|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 10, 2009 5:22:02 GMT
@ EK (post 1): No, the Bible does not state the age of the Earth, but it does state how old Adam was when his son Seth was born, how old Seth was when his son, Enos was born... It goes quite a ways down, although yes, it DOES leave a few-hundred-year gap. So using this dating method, the Earth ends up a bit more than 6,000. Of course, the dates can vary by a few centuries, which is still a drop in the bucket compared to Evolutionary Earth-Ages. And about Carbon Dating:
Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.
Since solar radiation causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
An illustration may help:
Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
So as you can see, if you believe in a Young Earth, you know that Carbon dating doesn't work. Proof: Living Sea snails were carbon dated to be 24,000 years old. Ashes from Mt. Vesuvius (which we know erupted in 70 A.D.) were carbon dated to be 175,000 years old. Tsk, tsk, tsk.... so much for "proving the Bible wrong"...
Oh BTW, every Creationist knows that God created light on the first day. The light didn't have to travel, He created it. See, I think it's also a lot more practical to believe that an all-powerful God created everything, than to try and explain it all away as having been born out of Chaos.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 10, 2009 5:36:36 GMT
*sigh* The Neolithic Revolution was the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering communities and bands, to agriculture and settlement (settlement is currently being questioned). Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose independently in at least 7-8 separate locales worldwide, with the earliest known developments taking place in the Middle East around 10,000 BC (BCE) or earlier.Those big civilizations arising some 6.000 years ago didn't come from nothing... Neandertal Man got extinct (!) some 25.000 years ago - one of the contributing factors suspected being 'modern man'. Claiming missing meteorites in sedimentary layers, but ignoring the fossiles found there, does not appear as objective evaluation of actual findings. We can agree that dinosaurs did NOT live within the past 6.000 years, or? Unless, of course, one retires to the position 'it's not mentioned in the bible, hence it never was' - the logic of which path escapes me. *Sigh* I think this may answer that: Fossils. The very name brings to mind images of untold ages past...dinosaurs roaming ancient swamps...slow but steady progression as simple sea life was transformed into today's complex variety. Is this an accurate reconstruction of the past or is a worldwide flood the correct explanation of the fossil record? Fossils are the preserved evidence of past life. They are found in every part of the world, including the tops of the highest mountains. They may be as simple as a seashell which has left a permanent impression in sandstone or as grandiose as a giant plesiosaur whose bones have turned to rock after rapid burial. The fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers. Rather, they must be interpreted within some view of earth history. Many people have been led to believe that the existence of fossils proves that millions of years have passed. In reality, fossils can form quite rapidly. Heat and pressure from rapid burial can accelerate the fossilization process. Geologic conditions following a worldwide flood would have exceeded anything imaginable today and must have led to the rapid fossilization of the plants and animals on a massive scale. Fossilization can happen rapidly under the right conditions, but it is a rare event today. Yet there are mass burial sites throughout the world that are tightly packed with millions of fossils. Apparently, billions of organisms were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, completely buried, and rapidly fossilized. These massive and extensive fossil graveyards would be the predictable result of a worldwide flood, but would hardly fit the slow accumulation model which continues to be taught as the primary explanation of the fossil record. Something dramatically different must have happened in the past to have caused the wide spread fossilization which we find all over our planet. Noah's flood would have been this event. Geologists and paleontologists operating from a Christian worldview acknowledge the possibility that a worldwide catastrophe buried unimaginable amounts of plants and animals. This was the disaster documented in the first book of the Bible. It lasted at least one year and had reverberations which lasted for centuries. Sea creatures would have been buried first (the salinity and temperature of the oceans would have changed during the catastrophe, wiping out massive numbers of these sea creatures). Even after the flood, plant and animal extinction would have been common as many types of creatures failed to adapt to dramatically changing conditions. Although any order of burial in a flood would be possible, the general tendency would be for sea life to be buried in the lower rock layers and land animals to be buried in different rock layers corresponding to their ecological niche. This tendency is generally found. Creation geologists (and there are many of them) believe that the majority of the geologic record is a result of geologic activity during and subsequent to the year-long worldwide flood. This flood would have been an incredible complex event. Geologist and paleontologists operating from an evolutionary world view acknowledge local catastrophes, but do not allow consideration of a worldwide flood. This would wipe out the "slow change over eons of time" interpretation of the fossils which is needed to continue believing in evolution. Only one interpretation of the evidence can be correct and only one