Jump to content


Some Questions


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 February 2010 - 10:06 PM

But the problem is, there is so many ways to find out how the Earth is...None of them date the Earth to 6,000 years old.
Now I like the idea of 'information theory' but no one upholds to it, only creationists. If it was against information the majority of sciencetists would believe it.

View Post


They don't have to. God said:

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

God admits that during creation He did not use time to age the matter in which He used to create the earth.

Also, if all matter came from one source as the big bang suggests, then all matter should date back to that source and be of the same age. But it does not. Neither is it related in it's composition.

#42 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 26 February 2010 - 10:53 PM

They don't have to. God said:

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

God admits that during creation He did not use time to age the matter in which He used to create the earth.


"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." 2 Pet 3:5

Your interpretation is a bit of a stretch.

Also, if all matter came from one source as the big bang suggests, then all matter should date back to that source and be of the same age. But it does not. Neither is it related in it's composition.


This is a misconception...

Dating is based on several things...with physical matter itself, Radiometric dating of decay rates of particular elements is used. Dating of a 4.5 billion year old earth is based on the most ancient metamorphic rocks. Formation of metamorphic rock (When it was last molten and then has achieved closure temperature) determines the point that decay begins...not the beginning of the universe.

In Cosmology, dating is based on the speed of light, red shift and the known distance of the farthest objects.

Peace

#43 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 26 February 2010 - 11:08 PM

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." 2 Pet 3:5

Your interpretation is a bit of a stretch.
This is a misconception...


6000 years isn't a long time?

#44 Guest_solja247_*

Guest_solja247_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2010 - 11:31 PM

They see him as a prophet, not the Christ.


The only perfect prophet.


Wrong. That's ad populum, a logical fallacy. If more people believe it, that doesn't make it right or wrong.


It isnt ad populum. I have never seen Antartica yet I believe it is real. I believe There are other galaxies out there, I havent seen any. I believe them because its logical. Science debates. If sciencetists dont all agree they debate. If there is a lot of agreement in the community then you have to agree sought of agree wtih them, its not a conspiracy.

Answers in Genesis tries, has some great articles but is still in the relam of religion (the majority of articles are)



Before I continue, exactly what do you mean by "evolution"?


Evolution is the mechanism which creates progress. For example a turtles over a period of time formed shells...




How does snow fall show the world to be 140K yrs old? In any case, if you accept radiometric dating as accurate, and it dates a rock to 4.5 billion, doesn't that suggest that the rock really is that old and that there is another explanation as to why snow fall suggests a 140K yr old Earth?


Metorites too 4.5 billion years old. not igneous rock...

I think radiometric dating is not accurate. We have nothing else to check it out with. Every other testing gives us a younger Earth.

Are you suggesting that while every organism has mutations, God is only involved with a few of them? If so, I think you need to expand your idea of God. He is present everywhere, and sustains everything through His power; Yes I believe in interventions, but to say that God uses evolution personally (for me anyway in the way you said it) implies a distant God from His creation, and that is something I just do not see or believe. I apologize in advance if I got that wrong.


I was still developing on this idea but now i have it.

In the Bible lots are cast. When the Israelites were finding out who gets what land lots were cast. Was this chance? or was God's hand over the lots?

This is how evolution works. It is not random, but God's hand is over it. For example a Brown bear God changed the Genetic code for it to be a polar bear. We can ask why would God help a bear and pherhaps not a spider?

But why did Jesus go to the pool and heal one person? Out of hundreads of people...


I have another question. Did spiders have fangs in the GoE? What was the purpose of the fangs? After the fall how did a spider know how to catch and kill flies?

This should be interesting...

#45 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 26 February 2010 - 11:55 PM

It isnt ad populum. I have never seen Antartica yet I believe it is real. I believe There are other galaxies out there, I havent seen any. I believe them because its logical. Science debates. If sciencetists dont all agree they debate. If there is a lot of agreement in the community then you have to agree sought of agree wtih them, its not a conspiracy.

Answers in Genesis tries, has some great articles but is still in the relam of religion (the majority of articles are)


I don't get what you are saying. You said that because most scientists don't believe something, it is not valid. That is not true, as number of people who believe it has no relation to the validity of something.

For example a turtles over a period of time formed shells...


Evidence?


I was still developing on this idea but now i have it.

In the Bible lots are cast. When the Israelites were finding out who gets what land lots were cast. Was this chance? or was God's hand over the lots?

