Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[MennoSota]

Yes. Did the first light emanate from a star? No. God created stars including the sun to be the source of light later in the first week.
You see the circularity in that thought?

I addressed your idea. I said that God created everything already 'billions of years' along the decay curve. You said that if God did that, that He is deceptive, to which I responded that the only deception is if everything actually is billions of years old, because He told us, pointblank, 'six days,' which would therefor be a lie.

I believe Adam was created with a bellybutton. I don't think that is deceptive.
You have.

Light eminated from God's will. Light produces radiation therefore there is no need for a star.
So you admit that observation shows billions of years of decay? Great! You must believe creation is billions of years old.
Is God bound by an earth day?
You speculate about Adam. We have no means of measurement.

[Idolater]

My point is that God is not deceptive.

So is mine.

He shows us that his creation is billions of years old.

He TELLS US 'six days.'

He is not bound by an earth day of 24 hours.

Nobody said He was bound by anything.

[MennoSota]

So is mine.
He TELLS US 'six days.'
Nobody said He was bound by anything.

Great. So six days does not have to be 24 hours in length. Glad we agree.

[Idolater]

Light eminated from God's will.

Sure.

Light produces radiation therefore there is no need for a star.

Light IS radiation; electromagnetic radiation.

So you admit that observation shows billions of years of decay? Great! You must believe creation is billions of years old.

I can either believe 'six days,' or something other. I choose the former. So no.

Is God bound by an earth day?

God is unbound by anything.

You speculate about Adam.

Of course.

We have no means of measurement.

I was making another point about God not being deceitful. God created Adam a full-grown man. He looked just like full-grown men do today. He and Eve alone were not born, but were created full-grown. Like the universe was.

[Idolater]

Great. So six days does not have to be 24 hours in length. Glad we agree.

How that helps your view is beyond me. Science gives us the 13+ billion year age, but it does so through a detailed order of events, and it does not align with the order of events recorded in Genesis, so you still have God as a liar. 'Six days' equaling 13 billion years doesn't help your problem with the order of events.

[JudgeRightly]

I don't disagree. My point is that the first days were longer than 24 hours.

Except the way verse 5 was originally worded leaves no room for anything other than a 24 hour period.

The nice thing about the NKJV is that, apart from it being the closest to the Hebrew manuscripts we have today while still using modern language, is that it also provides (usually as a footnote) the literal translation,

Here's Genesis 1:5, along with the footnote:

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5&version=NKJV



Here's YLT:

and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:5&version=YLT

Please, if you can, tell me how the context of that word makes it mean anything other than a literal 24-hour day.

My point is that God is not deceptive. He shows us that his creation is billions of years old. He is not bound by an earth day of 24 hours.

Then why wouldn't He just say "billions of years" instead of insisting, multiple times in scripture, that it was a six day creation, that man was created at the beginning, and not the end or the middle.

Radiometric dating
Observation of geology
Observation of the universe
Observation, observation, observation...

Here's the observations that have been made by the young earthers about how young the earth is:

http://kgov.com/RSR-list-shows

[Stripe]

Yes

Great. We disagree. The way to examine our competing claims is to look at the evidence. I have provided ideas and evidence. For your assertion, we have your assertion.

Also, the Bible does not uphold your story. You invented it.

He TELLS US 'six days.'

There are two sensible positions:

1. The Bible is right when it says "six days."
2. The Bible is not correct.

There's a multitude of senseless assertions that involve mangling scripture.

If people believe the evidence shows billions of years, they should reject the historicity of the Biblical account.

Unfortunately, people aren't prone to sense.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Idolater]

There are two sensible positions:

1. The Bible is right when it says "six days."
2. The Bible is not correct.

There's a multitude of senseless assertions that involve mangling scripture.

If people believe the evidence shows billions of years, they should reject the historicity of the Biblical account.

Nah. I believe science when it estimates the age of the universe, I just know that it's the same type of estimate that anybody'd have made about the age of Adam and Eve on day eight---they would have thought 'mid-twenties' or 'late teens' or something like that, but nope: they were only two days old.

[Stripe]

I believe science when it estimates the age of the universe.

Science isn't about belief; it's about testing ideas and throwing them out when they are showed as impossible. If you believe the evidence shows billions of years, you should reject the historicity of the Biblical account of origins.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Idolater]

Science isn't about belief; it's about testing ideas and throwing them out when they are showed as impossible. If you believe the evidence shows billions of years, you should reject the historicity of the Biblical account of origins.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I disagree. My view has God telling the truth, and science figuring out how much work He did in six days. 'Current estimate: over 13 billion years worth of work in just six days. Amazing!

[Stripe]

My view has God telling the truth, and science figuring out how much work He did in six days. 'Current estimate: over 13 billion years worth of work in just six days. Amazing!

It's an entertaining way to describe the situation, but it's not scientifically satisfying. 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."

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.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[JudgeRightly]

It's an entertaining way to describe the situation, but it's not scientifically satisfying. 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."

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.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You saw the link I posted that dealt with the starlight problem, yes? If not, I'll post it again.

[MennoSota]

How that helps your view is beyond me. Science gives us the 13+ billion year age, but it does so through a detailed order of events, and it does not align with the order of events recorded in Genesis, so you still have God as a liar. 'Six days' equaling 13 billion years doesn't help your problem with the order of events.

Certain scientific theories may do what you claim. Science doesn't. The first scientists, using scientific method, were all Christians.
The Bible and science agree on the order of events. Young earthers simply require a 24 hour day, though no one else requires it.

[MennoSota]

Except the way verse 5 was originally worded leaves no room for anything other than a 24 hour period.

The nice thing about the NKJV is that, apart from it being the closest to the Hebrew manuscripts we have today while still using modern language, is that it also provides (usually as a footnote) the literal translation,

Here's Genesis 1:5, along with the footnote:

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5&version=NKJV



Here's YLT:

and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:5&version=YLT

Please, if you can, tell me how the context of that word makes it mean anything other than a literal 24-hour day.



Then why wouldn't He just say "billions of years" instead of insisting, multiple times in scripture, that it was a six day creation, that man was created at the beginning, and not the end or the middle.



Here's the observations that have been made by the young earthers about how young the earth is:

http://kgov.com/RSR-list-shows

First...the NKJV being closet to the original manuscripts...LOL
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?
Day is not meant to be a literal 24 hour earth day. You demand it, but God doesn't demand it. Peter tells us that with God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. God is not constricted by the limitations you are trying to enforce.
The area we both agree on is that God created. From nothing, God created something. Therefore God is eternal because...ex nihilo, nihilo fit.

[MennoSota]

Great. We disagree. The way to examine our competing claims is to look at the evidence. I have provided ideas and evidence. For your assertion, we have your assertion.

Also, the Bible does not uphold your story. You invented it.



There are two sensible positions:

1. The Bible is right when it says "six days."
2. The Bible is not correct.

There's a multitude of senseless assertions that involve mangling scripture.

If people believe the evidence shows billions of years, they should reject the historicity of the Biblical account.

Unfortunately, people aren't prone to sense.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The Bible is correct when it says six days. You are incorrect when you demand those days be 24 hours.