Old Earth vs Young Earth

[TheGrungeDiva]

Surprisingly, scientists have agreed that the chicken must have come first, because an egg cannot exist unless by way of a preexisting chicken.

Actually, a scientist will tell you eggs came first. There were dinosaur eggs millions of years before there were chickens

But the question is, which came first, a chicken or a chicken egg. At some point along the evolutionary chain, something that was not quite a chicken laid an egg that contained something that was just barely a chicken. Was that egg a chicken egg, since it contained a chicken (whatever scientists would say qualifies it as a "chicken" rather than the previous evolutionary step)? Or would that egg be a non-chicken egg, because it was laid by something that was not a chicken (again, according to the evolutionary rules scientists have). That is a philosophical question, not a scientific question. And the "chicken egg" question is, ultimately, a question of philosophy, not of science.

When you look at both stories, they are surprising alike, with the only difference that one contains God, the other a galactic fart, aka Big Bang.

Yes, I have often said the first creation story, Genesis 1:1-2:4 is really just a poetic way of describing the big bang.

Of course, no one has even mentioned the second creation story, Genesis 2:5ff. Our literalists have not even had to explain away the contradiction that lies therein. I hesitate to bring it up, for fear their tiny little heads will explode.

Cheers.

You, too. Thanks for the post.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

The serpent was not a snake.

Are you agreeing with me, that the serpent represents Satan, and that the whole chapter is allegorical?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

The point is...Adam and Eve were literal people, in a literal garden, who were deceived by a literal being, and they literally partook of something literal, that we still suffer literal consequences from.

Hmmm. A literal man named "the Man" and a literal woman named "Life" lived in a literal Garden which was named "East" and were literally tricked by a literal being who may or may not have been a literal snake -- oh, wait, no that part is allegory, but everything else is literal, yeah, that's right.....

Do you even grok how silly that sounds?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

What is more important is what the Bible says.

What is more important than what the Bible says is what GOD says.

If GOD says something that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible then one of two things must be true: either God is wrong, or your interpretation is wrong.

See, you're saying that God is wrong. You're saying that Evolution, which is what God created, is "wrong" because the Bible is literal. You call God a liar in order to hold fast to your interpretation.

I prefer to say God is right, is NOT lying. It is God's creation which is correct, and your interpretation of Scripture that is wrong.

And since your interpretation of Scripture is only about 200 years old, and mine is several thousand years old, I'm gonna go with "allegorical stories in the Bible for $2,000, Alex."

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Here is something I found through google.

The material below is taken from Henry Morris’ book Biblical Creationism, which I think answers your questions. I hope it helps.

Sorry, I prefer to get my information about God and about Scripture from God rather than from the internet. If you would rather believe google than God, then what does that say about your faith?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I kinda felt obligated to answer the 'other questions', {snip}
...and various fruitfly and bacterial experiments.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!

I always feel at a loss in these debates, because the most advanced biology I took was 9th grade. So I understood it to the point of getting it, but could never explain it to someone else, especially someone who doubted it like this.

Can you give me a few references that I can show my hubby? He doubts evolution, too, and it has caused no end of frustration for me.

 

[chesser]

Proof the earth is over 6000 years old? ok, the entire study of geology, anthropology, astronomy, evolution, all of science basically. and scriptual proof that the creation story was taken allegorically before, none really but if you do a bit of research(and i dont mean from answers in genisis or creation wiki or anything) ypu will find that it was taken allegorically for a long time before the true age of the earth was discovored(atually, there is one instance of paul taking a part of genisis allegorially at one point)[/quote]

Where is that quote by Paul and what do you understand an allegory to be?

Galatians 4:21-31

 

[chesser]

St.augustine(who lived before the age of earth was discovored) on the word day in genisis: But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

 

[frankleespeaking]

I'm not sure why anyone could make a case either way, there is no record of what God used to create the earth, we see from the creation of Adam God used the dust of the earth to create him, thus creating a grown man, God seems to like to reuse stuff, even in death we feed worms with our flesh, there is absolutely no way of knowing what forms of matter God threw togather to create the earth, or if this was even the very first time God had ever used this material before, so to me the age of the dirt whether its rocks or fossils, has no bearing on anything

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

St.augustine(who lived before the age of earth was discovored) on the word day in genisis: But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

I don't know, cheeser, quoting these commie pinko secularist Humanists like Augustine

 

[Laodicea]

What is more important than what the Bible says is what GOD says.

If GOD says something that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible then one of two things must be true: either God is wrong, or your interpretation is wrong.

See, you're saying that God is wrong. You're saying that Evolution, which is what God created, is "wrong" because the Bible is literal. You call God a liar in order to hold fast to your interpretation.

