Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[pwrnJC]

Will you get extra sprinkles on your chocolate donut when you stand up and announce that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old? Where will this get you in life? I kinda like the idea that the earth is as old as GOD knows it is. A lot occured between the 1st and the 2nd verses of chapter one in Genesis. JESUS spoke about some it it when He told His 70 disciples just before sending them out into a region to cast out demons. "I saw lucifer fall as lightning from the skies". When did this occur? We have NO idea how long time passed before a firmanent was placed between earth and heaven, dividing it. Rolexs were not invented then.
We have NO idea how long "DAYS" were before an Equinox existed. lol And frankly..does it really matter? GOD's timing is the beauty of it all...certain animals, plants, conditions had to be met before GOD placed HIs most perfect formed, molded and "breathed into" clay man was placed in an environment that was perfectly suited for his existence and sustainable life system. Personally, I'm glad that dinosaurs were out of our way when our ancestors foraged this earth.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Absolutely. Im not a macroevolutionist.

it is a scientifically and philosophically lacking theory.

now you know how i feel about old earth creationism

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I haven't heard any good arguments to explain the different radioactive isotope decay aging techniques of fossils

you can read 'radioisotopes and the age of the earth' edited by dr. larry vardiman and dr. andrew snelling and dr. eugene chaffin...a two volume set reporting the preliminary and final research of the institute for creation research's project on radiometric dating...

or if that is too much...you can read the easier summary...'thousands not billions' by dr. don deyoung... oh and for the record that was not condescension...the full two volume set -is- very technical and long...

here is a very short summary of the main weaknesses of radiometric dating...

1...you cannot assume that you know the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes present in the rock at the moment of its formation...significant amounts of daughter isotope atoms can be present in the magma which will skew a naive radiometric dating of that rock... using isochron plots can help alleviate this difficulty...but this method is not entirely without potential errors either...

2...you cannot assume that the rock you are dating is a closed system...various chemical processes can add or take away material from the rock...including the parent and daughter isotope atoms you are using to determine the rock's age...and this can happen in ways that will skew the dating of the rock... isochron plots can also help with this problem...but the solution is more complex in this case...

3...you cannot assume that radioactive decay rates have been the same all through history...and the very clever method of isochron plots unfortunately -cannot- detect or mitigate this particular source of uncertainty... one of the major findings of the ICR's project is that there is significant evidence that decay rates -have- varied in the past...and that there is a pattern to the variations that suggests certain physical causes...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Run from it...

All you have done is given your soap-box editorial.....no verifiable references whatsoever.

Take a moment to hand-select your very best googled example of where OEC supposedly goes awry...and then defend your selection...so that we know that you comprehend what you regurgitate...

i actually did give references...i referenced jamieson faussett and brown...i referenced hugh ross...

i didn't bother giving references for every little thing because all of the theories i critiqued were well known old earth theories... anyone can go look up what gap theorists believe...anyone can go look up the day age theory...and see that i was not misrepresenting them...

in fact there was a link earlier in this thread where a progressive creationist criticized the day age interpretation...with basically the same point i made about sequence...

i already mentioned hugh ross...one of the most vocal old earth creationists...so i can't exactly be accused of 'hand selecting' some fringe example...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

there seem to be many ancient citys found in the last 20 years. that one in turkey, Gobekli Tepe is said to be at least 8k yrs old.

yes and jericho has been dated back to perhaps 10,000 BC...

however this is actually a solved problem already in young earth creationism...young earth models of the pre flood world suggest a much smaller concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere at that time...which gradually increased to the present concentrations after the flood...

basically this would skew any early post flood radiocarbon dates to be more ancient than they really are...

 

[Bowman]

when was the last time 'nature' agreed that 'God used evolution' as the theistic evolutionists claim? when was the last time 'nature' agreed that the fossil record shows an incremental series of divine creations instead of a process of evolution as the progressive creationists claim?

i will say the same thing to you that i said to jackh...stop with the smoke blowing appeals to the academic journals...and actually show that you are willing to discuss the science...

This is almost too good to be true...and you fell right into it...

The age of the world can be determined entirely independent of your theology.

However, you, as a YEC, want to force the 6K figure (you're not even sure on that because you don't know whether to use the MT or the LXX in deriving a summation), on the age of the world....and then you become discouraged when the sciences cannot line-up.

OEC's, on the other hand, do not for look for a predetermined Biblical summation number - we merely look at how science matches what was already stated in scripture.

Simple...

 

[Bowman]

Re: Run from it...

i actually did give references...i referenced jamieson faussett and brown...i referenced hugh ross...

i didn't bother giving references for every little thing because all of the theories i critiqued were well known old earth theories... anyone can go look up what gap theorists believe...anyone can go look up the day age theory...and see that i was not misrepresenting them...

in fact there was a link earlier in this thread where a progressive creationist criticized the day age interpretation...with basically the same point i made about sequence...

i already mentioned hugh ross...one of the most vocal old earth creationists...so i can't exactly be accused of 'hand selecting' some fringe example...

Again...

All you are doing is making a peanut butter smear generalization with a few buzz words thrown in for good measure.

Quit stalling and provide your very BEST googled SPECIFIC example for cross examination.

Generalizations don't cut it...and most assuredly will not convince anyone except your back-patters...

 

[crossnote]

This is almost too good to be true...and you fell right into it...

The age of the world can be determined entirely independent of your theology.

However, you, as a YEC, want to force the 6K figure (you're not even sure on that because you don't know whether to use the MT or the LXX in deriving a summation), on the age of the world....and then you become discouraged when the sciences cannot line-up.

OEC's, on the other hand, do not for look for a predetermined Biblical summation number - we merely look at how science matches what was already stated in scripture.

Simple...

