We don't claim it to be a book of science or history. But if those things are wrong, then it is not a Holy book.
Genesis 1-3 / Imagery?
- Thread starter Tattooed Theist
- Start date
We don't claim it to be a book of science or history. But if those things are wrong, then it is not a Holy book.
Greg Jennings
New member
The data in favor of an old Earth?
Geologic strata, fossil assemblages, core samples, radiometric dating, I'm sure I'm forgetting some ways but those are four great ones.
All of them suggest an ancient planet. What scientific evidence supports a 6000 year old world again? And I guarantee you that no T-Rex soft tissue has been dated to younger than ~60 million years. But if you have a link that says otherwise, I will look
This is your error. A common one. The book's teachings are still there, since they are moral and religious teachings. It makes no difference if millions didn't leave Egypt in the Exodus, or the timeline doesn't fit what modern science has discovered.
This shows a young earth.
Greg Jennings
New member
Does it now? Care to back that up with reliable source or a published research paper? Also, you claim that T-Rex tissue has been dated to under 60 million years. Some corroboration of that claim would be nice, as well
If you will actually read one that supports the ToE (since there are none that support creationism :chuckle
, I will post a paper here for you. However, I expect your answer will be "no." Surprise me
6days
New member
As you now know... evolutionists often reject lab results that contradict their belief system. C14 results on soft dino tissue often dates around 35,000 which is consistent with the creation / flood account and the drastic effects the flood would have on C14 results.
You should do some research and not just believe everything Talkorigins tells you. You obviously are unaware of peer reviewed journals where evidence of 'creationism' is presented.
I agree with you that scientific calculations suggest that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. However, we have to be careful because scientific estimations are only speculative without human observation or historical verification.
With that said, I think we are required (from an exegetical and logical standpoint) to take the biblical Creation story as a literal historical account. Thus, it must be talking about something that happened about 4,000 years ago. My undestanding is that the Genesis account is best understood as only a regional event which happened in the ancient land of Eden (Genesis 2:8-14) where a devastating flood was already taking place (Genesis 1:2).
Greg Jennings
New member
No. Scientists will reject measurements that violate all of the previous measurements of the area in question. They will not reject data from an area where geologic stratigraphy (look it up) is not well known. I doubt you understand the significance of that, but I've tried with you
I can honestly say I have never once been to talkorigins. I am, however, studying geology and know a bit about the subject from school (unlike you, who did NOT study any of this in detail at any point in life)
Post these peer reviewed journals that, according to you, conclude that they support creationism. I'd love to see
Greg Jennings
New member
My understanding is that the Garden of Eden is supposed to be the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq. I also believe that a large regional flood devastated this region somewhere around 4500-5500 years ago, leading to many flood stories (most notably Noah and Gilgamesh).
6days
New member
The Bible clearly does not agree with you. Jesus believed both the creation account and the flood account.
Jesus asked "But since you don't believe what (Moses) wrote, how will you believe what I say?"
6days
New member
Greg... You are a pretty smart guy. Google could help you with a lot of the questions you ask. Why not take out a subscription to 'Journal of Creation'? It would help you understand what you are arguing against sometimes. Or...you can get free articles from 'Answers Research Journal'. You would find articles such as "Determination of the Radioisotope Decay Constants and Half-lives: Potassium-40 (40K)"
Greg Jennings
New member
Link to a paper that YOU think best exemplifies evidence for creationism. A peer reviewed paper. And I will read it.
If you cannot find one, we all know why
6days
New member
We have no idea where Eden was. The Bible tells us that the world that existed then was destroyed. Kandahar is a town in Canada..... Having the same name as a city in Afghanistan does not mean it is the same place. (Likewise with rivers)
6days
New member
Link an article for me that best exemplifies evolutionism.
Google can be your friend, Greg. Google the title I gave you.
This is certainly correct. The Bible is quite clear and specific about this. It named rivers that were well-known at the time to describe the location, and most of those rivers are easily identifiable today.
Why a fundamentalist would deny this is beyond me.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
If you study Ancient Near East ("ANE") literature, rather than pseudo-scientific internet blogs... "Eden" isn't a Hebrew word, and isn't the proper name of a certain place.
It's a Sumerian word. In Sumerian, it refers to the fertile land along the sides of a river which is watered by periodic flooding of the river.
Based on the rivers given in Genesis, all the riverbanks of the Near East are intended - the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, and Dan rivers being the centers of agriculture in the world at the time.
Gan Eden - the Garden of Eden - is a specific location within Eden. According to the book of Ezekiel, it is found in Lebanon, somewhere near the city-state of Tyre.
It's a Sumerian word. In Sumerian, it refers to the fertile land along the sides of a river which is watered by periodic flooding of the river.
Based on the rivers given in Genesis, all the riverbanks of the Near East are intended - the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, and Dan rivers being the centers of agriculture in the world at the time.
Gan Eden - the Garden of Eden - is a specific location within Eden. According to the book of Ezekiel, it is found in Lebanon, somewhere near the city-state of Tyre.
Our views seem similar. However, I don't think the language in Genesis will support such a large region. The names of the rivers and their locations (Genesis 2:8-14) are found elsewhere in scripture to describe places located in the narrow region between Babylon and Egypt.
I agree that Jesus believed in the Genesis creation story and Noahic flood. However, this has no bearing on how we interpret the extent of those events. Jesus never described these things as "global" or "universal" in scope.
6days
New member
Rivers... may I ask... who have you been taught by? (Hugh Ross?) Your beliefs do not match scripture. Jesus compared the flood to the impact His return would have on our world. He said the flood came and destroyed them all. His return, like the flood will have a global impact.*Rivers said:
There are many indicators in Genesis that the flood was global in nature. But here is one verse and a couple things to consider.*
Gen. 7:23 "every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth".
So, that verse seems fairly straight forward. But, if it was a local flood..
1. Why did Noah have to save the birds. Couldn't they have flown to safety?
2. Why did Noah work for 100 years, to build an ark with a capacity of 550 rail cars to escape a local flood?*