And I think you are putting the ideas in the wrong order.
Reverse the order of your logic and I have no problem with it.
7 24 hour days and "in the 'times'when' the Lord God made the earth and heavens".
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[__ Science __ ] Man was in Pangaea
- Thread starter daddd
- Start date
Reverse the order of your logic and I have no problem with it.
7 24 hour days and "in the 'times'when' the Lord God made the earth and heavens".
Conjecture.Yes. The Grand Canyon was gradual. The scablands in Washington happened through cataclysmic change. Which is why they look very different. Two very different processes.
I've been there. These are my photos of the volcano from Johnson's Ridge. It's not a canyon at all. It's a gully. Unlike the Grand Canyon, which was carved out of rock, this was soft sediment that slumps after it's cut by less than 10 meters or so. And the gully doesn't meander. Can't because only old, slow rivers meander. The sinousity index of that gully and the river into which it runs is much less than 1.5. You do find braided channels in both the gully and the river, which is typical of fast-moving streams that are often flooded.
You can look here:
Google Earth
earth.google.com
We can make rhyolite in labs. It's the same stuff that granite is made of, but the crystals are so small, you can't distinguish them, unless it started to harden underground first. It takes a very long time for magma to cool so that granite is formed:
The data show that it can take millions of years. Some creationists think it could be less time. Here's a creationist site with a different opinion:
Given this tabular shape, it is a simple matter to model the cooling by conduction of a 3 km sheet of granitic magma.8 Based on conduction alone (i.e. ignoring the cooling effect of fluids) it would take only 30,000 years to completely solidify from the initially liquid magma.
Granite formation: catastrophic in its suddenness
Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.creation.com
Thirty thousand years doen't really help creationists, but I give them kudos for their honesty. They ignored the insulation of overlying rock, which would greatly reduce the cooling. This is why lava cools rather quickly outside the earth, but takes a very long time to cool if buried underground.
Oh and tell me again why you think it important that so much time has passed during the creation week?
Can you explain C14 in diamonds to me?
Can you explain C14 in coal to me?
Can you explain thorns in the coal to me?
Many old earth ideas are directly at odds with the Christian Bible... so how do you reconcile that?
Last edited:
Barbarian
Member
As you see, the "creation week" is a misinterpretation.
Not surprising. C14 is the result of radiation changing nitrogen to C-14.
147N + n → 14 6C + p
Not surprisingly, diamonds often have nitrogen inclusions:
The Most Common Impurity Found In Diamonds: Nitrogen – Coronet Diamonds
www.coronetdiamonds.com
And the radiation?
Naturally occurring radioactive material - Wikipedia
Coal is formed from decaying vegetable matter. Why is that surprising?
No, they are directly at odds with your new revision of the Christian Bible. How do you reconcile that?
Barbarian
Member
I prefer the traditional Christian reading.
Barbarian
Member
This is how the text tells us that the "yom" is not a literal morning and evening.
daddd
Member
Chapter two is a recap of what was already finished and done and over. Using the word to describe what was done is perfectly appropriate and accurate. Telling us in detail about the various days of that time in chapter one is where He spelled out the time involved. Just like chapter 2 is not a new creation order. It is a review of what was already a fait acompli
Nope.
Because thorns didn't exist until the fall of man... long after coal would have been formed millions of years ago.Not surprising. C14 is the result of radiation changing nitrogen to C-14.
147N + n → 14 6C + p
Not surprisingly, diamonds often have nitrogen inclusions:
The Most Common Impurity Found In Diamonds: Nitrogen – Coronet Diamonds
And the radiation?
Naturally occurring radioactive material - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Coal is formed from decaying vegetable matter. Why is that surprising?
When did I revise the Bible? I just read it as written.
As I described it is the traditional Christian reading.
What?????????
Because it says there was an evening and a morning... that would indicate it was not a normal day?????
Silliest idea I have heard on this entire site.
Barbarian
Member
Speaking of mornings and evenings before the Bible says there was a sun to have them, tells us that they were not literal days. Unless you think the Bible is wrong about when there was a sun. But I would rather accept it as it is.
Barbarian
Member
No. Even ancient Christians like St. Augustine were aware that the "days" of Genesis were not literal days. YE beliefs are a very modern revision of God's word.
Barbarian
Member
That's another addition to scripture. Nowhere does the Bible says that thorns didn't exist before the fall.
Barbarian
Member
In Genesis 1, it says that there were six "yom" of creation. In Genesis 2, it says it was in one "yom." So if you assume these were literal days, the Bible disagrees with itself. That being impossible, we know they can't be literal days.
daddd
Member
Let's look at that. Verses?
Why would you not accept what the Bible says.
Day and night without Sun, Moon or stars.
Literal days as the book says.
Not according to my learning.
Thorns and Thistles only mentioned after the fall.
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herb of the field;
Barbarian
Member
I'd be open to your evidence that nothing exists until it's mentioned in the Bible. What do you have?
Barbarian
Member
I'm accepting what it says. You're adding things.
Book doesn't say literal days. That's your addition.
Barbarian
Member
Read your Bible. Gen 2 says the heavens and earth were made in a day.