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

[JackH]

I really would urge you to watch the top video I posted, as well as the "Bible Inspired by God Mathematically proven", the former deals with alot of claims you would make about the world being billions of years old, including the Grand Canyon. It should be illuminating for you either way.

I'm more interested in your opinion rather than some link to a video. I'm not discussing this issue with a person in a video.
This is a Bible Discussion Forum and I am discussing this with you and the others here.

Do you believe the earth is around 6,000 years old as opposed to around 4.5 billion years old?

Your answer, and the answer to that question given by others posting on this thread, determines what credibility that person has on related matters, in my opinion.

 

[ecclescakez]

I'm more interested in your opinion rather than some link to a video. I'm not discussing this issue with a person in a video.
This is a Bible Discussion Forum and I am discussing this with you and the others here.

Do you believe the earth is around 6,000 years old as opposed to around 4.5 billion years old?

Your answer, and the answer to that question given by others posting on this thread, determines what credibility that person has on related matters, in my opinion.

God bless you. Good luck.

 

[JackH]

It is perfectly ridiculous to tie the time schedule and method God used to create us and the bible to actually believing whether God created it or not. Scripture doesn't really tell us because God Himself didn't think it was necessary we know, and we probably couldn't understand it if God used scripture like man does a manual on something man makes.

The first verse of the bible states that God did the creating. That is something we need to know. The second verse moves way ahead to describing what was there on the first day God tells us about, and by this time it was a void of darkness. The Hebrew word for that darkness includes the idea of a world without God's spirit in it and the light God added was, in the Hebrew language all of what was of God's spirit.

For thousands of years it was no big deal that God didn't give a time schedule and exactly how God did it with the telling, Hebrews were only interested in that God did it and how they fitting into that fact. All this not believing without absolute physical proof complete with a time schedule was a way of thinking that wasn't done until men like Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle brought their ideas of the proper way to think in, and it shocked the Hebrews. It is ridiculous when people tie believing in a strict time schedule for the Lord with their belief in God's word.

Makes sense to me.

Not only that, but what is in the first few chapters of Genesis is how God explained it to Moses and how Moses had to explain it to his fellow Hebrews traveling in the wilderness. Does anybody really think these people would have understood evolution and astronomy and archeology and the like?

For how many centuries did people believe the earth was flat?

Talking about scientific matters, these Young Earth Creationists here on this thread are trying to pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Makes sense to me.

Not only that, but what is in the first few chapters of Genesis is how God explained it to Moses and how Moses had to explain it to his fellow Hebrews traveling in the wilderness. Does anybody really think these people would have understood evolution and astronomy and archeology and the like?

For how many centuries did people believe the earth was flat?

Talking about scientific matters, these Young Earth Creationists here on this thread are trying to pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Lol are you suggesting the earth is not flat?

 

[JackH]

To believe that the universe is ONLY 6,000 years old, is ignorant nonsense.

I would not have put it so bluntly.

 

[superdave5221]

First of all, I have said nothing about evolution, yet. I said the preponderance of evidence indicates that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old as opposed to around 6,000 years old.

Before you can intelligently discuss evolution, it seems to me you need to define your parameters. Are we talking about evolution taking place in the last 4.5 billion years or the last 6,000 years?

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.

I think it better to define evolution. Are you speaking of natural selection, which is currently being taught as Neo Darwinism? In this case, the argument is that we breed hundreds of dogs that never existed before. Evolution? Yes. Evolution within a family, not between families. You start out with a dog, and you end up with a dog.

But what is natural selection, and is it a proper vehicle for evolution of species to higher animals? Natural selection occurs within a species, or family, as a natural variability within that gene pool. God designed his creatures to be able to live under highly variable environmental conditions, and so the need for variability within the gene pool. But, as evolutionist have found out, their is limitations to this variability. There is no DNA present to allow for variability outside the family. In order for Neo Darwinism to occur, additional DNA material must be created. This has NEVER happened. EVER. There have never been any transitional fossils found in the fossil record, even though scientists have diligently searched for them for over 150 years. And they have never been able to make it work in the lab.

