Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?
- Thread starter Preach2u
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
According to Answers in Genesis:
'God has told us the truth in His Word. He originally created many things mature and fully functional. He did not create with the appearance of “age.” This is an argument Christians should not use.'
If you can not believe Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham, then who can you believe?
(Cough and throw up in mouth.)
'God has told us the truth in His Word. He originally created many things mature and fully functional. He did not create with the appearance of “age.” This is an argument Christians should not use.'
If you can not believe Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham, then who can you believe?
(Cough and throw up in mouth.)
R
intelligent design advocate michael behe on the age of the earth and the theory of evolution...
"Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."
william dembski on young earth creationists...
"Despite my disagreements with Morris and young earth creationism, I regard those disagreements as far less serious than my disagreements with the Darwinian materialists."
david klinghoffer on the age of the earth...
"No Darwin critic that I know differs from established scientific conclusions about the age of the earth or of the universe since the moment of the Big Bang."
jay richards on the age of the universe...
"Look through a small telescope at the moon, and you will see a few large maria (dry "seas") and many craters of various sizes. Impacts are responsible for all these features, most prior to 3.5 billion years ago."
stephen meyer on the age of the earth...
"I think the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That's both my personal and my professional opinion."
so while some young earth creationists may be tolerated within the intelligent design movement...it is clear that the majority of the movement and its leading intellectuals are old earth creationists or even theistic evolutionists...
"Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."
william dembski on young earth creationists...
"Despite my disagreements with Morris and young earth creationism, I regard those disagreements as far less serious than my disagreements with the Darwinian materialists."
david klinghoffer on the age of the earth...
"No Darwin critic that I know differs from established scientific conclusions about the age of the earth or of the universe since the moment of the Big Bang."
jay richards on the age of the universe...
"Look through a small telescope at the moon, and you will see a few large maria (dry "seas") and many craters of various sizes. Impacts are responsible for all these features, most prior to 3.5 billion years ago."
stephen meyer on the age of the earth...
"I think the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That's both my personal and my professional opinion."
so while some young earth creationists may be tolerated within the intelligent design movement...it is clear that the majority of the movement and its leading intellectuals are old earth creationists or even theistic evolutionists...
R
here is a link... Hugh Ross, Neanderthals and trusting changing science - Denver Christian Perspectives | Examiner.com
i fail to see why you couldn't have found that yourself...was google broken or something?
is there a reason you insist on wasting people's time by repeatedly playing dumb and helpless?
you have crossed the line into obvious trolling...it is a common tactic of internet debate trolls to try to 'run out the clock' by insisting that everything be spoon fed to them and thereby becoming such a time wasting nuisance that the other side gets frustrated and quits...
i fail to see why you couldn't have found that yourself...was google broken or something?
is there a reason you insist on wasting people's time by repeatedly playing dumb and helpless?
you have crossed the line into obvious trolling...it is a common tactic of internet debate trolls to try to 'run out the clock' by insisting that everything be spoon fed to them and thereby becoming such a time wasting nuisance that the other side gets frustrated and quits...
Baloney.
Why shouldn't you provide the link for the research study you are talking about?
No big deal to me.
I easily found the two research papers you mentioned the title of and you could have linked to, but didn't.
Like I said, it don't matter to me.
But I seriously doubt some of your fellow YECs could find what you are talking about without GPS.
And even if they found it, they likely wouldn't have a clue what it was talking about.
Why shouldn't you provide the link for the research study you are talking about?
No big deal to me.
I easily found the two research papers you mentioned the title of and you could have linked to, but didn't.
Like I said, it don't matter to me.
But I seriously doubt some of your fellow YECs could find what you are talking about without GPS.
And even if they found it, they likely wouldn't have a clue what it was talking about.
R
Re: Study up...
the text uses 'bara' and 'asah' synonymously in multiple places...some of which i pointed out...'bara' and 'asah' being used to refer to the same acts...'asah' being used to refer to the making of things that were previously said to be 'bara' created...and so on...
you have flat out ignored the fact that 'bara' is not used in genesis 5:2 in the way that you insist it is always used...
and you have flat out ignored the example of exodus 20:11 and attempted to merely respond to genesis 2:4 again...
it is ironic that you continue to demand references when you yourself have not been providing references...all you have done is to repeatedly use the 'no you're wrong' argument by assertion in response to every argument or evidence that contradicts your view...that is when you -do- respond and not just attempt to play for time...
