Millions of years ago ! ?

[psychomom]

i thought this was going to be a thread about my birthday.

 

[oldhermit]

i thought this was going to be a thread about my birthday.

Not enough time represented in Millions of years ago for that.

 

[Tintin]

Not true. In the olden days, when I first came to the Lord, (1972), I was taught it was 10,000 years. About 20 years ago it went down to 7,000. Now it's 6,000. If I live long enough, I suspect I'll see it go down to 4,000. (I see the logic in that, if I play the numbers right in the Bible. Matter of fact, that's how my numbers worked, when I did that, but I didn't use a calculator and I really need a calculator and to recheck the numbers several times even then. Scary thought. I was a bookkeeper. lol)

I am a Creationist. I am because I gave up on others telling me what to believe, looking at both sides of the argument from as much bias as they can hand me, and then look for the plot holes of both. I can play this game with some of the better players. I am, by nature, a game player, but my goal is to win, and this is a War Games scenario. The only win is not to play the game. More importantly, God has taught me not to trust what he never said. (It may be truth, but it's up to me if I want to figure out it is truth.)

Add to that the assumption the genealogies matter the way you think they do. The Bible is a book about God -- not a history book, not a philosophy book, not a law book. God's book. It "merely" includes everything about him he wanted us to know. Even there, that's for his purposes -- his glory.

If it was God's purpose to teach us all the genealogy, we'd know all of Adam and Eve's kids and who Cain did marry. Since it's not, we're free to speculate, but always good to know when it is speculation.

Darwin's plot hole? "Let us assume." (He had others, but that was the biggest. The one both sides still hang to like it is gospel.)

Okay, so I'm wrong about what some biblical creationists believed back in the day, but everything I've ever read about them (and I've read loads) points to them believing in a 6,000 year old creation, because they take the Bible and Ussher's calculations and work from there. You can't get 10,000 or even 7,000 years from his calculations.

And yes, I'm sorry, but the Bible's not only God's love letter, but it's also a history book. It's God working his redemptive plan within the history of the world - from creation to the end of it all. If the Bible was merely a spiritual book, it would be of little value. That it takes place within history, is both revolutionary and mind-boggling. No other religion has the historical precedence that the Bible has. Again, that may not deter you from believing, but there are plenty that won't believe if something isn't grounded in the historical. And the Bible most certainly is!

 

[tourist]

i thought this was going to be a thread about my birthday.

You would need a flamethrower to light all the candles on the cake.

 

[oldhermit]

Okay, so I'm wrong about what some biblical creationists believed back in the day, but everything I've ever read about them (and I've read loads) points to them believing in a 6,000 year old creation, because they take the Bible and Ussher's calculations and work from there. You can't get 10,000 or even 7,000 years from his calculations. And yes, I'm sorry, but the Bible is a history book. It's God working within the history of the world - from creation to the end of it all. If the Bible was merely a spiritual book, it would be of little value. That it takes place within history, is revolutionary and mind-boggling. No other religion has the historical precedence that the Bible has. Again, that may not deter you from believing, but there are plenty that won't believe if something isn't grounded in the historical. And the Bible most certainly is!

Well, I grew up hearing from various sources the notion of 4000 years. Personally, I think it is between 4000 and 6000 years.

 

[oldhermit]

You would need a flamethrower to light all the candles on the cake.

We sure pick on mom a lot don't we. Hehehe

 

[Tintin]

Speciation and natural selection are evidence for a biblical creation, not for evolution. Also, if something shares similarities with another thing, it could be because the Designer designed them with a similar 'blue-print' and worked from there. Not that one evolved into the other, and without any outside influence of any kind. That's not science, that's silliness.

 

[Tintin]

Well, I grew up hearing from various sources the notion of 4000 years. Personally, I think it is between 4000 and 6000 years.