I prefer to say God is right, is NOT lying. It is God's creation which is correct, and your interpretation of Scripture that is wrong.

And since your interpretation of Scripture is only about 200 years old, and mine is several thousand years old, I'm gonna go with "allegorical stories in the Bible for $2,000, Alex."

Because you have not shown any Bible then it is safe to say that what you are saying is just your opinion with no Biblical support.

 

[twosparrows]

Scientist used to believe the universe had no beginning. It just always was. Creation has a beginning. Then came along the Big Bang Theory, which explains a scientifice beginning. Later scientist decided to say, "See look! because of the Big Bang Theory, we proved God didn't do it" when actually all they did was scientifically score one for creationism showing that indeed there was a beginning. I believe in old earth, yet still six literal days. Time is not the same for God as it is for us. I believe we live in the 7th day now. God sustains with his laws but he isn't creating any new animals or anything. I feel profoundly blessed to be able to learn science. It shows how He did it, and I become more and more amazed and can't help but think of that song, "How Great Thou Art".

 

[shininglight]

Sorry, I prefer to get my information about God and about Scripture from God rather than from the internet. If you would rather believe google than God, then what does that say about your faith?

This is an absolute joke. You my dear are one of the biggest offenders that I have come across in this forum when it comes to allowing fallible man made ideas to warp your perception of scripture. You view the bible through the glasses of flawed secular science that if full of "theories" that change every so often. Gods word doesnt change EVER, thats why its reliable and unlike the theories of man.

 

[Laodicea]

Originally Posted by chesser

Proof the earth is over 6000 years old? ok, the entire study of geology, anthropology, astronomy, evolution, all of science basically. and scriptual proof that the creation story was taken allegorically before, none really but if you do a bit of research(and i dont mean from answers in genisis or creation wiki or anything) ypu will find that it was taken allegorically for a long time before the true age of the earth was discovored(atually, there is one instance of paul taking a part of genisis allegorially at one point)[/quote]

Where is that quote by Paul and what do you understand an allegory to be?


Galatians 4:21-31

You gave part of the answer which I knew you were going to go to that text but, what do you understand an allegory to be?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Because you have not shown any Bible then it is safe to say that what you are saying is just your opinion with no Biblical support.

I have offered the whole of Scripture as the support for my assertions. No, this is not just my opinion.

Or, more correctly, it is GOD'S opinion, and I happen to agree with God.

 

[Laodicea]

I have offered the whole of Scripture as the support for my assertions. No, this is not just my opinion.

Or, more correctly, it is GOD'S opinion, and I happen to agree with God.

Where have you shown scripture?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

This is an absolute joke. You my dear are one of the biggest offenders that I have come across in this forum when it comes to allowing fallible man made ideas to warp your perception of scripture. You view the bible through the glasses of flawed secular science that if full of "theories" that change every so often. Gods word doesnt change EVER, thats why its reliable and unlike the theories of man.

And that just proves that you don't get it. I don't believe in evolution because scientists tell me it's true. I accept evolution because GOD made it so.

Let me ask you this: do you accept the theory of gravity? It's not mentioned in the Bible. So if you accept it, without any Biblical support, why? Why would you go against "Scripture" in this way?

Let me venture an answer (although if this answer is not what you would say, I am happy to be corrected).

You don't believe in gravity because scientists tell you it's true. You believe in gravity because you have experienced it. When your feet slip out from under you, you fall on your butt. This happens every time. Objects fall towards the earth. One might say that you have "faith" that this will continue to happen: sure, gravity might all of a sudden stop working, and everything will just float up towards the sky. But you probably would agree with me that it's not really "faith" to expect that items on the earth will not float away without some other explanation (helium, inertia, etc.).

Scientists have all sorts of complex equations for the size of the earth and its mass being that which pulls objects towards its center, and maybe you've studied some higher Physics so you can get into those discussions. But even if you haven't ... or for those of us who haven't ... it doesn't mean gravity doesn't apply to us.

Scientists have called this phenomenon "gravity." They observe something that happens, and they attach a name to it. Now, they could have called it "stickiness" or "Shirley" for all anyone cares, but scientists call it "gravity." So for communication's sake, we assign a word to it that we all know what that word means. Gravity. Fine.

Evolution is EXACTLY the same. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense, but not in the philosophical sense. It is not a "theory" as in "it hasn't been proven yet." "Evolution" is the name that scientists have assigned to a phenomenon that they have already observed taking place in nature. It isn't a matter of thinking maybe this might happen. Scientists have SEEN evolution, the evidence is there. They could have called this phenomenon "myphetism" or "George," but they went with the word "evolution" to describe the process they had already observed.

