User Tag List

Page 103 of 118 FirstFirst ... 35393100101102103104105106113 ... LastLast
Results 1,531 to 1,545 of 1765

Thread: Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

  1. #1531
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,893
    Thanks
    21,517
    Thanked 6,163 Times in 3,921 Posts

    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147595
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    First...the NKJV being closet to the original manuscripts...LOL
    Please don't misrepresent what I clearly said.

    I DID NOT SAY "original manuscripts."

    I SAID "the Hebrew manuscripts we have today."

    Tagging @john w RE: "Original Manuscripts"

    Second, length of a day is relative to the object revolving which results in one rotation. There was light in the first "day". What sphere was created on day 1 that we are able to deduce 24 hours?
    Please explain why "day one" cannot mean a 24-hour period given the context of the verse, which says "a day, one" in Hebrew, which is not how it refers to days 2 through 7 ("second", "third", etc). In other words, you have to explain how billions of years fits into the phrase "day one," and not the phrase "the first day."

    Day is not meant to be a literal 24 hour earth day. You demand it,
    No. Scripture demands it.

    but God doesn't demand it.
    Yes, He does. "[a] day[,] one."

    Peter tells us that with God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.
    Peter is not talking about how God experiences time. He's talking about longsuffering God is and powerful He is.

    "A thousand years is as a day," is describing how patient God is, that He can wait a thousand years for something, and it would only be like He waited one day.

    "A day is as a thousand years," is describing how powerful God is, that He can do things in one day that would, in comparison, take man a thousand years (which is to say, that He can do the impossible, because no man has ever lived that long).

    If you disagree with that assessment of that passage, before replying, go read the verses that surround that passage, then try to assert it does not mean what it is clearly talking about.

    God is not constricted by the limitations you are trying to enforce.
    The only one putting limitations on God here is you, by saying that God did not do what He said He did in the amount of time He said He did it in. You're limiting God to billions of years, instead of letting Him say six days.

    The area we both agree on is that God created. From nothing, God created something. Therefore God is eternal because...ex nihilo, nihilo fit.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    George Affleck (July 12th, 2018),way 2 go (July 12th, 2018)

  3. #1532
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,893
    Thanks
    21,517
    Thanked 6,163 Times in 3,921 Posts

    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147595
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    The Bible is correct when it says six days. You are incorrect when you demand those days be 24 hours.
    Jesus demanded that it be 24 hours, because He said "At the beginning of creation God made them male and female."

    Day 6 is at the beginning of creation if "day" means 24 hours. Day 6 is near the end of creation, or at best the middle of creation, if Day means "billions of years."

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    George Affleck (July 12th, 2018),Stripe (July 12th, 2018),way 2 go (July 12th, 2018)

  5. #1533
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,069
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked 9,997 Times in 7,459 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    You saw the link I posted that dealt with the starlight problem, yes? If not, I'll post it again.
    Yeah, I read it. Still not satisfied.

    EDIT: Though that might be due to my head getting fuzzed by all the maths.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2018)

  7. #1534
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    680
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 109 Times in 97 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    13145
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    It's an entertaining way to describe the situation, but it's not scientifically satisfying.
    Why not? My view permits science to follow its nose, and to report on its findings freely. It only requires that God performed some sort of miracle in creating everything in six days, what looks to be, for now, at least the majority report is, it looks like over 13 billion years worth of time's elapsed from the beginning.

    "Whatever," I say. I know it started within the last 10,000 years. That it looks older is precisely parallel to God creating Adam and Eve as grown adults, which is something we all believe, and that nobody has trouble with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Also, it assumes the veracity of a Big Bang cosmology. I think that paradigm is fallible and would hunt for an idea that is consistent with "six days."
    I think that in order to create everything in six days, God had to reverse engineer from what He wanted the earth to be, to what the universe that's required to support the earth needed to be, and He made all of that, just for the Garden. The farthest stars and galaxies and whatevers, all contribute to this planet, to human life, in immeasurably small, but still definite ways. I don't believe He created anything without purpose.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    As yet, I haven't read anything that robustly deals with the starlight problem. It remains the greatest challenge I know of to the YEC position.
    Can you sum up that problem? Is it that we gather that star light must have been traveling for all that time, or something like that?

    To me, creation must have been a bit like peeling out with a manual transmission automobile. He revved up the motor with the clutch disengaged (speeding through billions of years of activity in a matter of hours), and then popped the clutch, and away everything went. Under His direct power (I'm not deist), but that's the basic idea.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  8. #1535
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    680
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 109 Times in 97 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    13145
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Certain scientific theories may do what you claim. Science doesn't.
    The majority views of science do.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    The first scientists, using scientific method, were all Christians.
    There were some pretty good Muslim scientists too.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    The Bible and science agree on the order of events.
    No they don't. First of all, light, which God created on the first day, emanates from stars, but God didn't create the sun and the stars until the fourth day. Also on the fourth day, He created plants, though science says that life began in the sea, but God didn't create sea life until day five.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Young earthers simply require a 24 hour day, though no one else requires it.
    Even if you want to say that 'a thousand years is as a day,' that's still only six thousand years, not 13 billion plus.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  9. #1536
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,234
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 146 Times in 125 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Please don't misrepresent what I clearly said.

