Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

iouae

iouae

Well-known member
Derf said:
Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense.

I'll state it a different way. There's no evidence in the bible that anything died before the fall. That doesn't mean nothing died, it only means the bible doesn't talk about it.

In addition, the bible talks about death entering the world because of Adam's sin. It is not clear from that whether "death" means "human death" or just any kind of death, but it seems pretty clear that no humans died before Adam sinned.

Finally, if "creation groans" because of Adam's sin, what does that mean?
[Rom 8:19 KJV] For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
[Rom 8:20 KJV] For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
[Rom 8:21 KJV] Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
[Rom 8:22 KJV] For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
[Rom 8:23 KJV] And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

Something new is going to happen to creatures when the sons of God are revealed (red).
The whole creation is subject to this "pain".
We also which have the first fruits of the Spirit (Christians and also the children of God who are not fully revealed) are also still groaning.

What are we waiting for? the redemption of the body, or a body that does not die.
If all creation is groaning together and waiting for the same thing, it is at least a good possibility that the rest of creation will experience some kind of change to the way things work. I submit that at that time, perhaps creation will not be subject to death anymore.

I don't think that's the same thing as saying that animals will be redeemed, or that animals will be resurrected. But it could be that animals will no longer die.
Click to expand...

To understand Paul, one has to read the context.

I don't believe Romans 8 is speaking about any creature other than man. Paul speaks of the flesh versus the spirit, speaks of being carnally minded, speaks of redemption of sons of God etc. Romans 8 promises nothing to animals. And when it speaks of the whole creation groaning, I believe this refers to all mankind, created fleshly, groaning, including us with the ernest of the Spirit. From the context the "whole creation" is not the whole earth, whole cosmos, or even all creatures, but the "whole creation" only is referencing humans made of flesh.

The Greek word for "whole" in "whole creation groaneth" (Rom 8:22) is "pas" and is usually translated "all".

So here again we have a problem with including what in the "all". Here the "all" refers to all mankind, or all human flesh and there is nothing in Rom 8 to suggest it refers to all other creatures.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
iouae said:
We have to get over the idea that all death has to be bad.
Click to expand...

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
I Corinthians 15:24-‬26 NKJV​

Once again, your made-up ideas are contradicted by scripture.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
iouae

iouae

Well-known member
Stripe said:
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
I Corinthians 15:24-‬26 NKJV​

Once again, your made-up ideas are contradicted by scripture.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When Paul speaks of death, Paul only addresses human death. Salvation and immortality are only offered to mankind, not animals.

Death entering the world refers to human death entering the world.

The geologic column shows death from the beginning.

The moment God created gravity, water or a cliff, animals and man stood a chance of dying. The world right from the start was not created a padded cell where accidental death was an impossibility.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
iouae said:
When Paul speaks of death, Paul only addresses human death. Salvation and immortality are only offered to mankind, not animals.

Death entering the world refers to human death entering the world.

The geologic column shows death from the beginning.

The moment God created gravity, water or a cliff, animals and man stood a chance of dying. The world right from the start was not created a padded cell where accidental death was an impossibility.
Click to expand...

It's not even clear what you're talking about any more.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
M

MennoSota

New member
MennoSota said:
Radiometric Dating from a Christian Perspective by Dr Roger Wiens. Dr Wiens is the primary scientist for ChemCam, the laser on Curiosity (the Mars Rover), where his team determines the elements of the rocks on Mars.
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Click to expand...
The Introduction
Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

The next few pages cover a broad overview of radiometric dating techniques, show a few examples, and discuss the degree to which the various dating systems agree with each other. The goal is to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly for the Christian community. Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.
 