Because of the laws of gravity, scientists are able to send rockets into space, and they know exactly what the g-force of mars is going to be. They knew what it was going to be, without having been there with a scale or a "g-nometer" or anything. They knew, because the laws of gravity are constant.

In the same way, the laws of evolution are constant. Scientists can predict what happened and what will happen based on this. And as sure as your beer stein won't fly away when you set it on the table, scientists are correct.

Once again (and I feel like a broken record I've said this so many times, and yet you still haven't heard it): I am not saying that the Bible is wrong. I am saying that YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible is wrong.

If someone told you that the Bible said 2+2=5, what would be your response? Would you say, "Oh, wow, then I guess my math teacher lied to me. It must be 5 because the Bible is never wrong." No, you would demand to see where they got that from the Bible, and search the passage they interpreted as "2+2=5." Undoubtedly, you would see that the passage didn't say "2+2=5" at all, because if it did, that would be a lie, and we know that God does not lie.

It's not a matter of twisting Scripture until it fits with our tiny understanding. It's a matter of twisting your tiny understanding of Scripture until it fits with reality.

 

[Laodicea]

I have offered the whole of Scripture as the support for my assertions. No, this is not just my opinion.

Or, more correctly, it is GOD'S opinion, and I happen to agree with God.

I have been over every post and you have not given any Bible to support your theories. You have only given your opinion on what you think the Bible says.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I believe in old earth, yet still six literal days.

This is a contradiction. If you believe in six literal days, you cannot believe in an old earth. If you believe that the days as described in Genesis are "literal," that means 24-hour days, not "God's time is different." That would be a poetic interpretation of Genesis, not a literal one.

I'm not saying that's wrong. On the contrary, I think you're absolutely right that God's timing is different. I just want you to know that that understanding is not what "literal" means.

I believe we live in the 7th day now.

I like this. I'll have to think on this.

 

[frankleespeaking]

And that just proves that you don't get it. I don't believe in evolution because scientists tell me it's true. I accept evolution because GOD made it so.

Let me ask you this: do you accept the theory of gravity? It's not mentioned in the Bible. So if you accept it, without any Biblical support, why? Why would you go against "Scripture" in this way?

Let me venture an answer (although if this answer is not what you would say, I am happy to be corrected).

You don't believe in gravity because scientists tell you it's true. You believe in gravity because you have experienced it. When your feet slip out from under you, you fall on your butt. This happens every time. Objects fall towards the earth. One might say that you have "faith" that this will continue to happen: sure, gravity might all of a sudden stop working, and everything will just float up towards the sky. But you probably would agree with me that it's not really "faith" to expect that items on the earth will not float away without some other explanation (helium, inertia, etc.).

Scientists have all sorts of complex equations for the size of the earth and its mass being that which pulls objects towards its center, and maybe you've studied some higher Physics so you can get into those discussions. But even if you haven't ... or for those of us who haven't ... it doesn't mean gravity doesn't apply to us.

Scientists have called this phenomenon "gravity." They observe something that happens, and they attach a name to it. Now, they could have called it "stickiness" or "Shirley" for all anyone cares, but scientists call it "gravity." So for communication's sake, we assign a word to it that we all know what that word means. Gravity. Fine.

Evolution is EXACTLY the same. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense, but not in the philosophical sense. It is not a "theory" as in "it hasn't been proven yet." "Evolution" is the name that scientists have assigned to a phenomenon that they have already observed taking place in nature. It isn't a matter of thinking maybe this might happen. Scientists have SEEN evolution, the evidence is there. They could have called this phenomenon "myphetism" or "George," but they went with the word "evolution" to describe the process they had already observed.

Because of the laws of gravity, scientists are able to send rockets into space, and they know exactly what the g-force of mars is going to be. They knew what it was going to be, without having been there with a scale or a "g-nometer" or anything. They knew, because the laws of gravity are constant.

In the same way, the laws of evolution are constant. Scientists can predict what happened and what will happen based on this. And as sure as your beer stein won't fly away when you set it on the table, scientists are correct.

Once again (and I feel like a broken record I've said this so many times, and yet you still haven't heard it): I am not saying that the Bible is wrong. I am saying that YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible is wrong.

If someone told you that the Bible said 2+2=5, what would be your response? Would you say, "Oh, wow, then I guess my math teacher lied to me. It must be 5 because the Bible is never wrong." No, you would demand to see where they got that from the Bible, and search the passage they interpreted as "2+2=5." Undoubtedly, you would see that the passage didn't say "2+2=5" at all, because if it did, that would be a lie, and we know that God does not lie.

It's not a matter of twisting Scripture until it fits with our tiny understanding. It's a matter of twisting your tiny understanding of Scripture until it fits with reality.

wow your a christian who believes in evolution?