followed. In your view, cancer and cannibalism and every other horrible thing we find in the fossil record pre-existed Adam's sin, and is to be considered "very good."

But that goes against God's word, and therefore is an attack on the authority of the Word of God.



Exactly. You'll choose man's word over God's word. That's the main problem with the church today. Forgive me, but that's my sincere conviction, and is likely contributing to why the youth in today's churches are leaving at such high rates. We're basically telling them we don't believe the very book we're asking them to believe.

Where does the bible say all death came into the world through Adam's sin?

 

[Standingwolf13]

Romans 5​

12Therefore, 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—

1 Corinthians 15​

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

 

[JackH]

Exactly. You'll choose man's word over God's word. That's the main problem with the church today. Forgive me, but that's my sincere conviction, and is likely contributing to why the youth in today's churches are leaving at such high rates. We're basically telling them we don't believe the very book we're asking them to believe.

Wrong.

I see no reason to unnecessarily pit the Bible against science, as you are doing.

In my opinion, what turns off the youth of today is statements like yours that the earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisted with man, and T. rex didn’t eat meat.

I’m no big fan of Pat Robertson or the Pope, but they have millions of followers and do get some things right.

For example, quotes by Pat Robertson in response to Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis):

"There ain't no way that's possible," he said, referring to the belief put forth by Bishop James Ussher that the earth is 6,000 years old.

"We have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back 65 million years," Robertson stated. "To say it all dates back to 6,000 years is just nonsense."

"Let's be real," he said. "Let's not make a joke of ourselves."

 

[JackH]

Not at all. The YEC position is not about an exact number of years, but rather the sequence of events. All death in the world must come as a result of Adam's sin. Whether that is 6000 years ago (which is what I believe) or if there are huge gaps in the genealogies and it was 10 or 20 thousand years ago, makes no difference. The issue is not counting up years, but the theology of death and suffering, which is a key aspect to the gospel.

The YEC position is not about an exact number of years you say?

Next you'll be claiming that dogs don't bark.

According to the preponderance of reputable scientific evidence, the universe is around 13.8 billion years old, the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and dinosaurs became extinct around 65 million years old.

Reconcile that with your YEC time frame with anything remotely resembling credibility and I will be impressed.

Quoting from or linking to Answers in Genesis and similar YEC propaganda isn't going to get the job done.

 

[thecreationtutor]

assuming logic is possible outside a Biblical Worldview, how does that happen?

 

[thecreationtutor]

Anyone bothered here by that most of you assume uniformitarianism is true, when Geologists are actually rejecting it for Catastrophism, because we find out that it doesn't take millions of years to do most anything. like erode millions of square feet of rock, earthquakes that move cities 11 feet in an instance - recent earthquake in chili, that they find billions of Gallons of water in the earth's crust about 700 km below the surface

I am going to go with God's word, and not have that "egg on my face" when I see him, not at least in this case

 

[JackH]

assuming logic is possible outside a Biblical Worldview, how does that happen?

I suggest that you quote who you are addressing such as to reflect exactly what point you are addressing.

 

[Percepi]

But what does it mean to move a tail like a tree? What sound does a tree make that makes you think it's analogous to your example?

I already explained it.

Which is yet another reason why your analogy breaks down. Elephants are not noisy, and I've never thought of them as such.

But that's how they're often portrayed.

Actually trees move all the time, particularly when they are cut down and used for various things. Trees were often utilized in biblical times for building, and men observed them moving quite often.

If you're referring to the trunk of the tree, then you're speaking nonsense. If you're referring to the branches, then you're no longer referring to thick tails.

Again, my friend, faith is clouding your reason. I have to keep brining you back to that.

I'm done. You're a dishonest liar who keeps making stuff up about me. I explained time and time again that I'm not relying on faith, that I'm relying on evidence, but you keep saying it's faith because that's what you already believe. You don't even pay attention to what I say at all.

You're disgusting.

You're using the word "faith" interchangeably with "trust", but faith and trust are not the same thing. Even other Christians will tell you that. Your definition of faith is so vague that it would literally apply to every field of science. "Well you have faith that germs cause illness!" or "You have faith that the world is round!"

 

[Percepi]

Lastly, you keep arguing that I'm relying on circular reasoning. I'm not. I'm relying on observable evidence. But we haven't even touched on any details as to how we came to conclude evolution to b true yet! We're still stuck on addressing our arguments about the Bible or your false claims against me! I haven't even gotten around to explaining evolution, so how could you possibly know my logic is circular? It's clear you're just making vague blanket arguments about me and ignoring any actual arguments I have to make. The debate involving the cedar reference in the Bible is evidence enough.

I wasted too much time with you.

 

[Celsus]

[video=youtube_share;1dDOkDOMJj8]http://youtu.be/1dDOkDOMJj8]William Lane Craig: Creationism Is An Embarrassment - YouTube[/video]

 

[Laodicea]

Exodus 20:11 KJV
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


These are referring to 24 hour periods. God made the earth and everything in it in 6 literal 24 hour days and rested the 7th. To say the earth was here before that is not scripural.

