Jump to content


Photo

This Has Been Annoying Me For Long Enough


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

#1 artistic crusader

artistic crusader

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philipsburg, PA

Posted 10 August 2011 - 12:15 PM

Hi my name is Adam and I'm new here.

So i just saw this special on the science channel called "curiousity" by Stephen Hawking.

He was trying to explain the big bang and answer the question of whether or not God exists.

He responded to the idea that something can't come from nothing by showing that particles in coffee beans can disappear and reappear from nothing.

He explained that there was no "before the big bang" because the big bang started as a black hole(which according to him can stop time). So because the black hole can stop time, there was no time before the big bang. He said that God can't exist because there was no "time" for him to exist. It always seems like some people believe the big bang just cause the universe is expanding.

What frustrated me the most was that I'm against the big bang but Hawking acted as if it was a proven fact.

What made me even more mad was that this site called "god and science.org" which is a site that really gave me hope to be a christian( I almost became atheist till I saw this) ALSO believes in the big bang and that the 6 days were a metaphor and that the flood wasn't really global.

I'm just sick of people choosing science over the bible and I wanted to hear it from a young creationist.

Here's what I believe

- no big bang
- no evolution

- 6 24 hr days
-flood was global
- take bible literally(including Genesis)
- the universe is "possibly" expanding but not because of the big bang.

- I don't know how old the earth is but I was thinking around 100,000 or more. Maybe even 1 million but not 4.6 billion to me. The numbers change daily.

Also if my grammar is bad, I'm sorry. I suffer from a joint disorder.

#2 Levi

Levi

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Auckland

Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:40 PM

Hi Adam!

The problem with people like Hawkings and and most other scientists is that they are completely materialistic. I have had this conversation with people a number of times and they just don't seem to either want to or are able to understand the concept of God transcending time.

It's a classic case of the created trying to create their maker, It might as well be a piece of carved wood Hawkings is talking about when he refers to God.

I feel myself that God would have had to have made the earth in the time frame of days because in order to have living things thriving the biosphere would have to be operating already. Without the biosphere life on earth could not exist. It's a catch 22 situation for evolutionists who make up all sorts of sci fi tales to try and get around.

Also from a scriptural point I always look to the end to find clues about the beginning and when the Lord returns he will 'turn deserts into gardens' a reverse of the entropy that has been taking place on the earth. He can do it in a matter of minutes I believe. If he can take matter from nothing, he can rearrange molecules as he pleases.

The biggest nasty about evolution is this: "if a man does not believe Moses or the prophets he will not believe in me, for Moses and the prophets all spoke of me" What better way to attack and corrupt a potential life giving believe in Jesus than to attack 'In the Beginning God'

About the getting angry part: Don't worry it happens to all of us, but don't let the sun go down on it! have a cup of tea and get over it, it's not your burden brother, Jesus takes this personal affront on Himself and He tells us to let it go! Enjoy your freedom in Christ and let your light shine!

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:37 PM

Hi my name is Adam and I'm new here.

So i just saw this special on the science channel called "curiousity" by Stephen Hawking.

He was trying to explain the big bang and answer the question of whether or not God exists.

He responded to the idea that something can't come from nothing by showing that particles in coffee beans can disappear and reappear from nothing.

He explained that there was no "before the big bang" because the big bang started as a black hole(which according to him can stop time). So because the black hole can stop time, there was no time before the big bang. He said that God can't exist because there was no "time" for him to exist. It always seems like some people believe the big bang just cause the universe is expanding.

What frustrated me the most was that I'm against the big bang but Hawking acted as if it was a proven fact.

What made me even more mad was that this site called "god and science.org" which is a site that really gave me hope to be a christian( I almost became atheist till I saw this) ALSO believes in the big bang and that the 6 days were a metaphor and that the flood wasn't really global.

I'm just sick of people choosing science over the bible and I wanted to hear it from a young creationist.

Here's what I believe

- no big bang
- no evolution

- 6 24 hr days
-flood was global
- take bible literally(including Genesis)
- the universe is "possibly" expanding but not because of the big bang.

