[_ Old Earth _] Why I am a Young Earth Creationist

[jwu]

muwth (mooth) (Strong's 4191):

a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB41.htm

I still don't see how this can be read as "beginning to die physically".


PS:

Genesis 1.29: Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the groundâ€â€everything that has the breath of life in itâ€â€I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Plants are alive too, aren't they? And by ripping them out of the ground and eating them they are killed.

 

[Vanaka]

The problem is that there's approximately no evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

problem is tha there is no evidence that its not,

but accually,there is some evidence,

like it prophecies are starting to come true:

the bible prophecies great natural disasters,

wich are happening;

huricane katrina and
the tunsami.

plus katrinas sisters.....

and threres probably more I dont know about,

also the bible prophecies abortion....which is happening.


and the bible is historicly correct,its science is correct,it even got Hygiene for crying out loud!!!!

No, the problem lies in the 'literal' interpretation of 'much' of the Bible.

Often times one has to forego literal translation of the words and look beyond to the 'meaning' of the words.

oh yeah,with that kind of reasoning you can justify all kinds of stuff,

you know what,I think chaps like you are dangerous,I sure that if I look forward into the "meaning" ill find justification for killing you dangerous poeple :roll:

"5 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'"
"In the beginning"...in the beginning of what? It doesn't say in the beginning of creation, which would be wrong either way, as that'd have to be the first day even in case of a literal interpretation.
Therefore it can't be understood the literal way.
I interprete "in the beginning" in this context to be anything that happened before the rise of human civilization. Just something that was long ago, but not a specific time.

oh my gosh!that is funny!

to bad its a load of ####

If you read it in CONTEXT(oh gee,that ones unheard of :roll: )


it says

"some pharisees came to interview him,and tried to trap him into saying somthing that would ruin him.
"Do you permit divorce?" they asked.
"Dont you read the scriptures?' he replied.
"In them is written that at the begining God created man and women"

obviously when it refers to in the begining,it is refering to when in the begining that they were created,sooo..........that wraps that up.

[quote:51ce5]And I see few scientist willing to offer their lives for what they believe. Yes, some die from accidental deaths associated with their study and experimentation, but this is not purposeful sacrifice, just accidents. One must admit that there is something really really deep for the followers of it to offer up their lives in sacrifice to it. And I'm not talking about sleeping pills or lethal injections. I'm talking about being nailed to a cross or being fed alive to lions.

Or like hijacking ariplanes and flying them into buildings? [/quote:51ce5]


LOLZ!

well genius,that wasn't christians,those were MOSLEUMS,there is a diffrence you know :roll:

anyhowz,thanks for the great laughz.

and if you are so uninformed as to not know the diffrence,then allow me to explain,


one,moslems hate CHIRSTIANS and JEWs

and really....I shouldnt have to say two and three,because your whole statement is really foundationless.

 

[Loren Michael]

The problem is that there's approximately no evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

problem is tha there is no evidence that its not.

not to get drawn into a trite debate, but... how would you go about looking for that kind of evidence? i can't "find" evidence that the koran isn't the word of god. there's no such thing. for something to enter the realm of rational consideration, there needs to be positive evidence for it- not negative evidence to an unprovabale. i can't prove that i'm not being remotely controlled by an invisible, insubstantial flying turtle. i can't prove that you're not being controlled by that same sneaky turtle.

it's not a problem for there to be no evidence that the bible is not the word of god, because it's foolish to look for that kind of evidence. we look for positives.

 

[Vanaka]

i can't "find" evidence that the koran isn't the word of god

.



because it isn't

it's not a problem for there to be no evidence that the bible is not the word of god, because it's foolish to look for that kind of evidence. we look for positives.

ooooo-thatsa pretty big statement,can you back it up :o ?

anyhow,as for looking for postitives.....your looking for only postitive batterys?......thats......promising,good luck and break a leg :-D

as for evidence,as you may have noticed,i edited my post with evidence.

