[_ Old Earth _] 6000 Year-Old Earth a Scriptural Concept?

[Deep Thought]

The following sections all contain strawmen, inaccuracies and misconceptions:

Science arrives at their conclusions, by disbelief in anything else. They form a theory, they can't prove either, its all according to what they want it to be. But I certainly know no Alien made me, or a lightning bolt didn't strike a mud-puddle, or some comet didn't dump a bunch of star-dust that started life. These are all the absurd creations, of atheistic science.

I know God is real, why! because he gave me the faith to believe it. That's something science can't believe, because they have no faith. So nether! do I have any faith in their 100,000,000,000 year old earth theory.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, I'd honesty suggest you need to educate yourself with what evolution and science actually is.

 

[BobRyan]

Re:

Well, after questioning my original view of the time spent living in Egypt and the time spent living under slavery in Egypt, I came up with the same basic answer: 400 years under slavery but 430 years total living in Egypt (and possibly Canaan?). The passages which state this clearly can be found in Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40. Unlike these passages, I don't believe the Bible ever states clearly how old the world is or how old human civilization is.

1. The bible record is pretty clear on the ages before the flood -- so a 1600 year date for the flood after the fall of Adam is not a questionable view from a Bible- POV.

2. even if you add 200 years after every name in Genesis - post flood you are not going to get to 4 billion years. or even 4 million years.

3. The evening-morning sequence in Gen 1:2-2:4 is air-tight when you compare it to the summary of those same literal 7 days given in Exodus 20:8-11 encoded into LAW. "SIX DAYS you shall labor and do all your work... for in SIX Days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them...".

The timeline is fixed between Gen 1 and Exodus 20 showing that the 7 day week in Genesis 1 is the same as the 7 day week for humans at Sinai.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The following sections all contain strawmen, inaccuracies and misconceptions:

Science arrives at their conclusions, by disbelief in anything else. They form a theory, they can't prove either, its all according to what they want it to be. .

i agree that is not a description of science -- it is a description of atheist darwinists and those who believe the dogmas and doctrines of those religionists.

Bob

 

[Deep Thought]

The following sections all contain strawmen, inaccuracies and misconceptions:

Science arrives at their conclusions, by disbelief in anything else. They form a theory, they can't prove either, its all according to what they want it to be. .

i agree that is not a description of science -- it is a description of atheist darwinists and those who believe the dogmas and doctrines of those religionists.

Bob

Bzzzz! You just committed the same errors as Samuel.

 

[BobRyan]

Was that last post supposed to "say someting"??

an interesting sound -- but where is the light and substance in it?

Bob

 

[proponent]

He pointed out that you made the same errors as Samuel. You made a strawman argument and misconceptions, leading you to a false conclusion. If science arrived at their conclusions by "disbelief in anything else" then scientific knowledge would never expand, yet we know that isn't true.

 

[BobRyan]

My point was that it is NOT a description of science -- for reasons you just observed -- but it IS a description of atheist darwinism that starts with the premise "there is no god" and proceed to discover science support for that "disbelief in God". As you pointed out the "disbelief" starting point is not a basis for "good science".

I am simply agreeing and showing how atheist darwinism is plagued by that problem since this is their starting point.

My starting point is not "disbelief that atheist darwinists exist" my starting point is that an argument in science that says "I will not follow the data where it leads if it leads to a young earth or world-wide flood or design because -- there is no God" is not real science. It is religion.

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

My point was that it is NOT a description of science -- for reasons you just observed -- but it IS a description of atheist darwinism that starts with the premise "there is no god" and proceed to discover science support for that "disbelief in God". As you pointed out the "disbelief" starting point is not a basis for "good science".

I am simply agreeing and showing how atheist darwinism is plagued by that problem since this is their starting point.

My starting point is not "disbelief that atheist darwinists exist" my starting point is that an argument in science that says "I will not follow the data where it leads if it leads to a young earth or world-wide flood or design because -- there is no God" is not real science. It is religion.

Bob

Wow, that's priceless. The data does not lead to a young Earth or a world-wide flood. People used to believe that before modern science has showed both to be completely false. Creationists follow misguided data as long as it doesn't interfere with their out dated views of the Earth. Creationism and it's retarded cousin ID are both religion, and have been proven as such.

 

[BobRyan]

My point was that it is NOT a description of science -- for reasons you just observed -- but it IS a description of atheist darwinism that starts with the premise "there is no god" and proceed to discover science support for that "disbelief in God". As you pointed out the "disbelief" starting point is not a basis for "good science".

I am simply agreeing and showing how atheist darwinism is plagued by that problem since this is their starting point.

My starting point is not "disbelief that atheist darwinists exist" my starting point is that an argument in science that says "I will not follow the data where it leads if it leads to a young earth or world-wide flood or design because -- there is no God" is not real science. It is religion.

Bob

Wow, that's priceless.

Proof that Jim can not possibly be wrong 100% of the time.

The point stands.

The data does not lead to a young Earth or a world-wide flood.

A "scriptural concept" -- show me the text of scripture indicating NO FLOOD and NO 6 day creation week!

Or did you really go so far as to forget the entire topic of the thread.

IF on the other hand you wanted to discuss sedimentation rates of major river deltas and Palonium radio haloes or the magnetic field of the earth etc all showing a young earth starting point -- feel free to start a thread on it. Title it something like "SCIENCE supporting YEC" or maybe you wish to take the atheist side instead --- then call it "SCIENCE opposing the Word of God on the age of the earth" either way -- it is a different subject entirely.

People used to believe that before modern science has showed both to be completely false.

Wrong -- again.

Modern science does not "interpret the scriptural concept" and has come up with nothing more than "guesswork" having some data in support of a young earth and some guesswork in support of old rocks.

The issue though of geologic dating methods and the rapid concentration of daughter product in radioactive decay sequences over time -- is not the "title of the thread" and you have given no evidence in either case for your wild claims.

Why not post "substance" instead?

Why not notice the topic of the thread is in fact "scriptural concept". You have to read the Bible to know what it says. you have to MAKE a Bible argumet on a Bible topic-thread IF your hope is to support your wild conclusions with "evidence".

See? Logic and reason has to be a key part of the post or it just doesn't work.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Points I should make before the discussion begins:

1. They did not use the Gregorian Calendar so many thousands of years ago.
2. I hold to the day-age interpretation of Genesis.
...

1. The question "is the 6000 year-old Earth" scriptural is not addressed by the above because no "scripture evidence" is referenced at all.

2. The Roman Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar have already been reconciled - that is "science fact" so we can go back to Roman times (and in fact before that time as well) and do calculations to our own Calendar system.

3. The Exodus 20 link to the account of Creation given in Gen 1:2-2:4 makes it clear that the earth was formatted to support life AND all life on earth was created in a literal 7 day week with the seventh-day being a memorial of that creation event. Hence our 7 day week today.

4. When God thundered His Ten Commandments from Sinai - as we see recorded in Exodus 20 -- He summarized His own creative work in the account given in Gen 1:2-2:4 showing that the days (yom) of Genesis were the same as the that of Israel at sinai in the "statement of law" given in Ex 20:8-11. No escaping that Bible point.

So when we ask "is it scriptural" to believe what the Bible says -- the answer is "yes".

If the desire at some point is to find out how actual science supports that view - you would need a thread with that as the actual subject.

It is "instructive" that you never find Christians who prefer darwinism over the Bible to have very much interest in a topic like this one - IF that topic is REALLY discussing "Bible evidence". They "seem" to know nothing about it at all.

Bob