- I don't know how old the earth is but I was thinking around 100,000 or more. Maybe even 1 million but not 4.6 billion to me. The numbers change daily.

Also if my grammar is bad, I'm sorry. I suffer from a joint disorder.


Welcome, my fellow creationist. Hawking does NOT know that time stops in a black hole. No one knows this. He's guessing just like He's guessing about God's existence. But if Dawkins really wants to know if time stops in a black hole then let him persuade NASA to send a craft to the very center of the Milky Way...with a series of timing mechanisms that could test such a hypothesis. But Dawkins, like nearly all of his ilk...assumes things and because of his prejudices calls those assumptions: s-c-i-e-n-c-e.


Best wishes.

#4 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 10 August 2011 - 08:05 PM

Hello Adam,

The evidence is so overwhelming against the big bang that a growing number of secular physicists are demanding the theory be scrapped (of course their secularism would lead them to want to find an alternative outside of God). Many of the problems with the big bang are listed in the following statement, that includes signatures from prestigious secular scientists:

www.cosmologystatement.org

Nevertheless, they will continue to teach this fable in the public schools, truth was never the agenda.

Fred

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:26 AM

Hi my name is Adam and I'm new here.

So i just saw this special on the science channel called "curiousity" by Stephen Hawking.

He was trying to explain the big bang and answer the question of whether or not God exists.

He responded to the idea that something can't come from nothing by showing that particles in coffee beans can disappear and reappear from nothing.


First thing you have to understand, is that appearing and disappearing is only a "visual" thing. They cannot prove that these things are not existing in another state or dimension. Can you see an atom? Just because you cannot see it does not mean it does not exist.

The first thing you have to realize dealing with science. you don;t accept everything at face value. They sell their ideas like a used car salesman will sell you a car. Is he going to tell you that the previous owner over heated it and ran it out of oil? Of course not. He's going to tell you a little old lady owned and only drove it to church and shopping. This is what science does as well. They will tell you all the good stuff while leaving out the bad stuff. Now is it feasible that you will believe them if they only tell you the good things? Then the good things is all you will hear.

He explained that there was no "before the big bang" because the big bang started as a black hole(which according to him can stop time). So because the black hole can stop time, there was no time before the big bang. He said that God can't exist because there was no "time" for him to exist. It always seems like some people believe the big bang just cause the universe is expanding.


A black hole maybe able to alter time, but to make a claim that it absolutely stops time is an assumption at best. Did they send a probe in there to find out? Of course not. This is what they assume because it "conforms" to the ideas of naturalism which is a existence without God. Conformism is not science.

What frustrated me the most was that I'm against the big bang but Hawking acted as if it was a proven fact.


This is how they convince the laypeople that don;t know and more than likely won't check it out. Sound confident, and that your idea is an absolute fact and people will believe you just because they respect you. It's the same play that politicians use.

What made me even more mad was that this site called "god and science.org" which is a site that really gave me hope to be a christian( I almost became atheist till I saw this) ALSO believes in the big bang and that the 6 days were a metaphor and that the flood wasn't really global.


Atheists are putting up parody sites all over the place. They will up front claim to be one thing when their main goal is to place doubt into you mind about the Bible. Because once you start to believe that the Bible is mainly metaphors, what ideas can they sell you next? Evolution.

I'm just sick of people choosing science over the bible and I wanted to hear it from a young creationist.


The thing you have ti understand is that everyone has a freewill choice to believe what they want. Our mission here is to give them another choice. If they refuse that's their choice. God does not want people in heaven who are there because they were forced, tricked, or went along so they could belong. Example: Would you want to be married to someone who really did not choose to marry you by their freewill choice? Salvation is a marriage covenant for a reason. The choice has to be made by freewill to do so, and the love for Christ has to be real.