Lets take another example. The overuse of antibiotics has resulted in many bacteria becoming resistant to current drugs. Some people see this as evolution. Right again, but only within the species. Because of mutations within the bacteria, some bacteria become resistant to certain drugs. But they give up something or pay a price in doing so, because they have decreased the variability of their gene pool. In the absence of the drug, they are actually at a disadvantage. Mutations ALWAYS result in a loss of information, not additional information. This is a serious problem for Darwinist's. You are going the wrong way!! Just like the evolutionary physicists who flaunt the second law of thermodynamics.

One final example. You have probably heard of Francis Crick? He is the one that discovered the language that is found in DNA. A brilliant man, but an atheist and evolutionist. As adamantly as he wanted to coddle his evolutionary theory, Crick finally realized that it is impossible for a language to develop in a random fashion. Anyone with half a brain knows that if you find language, you find an intelligence. So what does he do, abandon his evolutionary ideas and say, you know what, God did it. No, of course not. Instead he comes up with a totally speculative idea with absolutely zero evidence. Directed Panspermia. In other words, aliens dropped off life here. And this is objective science at work. But you know what. The universe is 15.5 billion years old and the earth is only 5.5 billion years, according to evolutionists. There is always hope for evolutionists that if only there is enough time, anything is possible. But according to probability experts, there is not enough time for even a relatively small protein (a basic building block of life) of perhaps 100 amino acids to form spontaneously, even if the earth were a trillion years old.

 

[ji]

Hallelujah!

The missing links have been discovered. For every link you can provide like these, I can provide a hundred indicating otherwise.

The preponderance of the evidence is that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, as opposed to around 6,000 years old.

Let me ask you this:

Occasionally some new discovery is made, for example skeletal remains of dinosaurs or genus homo, and there is an article in a major newspaper or the nightly news. The remains are claimed to be at least hundreds of thousands of years old in the article or video.

Why isn't there ever anything in the report of the discovery that it could be only around 6,000 years old, according to the Young Earth Creationists?

Where are the historical documents supporting evolution?
you cannot even answer whether you are a Christian or not...can you?

Have focus.
God Bless.

 

[JackH]

Where are the historical documents supporting evolution?
you cannot even answer whether you are a Christian or not...can you?

Have focus.
God Bless.

Yes, I’m a Christian. I’m a Christian who believes that the earth is likely around 4.5 billion years old as opposed to around 6,000 years old, as you and many others who posted on this thread believe.

I live near Pittsburgh. The Pirates have been playing some great baseball as of late. I suggest you and the others posting here who believe the earth is around 6,000 years old take a trip to Pittsburgh. In addition to attending a Pirates game, I suggest you visit the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, one of the most prestigious museums in the world.

Our Statement in Support of Evolution

Carnegie Museum of Natural History is a scientific institution and strongly supports evolution as the only scientifically rigorous and strongly corroborated explanation for the amazing diversity of life on Earth—now and in the past. Evolution is a process of inherited change that takes place over time. Evolution explains both the diversity of life on Earth as well as universal similarities among all living things. It is based on observable evidence from the fields of biology, paleontology, and geology. We join with our colleagues at natural history, academic, and science institutions worldwide in affirming evolution.

Make sure you view the two Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons, the mother and juvenile Apatosaurus, and the infamous Diplodicus carnegi. Afterwards you may say to yourself that those skeletons just might be over 6,000 years old.

Somehow, I find the Carnegie Museum of Natural History more credible regarding the issue of evolution and the age of the earth as opposed to what is being posted here by those who would have me believe the earth is around 6,000 years old.

 

[ecclescakez]

[h=2]

Chance Life—A Ridiculous Improbability​

​

​

[/h]
What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955:

"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. "
​

A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:

"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years" (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23).
​

How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background? And how can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing points of view? The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superior wisdom has been too long cultivated by the evolutionist community. They have repeated their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them as facts. No one objects to their assuming whatever they want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.


[h=2]

Spontaneous Generation​

​

​

[/h]
How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954.​

That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.

So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution with a basic law of science. In order to sustain his humanistic explanation of the origin of life, he must accept the exploded, unscientific theory of spontaneous generation. And the big question is this: Why is he so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible? A miracle of creation is required in either case. Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wald's impossible act. Let any reasonable mind contemplate the alternatives for a moment. Doesn't it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life than it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce it?