anyway...for the benefit of anyone who legitimately didn't know this and wasn't sure how to find out...unlike you who just play dumb and helpless as a stalling tactic...
the idiomatic character of the hebrew phrase 'in the day' is made obvious in numbers 7... the leader of the twelve tribes of israel are described as each bringing offerings in turn for twelve consecutive days...but numbers 7:84 says that this happened 'in the day' that the altar was anointed... the only way that this can be non contradictory is if the phrase 'in the day' just means 'at the time'...
another example is numbers 3:1 which has 'in the day' referring to the time when God spoke with moses on mount sinai...as we all know God spoke to moses on mount sinai on multiple separate occasions and for -many- days...so again 'in the day' must be an idiom meaning 'during the time'...
numbered days clearly refer to definite points in time in exodus 12:3...exodus 12:6...exodus 12:15...exodus 12:18...exodus 16:1...exodus 16:5...exodus 16:22...exodus 16:26...and i could list literally dozens if not hundreds more...
in any case...regarding genesis 2:4 you are dishonestly using rhetoric that you don't even believe in...-of course- we can use genesis 2:4 to help interpret genesis 1...unless you actually -do- think there is a real contradiction there that makes this comparison 'off limits'...
the text uses 'bara' and 'asah' synonymously in multiple places...some of which i pointed out...'bara' and 'asah' being used to refer to the same acts...'asah' being used to refer to the making of things that were previously said to be 'bara' created...and so on...
you have flat out ignored the fact that 'bara' is not used in genesis 5:2 in the way that you insist it is always used...
and you have flat out ignored the example of exodus 20:11 and attempted to merely respond to genesis 2:4 again...
it is ironic that you continue to demand references when you yourself have not been providing references...all you have done is to repeatedly use the 'no you're wrong' argument by assertion in response to every argument or evidence that contradicts your view...that is when you -do- respond and not just attempt to play for time...
anyway...for the benefit of anyone who legitimately didn't know this and wasn't sure how to find out...unlike you who just play dumb and helpless as a stalling tactic...
the idiomatic character of the hebrew phrase 'in the day' is made obvious in numbers 7... the leader of the twelve tribes of israel are described as each bringing offerings in turn for twelve consecutive days...but numbers 7:84 says that this happened 'in the day' that the altar was anointed... the only way that this can be non contradictory is if the phrase 'in the day' just means 'at the time'...
another example is numbers 3:1 which has 'in the day' referring to the time when God spoke with moses on mount sinai...as we all know God spoke to moses on mount sinai on multiple separate occasions and for -many- days...so again 'in the day' must be an idiom meaning 'during the time'...
numbered days clearly refer to definite points in time in exodus 12:3...exodus 12:6...exodus 12:15...exodus 12:18...exodus 16:1...exodus 16:5...exodus 16:22...exodus 16:26...and i could list literally dozens if not hundreds more...
in any case...regarding genesis 2:4 you are dishonestly using rhetoric that you don't even believe in...-of course- we can use genesis 2:4 to help interpret genesis 1...unless you actually -do- think there is a real contradiction there that makes this comparison 'off limits'...
Rotflol…!
Now we can see why you were so hesitant to show ANY link whatsoever in your attempt to discredit Hugh Ross…and you still have yet to demonstrate why his OEC position is incorrect.
Your googled article, should you actually read it for yourself, and click on the numerous other links, shows that EVERYONE involved in the discussion traces modern man back to a minimum of tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of years old!
Again, this utterly destroys your YEC argument in total.
Every single, solitary example that you have (reluctantly) provided for your position, has actually been for the OEC position!!!
Keep up the great work….lol…
R
i said in my description of schweitzer's paper that she reported finding -evidence- of DNA...again this difference between evidence and proof seems to elude you...
reading her abstract...she used certain DNA identifying indicators that then indicated positive for DNA...the same way that you can use benedict's solution to test for sugars... so unless she is incompetent at using and analyzing the results of these indicators...this is very strong evidence for the presence of DNA...
i have no doubt that schweitzer disagrees with allentoft et al...likewise allentoft et al directly question reports of finding DNA in dinosaur fossils...
a false dichotomy would be to assume that one of them must be right and one of them must be wrong...either allentoft et al are wrong or else schweitzer didn't really find DNA...