Simply rubbish.
Jesus said, "“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” Mark 10:6

He didn't imply Adam and Eve came millions of years afterwards but from the beginning. And that is both from the Critical Text and the Majority Text.

Your pseudo science does not match that.

 

[celib]

Thomas Chalmers was a heretic and surrounded himself with unbelieving scientists.

If you believe in GAP, you suggest that Satan is more powerful than God and God could not get it right the first time.

Stop relying on 2 very out of context scriptures found In Jeremiah 4 and Psalm 104 to build the case that Satan flooded the earth once, then God created and made it back.

Scofield was a fraud, tax cheat, alcoholic, and an emotional abuser of women and children.

The Bible does not support 2 world wide floods.

Put down the Dake/Scofield pipe and come back to the Word.

It wasnt satan flooded the earth, it was God, it was because of satans rebellion. God bless

 

[Bowman]

Simply rubbish.
Jesus said, "“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” Mark 10:6

He didn't imply Adam and Eve came millions of years afterwards but from the beginning. And that is both from the Critical Text and the Majority Text.

Your pseudo science does not match that.

By your reasoning, then Jesus was also a creation in Rev 3.14...

 

[popeye]

I know right? To be very honest I don't know how he's avoided being banned for spamming the same thing over and over and over and over and over, and like you said I've seen many people try to hold an actual civil conversation with him to be met with a brick wall or backhanded insult to their intelligence. He is the first person I've come across here that truly made me love the ignore option. You don't even have to wonder what his hidden comments say, it's mocking people for believing the 6,000 year old earth, and/or humans and dinosaurs living together. I have never seen a troll of this magnitude and that added so little to any conversation last so long here. I love not seeing his comments.

I put him on ignore yesterday. Too tedious to deal with.

 

[crossnote]

By your reasoning, then Jesus was also a creation in Rev 3.14...

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(Mar 10:6)

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
(Rev 3:14)

Quit trying to change the debate. My argument is that FROM the beginning of creation God made them male and female not AFTER millions of years. Your introduction of Rev 3:14 is nothing but smoke, 'cause you have no real argument against it except deny it. You are using your own faulty reasoning by introducing Rev 3:14.

 

[GaryA]

By your reasoning, then Jesus was also a creation in Rev 3.14...

( "Silly people..." )


Revelation 3:

[SUP]14[/SUP] And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;


The "sense and tense" of the word 'beginning' in this verse is not that it is "the first thing created"; rather, it is the 'source' -- the source [ originator ] of the creation of God... ( See Colossians 1:16-17 )

 

[flob]

the beginning of the creation of God, the source of God's creation.
Though also, of His humanity:
The firstborn of all creation,
Col 1:15,
because in Him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities,
all things have been created through Him and unto Him.
And He is before all things, and all things cohere in Him...

 

[atwhatcost]

Yes.





Now, you are getting it...









The Sun and the Moon were created in Gen 1.1.

Fourth day. Either that or teach me why not.

 

[atwhatcost]

well it seems that everything that needed to be made was created during those six days of creation week...see exodus 20:11...that would seem to include the angels...

then see job 38:4-7 which indicates the presence of the angels when the earth's foundations were being laid...if the angels were already there at that time then they must have been created either on day one or day two...depending on what events of creation week you identify with the laying of the earth's foundations...

within that two day possible timeframe implied by scripture i lean towards the first day as the day when the angels were created...due to the association between angels and light...

Ya had me up to the last line. (That's not a bad thing. Not like we all have perfect knowledge or agreement.)

Honestly, I always assumed God made angels before his first "Let there be..." So, cool thinking on your part. Observant.

I'm just going to respectfully disagree with angels and light connection, simply because there's not enough info to clearly say that one.

 

[atwhatcost]

This is simply not true with the OECs I've encountered. Many are downright rude and use strawmen. But theistic evolutionists are generally worse than normal evolutionists. They can be so very brutal.

Ha! You should see evolutionists disagreeing with other evolutionists more often. Brutal! I'm glad there are no guns around, because I'm pretty sure someone would use one if the argument lasted an hour or longer. They make Marines seem docile. lol

 

[atwhatcost]

At the same time expecting people to believe the earth is 6000 years old when the science says otherwise is a stumbling block for nonbelievers.

I don't think so. To me evolution vs. creation is one of those things that eventually comes to mind after being saved. It's kind of like the obvious question stumbled on if you read the gospels through for the first time after being saved -- How come Jesus' genealogy is different in Matthew and Luke? Not so much a barrier to salvation, but definitely something to make you think somewhere along the line.

Then again, this 6000 year old earth is still new to me. That number tends to lower as quickly as the evolutionists number keeps increasing. When I was young, evolutionists thought the earth was only millions of years old and creationist thought it was 10,000 +/- years old.

 

[atwhatcost]

Why do you think the Bible contradicts science? Why do you feel it is necessary to make it so? Why do you think God would make the world ordered and understandable and then make this break the chain?

Science contradicts itself. We don't really need to pit it against the Bible. It does fine constantly changing its mind all by itself. I remember the brontosaurs. I remember Piltdown Man. I remember when homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthal. I remember when we didn't. Now it's both. I remember a lot of things evolutionists simply hope no one remembers.

 

[atwhatcost]

Look here. The general consensus in Science is that there is no God - personal or no and that everything came about naturally without divine intervention of any kind. That's what naturalism is. Yes, naturalism is certainly a worldview a person takes into Science (it's a worldview presupposition from which they draw the conclusions they want). No, not all scientists are naturalists, but evolutionists most certainly are naturalists).

Consensus means everybody agrees to something. There is no such consensus in science. There are Christian scientists as well as scientists that are Christians. They are accepted in the field, except at the societal level.