interpretation of the evidence agrees with what the Bible claims is the history of our planet. And here's a little something about Neanderthal Man: Neanderthals were long portrayed as ape-men, stooped over. This misconception was largely the result of a faulty reconstruction by French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, who mistook the skeleton of a man with kyphosis (hunchback) for an ape-man in the process of becoming upright. Another snag: Neanderthal skulls are larger than those of modern humans. This flies in the face of evolutionary tradition, which says that man evolved progressively from creatures with smaller brains and skulls. In any event, Neanderthals are no longer classed as "ape-men," and some evolutionists have even discarded them as human ancestors. Did you read my Previous post or not? Anything older than about 4,400 years ends up inaccurate (I believe that's because of the Great Flood), so you (or, rather, I) can't go by that. About Dinosaurs: Actually, they lived in our time frame, here's something about that: Although the monstrous creature was obviously a vegetarian, its size was overwhelming. Its hips could withstand the enormous force of each pounding step and its midsection was a mass of muscle. Its gigantic tail extended far behind him, not unlike a giant cedar tree swaying behind his body. Its bones were like steel girders with ribs like iron bars to support his enormous weight. This is the greatest creature to roam the swamps and rivers of the earth. Is this a scene from the blockbuster movie, Jurassic Park? It could be, but it isn't. This description, which perfectly fits an Apatosaurus, is a paraphrased description taken from one of the oldest books of the Bible, Job 40:15-24. If dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, how could a writer of the Bible have accurately described the appearance, food, and habitat of this creature? The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by water-borne sediment which has subsequently turned to rock. If this is due to the flood of worldwide extent, as the water flowed over all the land surfaces, animals would have been drowned and been buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment. It is not all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping. Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did. In the early 1900's on the Doheny expedition into the Grand Canyon, Indian cave drawings were found which closely resembled a duck-billed dinosaur. Legends from ancient China to ancient England have recorded descriptions of dinosaur-like creatures. The Kuku Yalanji aboriginal people have paintings which look exactly like plesiosaurs. These and other intriguing evidences seem to indicate that perhaps that age of the dinosaurs ended more recently than is commonly taught. Christians do not need to feel foolish about standing on Scripture in their understanding of the world around us. There is ample evidence to support the Biblical record. Evolution serves as the foundation basis for the religions of humanism and atheism. These world views are popular because man, instead of God, decides on rules and moral standards. Creation serves as the foundational basis for Christianity which acknowledges that all things were created by God, that we live in a fallen universe, and that it will be restored to perfection in the future. There is a danger of becoming so indoctrinated by evolutionary thinking that we become closed to the creation alternative. As concerned parents, we need to be careful what our children are taught by making sure they are hearing all of the facts. By teaching them the evidence for creation and the fallacies of evolutionary explanations, they will be directed toward God instead of away from Him. You've obviously never even touched a Bible, much less read through it, so do some research before jumping in and saying something dumb like "it's not mentioned in the Bible"
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 10, 2009 5:40:22 GMT
Can I also point out that domestication of plants and animals doesn't come from no where, after all, those plants and animals were probably used alot before agricuture, but in a "when we go here at this time of year, we find these plants" and a "These animals are always here at this time of year". In fact I wouldn't be suprised if agricuture and animal farming wasn't discovered accidently as a by product of protecting the families resources. Oh, and what about egyptian, indian, and chinese societies that have written histories that date back to before the creation of the earth (young earth time) For your first Paragraph: According to the Bible, God created the Birds and Sea Animals (yes, it even mentions Sea Monsters a.k.a. Water Dinosaurs Glance! ) on the 5th day, and He made all the Land animals (and Adam + Eve) on the 6th day. For your second question: Read my above posts.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 10, 2009 5:52:19 GMT
Unless WHAT, ss? Light has somehow slowed down? Unlikely, I would have to say. As for 'creation IS billions of years old, but, um, that's not the creation mentioned in the Bible!' - isn't that a bit, well, counter to the whole idea? I reiterate: at NO point in the Bible is the age of the Earth specifically stated. Continuing to cling to this idea that we can estimate it from counting the FEW generations that were recorded in the Bible is not Biblical, not scholarly and just does not hold up on any level. At the very least, there is NO clue as to how many generations have passed since the last recorded and now. Science disproves it. Your own articles run through contortions before coming to the conclusion that the speed of light argument is basically inarguable. As for the guy who postulates that the universe was made from a sphere of water a light year across... Well, nuff said! Why not just