This is how evolution works. It is not random, but God's hand is over it. For example a Brown bear God changed the Genetic code for it to be a polar bear. We can ask why would God help a bear and pherhaps not a spider?



Yet the Bible says that by the word of God the heavens were of old. God could have merely created the universe with the appearance of age.

For example, if in a video game there's a city in the game that appears to be old with damaged buildings and such, did that really happen or could the game just have been made that way from the start?

God has the power to make the universe as he wants.

And you still have no evidence of evolution anyway.

Did spiders have fangs in the GoE?


Possibly.

What was the purpose of the fangs?


Some spiders eat mostly plants.
http://www.answersin...etarian-animals

I don't know the purpose of fangs in a death free world, but that doesn't mean there isn't one that I simply don't know.

#46 Guest_solja247_*

Guest_solja247_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2010 - 12:27 AM

I don't get what you are saying. You said that because most scientists don't believe something, it is not valid. That is not true, as number of people who believe it has no relation to the validity of something.


Experts. not people. Experts who have spent years and years learning...


Evidence?


I dont believe it, I was using it as an example.

For example, if in a video game there's a city in the game that appears to be old with damaged buildings and such, did that really happen or could the game just have been made that way from the start?



Thats a computer game. I wouldnt use that example. God didnt have to make the world and old.
God did create Adam as 30 year old man not a baby. (neither did He create Adam as an 80 year old man) you cant say 'God did it'. You have to say that Radiometric dating is inaccuarte.


Some spiders eat mostly plants.
http://www.answersin...etarian-animals

I don't know the purpose of fangs in a death free world, but that doesn't mean there isn't one that I simply don't know.


You seem like an intelligent kid (if you are 13 years old) I dont want you to loose faith. I am a creationist but I believe the world to be older.


Lets look at the shark - a perfect killing machine. You cant tell me that the shark evolved in a few thousand years to be the perfect killing machine.

#47 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 27 February 2010 - 06:11 AM

Yet the Bible says that by the word of God the heavens were of old.


"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." 2 Pet 3:5

You are looking at that scriputre incorrectly.

God could have merely created the universe with the appearance of age.


God is not a deceiver.

Peace

#48 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 27 February 2010 - 08:42 AM

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." 2 Pet 3:5

You are looking at that scriputre incorrectly.


Is 6000 years not long enough for you?
You ignored me the first time i said this.


God is not a deceiver.


How would God be a deceiver if he merely makes the universe mature and developed, instead of spending billions of years slowly building it?
God can make the universe however he wants, and he has the power to make it as quickly as he wants.

Lets look at the shark - a perfect killing machine. You cant tell me that the shark evolved in a few thousand years to be the perfect killing machine.


Why couldn't God have made them the way they are(But less corrupted)?

Sharp teeth help for eating plants.
Posted Image

#49 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 27 February 2010 - 09:39 AM

Is 6000 years not long enough for you?
You ignored me the first time i said this.


No, it isn't....not by a long shot.

How would God be a deceiver if he merely makes the universe mature and developed, instead of spending billions of years slowly building it?
God can make the universe however he wants, and he has the power to make it as quickly as he wants.
Why couldn't God have made them the way they are(But less corrupted)?


Sure he does...if you're saying that God has the ability to lie.

Would God create a mature tree with rings?

Would he create a mature mammal with a belly button?

Would he create the earth with strata?

Would he create soil that was composed of organic detritus?

Would he create sand, which is a product of erosion?

Would he create a rounded stone, which is normally polished by water?

Would he create light that appeared to come from a particular origin but was already in transit?

Would he create effect without cause?

If so, then he is a deceiver....and God is not a deceiver.

Sharp teeth help for eating plants.


Actually, molars help to eat plants...canines and most other sharp teeth are for tearing flesh.

What did God plan for the Venus flytrap prior to the 'fall'.

What did the scorpion do with it's tail?

What did the lion do with it's claws?

What did the bombardier beetle do with it's volcanic squirt-squirt?

What did the skunk do with it's spray?

What did the hornet do with it's sting?

...all prior to the 'fall'?

Peace

#50 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 27 February 2010 - 10:28 AM

No, it isn't....not by a long shot.


You are definitely a person to say that having lived less than 1% of that time.

if you're saying that God has the ability to lie.


Creating something mature does not equate to saying that it is mature. Contrary, the Bible tells us that the heavens were created of old.
You cannot argue with God.