 

[JackH]

[video=youtube_share;1dDOkDOMJj8]http://youtu.be/1dDOkDOMJj8]William Lane Craig: Creationism Is An Embarrassment - YouTube[/video]

Embarrassment is a good word for the YEC babble-on (Babylon).

Excellent video.

Incidentally, William Lane Craig presents the best case for the resurrection of Jesus that I have heard/read.

I would give William Lane Craig a 10 on the credibility scale, as opposed to the spokesmen for the YECs like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, who would get a negative rating from me.

 

[Calminian]

....I'm done. You're a dishonest liar who keeps making stuff up about me. I explained time and time again that I'm not relying on faith, that I'm relying on evidence, but you keep saying it's faith because that's what you already believe. You don't even pay attention to what I say at all.

You're disgusting.

You're using the word "faith" interchangeably with "trust", but faith and trust are not the same thing. Even other Christians will tell you that.

I haven't insulted you once. I've spoken with you honestly, and respectfully. You may disagree, but you don't need to call me name, and plus you're in violation of the rules of this form.

Regarding faith, if you ever go to a bible believing church, they will correct you on your modern false view of faith. It's a myth that the biblical writers were talking about blind trust. It's just another instance of attacking the Bible before you know what it actually teaches. I see this with skeptics all the time. The article I linked was by a christian apologist, and went into detail about the word. If you're not willing to read it, and evaluate the argument for yourself, I can't go much further with you.

 

[Kerry]

Exodus 20:11 KJV
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


These are referring to 24 hour periods. God made the earth and everything in it in 6 literal 24 hour days and rested the 7th. To say the earth was here before that is not scripural.

You are wrong in your calculation in the first day the Earth already exist. The second day He drew back the waters from the face of the Earth (already there) and dry land appeared

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. amen
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. why did it become this way And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth;the second day and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
the word made in Hebrew is a word of permission and not creation

For instance" I made my son cut the grass" I did not create my son nor the grass, but I permitted my son to cut the grass.

 

[Calminian]

Craig is one of those guys that had some talent, but really started to believe the hype about himself, and unfortunately has become a bit of a jerk. Apart from that, he also makes bad arguments and is a very bad defender of the book of Genesis.

Here is a good response to him.

William Lane Craig’s intellectually dishonest attack on biblical creationists
by Jonathan Sarfati

Safarti is probably about twice as brilliant as Craig, and infinitely more qualified to speak of creationism. Here is his bio. He a master chess player and former champion to boot. I would love to see him debate Craig, but I doubt Craig would ever take him on.

Craig's creationism is basically a carbon copy of Hugh Ross's and Sarfati wrote the definitive work on Ross's errors. Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism" (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross

 

[Calminian]

You are wrong in your calculation in the first day the Earth already exist. The second day He drew back the waters from the face of the Earth (already there) and dry land appeared ...

What textual evidence can you give proving the earth ('erets—land) already existed? Laodicea gave you a very clear verse showing how Moses interpreted Gen. 1. In six days the heavens, the land and the sea and all that is in them (stars, living creatures, etc.) were made. This completely contradicts your view they earth existed prior to the six days.

In fact verse 2 says that the earth initially was formless (unformed) and void (unfilled). It doesn't say became, nor is there anything in the context to say it means became, nor any translation I'm aware of that saw fit to use the word 'became'.

Plus the word reshiyth (beginning) can refer to a beginning period like a six day creation.

The initial earth, the land, was originally formless, meaning it was not solid as we see it today, and it was void meaning it was not filled with plants and animals yet. This is a very clear obvious reading of the text. Explain why you think this is wrong.

 

[Percepi]

I haven't insulted you once. I've spoken with you honestly, and respectfully. You may disagree, but you don't need to call me name, and plus you're in violation of the rules of this form.

Regarding faith, if you ever go to a bible believing church, they will correct you on your modern false view of faith. It's a myth that the biblical writers were talking about blind trust. It's just another instance of attacking the Bible before you know what it actually teaches. I see this with skeptics all the time. The article I linked was by a christian apologist, and went into detail about the word. If you're not willing to read it, and evaluate the argument for yourself, I can't go much further with you.

I apologize, that was completely uncalled for. I'll admit that I did lose my temper.

Your definition of faith is interchangeable with trust and it insinuates that I do blindly trust science every time you talk about how I rely on faith.

IF we go by your definition of faith, then your definition is so vague that it would refer to essentially everything that requires some level of trust. You could argue that we have faith that the world is round, or faith that plants rely on sunlight to grow, or faith that the world revolves around the sun.

Furthermore, pointing out how I'm relying on faith undermines the evidence that supports evolution. If you want to refer to faith as being "trust", then know that there are different levels of trust. Trust that is backed by proof is more reliable than trust not backed by proof, for example.

 

[Atwood]

[video=youtube_share;1dDOkDOMJj8]http://youtu.be/1dDOkDOMJj8]William Lane Craig: Creationism Is An Embarrassment - YouTube[/video]

Embarrassment?

Sounds like someone has been intimidated!
Since none of us was there at creation, methinks a bit of humility, and leaving off the scorn, is in order.