Jump to content


Photo

What If The Earth Were Old?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
61 replies to this topic

#41 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:11 PM

Jesus said to bless those who curse you. Why is it that i find this to be very good advice, yet I don't even claim to follow Jesus? Posted Image

Who do you want to bless who?

#42 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:37 PM

This is just a hypothetical question for the Young Earthers here. If, by some incredible, unimagined chance, it were to be shown undeniably that the Earth really is 4.5 billion years old, how would that change Christianity?


This is just a hypothetical question for the atheists here. If, by some incredible, unimagined chance, it were to be shown undeniably that the Earth really is six to ten thousand years old, how would that change Atheism?

#43 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:52 PM

Start over? How about you start with a rational response to the post I made.

Jesus said to bless those who curse you. Why is it that i find this to be very good advice, yet I don't even claim to follow Jesus? Posted Image


He blessed you with undeniable logic and knowledge... Are you now complaining about it, or simply quoting the Bible out of context?

#44 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 16 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

I will rephrase my original statement. When you observe a dog produce anything but a dog, let me know. Your next step... "But, evolution takes a long time, millllions of years, we will be dead by the time a dog produces a "non" dog."


This is a very common misconception. The Theory of Evolution has never, ever claimed that the sort of radical shift in phenotype you are proposing can or did take place in a single generation.


Yours is a common misdirection by atheists and macro-evolutionists to cover for their "evolution of the gaps". No non-macro evolutionist ever claimed that macro-evolution could happen in a single generation. What non-macro evolutionist claim (and rightfully so) is that there is absolutely NO gradual transitional evidence FOR macro-evolution.

#45 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:54 AM

This is a very common misconception. The Theory of Evolution has never, ever claimed that the sort of radical shift in phenotype you are proposing can or did take place in a single generation. We see speciation all around us, but the groups of animals which diverge still look remarkably like each other. They simply no longer breed with each other, so their descendants will continue to develop in different ways. The people who accept so-called "microevolution" but claim that speciation cannot occur are making two mistakes. First, they are imagining that evolution is something other than very small changes in a population over time......

.... And is that speciation due to (Which sometimes is just changing the name of a variant of an animal), due to genetic loss or do these new species show new complex genetic information being formed?

I should add that these newly found species often can cross breed without any problems and the off-spring is fertile as well in the examples of Python and Bitis species for example.

Furthermore I don't have any problem into a common ancestor or rather a common ancestor pair for Python and Bitis. They just multiplied and diversified. Just that I don't think they would turn into crocodiles or fish over generation. They remain within their specific type.

As for the age of the earth, I won't point to a date and I think the earth is far younger then generally believed for a number of reasons.
In my opinion the genesis text also points to a young earth, but I admit that our understanding of the text can be wrong.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#46 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:48 AM

Written history goes back 6,000 years. Any model before that has to make up something about mankind not 'feeling' like writing (i dont know what 'evolution' says about this). Population math alone would obliterate even 1,000,000 years (have not even bothered to do it).
  • de_skudd likes this

#47 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:37 AM

There'd also be geophysical and astrophysical limitations like changes in temperature, magnetic fields, erosion etc.

#48 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:24 AM

@Xanifred. Yes most Christians over the past 2000 year did not read the first 11 chapters of Genesis as n literal historical account. And yes it has only been done so in the last -+150 year. And it said to relies that there is Christians that do not know who Augustine is.
I what to congratulate you on your knowledge on the history of the Christian faith.

To answer your questions.
Would you see it as a threat to Christianity? - No
And yes. If you have a YEC approach to the bible.
If you look at the history of the YEC argument, it did not start with science it started in the court rooms of USA.

#49 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:14 AM

@Xanifred. Yes most Christians over the past 2000 year did not read the first 11 chapters of Genesis as n literal historical account. And yes it has only been done so in the last -+150 year. ....


What's the evidence for that statement?

#50 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:06 AM

I was just about to ask the same question Mark.

All I can see is that some of the early Christians did what many Christians are doing today - speculating whether or not a "thousand years as a day" had some kind of relevance to the genesis days, which is a far cry from not reading 11 chapters of Genesis as a literal historical account.

I took the time to research this matter and found one very early account of someone very central to this issue who did seem to take the Genesis account both literally and historically. He said: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"

Having said that, I don't think it is a good idea to base theology on what other people believed or speculated about. We have the word of God, and we also have the Counsellor to guide us into all truth.

#51 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:08 PM

"Brief History of Creationism"

http://ncse.com/crea...ory-creationism
http://en.wikipedia...._of_creationism

#52 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:20 AM

"Brief History of Creationism" http://ncse.com/crea...ory-creationism http://en.wikipedia...._of_creationism


What on earth are those links supposed to prove???

The fact that the word "creationism" was first coined at a time when the account of creation was under attack by naturalists was hardly surprising, and doesn't mean that before that time people did not believe in a literal and historical interpretation of Genesis.

In fact, you don't seem to have read the links you sent very carefully, since they contradict your claims:

"The most influential force on the history of creationism has been the Genesis creation narrative, which was accepted as a historical account until the advent of modern science."

"In the 5th century, Saint Augustine wrote The Literal Meaning of Genesis in which he argued that Genesis should be interpreted as God forming the Earth and life from pre-existing matter and allowed for an allegorical interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. For example: he argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. On the other hand, Augustine called for a historical view of the remainder of the history recorded in Genesis, including the creation of Adam and Eve, and the Flood. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that Christians should be willing to change their minds about it as new information comes up."