Getting mad over rejection shows pride which gives Satan a tool to use against you. And when evolutionists figure out that you will get mad, they will feed that until you react unchristian like and then hold that against you. There is really not much you can do when someone insists on believing a certain way, or not believing at all. you can only present the truth to them and move on when rejected. Example: Christ never chased anyone around to get them to accept Him, neither did He ever get mad when people rejected Him. Even on the cross he said: Forgive them for they know not what they do. the same applies to what we do.

For if we waste time on people who in every way made it clear they are not interested, then we also waste time that could have been spent on finding someone who is interested. 90% of those who are on the web and come here have already made up their minds to disbelieve the Bible. But to even pull one soul out of Hell's grasp is worth it.

Here's what I believe

- no big bang
- no evolution

- 6 24 hr days
-flood was global
- take bible literally(including Genesis)
- the universe is "possibly" expanding but not because of the big bang.


This is what this ministry believes.

- I don't know how old the earth is but I was thinking around 100,000 or more. Maybe even 1 million but not 4.6 billion to me. The numbers change daily.

Also if my grammar is bad, I'm sorry. I suffer from a joint disorder.


If you are going to beleve this much of the Bible literally, why not go one more step and believe the bible time-line of 6,000 years as well? Here are some links to help you:

Age dating: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=640
Reverse evolution: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=200
Ica stones, are they real: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=616
Living fossils cause problem for fossil record: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=146
Where's the water for a worldwide flood: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294
Did the flood create the Grand Canyon: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=301
T-Rex blood found: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225
Human and Dinosaur foot prints: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=596
etc....

#6 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:58 AM

First thing you have to understand, is that appearing and disappearing is only a "visual" thing. They cannot prove that these things are not existing in another state or dimension. Can you see an atom? Just because you cannot see it does not mean it does not exist.

The first thing you have to realize dealing with science. you don;t accept everything at face value. They sell their ideas like a used car salesman will sell you a car. Is he going to tell you that the previous owner over heated it and ran it out of oil? Of course not. He's going to tell you a little old lady owned and only drove it to church and shopping. This is what science does as well. They will tell you all the good stuff while leaving out the bad stuff. Now is it feasible that you will believe them if they only tell you the good things? Then the good things is all you will hear.



A black hole maybe able to alter time, but to make a claim that it absolutely stops time is an assumption at best. Did they send a probe in there to find out? Of course not. This is what they assume because it "conforms" to the ideas of naturalism which is a existence without God. Conformism is not science.



This is how they convince the laypeople that don;t know and more than likely won't check it out. Sound confident, and that your idea is an absolute fact and people will believe you just because they respect you. It's the same play that politicians use.



Atheists are putting up parody sites all over the place. They will up front claim to be one thing when their main goal is to place doubt into you mind about the Bible. Because once you start to believe that the Bible is mainly metaphors, what ideas can they sell you next? Evolution.



The thing you have ti understand is that everyone has a freewill choice to believe what they want. Our mission here is to give them another choice. If they refuse that's their choice. God does not want people in heaven who are there because they were forced, tricked, or went along so they could belong. Example: Would you want to be married to someone who really did not choose to marry you by their freewill choice? Salvation is a marriage covenant for a reason. The choice has to be made by freewill to do so, and the love for Christ has to be real.

Getting mad over rejection shows pride which gives Satan a tool to use against you. And when evolutionists figure out that you will get mad, they will feed that until you react unchristian like and then hold that against you. There is really not much you can do when someone insists on believing a certain way, or not believing at all. you can only present the truth to them and move on when rejected. Example: Christ never chased anyone around to get them to accept Him, neither did He ever get mad when people rejected Him. Even on the cross he said: Forgive them for they know not what they do. the same applies to what we do.

For if we waste time on people who in every way made it clear they are not interested, then we also waste time that could have been spent on finding someone who is interested. 90% of those who are on the web and come here have already made up their minds to disbelieve the Bible. But to even pull one soul out of Hell's grasp is worth it.



This is what this ministry believes.