2 Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"

Actually, molars help to eat plants...canines and most other sharp teeth are for tearing flesh.


Thank you for ignoring my picture. Fruit bats are herbivores. They eat plants, yet they have sharp teeth.

...all prior to the 'fall'?


Do you expect me to have an answer for everything?
Could have had a purpose that we don't know.

#51 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 27 February 2010 - 10:31 AM

1) Lets say the world is 4.5 billion years old. Would it be possible for macro evolution?

View Post

It's an engineering problem--not a time problem. Evolutionists like to talk about the so-called genetic evidence for evolution, while at the same time ignoring the overwhelming evidence of design in the cell. The problem is you've got to have many things in place at the beginning to have life--even in bacteria.

2) Why hold to a 6,000 year old Earth. When trees have been dated older than that? (I think the Earth is 50,000 - 20,000)

View Post

Really? A tree with 6000 rings? A tree cluster I've heard of--but I've heard 8000, 13000, 30000, and 5000--these are estimates from uniformintarians--do you suppose they're motivated to prove the scripture? You must be talking about carbon dating and we have threads on that subject.

3) In my opinion the geologic column is evidence for evolution. Cyanobacteria is found in old rocks, but in these same rocks no humans, no mamals no nothing besides simple multicellular organisms have been found. how do you explain this?

View Post

Cyanobacteria is a 'fossil' that is alive today. If your reasoning is valid, then we should find man next to cyanobacteria--since they have existed at the same time. So why don't we? The data you present is therefore an argument against your argument.

The cyanobacteria are 'index fossils' by which the rocks are relatively dated. If you want to look at the inconsistencies and assumptions of radiometric dating--Andrew Snelling or Steven Austin are PhD's, as well as experienced field geologists, and well able to write.


I'll leave the rest for now. If anyone reads this then we can discuss the rest.

#52 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 27 February 2010 - 10:45 AM

Contrary, the Bible tells us that the heavens were created of old.
You cannot argue with God.

2 Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"


"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." 2 Pet 3:5

You are looking at that scripture incorrectly.

Thank you for ignoring my picture. Fruit bats are herbivores. They eat plants, yet they have sharp teeth.


They are still bats...75% of bats are insectivores, the most of the rest are frugivores with a few remaining that feed on animals...such as vampire bats. Adaptaion does not dictate that all past evolutionary traits be eliminated. It is obvious that the canines are an evolutionary trait that is still useful.

Man has held on to his canines and incisors from his evolutionary ancestors.

Peace

#53 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 27 February 2010 - 11:29 AM

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." 2 Pet 3:5

You are looking at that scripture incorrectly.


You can't seem to grasp the truth that 6000 years is a long time.
Long ago does not mean billions of years.


They are still bats...75% of bats are insectivores, the most of the rest are frugivores with a few remaining that feed on animals...such as vampire bats. Adaptaion does not dictate that all past evolutionary traits be eliminated. It is obvious that the canines are an evolutionary trait that is still useful.


They are still herbivores. That means that canines can be used for eating fruit.
Why couldn't sharks have used their teeth to eat fruit?

#54 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 27 February 2010 - 01:03 PM

Do books require heat???

You've got to be kidding me.

The 2nd law says the integral of delta Q/T=-N.  Apply that to evolution.

View Post

With the statement you make above, I'm not sure you are worth answering. But as I ascribe to "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or miss-communication" I'll give you another chance.

Before we change the subject, perhaps you can first respond to these claims: All information is carried on information carrying media. (is this true?)

For information carrying media to be built, heat must be used. (perhaps it is built with no energy at all?)

For the information to change, additional heat must be used.(as is obvious, right?)

And for the information to change in a specific way, even more energy must be used.(here is where you need to object, offering us an alternative or a reason why this might not be true)

Unfortunately, without a system in place to direct this energy, the energy will disperse in the path of least resistance; either destroying the system that directs it or building the information media in a place unlikely to follow the specified course required by evolution.(or do you think undirected energy can build DNA?)

#55 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 February 2010 - 01:54 AM

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." 2 Pet 3:5

Your interpretation is a bit of a stretch.
This is a misconception...


Changing the word of God to fit your needs makes you the one who has the misconception.

Dating is based on several things...with physical matter itself, Radiometric dating of decay rates of particular elements is used. Dating of a 4.5 billion year old earth is based on the most ancient metamorphic rocks. Formation of metamorphic rock (When it was last molten and then has achieved closure temperature) determines the point that decay begins...not the beginning of the universe.