read 'the deep' as 'the depths of space'? I'm sure from the context it would work vastly better... *** As for evolution: well, I've never believed in a few of the wilder assertions myself. The idea that the Tyrannosaur is a direct ancestor of the chicken is just too ludicrous for words. Nonetheless, to use a quote you yourself will doubtless find handy at many moments: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Micro-evolution is proven fact. Macro-evolution remains totally unproven and purely theoretical. This is my position on the matter and likely to remain so pending proof. I find it plausible enough as a possibility to suspend disbelief, but no more. @ ss: I agree completely with EK (yeah, the Bible DOES leave room for a few hundred years variation, and of course plenty of so-called theologians will stretch it), and I'll add something: Either you believe in Evolution (or some form of it), and you don't trust the Bible and you can even believe the Earth is Billions (or heck, TRILLIONS) of years old. Or you believe the Bible and you believe GOD created the World in 6 days, and since you believe the Bible, you believe the Earth to be young (Under 7,000 years old, or maybe under 10,000 for some "theologians"). But you CAN'T BELIEVE BOTH! You either believe the Bible (and if you do, you don't believe it to be exaggerated), or you DON'T believe the Bible. There is NO in-between, and in-between sickens both the Non-Creationists AND Creationists! Choose your beliefs, but please remember this! Either you believe the Bible, or you don't! It's just that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 10, 2009 11:54:31 GMT
OK, Dragon, try this one: the popn of the Earth currently stands at around 5 billion, right? Or is it higher than that, now? Look at the number of people mentioned as the final generation in the Biblical genealogies. Then ask yourself if a few hundred years could make up that difference. It's just not possible, is it?
Purely on mathematical grounds, your family trees (If one assumes they are at all accurate) are FAR older than you have been led to believe.
Ultimately, yes, a lot of this will come down to faith: you & ss are Christians, I'm not, so we're going to disagree on a lot of the fundamentals. I'm happy to agree to disagree on stuff that's actually IN the Bible, simply because it's a debate none of us can win. But the age of the earth is never stated, nor is it even implied. This whole 'Young Earth' thing is a recent invention.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 10, 2009 16:33:00 GMT
You've obviously never even touched a Bible, much less read through it, so do some research before jumping in and saying something dumb like "it's not mentioned in the Bible" I never said that! I said "Unless, of course, one retires to the position 'it's not mentioned in the bible, hence it never was" - which has happened to me in discussions before, and which is an argument I do not follow, because to me that's a discussion killer and the beginning of a circle debate. I know darn well a lot of interpretable stuff is mentioned in the bible - I actually did read it (My Lutheranian version of it) , I concede not very often, but in its entirety - as a history book and a book of stories. The admirable thing about this book, or this collection of stories, is that it can indeed be read virtually all encompassing from whichever side one approaches it. I didn't argue about evolution or creation, nor how many billions old Earth may be - just that there appears to be evidence, may be even outside the bible, that would allow to consider an age greater than 10 millenia - and that without trying to shatter anyone's foundations of belief. *ahem* OK, I may be rightly accused of trying to sow the seed of doubt...
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 10, 2009 22:50:39 GMT
Unless WHAT, ss? Light has somehow slowed down? Unlikely, I would have to say. As for 'creation IS billions of years old, but, um, that's not the creation mentioned in the Bible!' - isn't that a bit, well, counter to the whole idea? I reiterate: at NO point in the Bible is the age of the Earth specifically stated. Continuing to cling to this idea that we can estimate it from counting the FEW generations that were recorded in the Bible is not Biblical, not scholarly and just does not hold up on any level. At the very least, there is NO clue as to how many generations have passed since the last recorded and now. Science disproves it. Your own articles run through contortions before coming to the conclusion that the speed of light argument is basically inarguable. As for the guy who postulates that the universe was made from a sphere of water a light year across... Well, nuff said! Why not just read 'the deep' as 'the depths of space'? I'm sure from the context it would work vastly better... *** As for evolution: well, I've never believed in a few of the wilder assertions myself. The idea that the Tyrannosaur is a direct ancestor of the chicken is just too ludicrous for words. Nonetheless, to use a quote you yourself will doubtless find handy at many moments: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Micro-evolution is proven fact. Macro-evolution remains totally unproven and purely theoretical. This is my position on the matter and likely to remain so pending proof. I find it plausible enough as a possibility to suspend disbelief, but no more. @ ss: I agree completely with EK (yeah, the Bible DOES leave room for a few hundred years variation, and of course plenty of so-called theologians will stretch it), and I'll add something: Either you believe in Evolution (or some form of it), and you don't trust the Bible and you can even believe the Earth is Billions (or heck, TRILLIONS) of years old. Or you believe the Bible and you believe GOD created the World in 6 days, and since you believe the