 

[Loren Michael]

i can't "find" evidence that the koran isn't the word of god

.
because it isn't

no, by your logic, that would be favorable to the Koran's case.

it's not a problem for there to be no evidence that the bible is not the word of god, because it's foolish to look for that kind of evidence. we look for positives.

ooooo-thatsa pretty big statement,can you back it up :o ?

if someone has found evidence to the contrary of my turtle theory, i'd love to hear about it. until then, the logic of my statement stands on its own.

as for evidence,as you may have noticed,i edited my post with evidence.

i must have missed it. i keep on refreshing the page, but nothing in the way of evidence is showing up.

 

[jwu]

problem is tha there is no evidence that its not,

but accually,there is some evidence,

like it prophecies are starting to come true:

the bible prophecies great natural disasters,

wich are happening;

huricane katrina and
the tunsami.

plus katrinas sisters.....

and threres probably more I dont know about,

also the bible prophecies abortion....which is happening.


and the bible is historicly correct,its science is correct,it even got Hygiene for crying out loud!!!!

The prophecies are quite vague for the most part, and one can read lots of things into them. Predicting natural disasters isn't quite impressive. Furthermore, there were somewhat advanced civilizations around when it was written...hygiene wasn't exactly unknown to the mesopotamian and egyptian civilizations.
Furthermore, even if some prophecies are genuine, this proves exactly nothing in regards to the other things.

oh my gosh!that is funny!

to bad its a load of ####

If you read it in CONTEXT(oh gee,that ones unheard of )


it says

"some pharisees came to interview him,and tried to trap him into saying somthing that would ruin him.
"Do you permit divorce?" they asked.
"Dont you read the scriptures?' he replied.
"In them is written that at the begining God created man and women"

obviously when it refers to in the begining,it is refering to when in the begining that they were created,sooo..........that wraps that up.

Thanks for proving my point...when it refers to the "beginning when they were created", then that is not the same beginning as the one in "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", but e.g. the beginning of mankind.

 

[Vanaka]

The prophecies are quite vague for the most part, and one can read lots of things into them. Predicting natural disasters isn't quite impressive. Furthermore, there were somewhat advanced civilizations around when it was written...hygiene wasn't exactly unknown to the mesopotamian and egyptian civilizations.
Furthermore, even if some prophecies are genuine, this proves exactly nothing in regards to the other things.

acually the Egyptians were considered(at that time) advanced in their so called "Medical Knowlege" which was basicly rub donkey crap into your cuts and stuff.....there were a few other things I think,but donkey crap seemed to be the most commonly used(it was awaile ago so I'm a bit blurry on it)


I,believe it or not,learned this from somone I believe to be an athiest.

Thanks for proving my point...when it refers to the "beginning when they were created", then that is not the same beginning as the one in "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", but e.g. the beginning of mankind.

dude...you know what Gensis means?(in either latin or greek)it means the begining,and in the begining of the begining it says"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food:

30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.

31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. "

the SIXTH DAY OF CREATION!


now I suggust you stop using this argument,Its really weak,

as for

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
- Genesis 2:17
Since Adam didn't die on that day, death in the context of Genesis may not mean physical death, but rather spiritual death

no what its saying there is that you will be doomed to die,thats what it says in my translation and thats what its saying there,it doesent say when,it just says you will die,and he did die,the bible even told us when.

 

[jwu]

acually the Egyptians were considered(at that time) advanced in their so called "Medical Knowlege" which was basicly rub donkey crap into your cuts and stuff.....there were a few other things I think,but donkey crap seemed to be the most commonly used(it was awaile ago so I'm a bit blurry on it)


I,believe it or not,learned this from somone I believe to be an athiest.

Well...if they did that, then they did so for a reason. I doubt it though. However, the Egyptians even performed surgery.

dude...you know what Gensis means?(in either latin or greek)it means the begining,and in the begining of the begining it says "26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[snip]

now I suggust you stop using this argument,Its really weak,

And once again, that does not help your case at all - it once again merely proves my point that "in the beginning" as used by Paul does not refer to the absolute literal beginning of anything, but needs to be interpreted.

By the way, "the beginning of the beginning" is nonsensical.

no what its saying there is that you will be doomed to die,thats what it says in my translation and thats what its saying there,it doesent say when,it just says you will die,and he did die,the bible even told us when.

See? Then we have a case of the KJV being incorrect there. So much for "infallible"...