but you can avoiding that dichotomy by doing away with the insistence that we assume the dinosaur fossils in question are 70 million years old...if dinosaur fossils are not nearly as old as commonly thought...then both of these credible studies can be correct...
reading her abstract...she used certain DNA identifying indicators that then indicated positive for DNA...the same way that you can use benedict's solution to test for sugars... so unless she is incompetent at using and analyzing the results of these indicators...this is very strong evidence for the presence of DNA...
i have no doubt that schweitzer disagrees with allentoft et al...likewise allentoft et al directly question reports of finding DNA in dinosaur fossils...
a false dichotomy would be to assume that one of them must be right and one of them must be wrong...either allentoft et al are wrong or else schweitzer didn't really find DNA...
but you can avoiding that dichotomy by doing away with the insistence that we assume the dinosaur fossils in question are 70 million years old...if dinosaur fossils are not nearly as old as commonly thought...then both of these credible studies can be correct...
R
you are somewhat misrepresenting ham's position...
as you can see ham accepts the 'mature creation' argument...which in factual terms is identical to the 'appearance of age' argument...
ham's objection is to the use of the phrase 'appearance of age' on presuppositional grounds...that is he believes that a mature creation will only appear to be aged to a person who begins with uniformitarian assumptions...
as you can see ham accepts the 'mature creation' argument...which in factual terms is identical to the 'appearance of age' argument...
ham's objection is to the use of the phrase 'appearance of age' on presuppositional grounds...that is he believes that a mature creation will only appear to be aged to a person who begins with uniformitarian assumptions...
R
no...i am saying that a logical extension of the conclusions of the allentoft study is that any dinosaur fossil found to contain DNA can be no more than 6.8 million years old...
6.8 million years is not a dating...it is an upper limit on the dating...schweitzer's fossils could be considerably more recent depending on the condition of the DNA...which as far as i know has not been reported on...but they could not be older than 6.8 million years...
but regardless...the upper limit of 6.8 million years is ten times younger than the conventional date of cretaceous fossils and strata...so these two pieces of evidence together contradict the conventional dating of the cretaceous...these strata and fossils were not formed tens of millions of years ago...
6.8 million years is not a dating...it is an upper limit on the dating...schweitzer's fossils could be considerably more recent depending on the condition of the DNA...which as far as i know has not been reported on...but they could not be older than 6.8 million years...
but regardless...the upper limit of 6.8 million years is ten times younger than the conventional date of cretaceous fossils and strata...so these two pieces of evidence together contradict the conventional dating of the cretaceous...these strata and fossils were not formed tens of millions of years ago...
R
it takes less than thirty seconds to find the article i was talking about on google...i think any non troll would be capable of that...
but a major sign that a person is not participating in the discussion in good faith is when they completely fail to take any intellectual initiative whatsoever...this is a behavior bowman has consistently demonstrated...
but a major sign that a person is not participating in the discussion in good faith is when they completely fail to take any intellectual initiative whatsoever...this is a behavior bowman has consistently demonstrated...
R
Rotflol…!
Now we can see why you were so hesitant to show ANY link whatsoever in your attempt to discredit Hugh Ross…and you still have yet to demonstrate why his OEC position is incorrect.
Your googled article, should you actually read it for yourself, and click on the numerous other links, shows that EVERYONE involved in the discussion traces modern man back to a minimum of tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of years old!
Again, this utterly destroys your YEC argument in total.
Every single, solitary example that you have (reluctantly) provided for your position, has actually been for the OEC position!!!
Keep up the great work….lol…
Now we can see why you were so hesitant to show ANY link whatsoever in your attempt to discredit Hugh Ross…and you still have yet to demonstrate why his OEC position is incorrect.
Your googled article, should you actually read it for yourself, and click on the numerous other links, shows that EVERYONE involved in the discussion traces modern man back to a minimum of tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of years old!
Again, this utterly destroys your YEC argument in total.
Every single, solitary example that you have (reluctantly) provided for your position, has actually been for the OEC position!!!
Keep up the great work….lol…
the point...which was made very clear multiple times...is that the allegedly credible 'scientist' hugh ross and his 'reasons to believe' old earth creation model continues to rely on considerably outdated information on neanderthals...in other words his model is contradicted by the most recent evidence...
you of course completely ignore that and instead attempt to misdirect and talk about something else...
your consistent refusal to discuss the points being made is a very obvious indication that you are not participating in good faith...as far as this debate is concerned you are intellectual dead weight...