Wow! 4,000 years? I've never heard that one. How does that work with all of the calculations from Adam and Eve to the Great Flood (roughly 1,700 years from creation)? Let alone from the post-Flood period to Jesus on earth (a time period roughly covering 2,300 years)? Or Jesus on earth to now (a time period of roughly 2,000 years)?

 

[oldhermit]

Wow! 4,000 years? I've never heard that one. How does that work with all of the calculations from Adam and Eve to the Great Flood (roughly 1,700 years from creation)? Let alone from the post-Flood period to Jesus on earth? Or Jesus on earth to now (roughly 2,000 years)?

4000 years really doesn't work but at the same time 6000 is too long.

 

[Tintin]

4000 years really doesn't work but at the same time 6000 is too long.

How so? I'm interested.

 

[blue_ladybug]

the earth is definitely older than 2000 years old. The earth was created LONGGGG before Jesus came along. And it's been more than 2 milennia from his time up until today.

 

[Stephen63]

no million of years - in an expanding/stretched out Universe million of years ago the sun would have been bigger, hotter and nearer the earth = scalding steam and dust and ashes = no life or evolution possible - any comments - wincam

I always thought the billions of tons of water from the flood put so much pressure on the Earth that it totally flawed the carbon 14 method of determining age. Since the world does't believe in the flood, they probably didn't even consider that.

 

[oldhermit]

How so? I'm interested.

Well, you can calculate the time of the death of Jacob at 2216 AC (After Creation). Israel was then about 400 years in captivity give or take 20 years. This puts the year of the Exodus around 2600 AC. The time of the Judges according to Judges 11:26 was 300 years form the death of Moses to the death of the last judge. This puts the year in the neighborhood of 3000 AC. The time of the kings from David to the conquest of Judah was about about 400 years. Seventy years were then spent in captivity so combining those years we are at about 3400 to 3500 AC. Then you have the 400 years of silence between the testaments. This brings us to about 4000 AC to the time of Christ. From there it is about 2015 years making the total just over 6000 years. So, 6000 may not be that far of after all.

 

[oldhermit]

Well, you can calculate the time of the death of Jacob at 2216 AC (After Creation). Israel was then about 400 years in captivity give or take 20 years. This puts the year of the Exodus around 2600 AC. The time of the Judges according to Judges 11:26 was 300 years form the death of Moses to the death of the last judge. This puts the year in the neighborhood of 3000 AC. The time of the kings from David to the conquest of Judah was about about 400 years. Seventy years were then spent in captivity so combining those years we are at about 3400 to 3500 AC. Then you have the 400 years of silence between the testaments. This brings us to about 4000 AC to the time of Christ. From there it is about 2015 years making the total just over 6000 years. So, 6000 may not be that far of after all.

There are some things that must also be taken into account here also and that is the fact that there are a number of short periods of time that we cannot pin down to specifics but they do not represent that many years at any point. It must also be remembered that some of the reigns of the king were co-reigns. It is impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy by I think the time frame can be determined within a plus or minus of 500 years, maybe less.

 

[ivanc0]

I always thought the billions of tons of water from the flood put so much pressure on the Earth that it totally flawed the carbon 14 method of determining age. Since the world does't believe in the flood, they probably didn't even consider that.

So where those billions of tons of water came from, coulds? miracle?, and where that water went after the flood?

 

[ivanc0]

Well, you can calculate the time of the death of Jacob at 2216 AC (After Creation). Israel was then about 400 years in captivity give or take 20 years. This puts the year of the Exodus around 2600 AC. The time of the Judges according to Judges 11:26 was 300 years form the death of Moses to the death of the last judge. This puts the year in the neighborhood of 3000 AC. The time of the kings from David to the conquest of Judah was about about 400 years. Seventy years were then spent in captivity so combining those years we are at about 3400 to 3500 AC. Then you have the 400 years of silence between the testaments. This brings us to about 4000 AC to the time of Christ. From there it is about 2015 years making the total just over 6000 years. So, 6000 may not be that far of after all.