 

[reznwerks]

transformed

The problem is that there's approximately no evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

Perhaps you have never heard of the billions of people in history who have had their lives transformed by God through the Bible?

Billions? The reality is that many people have had their live transformed by many different things. Claiming God is just one of them.Many claim being transformed by Hinduism, Transendental meditaiton Alchocholics Anonymous, Islam Catholism, etc etc . Finding a code to live by or transforming negative behavior or emotions into positive is not evidence of God.

 

[Solo]

Re: transformed

The problem is that there's approximately no evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

Perhaps you have never heard of the billions of people in history who have had their lives transformed by God through the Bible?

Billions? The reality is that many people have had their live transformed by many different things. Claiming God is just one of them.Many claim being transformed by Hinduism, Transendental meditaiton Alchocholics Anonymous, Islam Catholism, etc etc . Finding a code to live by or transforming negative behavior or emotions into positive is not evidence of God.

Some have been born of God and the Holy Spirit conveys the evidence to the believer, while others have no idea what the evidence is because they refuse to see and hear the truth of God.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: transformed

[
Some have been born of God and the Holy Spirit conveys the evidence to the believer, while others have no idea what the evidence is because they refuse to see and hear the truth of God.

If genuine evidence is present it should be presentable. As I said making the claim is different than presenting the evidence or proof of God. Many people of different faiths make the same claim. Are they valid as well even though they might not acknowledge the "Holy Spirit? Or is God generic and no particular religion is required?

 

[Khristeeanos]

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

There is no way that someone can intrepret big bang and evolution here.

Think about how God made the earth before He made the stars!

Big bang and evolution teach the exact opposite!


The Bible is God's Word and It clearly teaches that the earth is about 6,000 years old. End of debate.

 

[Guest]

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

There is no way that someone can intrepret big bang and evolution here.

Think about how God made the earth before He made the stars!

Uh. Heavens. As in, like, stars, in the sky.

The Bible is God's Word and It clearly teaches that the earth is about 6,000 years old. End of debate.

It most certainly is not, no matter how much you desire that. Regardless of what Kierkegaard thought, faith carries less weight than objective fact. Everywhere we see that the earth is older than a mere six thousand years. We have physical evidence of Sumerian civilization that dates to 5500 BC. That is, for those of whom math is not a forte, over six thousand years old.

Literal creationism is wrong. I'm sorry if you don't like that, if it conflicts with your faith, but the universe is unconcerned with Hebrew folklore.

 

[bibleberean]

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

There is no way that someone can intrepret big bang and evolution here.

Think about how God made the earth before He made the stars!

Big bang and evolution teach the exact opposite!


The Bible is God's Word and It clearly teaches that the earth is about 6,000 years old. End of debate.

I agree,

Here is a whole slew of explanations that refute the evolutionists claims on
the age of the earth.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... ctive.html

Scientists have proposed numerous age estimation methods. Most systems promoted by Evolutionists involve radioactivity. Various radioactive elements are involved, including Carbon-14, Uranium-238, Thorium-232, and Potassium-40. By the way, it is important to understand that most rock strata "dates" were actually assigned long before the first use of radioactive age estimating methods in 1911.2

The Carbon-14 age estimating method is, at best, only useful for estimating the age of things that are thousands of years old, not millions or billions. And it does not work on rocks or thoroughly mineralized fossils; it is only useful for relatively well-preserved organic materials such as cloth, wood, and other non-fossilized materials. Other methods must be used to estimate the age of rocks and minerals. Two of the most widely-known systems are the potassium-argon method and the uranium-lead method.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-age.html

 

[cubedbee]

I agree,

Here is a whole slew of explanations that refute the evolutionists claims on
the age of the earth.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... ctive.html

No, there's a whole slew of misinformation that tries to dismiss dating methods by questioning their accuracy, based on isolated outddated mistakes. Notice the contradictory results they cite are from the 60's and 70s--if the methods were really completely and 100% invalid like you claim they are, why aren't some more recent examples cited? And it also ignores the fact that there are not just one, but literally a dozen radioctive methods, all of which use different assumptions, but all of which give the same old ages. One test could easily be wrong. But when a dozen independent test all confirm something, it would take a true miracle, an intervention from God (which would apparently be for the purpose of deception) in order to make every single dating method falsely say the Earth was millions/billions of years old. I don't believe such a miracle occurred--do you?