Why did Dr. Wald say that it was impossible for life to result from spontaneous generation? That was not an easy concession for a confirmed evolutionist to make. His exhaustive search for a scientific explanation ended in failure, as it has for all other evolutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it. But he also had an incredible faith to believe in it even though it was a scientific impossibility. A Christian who confessed to such a faith would be labeled as naive and gullible. What a difference the cloak of higher education makes upon our easily impressed minds! How much simpler and sweeter the faith that accepts the inspired account: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

 

[Lizathrose]

"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. "

A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:

"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years" (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23).​

No evidence concerning the purported improbability of life arising through purely natural means exists to substantiate a legitimate criticism of abiogenesis. None. At all. At best, the notion that life couldn't have come about by natural means by virtue of improbability is an ill-informed and quite speculative appeal to incredulity with a clear bias toward an opposing point of view, and was comprehensively refuted in Richard Carrier's The Argument from Biogenesis: Probabilities Against a Natural Origin of Life. I should add that the material you've cited -- especially in reference to Guye -- is utterly antiquated, and fails to recognize, much less discuss, the lack of evidence by which to substantiate such material.

It's unfortunate, really, that creationists are willing to forgo their intellectual integrity by selectively citing poorly-sourced, unsubstantiated material in the name of a point of view whose credibility is utterly absent in the scientific realm.​

 

[jdbear]

Where is the compelling evidence that evolution from one species to another ever happened? Where does the measurement of the age of universe or a rock come from?

 

[jdbear]

​

No evidence concerning the purported improbability of life arising through purely natural means exists to substantiate a legitimate criticism of abiogenesis. None. At all. At best, the notion that life couldn't have come about by natural means by virtue of improbability is an ill-informed and quite speculative appeal to incredulity with a clear bias toward an opposing point of view, and was comprehensively refuted in Richard Carrier's The Argument from Biogenesis: Probabilities Against a Natural Origin of Life. I should add that the material you've cited -- especially in reference to Guye -- is utterly antiquated, and fails to recognize, much less discuss, the lack of evidence by which to substantiate such material.

It's unfortunate, really, that creationists are willing to forgo their intellectual integrity by selectively citing poorly-sourced, unsubstantiated material in the name of a point of view whose credibility is utterly absent in the scientific realm.​

Here is a perfect example of being indoctrinated without using your brain. Deny what you see every day (life only coming from that which is already living) in favor of what you never ever ever see (life coming from that which has no life.)

 

[Lizathrose]

Here is a perfect example of being indoctrinated without using your brain. Deny what you see every day (life only coming from that which is already living) in favor of what you never ever ever see (life coming from that which has no life.)

Who's denying the fact that life today arises from living ancestors? For that matter, what relevance does the reproduction of existing organisms have to the initial development of life from organic compounds? You're peddling a rather false dichotomy.

 

[PennEd]

Who's denying the fact that life today arises from living ancestors? For that matter, what relevance does the reproduction of existing organisms have to the initial development of life from organic compounds? You're peddling a rather false dichotomy.

More obfuscation. You didn't answer his charge. How could life emanate from NO life. Can't be duplicated. Never will be.

Plus the absurd notion that because gravity exists means that matter can and will evolve, put forth by the God -hating hawking I think, IGNORES the question of where did the law of gravity, AND matter come from in the 1st place.

 

[jdbear]

Who's denying the fact that life today arises from living ancestors?

Lol...you are young lady!

For that matter, what relevance does the reproduction of existing organisms have to the initial development of life from organic compounds?

The relevance of life only being possible because of preexisting life is proof that life must have always existed...which is exactly what the Bible says.

You're peddling a rather false dichotomy.

I believe what I see happening and know to be true. I can cite billions of examples to prove my position. You cannot produce even one example of what you believe. Think about that kid. You're being lied to. You've been brainwashed. You're blinded to the truth.

 

[Lizathrose]

How could life emanate from NO life. Can't be duplicated. Never will be.

"How can life emanate from no life?"

Through a process collectively known by scientists as abiogenesis, as far as science is currently able to ascertain.

