[_ Old Earth _] Please take this poll.

[polysci006]

Re: Who built the pyramids?

The 153 steps in the pyramid match the 153 fishes gathered in John 21:11, which may be a reference to all nations of the earth gathering into the kingdom of God.

The King's Chamber is on the 50th row of the stones; 50 was the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:11)

Sorry, I don't buy into numerological coinky-dinks. Art Bell has tons of these, too, "proving" the existence of aliens and government conspiracies.

The cornerstone at the top is missing, symbolic of Christ, the rejected chief cornerstone (Daniel 2:45; Psalm 118:22; Matt 21:42; Mk 10:12). The 5 sided cornerstone may represent the number of grace.

A cornerstone forms the foundation. A capstone is placed on top. Your ideas are not coherent.

The pyramid sits right on the longest latitude line and the longest longitude line with land above sea level.

I'm not even going to bother looking this one up, because I can guarantee that this is completely bogus. Due to the constant shifting of tectonic plates which make up the crust (outer surface) of the earth, no architectural feature will ever be consistently placed with any celestial alignment for more than a few centuries. Alignment with lines of latitude and longitude depend on a piece of information that did not exist until a few hundred years ago - the correct circumference of the Earth. Not only that, but the Equator is the only truly "fixed" line, since it is the north-to-south center; all measurements of degrees in longitude are completely arbitrary, currently based off of Greenwich, England. By the way, the Great Pyramid sits at 29 degrees, 58 minutes, 51.06 seconds north latitude.

All lines of longitude are the same in length; there is no such thing as a "longest longitude line."

Also due to tectonic shifting and the changes in global climate over millenia, "sea level" changes and is not constant.

Finding significance in any correlation between latitude, longitude, and sea level with any man-made structure in antiquity is proof positive of nothing more than a numerological goose chase, since all of these measurements are not static and/or man-made.

Even the North Star is not static, and changes over periods of millenia.

I'm sorry, but your claims are totally bogus.

 

[polysci006]

First of all, we have no assurance that the 'days' in Genesis were literal, 24-hour days. Second, even if they were, we have no indication that they were consecutive, and could have been separated by any amount of time.

The ability to think and reason is a gift from God; we are instructed in 1 John 4:1 to test the spirits, to see whether they are from God. In order to do this, we must have some ability to probe and question and understand the nature of God, or else we have no way to compare anything to Him. To put it another way, we can not sort out all of the widgets that are less than 2 inches long unless we know, without any ambiguity, what 2 inches actually is.

For God to create the world and then intentionally make it look billions of years older than it really is indicates willful deception; this is not a characteristic of God. Therefore, one can not argue that the earth is 6-10,000 years old and that God made it appear older to "confound the wisdom of man" unless one is also willing to argue that God is a liar and a deceiver.

We have many posts in this thread that are confusing cosmology with biology. How the universe (and subsequently, the Earth) was formed has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how the Earth was populated with life. I do not believe evolution has any place in this discussion on the age of the earth.

Personally, I find Big Bang cosmology to fit very well with the Genesis account concerning the creation of all matter and celestial objects in the universe. Considering the fact that God created and defined the programming, the physical laws and forces, of all creation, it is not outside the realm of possibility that He would choose to manifest creation through those physical laws and forces. It is true, God could also have simply miraculously spoken and matter congealed out of nothingness, but see above for my argument against God's deceitful nature, and please take into account that Genesis is an extremely vague description, most likely because it is merely a brief history of creation and is therefore insubstantial in the discussion of the fall and redemption of man.

 

[Dunzo]

Personally, I find Big Bang cosmology to fit very well with the Genesis account concerning the creation of all matter and celestial objects in the universe. Considering the fact that God created and defined the programming, the physical laws and forces, of all creation, it is not outside the realm of possibility that He would choose to manifest creation through those physical laws and forces. It is true, God could also have simply miraculously spoken and matter congealed out of nothingness, but see above for my argument against God's deceitful nature,

Why would he, a supposedly perfect being, create the universe through the big bang? Surely that is just as deceptive!

 

[polysci006]

Why would he, a supposedly perfect being, create the universe through the big bang? Surely that is just as deceptive!