    I DID NOT SAY "original manuscripts."

    I SAID "the Hebrew manuscripts we have today."

    Tagging @john w RE: "Original Manuscripts"



    Please explain why "day one" cannot mean a 24-hour period given the context of the verse, which says "a day, one" in Hebrew, which is not how it refers to days 2 through 7 ("second", "third", etc). In other words, you have to explain how billions of years fits into the phrase "day one," and not the phrase "the first day."



    No. Scripture demands it.



    Yes, He does. "[a] day[,] one."



    Peter is not talking about how God experiences time. He's talking about longsuffering God is and powerful He is.

    "A thousand years is as a day," is describing how patient God is, that He can wait a thousand years for something, and it would only be like He waited one day.

    "A day is as a thousand years," is describing how powerful God is, that He can do things in one day that would, in comparison, take man a thousand years (which is to say, that He can do the impossible, because no man has ever lived that long).

    If you disagree with that assessment of that passage, before replying, go read the verses that surround that passage, then try to assert it does not mean what it is clearly talking about.



    The only one putting limitations on God here is you, by saying that God did not do what He said He did in the amount of time He said He did it in. You're limiting God to billions of years, instead of letting Him say six days.
    First, I already explained. No need to restate what has been said.
    Second, it is possible the day was 24 hours. If so, then God purposely wants the earth to look billions of years older than it is. I see no reason why God would do so.
    Third, God is not bound by time. Time is one of God's creations. God sees all things in one moment. There is no "day" that binds Him. A day can be any length by God's measurement. There is no requirement to make a day be 24 hours simply because you have adopted a measurement for time.
    Fourth, I don't really care. God created. Adam sinned. We are by nature corrupted. We need to be reimaged by God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. Only by God's grace can we be saved.

  10. #1537
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,234
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 146 Times in 125 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Jesus demanded that it be 24 hours, because He said "At the beginning of creation God made them male and female."

    Day 6 is at the beginning of creation if "day" means 24 hours. Day 6 is near the end of creation, or at best the middle of creation, if Day means "billions of years."
    Jesus didn't demand it. You demand it from Jesus. You have the hangup.

  11. #1538
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,510
    Thanks
    948
    Thanked 935 Times in 542 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    529341
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Second, it is possible the day was 24 hours. If so, then God purposely wants the earth to look billions of years older than it is. I see no reason why God would do so.
    You have no concept of what the earth would look like if it were a billion years old. Your frame of reference does not allow it.

    If billions (even millions) of years are true, at present rates, the oceans should be choked with mud, the salt in the seas would kill everything in it, the Great Barrier Reef would be larger than the world, oil and gas deposits would have lost their pressure and the moon's orbit should have already decayed. Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds and so-called ancient coal deposits. Pine pollen has been found in every layer of the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur bones have blood cells in them (and there is no adequate explanation for this).

    Your presuppositions dictate your conclusion. (So do mine by the way!)
    You assume long process and, therefore, cannot come to another conclusion.

    The question is based on the 'a priori' assumption that millions/billions of years have occurred. 'Evolutionary theory requires long ages therefore long ages must have taken place so... this is what an old earth looks like!...yup, seems fine to me.'
    But all natural processes can occur quickly given the right conditions. Crude oil can be made in days. Fossilization can happen quickly. Huge canyons can be cut in weeks and deep sediments laid down in decades and turned to rock in very little time. None of these things are dependent solely on time. They are all subject to many other conditions.

    I think the world looks young. And, I believe, real science confirms it.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2018),way 2 go (July 12th, 2018)

  13. #1539
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,234
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 146 Times in 125 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    You have no concept of what the earth would look like if it were a billion years old. Your frame of reference does not allow it.

    If billions (even millions) of years are true, at present rates, the oceans should be choked with mud, the salt in the seas would kill everything in it, the Great Barrier Reef would be larger than the world, oil and gas deposits would have lost their pressure and the moon's orbit should have already decayed. Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds and so-called ancient coal deposits. Pine pollen has been found in every layer of the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur bones have blood cells in them (and there is no adequate explanation for this).

    Your presuppositions dictate your conclusion. (So do mine by the way!)
    You assume long process and, therefore, cannot come to another conclusion.