Bible, you believe the Earth to be young (Under 7,000 years old, or maybe under 10,000 for some "theologians"). But you CAN'T BELIEVE BOTH! You either believe the Bible (and if you do, you don't believe it to be exaggerated), or you DON'T believe the Bible. There is NO in-between, and in-between sickens both the Non-Creationists AND Creationists! Choose your beliefs, but please remember this! Either you believe the Bible, or you don't! It's just that simple. I must be missin something here Dragon....are you saying that I believe in evolution..?? I posted some links that show the debate on the issue, but they did not ask me what the right answer was or I would have told them... ;D And...you completly agree with EK.... ...think I am lost there also... But, just to clarify, I am an avowed creationist...believe it was 6 literal 24 hour days, I believe the bible to be the infallible, inspired word of the living God.( Esp the KJV..) ;D I love to debate the nuances that can not be proven or disproven. It in no wise undermine my faith/belief...which is in the resurrected Christ, and in Him alone....Not preachers or scientists or anyother human on the face of this short lived planet. I believe the Spirit of God can illumin me to the truth of the Scripture.................even when I don't understand it.....Heck, I don't even understand Algebra, but I know it works, just like electricity and gravity... I don't care a whit about religious denominations, be they Luthern, Baptist, Roman Catholic or what....(although I know that they have some questionable and some absolutely wrong doctrine) I am a Christian because I believe in the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ....plus/minus nothing...
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 11, 2009 1:49:00 GMT
OK, Dragon, try this one: the popn of the Earth currently stands at around 5 billion, right? Or is it higher than that, now? Look at the number of people mentioned as the final generation in the Biblical genealogies. Then ask yourself if a few hundred years could make up that difference. It's just not possible, is it? Purely on mathematical grounds, your family trees (If one assumes they are at all accurate) are FAR older than you have been led to believe. Ultimately, yes, a lot of this will come down to faith: you & ss are Christians, I'm not, so we're going to disagree on a lot of the fundamentals. I'm happy to agree to disagree on stuff that's actually IN the Bible, simply because it's a debate none of us can win. But the age of the earth is never stated, nor is it even implied. This whole 'Young Earth' thing is a recent invention. I don't think (could be wrong) that the geneologies in the Scripture are necessarily for the purpose of "dating" anything... If (and I believe it did) the Genesis flood hapened, then the geneologies and records sorta went bye-bye. Now you only have Noah and his 3 sons and their wifes and it starts all over again...granted they trace their roots back to Adam. But, the purpose of the geneologies were primarily to "prove" the linage of Christ...back to David, and back to Adam. They seemed to skip actual generations and hit the important names... There was a scholar that did a mathematical computation once that stated based on the reproductive age of the "pre-flood" people, who lived up to 969 years, that between menstral cycle of girls around 14 to the time they could probably not produce children, he concluded that the pre-flood population was in the billions then... ? Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 11, 2009 8:48:19 GMT
Intrestingly so far as i know it's only christians that believe that the creation story is literally true. The Jews believe that it is an alogary(sp???) for how god actually created the earth. (side note) Did you know that in the rural parts of south america the doctors have had to resort to giving their patients stones and telling them to throw one away at each rising so that they can come back for their next checkup?
Did you also know that prior to the first space craft, the church streniously objected to the idea of space travel because who are we to venture into the realm of god?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 11, 2009 12:14:40 GMT
This is my point exactly, ss, yes The entire argument for 'Young Earth' hangs on these genealogies, which were never intended for any such purpose and which are wholly unreliable as a method for dating anything. It's like trying to estimate the distance between Earth and the Sun using a one foot long ruler.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 12, 2009 8:38:26 GMT
Who's foot? More seriously, even if you're going with the bible to estimate how old the world is, there is a rather large hole - before adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit, there was no death in the garden of eden, and they had no knowledge of good or evil. So how long were they in that garden for? I'm fairly certain that even if we could ask them (assuming they were real) they wouldn't be able to say, as the tree that they ate the fruit from was also called the tree of knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 12, 2009 12:04:43 GMT
@ EK: About the "Popn," I agree with ss. As for genealogies, you get about 1,914 years from Adam to Abraham, and for the rest, well, there's only 42 generations, and 14 of them are from about 586 B.C. (which is the agreed historical date for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians) to about 4 B.C. (Jesus' birth). As for the other 28 Generations between about 2,100 B.C. (using Young Earth reasoning, that the Earth is about 6,000) and 586 B.C., well, I find it fairly believable that the average age between each generation would be about 54 (since quite a few times, it one of the youngest sons who carried the bloodline to Jesus, such as in the case of Jesse and David).