In Cosmology, dating is based on the speed of light, red shift and the known distance of the farthest objects.

Peace

View Post


But, true or not:

If all matter came from the bit bang, then all matter is really as old as the universe, right? So why does it not date to that age? Because age dating is flawed and always has been.

Example: The earth dates to 4.5 billion, right? But where did the matter to create the earth come from? The big bang, And how long ago did that happen? 13-15 billion year ago, right? So if the matter cam from the big bang that the earth formed from, why does the matter only date to when it cooled off? It's because dating markers can only be left after the matter cools. Not before. Which means the matter existed before then, it cannot be dated until it cooled. Knowing that problem means that dating methods of matter is actually hendered by it having to cool. So the real age of the matter is 13-15 billion years but it dates to 4.5 because of that dating problem that matter has to cool first.

Question: Did ir did not the matter to create the earth come from the big bang according to what you believe? So does that make it as old as the big bang, or not and why?

#56 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 February 2010 - 01:55 AM

6000 years isn't a long time?

View Post


He is changing the word to fit his needs for what he believes.

#57 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:05 AM

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." 2 Pet 3:5

You are looking at that scriputre incorrectly.
God is not a deceiver.

Peace

View Post


You are changing scripture.

And your answer about God being a deciever is what evos use. You are going to have to prove how God would be a deciever and liar by doing this.

One cannot be a deceiver if one says what he has done, and exactly how he did it.

Now why would God say: By the word of God the heavens were of old? It's because God knew the laws of physics. He was relaying that what He did does not go along with the laws of physics as we know. Now since God told us what He did, what part of what he did becomes a deception and why?

#58 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 07:19 AM

If all matter came from the bit bang, then all matter is really as old as the universe, right?


Yes, all of the atomic building blocks of matter are relatively the same age

So why does it not date to that age?


Because Radiometric dating only measures to the beginning of nuclear decay...after metamorphic rock has reached 'closure temperature'.

Because age dating is flawed and always has been.


Radiometric dating measures the minimum age of a measureable material (not all matter is a candidate for radiometric dating).

Example: The earth dates to 4.5 billion, right? But where did the matter to create the earth come from? The big bang...


Yes

And how long ago did that happen? 13-15 billion year ago, right?


Yes...13.7 billion years to be more precise.

So if the matter cam from the big bang that the earth formed from, why does the matter only date to when it cooled off?


Because that is how radioactive diffusion and 'closure temperature' work...once the rock reaches closure temperature, diffusion of radioactive isotopes basically ceases.

It's because dating markers can only be left after the matter cools. Not before.


Correct

Which means the matter existed before then, it cannot be dated until it cooled.


Correct

Knowing that problem means that dating methods of matter is actually hendered by it having to cool. So the real age of the matter is 13-15 billion years but it dates to 4.5 because of that dating problem that matter has to cool first.


Correct...most scientist would regard the 'solidification' of matter in the earth to be a good starting point for determining the 'minimum' age of the earth.

Prior to this, the earth would have been in a 'proto' state.

Question: Did ir did not the matter to create the earth come from the big bang according to what you believe?
So does that make it as old as the big bang, or not and why?


Yes, all matter originated at the 'Big Bang'.

The 'building blocks' of matter?...yes...relatively speaking.

Peace

#59 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:26 PM

You've got to be kidding me.
With the statement you make above, I'm not sure you are worth answering. But as I ascribe to "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or miss-communication" I'll give you another chance.

Before we change the subject, perhaps you can first respond to these claims: All information is carried on information carrying media. (is this true?)

For information carrying media to be built, heat must be used. (perhaps it is built with no energy at all?)

For the information to change, additional heat must be used.(as is obvious, right?)

And for the information to change in a specific way, even more energy must be used.(here is where you need to object, offering us an alternative or a reason why this might not be true)

Unfortunately, without a system in place to direct this energy, the energy will disperse in the path of least resistance; either destroying the system that directs it or building the information media in a place unlikely to follow the specified course required by evolution.(or do you think undirected energy can build DNA?)

View Post


This is not a 2nd law problem.

#60 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:40 PM

You are changing scripture.


I am not changing scripture...

NIV: "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

NASB: "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water.."

ESV: "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water..."

You are interpreting your KJV as saying the heavens were already old, when it is actually saying that the heavens existed long ago (indicating a place in time...not age).

Peace




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users