old Earth vs. young Earth

  • 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.
P

Phillipy

Guest
#41
#41
eternally-gratefull said:
lol my problem with evolution is science does not fit. Not that it is not mentioned in scripture. (if your talking darwins evolution)

I used to believe in this "gap" theory you spoke of.. After alot of study, I have taken my believe to a different view..

Click to expand...
Cool can we talk about the science of it a bit? Because as to my current understand, the science does fit - and I do so enjoy learning I was wrong :D (especially about massive things like the history of life!)

What did I say about gaps, that the holes in the fossil record are expected things, and fossils are rarely formed?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#42
#42
Phillipy said:
Okay good work that's good stuff, I just want to confirm with you that mala is the originally used Hebrew word, you didn't look up Herbrew for 'fill', right?
Click to expand...
I have logos bible software. I look up the hebrew in the verse as written, and then looked up all my hebrew resources to get the defenition of the word actually used in the passage :D

I only have a few hebrew resources.. I have lot of greek resources.. I need to get more hebrew.. building my library a little at a time
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#43
#43
Phillipy said:
Cool can we talk about the science of it a bit? Because as to my current understand, the science does fit - and I do so enjoy learning I was wrong :D (especially about massive things like the history of life!)What did I say about gaps, that the holes in the fossil record are expected things, and fossils are rarely formed?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong myself. The gap theory states there was a time between Gen 1: 1 and vs 2.. a time in which Satan ruled the earth until he fell. then God took it back. So I assumed something..lol

As for fossiles. I think some day we will see most fossiles were formed in the flood.. at one time. not over many years..

Fossiles demand sedimate to cover a corpse, and harded before the corpse goes away leaving the fossile.. this does not happen unless alot of sedimate covers a corpse.. which does not happen all the time.
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#44
#44
I currently accept that there are fossils in patches, from 'punctuated equilibrium', which means periods of relatively quick change then long periods of stasis, long straight branches in the tree of life that we are much more likely to find fossils from. Clear transitional forms do exist though, linking up all the major families as one mega-tree.
Also Christian geneticists say we could have confirmed the common ancestry history of life even if we'd never found any fossils
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#45
#45
Phillipy said:
I currently accept that there are fossils in patches, from 'punctuated equilibrium', which means periods of relatively quick change then long periods of stasis, long straight branches in the tree of life that we are much more likely to find fossils from. Clear transitional forms do exist though, linking up all the major families as one mega-tree.
Also Christian geneticists say we could have confirmed the common ancestry history of life even if we'd never found any fossils
Click to expand...
if you get a chance,, look up that book. it is written by Andrew Snelling..
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#46
#46
I have to go get some work done.. But I would like to discuss this more later if you want..
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#47
#47
eternally-gratefull said:

I could be wrong myself. The gap theory states there was a time between Gen 1: 1 and vs 2.. a time in which Satan ruled the earth until he fell. then God took it back. So I assumed something..lol

As for fossiles. I think some day we will see most fossiles were formed in the flood.. at one time. not over many years..

Fossiles demand sedimate to cover a corpse, and harded before the corpse goes away leaving the fossile.. this does not happen unless alot of sedimate covers a corpse.. which does not happen all the time.
Click to expand...
Ooooooh okay, biblical gap theory! Ya that'd be Trifecta's position but not mine :) I'm a pretty loose non-literalist, because I read so much science everyday that just doesn't mesh with a young Earth (I'm subscribed to New Scientist magazine :) )
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#48
#48
(and lots of biology articles that are explained in detail by evolutionary theory)
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#49
#49
A couple of people have commented that God could have just made the world with age.
That works, but something just doesn't feel right about it to me. It seems like an ad hoc rationalization, not a truth I'm learning but an excuse I'm making up. It just intuitively feels like a mild form of the 'God made the universe 5 minutes ago with our memories intact' claim. You can't prove it's wrong, it matches all observations, but... :p It hurts to have to say "yes that could be possible, I might have been made 4 seconds ago even, with all my memories intact."
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#50
#50
It's like, "it's possible, but I do know it's not the case!"
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#51
#51
on reasonable, everyday standards of knowledge. I feel I shouldn't have to ignore all the evidence to maintain a literalist interpretation, I should find the truth by following all the evidence, science and bible included. And science and history can give some insight into why the bible would be written in the spirit of the culture at the time. I think someone voiced a slippery slope argument against that, that if we don't take it all literally, how are we meant to know what to take as fact and why do we even believe in Christ.
That's pretty extreme, but it's probably the same kind of slippery slope feeling I was getting just before! About the 'made with the appearance of age' scenarios.
Hmmm :)
Love this topic :) We are practically doing theology here
 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#52
#52
Yep I'll look up that book (hopefully I can watch a youtube lecture by him before buying the book, that's often an easy shortcut to detailed conversation :p
And ya get back to me when you're free and we'll talk about evolution :) I'm not opposed to it being wrong, just uninformed if it's wrong
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#53
#53
Phillipy said:
A couple of people have commented that God could have just made the world with age.
That works, but something just doesn't feel right about it to me. It seems like an ad hoc rationalization, not a truth I'm learning but an excuse I'm making up. It just intuitively feels like a mild form of the 'God made the universe 5 minutes ago with our memories intact' claim. You can't prove it's wrong, it matches all observations, but... :p It hurts to have to say "yes that could be possible, I might have been made 4 seconds ago even, with all my memories intact."
Click to expand...
I would say this

God made it perfect. everything needed to sustain life of all creatures (plant an animal) was created at once..

I would not say God created it with age, he created it complete..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.