If you are going to beleve this much of the Bible literally, why not go one more step and believe the bible time-line of 6,000 years as well? Here are some links to help you:

Age dating: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=640
Reverse evolution: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=200
Ica stones, are they real: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=616
Living fossils cause problem for fossil record: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=146
Where's the water for a worldwide flood: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294
Did the flood create the Grand Canyon: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=301
T-Rex blood found: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225
Human and Dinosaur foot prints: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=596
etc....


Amen, Adam. I hope you take his advice.

#7 artistic crusader

artistic crusader

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philipsburg, PA

Posted 11 August 2011 - 05:07 PM

First thing you have to understand, is that appearing and disappearing is only a "visual" thing. They cannot prove that these things are not existing in another state or dimension. Can you see an atom? Just because you cannot see it does not mean it does not exist.

The first thing you have to realize dealing with science. you don;t accept everything at face value. They sell their ideas like a used car salesman will sell you a car. Is he going to tell you that the previous owner over heated it and ran it out of oil? Of course not. He's going to tell you a little old lady owned and only drove it to church and shopping. This is what science does as well. They will tell you all the good stuff while leaving out the bad stuff. Now is it feasible that you will believe them if they only tell you the good things? Then the good things is all you will hear.



A black hole maybe able to alter time, but to make a claim that it absolutely stops time is an assumption at best. Did they send a probe in there to find out? Of course not. This is what they assume because it "conforms" to the ideas of naturalism which is a existence without God. Conformism is not science.



This is how they convince the laypeople that don;t know and more than likely won't check it out. Sound confident, and that your idea is an absolute fact and people will believe you just because they respect you. It's the same play that politicians use.



Atheists are putting up parody sites all over the place. They will up front claim to be one thing when their main goal is to place doubt into you mind about the Bible. Because once you start to believe that the Bible is mainly metaphors, what ideas can they sell you next? Evolution.



The thing you have ti understand is that everyone has a freewill choice to believe what they want. Our mission here is to give them another choice. If they refuse that's their choice. God does not want people in heaven who are there because they were forced, tricked, or went along so they could belong. Example: Would you want to be married to someone who really did not choose to marry you by their freewill choice? Salvation is a marriage covenant for a reason. The choice has to be made by freewill to do so, and the love for Christ has to be real.

Getting mad over rejection shows pride which gives Satan a tool to use against you. And when evolutionists figure out that you will get mad, they will feed that until you react unchristian like and then hold that against you. There is really not much you can do when someone insists on believing a certain way, or not believing at all. you can only present the truth to them and move on when rejected. Example: Christ never chased anyone around to get them to accept Him, neither did He ever get mad when people rejected Him. Even on the cross he said: Forgive them for they know not what they do. the same applies to what we do.

For if we waste time on people who in every way made it clear they are not interested, then we also waste time that could have been spent on finding someone who is interested. 90% of those who are on the web and come here have already made up their minds to disbelieve the Bible. But to even pull one soul out of Hell's grasp is worth it.



This is what this ministry believes.



If you are going to beleve this much of the Bible literally, why not go one more step and believe the bible time-line of 6,000 years as well? Here are some links to help you:

Age dating: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=640
Reverse evolution: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=200
Ica stones, are they real: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=616
Living fossils cause problem for fossil record: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=146
Where's the water for a worldwide flood: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294
Did the flood create the Grand Canyon: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=301
T-Rex blood found: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225
Human and Dinosaur foot prints: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=596
etc....



No offense but 6000 just sounds too young for me. I believe that there was a gap. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden? How long was the gap between genesis and the rest of scripture?It never says. When it mentions the sons of sons of sons, then how long did those people live? As I recall people before the flood could live quiet a while.
Also I'm not one for using EXACT numbers outside of the bible if the number 6000 was never brought up. I believe in the flood and Adam and Eve because evolution seems to "downgrade" God. But the earth could be 1000 years or 1 trillion years. It still won't downgrade him. If the number 6000 was never in the bible then the age probably doesn't matter. Make any idea of the age if you want. How long it is doesn't matter How long it took to make it and HOW to make it does. Those links don't seem to exactly prove it's 6000.It more disproves the idea that it's 4.6 billion rather than PROVE it's 6000. Dinosaurs and men DID live together. But when I looked at the grand canyon, I wasn't thinking 4400 years. More like 10,000. You say 6000. I've heard other young creationists say 10,000. I actually saw you arguing in a thread about how the 6 days were indeed literal but then you said that you believe it took 6 days to create a 4.6 billion yr old earth. I actually heard someone say that it is 6000 years JUST BECAUSE it took 6 days which doesn't make sense.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 August 2011 - 05:38 PM