Crous, if you honestly think that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are allegorical, then why don't you do what no other proponent of such a view ever seems to do. Why not explain to us what reason there was to write an alegory that continues for a whole eleven chapters giving so many detailed accounts of what didn't really happen! And after doing that, please step through Genesis and point out the meaning of each of the "allegorical" events and explain them to me, because obviously I don't get it...
  • Calypsis4 and MarkForbes like this

#53 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 February 2013 - 02:20 AM

... Crous, if you honestly think that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are allegorical, then why don't you do what no other proponent of such a view ever seems to do. Why not explain to us what reason there was to write an alegory that continues for a whole eleven chapters giving so many detailed accounts of what didn't really happen! And after doing that, please step through Genesis and point out the meaning of each of the "allegorical" events and explain them to me, because obviously I don't get it...

Ad to that that Adam and Eve (Ask and Embla), creation and the flood are elements in many mythologies of the world. This isn't just a theme in Genesis.

#54 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:52 PM

What on earth are those links supposed to prove??? The fact that the word "creationism" was first coined at a time when the account of creation was under attack by naturalists was hardly surprising, and doesn't mean that before that time people did not believe in a literal and historical interpretation of Genesis. In fact, you don't seem to have read the links you sent very carefully, since they contradict your claims: "The most influential force on the history of creationism has been the Genesis creation narrative, which was accepted as a historical account until the advent of modern science." "In the 5th century, Saint Augustine wrote The Literal Meaning of Genesis in which he argued that Genesis should be interpreted as God forming the Earth and life from pre-existing matter and allowed for an allegorical interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. For example: he argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. On the other hand, Augustine called for a historical view of the remainder of the history recorded in Genesis, including the creation of Adam and Eve, and the Flood. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that Christians should be willing to change their minds about it as new information comes up." Crous, if you honestly think that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are allegorical, then why don't you do what no other proponent of such a view ever seems to do. Why not explain to us what reason there was to write an alegory that continues for a whole eleven chapters giving so many detailed accounts of what didn't really happen! And after doing that, please step through Genesis and point out the meaning of each of the "allegorical" events and explain them to me, because obviously I don't get it...


"Why not explain to us what reason there was to write an alegory that continues for a whole eleven chapters giving so many detailed accounts of what didn't really happen!"

Yeah. Amen to that. I want to see it, Crous."

#55 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:49 AM

Yeah. Amen to that. I want to see it, Crous."


That's right Cal, to suggest that the Genesis account is anything but historical and literal just doesn't make sense. God created the entire universe in six days, and days are the only things that I know of that are delimited by mornings and evenings. One might argue that they simply represent the start and end of long periods of time, but what would be the point of repeatedly saying that these periods had a start and an end? I don't think God repeats himself just for the sake of it. There is a point he is stressing here, but people aren't listening.

God did what he did no matter how it appears to us. When people try to use the argument that God would be "deceptive" to create a universe that looks older than it is they forget that God has no moral obligation whatsoever to create anything that satisfies our demands:

"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"?'" Rom 9:20

In other words, God, being God, has the right to make anything, in whatever shape, form or appearance he wants.

Ad to that that Adam and Eve (Ask and Embla), creation and the flood are elements in many mythologies of the world. This isn't just a theme in Genesis.


Good point Mark, I didn't know about that. Myths obviously come and go, but in order for Genesis and the flood account to have made such a global impact there must have been more substance to it than being a nice little story that other people passed around.

It would also be good to hear how proponents of a mythical Adam and Eve interpret the genealogy of Jesus. Where along the line did the mythical descendents of Adam turn into real people?

#56 Bond007

Bond007

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:43 AM

When people try to use the argument that God would be "deceptive" to create a universe that looks older than it is they forget that God has no moral obligation whatsoever to create anything that satisfies our demands:


Yes what TE, OEC and atheists are blinded to is man can be very good at confusing himself.

#57 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:47 AM

...Good point Mark, I didn't know about that. Myths obviously come and go, but in order for Genesis and the flood account to have made such a global impact there must have been more substance to it than being a nice little story that other people passed around. It would also be good to hear how proponents of a mythical Adam and Eve interpret the genealogy of Jesus. Where along the line did the mythical descendents of Adam turn into real people?

Sure the myth have changed over time, but certain patterns are recognizable all over the world:
http://www.teachingh...e04legends.html

http://www.scribd.co...hs-of-the-World
http://www.scribd.co...9/Creation-Myth

I admit, I'd have to get up with the reading, but I think my impression is overall right.

#58 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:19 AM

Yes what TE, OEC and atheists are blinded to is man can be very good at confusing himself.


Yeah, people tend to believe things that are in line with what they prefer to be true, or that suits their general way of thinking, but loving the truth means being willing to believe it even when it becomes "uncomfortable". Many of Jesus disciples followed him for a while, but when the things he said started to offend them, they rejected him and started to turn back (John 6:60-71).

This is exactly what is happening today.

#59 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:19 AM

Sure the myth have changed over time, but certain patterns are recognizable all over the world: http://www.teachingh...e04legends.html http://www.scribd.co...hs-of-the-World http://www.scribd.co...9/Creation-Myth I admit, I'd have to get up with the reading, but I think my impression is overall right.


Great links Mark, thanks!

Yes, it's quite a lot of reading, but if nothing else they seem to be fantastic references. Hopefully, if I will find time this weekend, I will try to at least get an outline of what the different stories contain and try to put them in perspective.

#60 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:08 PM

Even the oldest know written language, Ancient Chinese tells about the Genesis account. Its pretty cool how it clearly fits with Genesis.

http://www.bibleetno....fr/genesis.pdf
  • gilbo12345 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users