Mathematically speaking, this makes a lot of sense.
I agree with you again, the Creation-Evolution debate can easily go on forever, since ultimately, the Creationist has to go back to God (for whom the Evolutionist will say there is no physical proof) and the Evolutionist has to go back to a big pile of "missing links," and theories that ultimately don't make sense (like the Big Bang).
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 12, 2009 12:09:59 GMT
You've obviously never even touched a Bible, much less read through it, so do some research before jumping in and saying something dumb like "it's not mentioned in the Bible" I never said that! I said "Unless, of course, one retires to the position 'it's not mentioned in the bible, hence it never was" - which has happened to me in discussions before, and which is an argument I do not follow, because to me that's a discussion killer and the beginning of a circle debate. I know darn well a lot of interpretable stuff is mentioned in the bible - I actually did read it (My Lutheranian version of it) , I concede not very often, but in its entirety - as a history book and a book of stories. The admirable thing about this book, or this collection of stories, is that it can indeed be read virtually all encompassing from whichever side one approaches it. I didn't argue about evolution or creation, nor how many billions old Earth may be - just that there appears to be evidence, may be even outside the bible, that would allow to consider an age greater than 10 millenia - and that without trying to shatter anyone's foundations of belief. *ahem* OK, I may be rightly accused of trying to sow the seed of doubt... Whoa, okay, sorry for accusing you of not having done something you did do. ;D My point on saying that was this: You have a perfect description of a Dinosaur in the Bible (Job 40:15-24), so yes, dinosaurs DID indeed coincide with humans (whoever said they went extinct 65 million years ago didn't read the Bible, or else perceived it to be a myth). *ahem* ;D You have freedom of speech, and easily the right to debate, so I don't have to accuse you of that.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 12, 2009 12:18:31 GMT
@ ss: I agree completely with EK (yeah, the Bible DOES leave room for a few hundred years variation, and of course plenty of so-called theologians will stretch it), and I'll add something: Either you believe in Evolution (or some form of it), and you don't trust the Bible and you can even believe the Earth is Billions (or heck, TRILLIONS) of years old. Or you believe the Bible and you believe GOD created the World in 6 days, and since you believe the Bible, you believe the Earth to be young (Under 7,000 years old, or maybe under 10,000 for some "theologians"). But you CAN'T BELIEVE BOTH! You either believe the Bible (and if you do, you don't believe it to be exaggerated), or you DON'T believe the Bible. There is NO in-between, and in-between sickens both the Non-Creationists AND Creationists! Choose your beliefs, but please remember this! Either you believe the Bible, or you don't! It's just that simple. I must be missin something here Dragon....are you saying that I believe in evolution..?? I posted some links that show the debate on the issue, but they did not ask me what the right answer was or I would have told them... ;D And...you completly agree with EK.... ...think I am lost there also... But, just to clarify, I am an avowed creationist...believe it was 6 literal 24 hour days, I believe the bible to be the infallible, inspired word of the living God.( Esp the KJV..) ;D I love to debate the nuances that can not be proven or disproven. It in no wise undermine my faith/belief...which is in the resurrected Christ, and in Him alone....Not preachers or scientists or anyother human on the face of this short lived planet. I believe the Spirit of God can illumin me to the truth of the Scripture.................even when I don't understand it.....Heck, I don't even understand Algebra, but I know it works, just like electricity and gravity... I don't care a whit about religious denominations, be they Luthern, Baptist, Roman Catholic or what....(although I know that they have some questionable and some absolutely wrong doctrine) I am a Christian because I believe in the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ....plus/minus nothing... Okay ss, sorry, I misunderstood you. What I mean by "I agree completely with EK" is just for the part I quoted when I made that post. But re-reading it, I disagree about the generations part (see a few posts up) , the main thing I was agreeing with is was the first paragraph, about the "Creation being billions of years old idea" completely contradictory to both the Bible, and Evolution. I agree with you about the "popn" (I'm starting to like this abbreviation ;D ) having possibly been a few billion by the time the Flood came around.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 12, 2009 12:27:39 GMT
@ DPR (1st post): Well, what the Churches did or banned wasn't always in accordance with the Bible. Often, they started out good, but then they became regimented into so-called "organized Religion," and thus they wanted to keep their little (and big, of course) doctrines intact. @ DPR (2nd post): Hm, true, we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. All we know is that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born... Which makes the generation average age from Abraham to Jechonias (28 generations) go down slightly from 54.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 12, 2009 13:20:07 GMT
Dragon - too many assumptions for maths to play any part in this, I'm afraid. An 'average age of 54' is based on nothing but the stated length of ONE person's life. It also says nothing about when the next generation was born. Taking a generation as eldest child to eldest child, that gives you anywhere between 15 and 35 years (The mode average is probably somewhere between 20 and 25) depending on when they got married and had children. 54 is a totally incorrect figure because of generational overlap. So even the maths used by the Young Earthers is blatantly inaccurate.