No offense but 6000 just sounds too young for me. I believe that there was a gap. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden? How long was the gap between genesis and the rest of scripture?It never says. When it mentions the sons of sons of sons, then how long did those people live? As I recall people before the flood could live quiet a while.
Also I'm not one for using EXACT numbers outside of the bible if the number 6000 was never brought up. I believe in the flood and Adam and Eve because evolution seems to "downgrade" God. But the earth could be 1000 years or 1 trillion years. It still won't downgrade him. If the number 6000 was never in the bible then the age probably doesn't matter. Make any idea of the age if you want. How long it is doesn't matter How long it took to make it and HOW to make it does. Those links don't seem to exactly prove it's 6000.It more disproves the idea that it's 4.6 billion rather than PROVE it's 6000. Dinosaurs and men DID live together. But when I looked at the grand canyon, I wasn't thinking 4400 years. More like 10,000. You say 6000. I've heard other young creationists say 10,000. I actually saw you arguing in a thread about how the 6 days were indeed literal but then you said that you believe it took 6 days to create a 4.6 billion yr old earth.


Posted Image

The problem with adding to what is not there or supported in the Bible means you make your own doctrine. If there were any added time and the bible does not support it then the problem is more than just that. It means that:

1) God was not powerful enough to keep His word true.
2) The Bible is nothing more than a deception that's full of metaphors and you have to add to or take away from to make it true.
3) Man is smarter than God because he can correct God's word where it's needed.
4) And God is not God because man knows more about what happened than God does.

Can you show me where the Bible supports your time-line views and you ideas about gaps?

#9 artistic crusader

artistic crusader

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philipsburg, PA

Posted 11 August 2011 - 06:53 PM

Posted Image

The problem with adding to what is not there or supported in the Bible means you make your own doctrine. If there were any added time and the bible does not support it then the problem is more than just that. It means that:

1) God was not powerful enough to keep His word true.
2) The Bible is nothing more than a deception that's full of metaphors and you have to add to or take away from to make it true.
3) Man is smarter than God because he can correct God's word where it's needed.
4) And God is not God because man knows more about what happened than God does.

Can you show me where the Bible supports your time-line views and you ideas about gaps?


I think you forgot something. The 2011 years after Jesus death. That would add it up to 8500 years. Not 6000 years. This graph is not the age of the universe. It's the age of the old testament. 4118 plus 2462 PLUS 2011 = 8591. Also I'm confused. You seemed pretty sure the earth was made in 6 days but is 4.6 billions years old. Also the fact that you stop at Jacob worries me. Have you forgotten A.D.?

But the bible doesn't say it's 6000 years old. It says 8600. I could care less how old it is. It won't matter. I'm fine with it being 8600. But it can't be 6000. If you add the creation event time bc with the flood event bc, all you'll get is how long the world was BEFORE Jesus(which is 6000). You still need to add the 2011 time AFTER Jesus. If we don't add the 2011 then that would be like saying Jesus wasn't born yet. If the dates that ikestor posted are right(which they are if they are from the bible) that still only gives us HALF the bible. We live in 2011 AD obviously. So we still need to add the AD to the bc. Which makes 8600 not 6000. He's right about the 6000..... If we were actually living at that time. But we're not, we're 2011 years. So we need to add those. Simple. That's not even extra bible stuff. Unless you're insane enough to think it's not 2011 and we still live in AD 1.( I don't see how though since the bible was finished before 2011 so any time after is fine). If so then you're advice means nothing to me. That would be like someone saying 2+2= goldfish.