6000 years is like a second in the life of this planet, you are completely blind to the reality, if the scientific method is wrong, then there is also no radio, tv, Computers, Internet, and you have not read my words.

Is incredible how otherwise intelligent and logical people would have such a bias.

The Universe, the stars, the planets are billions of years old.

Genesis is a legend,

Genesis 1:
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth”; and it was so.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
.....

[SUP]16 [/SUP]And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

[SUP]17 [/SUP]And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

[SUP]18 [/SUP]and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good

hello: the mon has not light is just a reflextion of the sun, but they did not know that.
- the sun is just another star
- So the solar system was created first, and them the rest of the universe.
- And Grass existed before the sun, so not photosynthesis.
- Trees with fruit and not Sun.

The order of the creation is wrong.

 

[Bushido8000]

I think the fact that many of the stars we see at night don't exist blows the whole 6000 year theory out of the water. It literally takes millions of years for many of those stars' glow to reach us.

So for the 6000 year theory to be true, not only would God need to create the stars with their light already in full transit to Earth, but He would have also needed to create many of those stars in an already severely-aged state, for what appears to be no reason other than to make you think the Earth isn't 6000 years old.

Well...That and dinosaurs.

I'm not saying evolution is correct either. There are many things that are assumed with evolution. Why don't we find in-between stages of animals? For example? Since snakes supposedly had legs, why don't we find chains of creatures with shrinking legs? Instead, what we find are fossils of creatures with legs, and their assumed evolved state, snakes without legs. We should be finding fossils of MANY creatures with uselessly small legs, the in-between stages of the snake's legged ancestor, to today's snake....but we simply don't. Why?

 

[ivanc0]

I think the fact that many of the stars we see at night don't exist blows the whole 6000 year theory out of the water. It literally takes millions of years for many of those stars' glow to reach us.

So for the 6000 year theory to be true, not only would God need to create the stars with their light already in full transit to Earth, but He would have also needed to create many of those stars in an already severely-aged state, for what appears to be no reason other than to make you think the Earth isn't 6000 years old.

Well...That and dinosaurs.

I'm not saying evolution is correct either. There are many things that are assumed with evolution. Why don't we find in-between stages of animals? For example? Since snakes supposedly had legs, why don't we find chains of creatures with shrinking legs? Instead, what we find are fossils of creatures with legs, and their assumed evolved state, snakes without legs. We should be finding fossils of MANY creatures with uselessly small legs, the in-between stages of the snake's legged ancestor, to today's snake....but we simply don't. Why?

Not correct, see the bones of the leg of a whale. they are there, but completely useless and absorbed in the body

you quite brilliant and correct about the stars and its light,

 

[wincam]

I think the fact that many of the stars we see at night don't exist blows the whole 6000 year theory out of the water. It literally takes millions of years for many of those stars' glow to reach us.

So for the 6000 year theory to be true, not only would God need to create the stars with their light already in full transit to Earth, but He would have also needed to create many of those stars in an already severely-aged state, for what appears to be no reason other than to make you think the Earth isn't 6000 years old.

Well...That and dinosaurs.

I'm not saying evolution is correct either. There are many things that are assumed with evolution. Why don't we find in-between stages of animals? For example? Since snakes supposedly had legs, why don't we find chains of creatures with shrinking legs? Instead, what we find are fossils of creatures with legs, and their assumed evolved state, snakes without legs. We should be finding fossils of MANY creatures with uselessly small legs, the in-between stages of the snake's legged ancestor, to today's snake....but we simply don't. Why?

the clever design part by a clever designer there are no one legged hopping mad creatures waiting for the second leg to evolve or three legged animals or five legged ones - creation was complete and fully functioning at the very start - wincam

 

[wincam]

So where those billions of tons of water came from, coulds? miracle?, and where that water went after the flood?

you mean, especially if it was only a local flood and each of the forty days of rain were really thousands of years - wincam