C
christundivided
Guest
Smellin Coffee said:
We'd think he was wrong.... just like a lot of other Christians.
Why Do We Insist on a Young Earth?
- Thread starter 16KJV11
- Start date
We'd think he was wrong.... just like a lot of other Christians.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,379
- Reaction score
- 137
- Points
- 63
ddgently said:
With that we can then pretty much change anything we want because he wasn't as smart as we are. That is why all of the sudden the bible doesn't forbid homosexuality anymore. When Jesus quoted the creation narrative to define marriage He just wasn't as hep to what His word really meant like we are today. Can I get an Amen?
C
christundivided
Guest
ddgently said:
Sure... that's why He foresaw Nathanael under the fig tree and waited by the well for that no good Samaritan women.
You really should give up.....
Looks like we're getting sidetracked! If you wish to continue a discussion about what Jesus knew and when, I'm starting a new thread.
If you want to engage with:
(1) The context in which the original audience of Genesis would have understood the text
(2) Evidence for or against an old earth
(3) Other topics germane to the OP
Please continue...
If you want to engage with:
(1) The context in which the original audience of Genesis would have understood the text
(2) Evidence for or against an old earth
(3) Other topics germane to the OP
Please continue...
subllibrm said:
It's clear that you and the other YEC here have no intention of grappling honestly with any of these issues. Way back in post 4 or 5, I linked an article that offers a coherent argument about what an Ancient Near Eastern view of the cosmos was and how Genesis fits into that. The author is not a lone wolf or a crackpot.
No one, not one, has engaged with that argument.
You can deny the science all you want, but science "is true whether you believe it or not." There is not a vast conspiracy in the scientific community to discredit God. The evidence is what it is.
Which brings me back to the article to which I originally linked. If the earth is old (and it is), and evolution is happening (it is), and if the bible is true (it also is) then as a Christian, my responsibility is to figure out what texts like Genesis 1-3 mean in light of this.
The hypocrisy that I'm seeking to point out among YEC is that the bible makes numerous other "scientific" claims that fit with an ANE cosmology, but not so much with the science that even YEC accept (such as a gaseous atmosphere instead of a solid dome). So T-bone says "pre-Flood is different than post-Flood" as if that is a satisfactory answer. But here again, when I point out that THE ACTUAL TEXT of the Bible gives no indication that the world was any different, and in fact indicates that everything went back to the way it was, I get silence for you all.
So no, sublilbrm, I didn't start the Jesus thread because I was "getting my hat handed to me" or "beaten like I stole something." It's because the subject has been changed so many times here as soon as I bring up something you all can't answer I thought I'd at least try to keep it on track.
Good day,
Dirk
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/why-do-we-insist-on-a-young-earth/msg71454/#msg71454
As much digital ink as you all have spilled, you don't seem to have a very cogent response to any of this, other than "Jesus taught a six-day creation [although that's not true] so that's what I believe."
Why does God's creation look so deceptively old, then?
As much digital ink as you all have spilled, you don't seem to have a very cogent response to any of this, other than "Jesus taught a six-day creation [although that's not true] so that's what I believe."
Why does God's creation look so deceptively old, then?
ddgently said:
Sin
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 5,279
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
ddgently said:
I don't think it looks old. You may trust things like radio isometric dating, but I don't.
I don't even trust C14 dates, because there's no way to know what kind of cosmic radiation was hitting the surface of the earth 6,000 years ago. If the earth was better shielded from radiation back then, the starting point of C14 would be lower, and everything would seem older than it is.
In addition, freshly formed rock has produced dates of millions of years old. That's how reliable radio isometric dating is. And what do you mean lead doesn't "naturally" form in zircon crystals? How do you know where the lead came from? What you have there is a classic case of circular reasoning. The lead is there because it's old. And it's old because there's lead in there.
C
christundivided
Guest
The Rogue Tomato said:
Exactly.....
Rocks "form" from something. That "something" may well be billions of years old. Yet, to say you know when it was formed based on its substance is rather silly.
You ask why we "insist" on a "young earth" as if it is unreasonable. Read the scripture below and it will tell you why:
Gen 1:9 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.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 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.
Gen 1:12 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.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 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.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 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.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
I even gave you a few hints.
Gen 1:9 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.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 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.
Gen 1:12 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.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 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.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 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.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
I even gave you a few hints.
The Rogue Tomato said:
There actually is. I suggest you read http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating and also try Google.
Let me repeat: there is no conspiracy to make the earth seem older than it is.
The Rogue Tomato said:
I'm guessing you're talking about the "dating" of magma from Mt. St. Helens. There are WELL documented problems with the way the Creation Scientist went about dating the rocks, and it seems he was purposefully deceptive.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146
The Rogue Tomato said:
When zircon crystals are in the ground, it is almost impossible for lead to get in, but the crystals allow a small amount of uranium into the structure (because:chemistry). Therefore, if you find a zircon crystal with both lead in uranium in it, you can be reasonably assured that the lead is a decay product of the uranium
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152243/dating/69769/Importance-of-zircon-in-uranium-lead-dating
Thus it's not circular at all.
Whether or not He did, you’ve yet to demonstrate that His quotation of Genesis in the context of teaching on marriage is in any way an endorsement of a literal, six-day creationist interpretation of that text. And no one (looking at you Rogue Tomato) has engaged meaningfully with the evidence for an old earth, other than to express unfounded skepticism.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
ddgently said:
Ok, I realize you are oversimplifying but I'm curious about one thing -
Couldn't you also say that any lead found in crystals proves that lead actually does naturally incur into crystals? Why does it have to be uranium decay?
Isn't that like saying "Grass isn't green therefore any green grass has been painted".
C
christundivided
Guest
subllibrm said:
Its interesting to note that many scientists today believe there is a "edge" to the Universe........