#10 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 11 August 2011 - 06:53 PM

Artistic Crusader:

In the final analysis you are either going to believe God and His Word about age or you will believe some extrabibilical source. But you can't have it both ways.Either you will trust that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture to accurately descibe both time and events as found in the text or you will reject what it says in favor of human opinion.

God's Word is infallible and without error in its teachings. Man's opinion is just that...mere opinion; sometimes true and sometimes false. But the things you have mentioned that are troubling you about dates have a good answer both from scripture and from the data available to us. What I am saying is that, at bottom line, and after all things considered it is scripture which is seen to be truthful about the age of the earth in the compilation of dates and ages as Ikester posted above.

Why should we doubt that God inspired it even if modern scholarship says its wrong? Jesus confirmed that all that Moses taught is true (Luke 24). Do you believe Him? I believe Jesus and I believe Moses and the prophets were correct and the skeptics are in error.

#11 artistic crusader

artistic crusader

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philipsburg, PA

Posted 11 August 2011 - 07:12 PM

Artistic Crusader:

In the final analysis you are either going to believe God and His Word about age or you will believe some extrabibilical source. But you can't have it both ways.Either you will trust that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture to accurately descibe both time and events as found in the text or you will reject what it says in favor of human opinion.

God's Word is infallible and without error in its teachings. Man's opinion is just that...mere opinion; sometimes true and sometimes false. But the things you have mentioned that are troubling you about dates have a good answer both from scripture and from the data available to us. What I am saying is that, at bottom line, and after all things considered it is scripture which is seen to be truthful about the age of the earth in the compilation of dates and ages as Ikester posted above.

Why should we doubt that God inspired it even if modern scholarship says its wrong? Jesus confirmed that all that Moses taught is true (Luke 24). Do you believe Him? I believe Jesus and I believe Moses and the prophets were correct and the skeptics are in error.


But the bible doesn't say it's 6000 years old. It says 8600. I could care less how old it is. It won't matter. I'm fine with it being 8600. But it can't be 6000. If you add the creation event time bc with the flood event bc, all you'll get is how long the world was BEFORE Jesus(which is 6000). You still need to add the 2011 time AFTER Jesus. If we don't add the 2011 then that would be like saying Jesus wasn't born yet. If the dates that ikestor posted are right(which they are if they are from the bible) that still only gives us HALF the bible. We live in 2011 AD obviously. So we still need to add the AD to the bc. Which makes 8600 not 6000. He's right about the 6000..... If we were actually living at that time. But we're not, we're 2011 years. So we need to add those. Simple. That's not even extra bible stuff. Unless you're insane enough to think it's not 2011( I don't see how though since the bible was finished before 2011). If so then you're advice means nothing to me.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:14 PM

But the bible doesn't say it's 6000 years old. It says 8600. I could care less how old it is. It won't matter. I'm fine with it being 8600. But it can't be 6000. If you add the creation event time bc with the flood event bc, all you'll get is how long the world was BEFORE Jesus(which is 6000). You still need to add the 2011 time AFTER Jesus. If we don't add the 2011 then that would be like saying Jesus wasn't born yet. If the dates that ikestor posted are right(which they are if they are from the bible) that still only gives us HALF the bible. We live in 2011 AD obviously. So we still need to add the AD to the bc. Which makes 8600 not 6000. He's right about the 6000..... If we were actually living at that time. But we're not, we're 2011 years. So we need to add those. Simple. That's not even extra bible stuff. Unless you're insane enough to think it's not 2011( I don't see how though since the bible was finished before 2011). If so then you're advice means nothing to me.


You are reading the graph wrong. It says that creation happened 4118 B.C. You add 4118 to 2011 and you get 6129 years since creation. Each number on the graph is how much time you have to go back in B.C. for the event.

Example:
1) The flood you have to go back from zero B.C. to 2462 B.C.
2) Creation you have to go back from zero B.C to 4118 B.C.