M

MennoSota

New member
Stripe said:
I'll take that as a no.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I take it you refuse to read the article and are looking for an excuse to claim a world renowned geophysicist who is a Christian somehow is wrong about radiometric dating.
I suggest you read his article. You might find you learn something.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
MennoSota said:
I take it you refuse to read the article and are looking for an excuse to claim a world renowned geophysicist who is a Christian somehow is wrong about radiometric dating.
I suggest you read his article. You might find you learn something.
Click to expand...
This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss ideas, you're in the wrong place.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
M

MennoSota

New member
Stripe said:
This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss ideas, you're in the wrong place.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Read the article and we can discuss it as it specifically relates to the topic of young earth v old earth.
Perhaps you just don't wish to learn what a Christian who is a renown scientist has to say.
 
way 2 go

way 2 go

Well-known member
MennoSota said:
Radiometric Dating from a Christian Perspective by Dr Roger Wiens. Dr Wiens is the primary scientist for ChemCam, the laser on Curiosity (the Mars Rover), where his team determines the elements of the rocks on Mars.
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Click to expand...

no mention of origin of earths radioactivity in your source



http://kgov.com/origin-of-earths-radioactivity



http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html
The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity

SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge voltages via the piezoelectric effect.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements. Those superheavy elements quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive.

Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page395 and Figures 202and 207–209.

Evolutionists say earth’s radioactive material evolved in stars and their exploded debris. Billions of years later, the earth formed from that debris. Few of the theorized steps can be demonstrated experimentally. Observations on earth and in space support the hydroplate explanation and refute the evolution explanation for earth’s radioactivity.
Click to expand...
 
Idolater

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
MennoSota said:
When God created it, of course. Based upon the radiometric dating that would be billions of years ago.
Click to expand...
Could it have been that He created materials that were billions of years along in radioactive decay already, rather than materials just starting out in their decay curves?
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Stripe said:
Except that you've explained how this wouldn't happen.

This is why discussing things with you is a waste of time.

With every sentence, you expose your ignorance.

Have you spent any time reading about the exit wound that was generated. :plain:

There is no need to defend an idea to a man who is determined to reject it.

In fact, that would be the height of folly.

:darwinsm:

Like you've demonstrated?

:mock: Cabinethead.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that Cabinethead seems to be forgetting that impurities in a liquid can lower it's freezing point.

With the amount of impurities in the SCW from the dissolving of the lower portion of the Hydroplate, I imagine that its freezing point would have been significantly lowered.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
MennoSota said:
Read the article and we can discuss it as it specifically relates to the topic of young earth v old earth.
Perhaps you just don't wish to learn what a Christian who is a renown scientist has to say.
Click to expand...

:yawn:

Stop attributing motive.

way 2 go said:
no mention of origin of earths radioactivity in your source.
Click to expand...
It was more a rhetorical question. ;)

Darwinists hate trying to explain the origins of things.

MennoSota said:
When God created it, of course. Based upon the radiometric dating that would be billions of years ago.
Click to expand...
What a confused set of sentences!

How on Earth can you do radiometric dating if you have no idea how radioactive material is generated?

What if "God made it" with less parent material than you assume for your dating procedure?

My link gives the process of radiometric dating. The origin of earth's radioactivity is not needed in the process of dating.
Click to expand...

The people who invented the process are also ignorant of the formation method. Ask them; they'll wave at the sky and mutter something vague about stars.

If you're seeking to understand, asking about origins is key. If all you want to do is convert people, you'll post links and demand that they be respected.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
M

MennoSota

New member
Stripe said:
:yawn:

Stop attributing motive.

It was more a rhetorical question. ;)

Darwinists hate trying to explain the origins of things.

What a confused set of sentences!

How on Earth can you do radiometric dating if you have no idea how radioactive material is generated?

What if "God made it" with less parent material than you assume for your dating procedure?



The people who invented the process are also ignorant of the formation method. Ask them; they'll wave at the sky and mutter something vague about stars.

If you're seeking to understand, asking about origins is key. If all you want to do is convert people, you'll post links and demand that they be respected.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

[emoji56] You make it seem like it's impossible to determine radiometric dating if a person doesn't know the origin point. Do you think God set up measurable laws by which we can observe time from the present back into time or must you have been at the origin point to figure this out? By the way, were you there at the origin point to confirm its origin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top