User Tag List

Page 102 of 106 FirstFirst ... 2529299100101102103104105 ... LastLast
Results 1,516 to 1,530 of 1584

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

  1. #1516
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7952
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    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.

  2. #1517
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    501
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 61 Times in 57 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    9061
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    My point is that God is not deceptive.
    So is mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    He shows us that his creation is billions of years old.
    He TELLS US 'six days.'
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    He is not bound by an earth day of 24 hours.
    Nobody said He was bound by anything.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Idolater For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2018)

  4. #1518
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7952
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    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.

  5. #1519
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    501
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 61 Times in 57 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    9061
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Light eminated from God's will.
    Sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Light produces radiation therefore there is no need for a star.
    Light IS radiation; electromagnetic radiation.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Is God bound by an earth day?
    God is unbound by anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    You speculate about Adam.
    Of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    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.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  6. #1520
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    501
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 61 Times in 57 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    9061
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    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.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Idolater For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2018)

  8. #1521
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,088
    Thanks
    18,740
    Thanked 5,410 Times in 3,414 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147585
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    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

  9. #1522
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    16,409
    Thanks
    181
    Thanked 9,130 Times in 6,962 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147813
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    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
    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.

    Blablaman

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

    George Affleck (July 12th, 2018),JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2018)

  11. #1523
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    501
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 61 Times in 57 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    9061
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  12. #1524
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    16,409
    Thanks
    181
    Thanked 9,130 Times in 6,962 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147813
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    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
    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.

    Blablaman

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

    JudgeRightly (July 12th, 2018)

  14. #1525
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    501
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 61 Times in 57 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    9061
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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!
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  15. #1526
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    16,409
    Thanks
    181
    Thanked 9,130 Times in 6,962 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147813
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    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
    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.

    Blablaman

  16. #1527
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,088
    Thanks
    18,740
    Thanked 5,410 Times in 3,414 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147585
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Idolater (July 12th, 2018)

  18. #1528
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7952
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    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.

  19. #1529
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7952
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    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.

  20. #1530
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7952
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

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