In each comparison it's not adding time to each number because each number's starting point is the same, zero B.C.. Not from the point of the flood to creation as you doing. So you don't add the flood year to the creation year.

Easier example: What you are doing is saying that the graph says that to get to creation you have to: zero B.C. to the flood (2462 years back). then add to creation (4118 years back) then add our time (2011).

The graph's starting point for both measurements in time is zero B.C.. So you don;t add creation and the flood and our time to get your answer. You add:

1) 2462 + 2011 = 4473 years ago the flood happened.
2) 4118 + 2011 = 6129 year ago creation happened.

Also, the Bible is very capable of expressing a million:

gen 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

The Bible would also have the ability to express 1 billion because 1000 x 1 million = 1 billion.

Here's a question that will help you set things into perspective. Age dating dates the age, right? But does age dating prove the passage of time? Nope. So you can only "assume" that this amount of time passed because the age says so. But you cannot prove that the laws that allowed this aging to happen the way it does stayed the same from the beginning.

Now imagine for a minute that both age and time are 2 separate processes. Under the current laws of physics they are locked and act as one process (time passes age increases). But what if at one point in time age was not locked to time and therefore was not controlled by it (time passes age stays the same). 2 separate processes one no longer controlled by the passing of time. So age no longer increases even though time passes. Time minus the aging process = infinite time that would contain infinite beings.

Now what caused age to be locked into time which started the aging process? The first sin. So everything before the first sin on the 6th day was under the laws of infinite time and age that "never" increases.

#13 artistic crusader

artistic crusader

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philipsburg, PA

Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:37 PM

You are reading the graph wrong. It says that creation happened 4118 B.C. You add 4118 to 2011 and you get 6129 years since creation. Each number on the graph is how much time you have to go back in B.C. for the event.

Example:
1) The flood you have to go back from 0 B.C. to 2462 B.C.
2) Creation you have to go back from 0 B.C to 4118 B.C.

In each comparison it's not adding time to each number because each number's starting point is zero B.C.. Not from the point of the flood to creation as you doing. So you don't add the flood year to the creation year.



#14 artistic crusader

artistic crusader

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philipsburg, PA

Posted 11 August 2011 - 09:18 PM

You are reading the graph wrong. It says that creation happened 4118 B.C. You add 4118 to 2011 and you get 6129 years since creation. Each number on the graph is how much time you have to go back in B.C. for the event.

Example:
1) The flood you have to go back from zero B.C. to 2462 B.C.
2) Creation you have to go back from zero B.C to 4118 B.C.

In each comparison it's not adding time to each number because each number's starting point is the same, zero B.C.. Not from the point of the flood to creation as you doing. So you don't add the flood year to the creation year.

Easier example: What you are doing is saying that the graph says that to get to creation you have to: zero B.C. to the flood (2462 years back). then add to creation (4118 years back) then add our time (2011).

The graph's starting point for both measurements in time is zero B.C.. So you don;t add creation and the flood and our time to get your answer. You add:

1) 2462 + 2011 = 4473 years ago the flood happened.
2) 4118 + 2011 = 6129 year ago creation happened.

Also, the Bible is very capable of expressing a million:

gen 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

The Bible would also have the ability to express 1 billion because 1000 x 1 million = 1 billion.

Here's a question that will help you set things into perspective. Age dating dates the age, right? But does age dating prove the passage of time? Nope. So you can only "assume" that this amount of time passed because the age says so. But you cannot prove that the laws that allowed this aging to happen the way it does stayed the same from the beginning.

Now imagine for a minute that both age and time are 2 separate processes. Under the current laws of physics they are locked and act as one process (time passes age increases). But what if at one point in time age was not locked to time and therefore was not controlled by it (time passes age stays the same). 2 separate processes one no longer controlled by the passing of time. So age no longer increases even though time passes. Time minus the aging process = infinite time that would contain infinite beings.

Now what caused age to be locked into time which started the aging process? The first sin. So everything before the first sin on the 6th day was under the laws of infinite time and age that "never" increases.