As for your curious allegation, I'm afraid no evidence exists to effectively or even plausibly refute the contemporary scientific consensus concerning naturally occurring abiogenesis. You're free to insist otherwise, but I really must insist that your position is completely unfalsifiable, and hence has no scientific merit of any kind. To assert that it's "impossible" to replicate the genesis of life from organic compounds is an unsubstantiated argument from ignorance; it may very well be that in twenty or thirty years, for instance, science will be able to synthesize self-replicating organisms from organic compounds thought to have arisen from Earth's early atmosphere. At the same time, it's potentially impossible because of the immense scales of time that may be required for such synthesis to occur under such circumstances. Furthermore, while it's certainly true that no established model exists to account for the formation of life from organic compounds, several plausible hypothetical models have been proposed and are being actively investigated. It's important to emphasize that modern hypotheses concerning abiogenesis are fairly new, and may become more or less credible as time goes on.

 

[superdave5221]

Somehow, I find the Carnegie Museum of Natural History more credible regarding the issue of evolution and the age of the earth as opposed to what is being posted here by those who would have me believe the earth is around 6,000 years old.

I'm not surprised. Our education system, which has divorced itself of biblical ideas, and embraced naturalism as the ONLY answer to history, along with our media which is slightly (cough) biased towards God, has thoroughly indoctrinated most people to their ideas. This, along with teaching the religion of secular humanism five days a week, has created a generation of people who have forgotten how to think for themselves. It is they who teach their own version of a flat earth, and a geocentric universe.

If Francis Crick, who was steeped in this tradition, ignores the evidence of his own learning, in spite of his great intelligence and natural abilities, I could hardly suppose that you, who, judging by your responses, or lack thereof to my presented evidences, seems to know little or nothing of earth science or paleontology, would not be fooled as well.

But alas, there is hope. I have noticed that the latest generations are looking around them, and seeing the evidences of man's false ideas, and are questioning the status quo. Many of their minds are still open to see the evidence for what it is, and to question the presuppositions which lead many away from the mind of God towards darkness and away from reality. It may be too late for you, (though all things are possible with God), but there is hope for many.

 

[PennEd]

"How can life emanate from no life?"

Through a process collectively known by scientists as abiogenesis, as far as science is currently able to ascertain.

As for your curious allegation, I'm afraid no evidence exists to effectively or even plausibly refute the contemporary scientific consensus concerning naturally occurring abiogenesis. You're free to insist otherwise, but I really must insist that your position is completely unfalsifiable, and hence has no scientific merit of any kind. To assert that it's "impossible" to replicate the genesis of life from organic compounds is an unsubstantiated argument from ignorance; it may very well be that in twenty or thirty years, for instance, science will be able to synthesize self-replicating organisms from organic compounds thought to have arisen from Earth's early atmosphere. At the same time, it's potentially impossible because of the immense scales of time that may be required for such synthesis to occur under such circumstances. Furthermore, while it's certainly true that no established model exists to account for the formation of life from organic compounds, several plausible hypothetical models have been proposed and are being actively investigated. It's important to emphasize that modern hypotheses concerning abiogenesis are fairly new, and may become more or less credible as time goes on.

Well, after carefully untwisting your doublespeak, it appears you agree with me that NO ONE has created life from lifelessness or "organic compounds" if you'd rather. Why the evasion in coming up with EVEN your usual doublespeak to explain where the matter (organic compounds) came from in the 1st place?

 

[jdbear]

"How can life emanate from no life?"

Through a process collectively known by scientists as abiogenesis...............Furthermore, while it's certainly true that no established model exists to account for the formation of life....

In other words, we know it happened without God, we just don't know how it happened.

 

[StoneThrower]

"How can life emanate from no life?"

Through a process collectively known by scientists as abiogenesis, as far as science is currently able to ascertain.

As for your curious allegation, I'm afraid no evidence exists to effectively or even plausibly refute the contemporary scientific consensus concerning naturally occurring abiogenesis. You're free to insist otherwise, but I really must insist that your position is completely unfalsifiable, and hence has no scientific merit of any kind. To assert that it's "impossible" to replicate the genesis of life from organic compounds is an unsubstantiated argument from ignorance; it may very well be that in twenty or thirty years, for instance, science will be able to synthesize self-replicating organisms from organic compounds thought to have arisen from Earth's early atmosphere. At the same time, it's potentially impossible because of the immense scales of time that may be required for such synthesis to occur under such circumstances. Furthermore, while it's certainly true that no established model exists to account for the formation of life from organic compounds, several plausible hypothetical models have been proposed and are being actively investigated. It's important to emphasize that modern hypotheses concerning abiogenesis are fairly new, and may become more or less credible as time goes on.

Reminds me of an old Joke

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"