    The question is based on the 'a priori' assumption that millions/billions of years have occurred. 'Evolutionary theory requires long ages therefore long ages must have taken place so... this is what an old earth looks like!...yup, seems fine to me.'
    But all natural processes can occur quickly given the right conditions. Crude oil can be made in days. Fossilization can happen quickly. Huge canyons can be cut in weeks and deep sediments laid down in decades and turned to rock in very little time. None of these things are dependent solely on time. They are all subject to many other conditions.

    I think the world looks young. And, I believe, real science confirms it.
    I am smiling at the irony of your presuppositions.
    What do we observe? What do we measure? How do we test?
    Where is the presupposition in my questions.

  14. #1540
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,893
    Thanks
    21,517
    Thanked 6,163 Times in 3,921 Posts

    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147595
    Just a few corrections...

    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    You have no concept of what the earth would look like if it were a billion years old. Your frame of reference does not allow it.

    If millions (even billions) of years are true, at present rates, the oceans should be choked with mud, the salt in the seas would kill everything in it, the Great Barrier Reef would be larger than the world, oil and gas deposits would have lost their pressure and the moon's orbit should have already decayed. Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds and so-called ancient coal deposits. Pine pollen has been found in every layer of the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur bones have blood cells in them (and the only adequate explanation for this is that the fossils are only thousands of years old, not millions).

    Your presuppositions dictate your conclusion. (So do mine by the way!)
    You assume long process and, therefore, cannot come to another conclusion.

    The question is based on the 'a priori' assumption that millions/billions of years have occurred. 'Evolutionary theory requires long ages therefore long ages must have taken place so... this is what an old earth looks like!...yup, seems fine to me.'
    But all natural processes can (and do) occur quickly given the right conditions. Crude oil can be made in days. Fossilization only happens quickly. Huge canyons are cut in weeks and deep sediments laid down in decades and turned to rock in very little time. None of these things are dependent solely on time. They are all subject to many other conditions.

    The world looks young. And, real science confirms it.

  15. #1541
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,234
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 146 Times in 125 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    The majority views of science do.
    There were some pretty good Muslim scientists too.
    No they don't. First of all, light, which God created on the first day, emanates from stars, but God didn't create the sun and the stars until the fourth day. Also on the fourth day, He created plants, though science says that life began in the sea, but God didn't create sea life until day five.
    Even if you want to say that 'a thousand years is as a day,' that's still only six thousand years, not 13 billion plus.
    The Bible says the stars were made later. Your statement that light eminated from stars is unconfirmed. God created...light. Light is radiation. See my point...

  16. #1542
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    680
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 109 Times in 97 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    13145
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    The Bible says the stars were made later.
    That's what I said. Genesis 1:16 KJV. Fourth day.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Your statement that light eminated from stars is unconfirmed.
    No it isn't. We do know that the light that God created on the first day did not emanate from the sun or stars since He hadn't yet made them on the first day.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    God created...light. Light is radiation.
    That's what I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    See my point...
    What point.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  17. #1543
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,234
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 146 Times in 125 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    That's what I said. Genesis 1:16 KJV. Fourth day.
    No it isn't. We do know that the light that God created on the first day did not emanate from the sun or stars since He hadn't yet made them on the first day.
    That's what I said.
    What point.
    Well...I tried...

  18. #1544
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,510
    Thanks
    948
    Thanked 935 Times in 542 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    529341
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    A day can be any length by God's measurement. There is no requirement to make a day be 24 hours simply because you have adopted a measurement for time.
    Incorrect.

    We have not adopted a measurement for time. We have adopted God's designation of time measurement. We did not come up with it; He did.

    In taking on the responsibility for depositing with us some of the details of His creative process, He specified the length of a day in order to take interpretive mistakes out of our hands. It is true that He could have taken any amount of time, or no time at all, to create. Knowing that He would create man, subject to His laws, He accommodated His attributes to perfectly fit our condition. He specified the length of a day in anticipation of a completed creation and man, the crown of it. Furthermore, He deliberately worked within that timescale to give us the example of six days of work and one day of rest. In this He also embedded the glorious gospel of resting in the finished work of Christ, our sabbath rest. We celebrate these things every week, not every million years.

    He said "Let there be light" before there was a light source; and then created the light source to obey His specifications for His creation to benefit from. The "morning and evening" designation was accurate without the sun in place because it was appointment by design. Hence He was able to declare it all "very good" on the fourth day in that the morning/evening design was adhered to.

    If the scriptures were to tell us that the sun was created first, we would have legitimate reason to see it as a fairy tale. The fact that His design pronouncements are first and all else falls in line with His decrees, tells us that He specifically chose a day, and a week, to be the perfect length of time for His creatures to make sense of their world; before sin and after the fall.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2018)

  20. #1545
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,510
    Thanks
    948
    Thanked 935 Times in 542 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    529341
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    I am smiling at the irony of your presuppositions.
    What do we observe? What do we measure? How do we test?
    Where is the presupposition in my questions.
    I choose to assume that you have some point to this veiled reply and that I am just too dull to understand.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us