Overlooking the fact that you're just here to be argumentative, it is only deceptive to those who have a rigid, literal, legalistic interpretation of Genesis 1; those people who believe that Creation takes nearly as long to read about as it did to be completed.

This is not to say that those people are ignorant or stupid - far from it. I simply believe that they have grown up around an idea that is much more limited in scope than the Bible actually describes.

 

[freeway]

I used to have a real hard time with the age of the earth... science say billion, bible says thousands.. this was a real problem for quite some time.. the more I began to search the more I came to believe that science was just wrong.."age of the earth" this was just one of the many question... why is there human artifacts inbedded in coal veins...if coal is in the area of 200,000,000 years old.. we choose everyday the path we want to travel... as for me Jesus is the path... His word the bible, is the answer...
as you can see I don't post much.. but read almost every day.... Love this site...

 

[polysci006]

I used to have a real hard time with the age of the earth... science say billion, bible says thousands..

No it doesn't. Man infers thousands based on geneology, but the Bible never says how old the Earth actually is.

why is there human artifacts inbedded in coal veins...

Got a citation for that? Just curious.

 

[freeway]

I used to have a real hard time with the age of the earth... science say billion, bible says thousands..

No it doesn't. Man infers thousands based on geneology, but the Bible never says how old the Earth actually is.

why is there human artifacts inbedded in coal veins...

Got a citation for that? Just curious.

yea if you google " human artifacts in coal" you'll get plenty

 

[Dunzo]

yea if you google " human artifacts in coal" you'll get plenty

That's not really going to cut it in a scientific debate, especially when the first results include christiananswers.net and AiG.

 

[Heidi]

What is your thoughts on the age of the earth, and what is your world view.

Since the truth isn't determined by a vote, then this thread is moot. ;-)

 

[polysci006]

Since the truth isn't determined by a vote, then this thread is moot. ;-)

It's just a way to generate conversation.

 

[freeway]

yea if you google " human artifacts in coal" you'll get plenty

That's not really going to cut it in a scientific debate, especially when the first results include christiananswers.net and AiG.

So let me get this right?! If it says "creation, or christian" you say its not science, that seems to be pretty narrow minded...
there is tons of scientific proof of creation if one would just look, it boils down to want you want to believe, the answers can be staring you in the face, if you don't want to see them you won't.. I know, I was an atheist for better of 20 years..its easy not to want to see... and if science was so 100% sure, why all the problems and debates with their "theory" and thats all it is.. they "science" still can't explain how we can to be...christians can :wink:

 

[Dunzo]

That's not really going to cut it in a scientific debate, especially when the first results include christiananswers.net and AiG.

So let me get this right?! If it says "creation, or christian" you say its not science, that seems to be pretty narrow minded...
there is tons of scientific proof of creation if one would just look, it boils down to want you want to believe, the answers can be staring you in the face, if you don't want to see them you won't.. I know, I was an atheist for better of 20 years..its easy not to want to see... and if science was so 100% sure, why all the problems and debates with their "theory" and thats all it is.. they "science" still can't explain how we can to be...christians can :wink:

I was mostly referring to the fact that he used google as a citation.
But yes, creationism is not scientific. And I have looked for evidence for creationism, and have not found any. In fact, I even start a thread requesting some. Clearly this is not narrow-mindedness.
If you could rephrase the rest of your post that would be excellent... currently it doesn't make sense.

 

[polysci006]

...it boils down to want you want to believe...

Now that's a double-edged sword if ever I saw one.

For the record, Google isn't a citation. Try a scholarly periodical, maybe. The Journal of Anthropology would be one place to check, perhaps, or any one of hundreds of geoscience journals.

Since Wikipedia is essentially the internet's version of a billion monkeys on a billion typewriters (anyone can get an account and create, add to, or edit the articles with information that may or may not be accurate), I ask that if you use it, you check the references that are provided in the articles and cite those rather than Wikipedia itself (or even follow the citations that Wikipedia's citations provide - follow the trail; you're looking for what's known as a primary source). Please note the reputation of anything you are citing before you cite it, too, as citing something that is widely known to be or obviously dishonest will severely hurt your reputation.

Hope this helps!

 

[freeway]

polysci006 said "Since Wikipedia is essentially the internet's version of a billion monkeys on a billion typewriters"

man that slays me.... I've never hear it explained that way before :smt038