I'd also like to point out that Evolutionary theory and Big Bang theory are NOT the same thing nor should the two ever be confused. Evolution is the theory of how biological systems change over time in response to their environment and has nothing whatsoever to say about the origins of the universe. I am honestly baffled as to why so many people seem to keep pushing the two together.
The age of the Earth is also not part of Evolutionary theory, of course, being as it deals primarily with geology.
Anyways - back to genealogy - the family trees are clearly representative, as ss has said, being as they leave out so much of the human race. While I honestly doubt there were more than a few thousand humans in existence before the flood (Caused by the melting of the ice at the end of the Ice Age, so that we can at least agree there was a flood, though our presumed causes differ ;D), they are STILL not all listed in the family trees. Clear evidence of inaccuracy.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 12, 2009 13:36:34 GMT
@ DPR (1st post): Well, what the Churches did or banned wasn't always in accordance with the Bible. Often, they started out good, but then they became regimented into so-called "organized Religion," and thus they wanted to keep their little (and big, of course) doctrines intact. @ DPR (2nd post): Hm, true, we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. All we know is that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born... Which makes the generation average age from Abraham to Jechonias (28 generations) go down slightly from 54. 130 years from what date? the date he was created, or the date that he ate from the tree of knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 12, 2009 17:19:23 GMT
You've obviously never even touched a Bible, much less read through it, so do some research before jumping in and saying something dumb like "it's not mentioned in the Bible" I never said that! I said "Unless, of course, one retires to the position 'it's not mentioned in the bible, hence it never was" - which has happened to me in discussions before, and which is an argument I do not follow, because to me that's a discussion killer and the beginning of a circle debate. I know darn well a lot of interpretable stuff is mentioned in the bible - I actually did read it (My Lutheranian version of it) , I concede not very often, but in its entirety - as a history book and a book of stories. The admirable thing about this book, or this collection of stories, is that it can indeed be read virtually all encompassing from whichever side one approaches it. I didn't argue about evolution or creation, nor how many billions old Earth may be - just that there appears to be evidence, may be even outside the bible, that would allow to consider an age greater than 10 millenia - and that without trying to shatter anyone's foundations of belief. *ahem* OK, I may be rightly accused of trying to sow the seed of doubt... Whoa, okay, sorry for accusing you of not having done something you did do. ;D My point on saying that was this: You have a perfect description of a Dinosaur in the Bible (Job 40:15-24), so yes, dinosaurs DID indeed coincide with humans (whoever said they went extinct 65 million years ago didn't read the Bible, or else perceived it to be a myth). *ahem* ;D You have freedom of speech, and easily the right to debate, so I don't have to accuse you of that. Well thank you. Now, isn't the claim that the descriptions in the bible ARE in fact (!) dinosaurs a pure presumption (a classic hindsight interpretation - hindsight is 20/20 vision! )? Considering the many tales of the ancients (and of not so ancient (and very Christian) ancestors of ours!) on 'monsters' they claim to have seen, those descriptions could be anything. To a man of 1.5 - 1.6 m, which was the average heighth around the Mediterranean in antiquity, a mammoth or a 7 m long crocodile is gigantic - especially when he tells his tale of how he got away - and why he ran...
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 12, 2009 20:24:37 GMT
twoheadedragonSince you believe what the bible says , tell me what you think ....what will you do in heaven for eternity?
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 12, 2009 21:46:36 GMT
If nothing else, avoiding the "fire"... ;D
|
|