 

[bibleberean]

I will let people read the information and decide for themselves if they are outdated and invalid...

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-age.html

Here is another...

The Dating Game

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 1/game.asp

I for one find the information quite credible.

 

[reznwerks]

ready to give up?

I will let people read the information and decide for themselves if they are outdated and invalid...

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-age.html
I guess you are at least willing to concede that the earth is at least 19 million years old insted of 6000 yrs. At least that is what I read in your link.

Here is another...

The Dating Game

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 1/game.asp

I for one find the information quite credible.
Of course you found the site credible, it echoes your beliefs. However if the claims of Carbon 14 dating methods being all scewed up as this site claims it would be well known. Science would be hot on the trail for something else.You'll notice every example in the site you linked had the HIGH probablility of contamination of something else. How convenient it was not to mention this.

 

[bibleberean]

The earth isn't over 6,000 years old. I don't concede that at all.

All the disparity in dating proves is that the "dating game" evolutionists use has flaws and the information is not reliable when it comes to speculation of thousands, millions, and billions of years.

Evolutionists believe evolutionist views on their websites because they agree with their beliefs too.

I believe God and His word not evolution and man's word.

Nothing new...


Geological conflict
Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating
by Andrew Snelling

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eology.asp

 

[Khristeeanos]

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

There is no way that someone can intrepret big bang and evolution here.

Think about how God made the earth before He made the stars!

Uh. Heavens. As in, like, stars, in the sky.

I would like to point out that this happened on day 1 according to the Bible:

Genesis 1:1-5
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the first day.

Do we agree that God made the heavens and the earth on day 1? Good.

What happens on day 4:


Genesis 1:14-19
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lightsâ€â€the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the fourth day.

Did you see that?

It says that God made the stars on day 4, which was 3 days AFTER He made the earth!

How can evolution and big bang be true when it teaches that the stars were made millions/billions of years before the earth when the Bible has the earth made 3 days before the stars? :

[quote:2c69b]The Bible is God's Word and It clearly teaches that the earth is about 6,000 years old. End of debate.

It most certainly is not, no matter how much you desire that. Regardless of what Kierkegaard thought, faith carries less weight than objective fact. Everywhere we see that the earth is older than a mere six thousand years. We have physical evidence of Sumerian civilization that dates to 5500 BC. That is, for those of whom math is not a forte, over six thousand years old.

Literal creationism is wrong. I'm sorry if you don't like that, if it conflicts with your faith, but the universe is unconcerned with Hebrew folklore.[/quote:2c69b]

I just proved that it was true.

The Bible is God's Word and God told us that He created the earth in 6 days and that Adam and Eve were made at "the beginning."

The Bible also tells us in Luke that Jesus literal geanology goes back to Adam. The dates add up to be around 6,000 years.


Therefore....



.....




....



The earth is somewhat around 6,000 years old.

 

[reznwerks]

your site

The earth isn't over 6,000 years old. I don't concede that at all.
You referenced the site . I can only assume that when you do that , you agree with what it has to say.

All the disparity in dating proves is that the "dating game" evolutionists use has flaws and the information is not reliable when it comes to speculation of thousands, millions, and billions of years.
There is no disparity on dating as you have been told and certainly no agreement anywhere in mainstream science that accepts the earth as 6000 years old. Take a look at my other post where I linked a new method of testing being used since the 80's. THe strange thing about all these tests is that they all say the same thing.

Evolutionists believe evolutionist views on their websites because they agree with their beliefs too.
Beliefs have nothing to do with it. It is the evidence they present and the cross testing that makes the grade.

I believe God and His word not evolution and man's word.
It's not mans word it's how the evidence presents itself after being tested over and over. Putting your hand in a pail of water and saying it's dry doesn't make it dry.

Nothing new...


Geological conflict
Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating
by Andrew Snelling

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eology.asp
Right off the bat it states that if radiocarbon testing disagrees with fossil testing the fossil testing takes precedence. Could you please find out where that assumption is in fact practiced? I know your site said it but even I know that is assinine. Radiocarbon is a far more accurate testing than c14 because it has less chance of contamination.