What verse in the bible explains? Can you give me one that explains this age/ time difference? How long was age NOT locked in this state? Does this mean Adam and Eve could live forvever had they not sinned? Also how was the sin on the 6th day? What about the 7th one when God rested? How could God punish them if he didn't even rest yet? It says he punished them AFTER the 7th day. It never says he punished them on the 7th or 6th. It never actually says, WHEN he punishes them actually.

#15 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 11 August 2011 - 09:59 PM

Hi my name is Adam and I'm new here.

I'm just sick of people choosing science over the bible and I wanted to hear it from a young creationist.

Hi Adam! I can tell you this. Young Earth Creationism was the start of my softening toward Christianity. Believing that the Bible should be taken literally is what finally got through to me. Those people who were saying that Christ had already came invisibly and that there were two different groups of Christians were always choosing verses to take symbolically. Well, I am a child of God and their symbolic interpretation will keep me from Him no more!

It always seems like some people believe the big bang just cause the universe is expanding.

The Bible tells us that God stretched out the heavens. That is an explanation of an expanding universe that we can put our trust in. Try googling creation cosmology and you will find articles on creationists sites that give plausible alternatives to the Big Bang.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 August 2011 - 10:10 PM

What verse in the bible explains? Can you give me one that explains this age/ time difference? How long was age NOT locked in this state? Does this mean Adam and Eve could live forvever had they not sinned? Also how was the sin on the 6th day? What about the 7th one when God rested? How could God punish them if he didn't even rest yet? It says he punished them AFTER the 7th day. It never says he punished them on the 7th or 6th. It never actually says, WHEN he punishes them actually.


2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

In the theory of time dilation, the faster you go the slower time passes. Which also means there is a point that time will stop, right? But this would also mean that there is a dimension that exist where time has no effect. Or would that be that time passes and aging has not effect. If you turn the verse above into a math equation the answer is that Heaven is 365,000 times faster than we are on earth.

Now you might say that time does not exist in Heaven, and you would be wrong.
rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

So for 6 days everything was sped up except time. A dimension that is 365,000 times faster than our own would explain why we cannot see it. How God and His angels can be everywhere at once, and know everything we do.

#17 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 11 August 2011 - 10:54 PM

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

In the theory of time dilation, the faster you go the slower time passes. Which also means there is a point that time will stop, right? But this would also mean that there is a dimension that exist where time has no effect. Or would that be that time passes and aging has not effect. If you turn the verse above into a math equation the answer is that Heaven is 365,000 times faster than we are on earth.


You've got your theory wrong, it's not that "As you go faster, time goes slower". It's that two observers who are moving relative to each other will perceive differences between each other's clocks. If you and I go past each other very quickly, it will look to me as if your clock is moving slower than mine and it will look to you as though my clock is moving slower than yours. It does not mean that, for us within our own reference frame, time actually goes any slower.

#18 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:09 PM

You've got your theory wrong, it's not that "As you go faster, time goes slower". It's that two observers who are moving relative to each other will perceive differences between each other's clocks. If you and I go past each other very quickly, it will look to me as if your clock is moving slower than mine and it will look to you as though my clock is moving slower than yours. It does not mean that, for us within our own reference frame, time actually goes any slower.


Wrong:
http://hyperphysics....tiv/airtim.html

#19 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:15 PM

Wrong:
http://hyperphysics....tiv/airtim.html


The key phrase in the description of the experiment:

Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory,

. Please understand, I'm not trying to say that it's impossible for Heaven to be an alternate dimension, or one that moves differently to us, merely that the way you're applying relativity theory to this dimension isn't correct.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:22 PM

The key phrase in the description of the experiment: . Please understand, I'm not trying to say that it's impossible for Heaven to be an alternate dimension, or one that moves differently to us, merely that the way you're applying relativity theory to this dimension isn't correct.


That's your opinion. No one has ever had a problem before with this, and I have put it on more than one forum and posted it here several times. So do you know something that no one else seems to? Do you have some type of education in this field that would make you an expert on the subject that we should take your word for it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users