Is the earth only 6000 Years Old?

[billiefan2000]

i was just at:


http://www.raptureready.com/rr-planet.html



does anyone believe Earth is only 6000 years old or how old is the earth really and does the bible say how old the earth is

[Slippery]

people have to realize evolution is a philosophy. the only reason scientists preach about the earth being millions if not billions of years ago, is because they are motivated to do such because of their athiestic view of things.

Christians likewise believe the world is young, primarily because of religious beliefs and dating back the generations from Jesus's genealogy in the Gospel of Luke.

While Todd's article is insightful in trying to be comprehensive by bringing all the relevant facts on the table before making a decision, I think it is flawed to try to reconcile the "Millions of years view" with the Bible, by merely depending on a needy interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2. You cannot build a doctrine based on one scripture. The fact is that Genesis 1 onwards speaks about the stages in which God created the world until it got finally to the level where he declared everything good.
It does not leave any speculation to assume that Satan was incharge of the world etc,. All Genesis is talking about is the Creation of the world.

We Christians should look at the philosophy underlying the reason why scientists offer the theory that the world is billions of years old, and stop trying to reconcile it with scripture. The fact is that scientists are engaging in much speculation as the Creationist Scientists, and both are equally smart.

But I for one, will say I do not know how old the earth is, but by taking the genealogies of Jesus to earth in which is starts with Adam being the first man, I can say with some degree of certainty, that mankind has been on the earth between 6000-12,000 years hence there is no plausible way for those dating of rocks in Australia to be 100,000 years Old. Something is amiss, but mostly the motivation to come to such a conclusion.. But as for how Old the earth is, I do not know. Everything else is speculation. Somethings God has kept secret for his own purposes.

[7Rock]

Originally posted by Slippery
The fact is that Genesis 1 onwards speaks about the stages in which God created the world until it got finally to the level where he declared everything good.
It does not leave any speculation to assume that Satan was incharge of the world etc

Actually, it does leave room for speculation.

He didn`t say that every day of creation was "good".

Guess which day he didn`t say, "and it was good"?

I`ll give you a hint:
He calls Satan the "prince of the powers of the air".

[kerri]

I just posted this same link in apol:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/creation.html

It has some good reads about the creation of time and how that plays into everything.

[Slippery]

Originally posted by 7Rock
Actually, it does leave room for speculation.

He didn`t say that every day of creation was "good".

Guess which day he didn`t say, "and it was good"?

I`ll give you a hint:
He calls Satan the "prince of the powers of the air".
Then using the same logic, we can conclude that Satan was likewise in charge of Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Pluto etc, since all those planets remain void and barren.

The fact is that God created the world ex nihilo. He created the world out of nothing. Thus when he created the earth is was a blank slate (void, empty without form) by which he impressed his creative powers upon.

This is akin to a Painter, purchasing a blank Canvas, and then transcribing the works of his vision upon the canvas. Are we to suppose that Satan was incharge of the Canvas when it did not have any painting on it?

This is the same with the Book of Genesis. It shows that God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was naturally in a void and blank state since he did not create trees, grass, animals, meadows and hills as yet. But in the next stage he did create these things, animals, meadows, hills, trees and grass. This is the context in which Genesis is speaking of.

For us to assume that there is a Gap between Genesis 1:1-2, is for us to attempt to reconcile the Evolutionary time span with the Christian time span.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Slippery
people have to realize evolution is a philosophy. the only reason scientists preach about the earth being millions if not billions of years ago, is because they are motivated to do such because of their athiestic view of things.


I still am uncertain where I stand in relation to evolution myself. I don't find it to be a salvation issue.

Anyhow, there are Theistic evolutionists, or Christians that do believe in evolution. It is not a solely an atheistic viewpoint, that is incorrect.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Slippery
For us to assume that there is a Gap between Genesis 1:1-2, is for us to attempt to reconcile the Evolutionary time span with the Christian time span.

No, it is an attempt to view God's creation and reconcile it with God's word. Are there Christian mathematics as well that differ from atheistic mathematics?

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by frisian1970
I still am uncertain where I stand in relation to evolution myself. I don't find it to be a salvation issue.

Anyhow, there are Theistic evolutionists, or Christians that do believe in evolution. It is not a solely an atheistic viewpoint, that is incorrect. :nod

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Slippery
For us to assume that there is a Gap between Genesis 1:1-2, is for us to attempt to reconcile the Evolutionary time span with the Christian time span. What in the world is a 'Christian Time Span'?

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Hootmon
What in the world is a 'Christian Time Span'?

Sounds like a PC term to me.

Me no likey.

[KrispyKritter]

God created the world in 6 literal days.

If you follow the geneology of mankind, which is painstakingly spelled out in the Bible... it adds up to approximately 6,000 years.

You either believe the Word of God... or you dont.

[Angyl]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter

You either believe the Word of God... or you dont.

Darn those pesky six days!! If it weren't for God saying that we wouldn't have any problem!!

:pound

[purplelinny]

There are some common misconceptions. Read the links that have already been provided in this thread.

Scientists are not all out to dissprove God or creation - yes, some are, but not all. Some, if not many of them are interested in creation science.

The bible does not say that the earth was created in six days. It says in Genesis 1:1 that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning - before the six days started. Genesis 1:2 describes the earth prior to the works he did in the six days. There is no indication of how long the earth remained without form and void.

That first day consisted of the evening and the morning when God created light to seperate the day and night. He created the heavens and the earth before He created the light.

If the first day included the creation of the heavens and the earth, prior to the introduction of the light, it may well have read "So the bit before there was light, the evening and morning were the first day".

The six days were used to develop and populate the formless earth into something nice and cosy.

If you cannot reconcile this, just slowly re-read the first few chapters of Genesis with a completely open mind, and in your mind's eye, imagine what God was doing.

I used to believe that the earth was 6000 odd years old - because that's what I was taught.
Then I researched it for myself :wave
--
Lynda

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
God created the world in 6 literal days.

If you follow the geneology of mankind, which is painstakingly spelled out in the Bible... it adds up to approximately 6,000 years.

You either believe the Word of God... or you dont.

I don't believe you, that much is certain.

I care to understand the Word of God, that is also certain.

Do you posit the entire bible as literal? In which language? English? Do you take into account culture at the time? Language differences? How words have nuisances within translations?

[Angyl]

Originally posted by purplelinny
The bible does not say that the earth was created in six days. It says in Genesis 1:1 that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning - before the six days started. Genesis 1:2 describes the earth prior to the works he did in the six days. There is no indication of how long the earth remained without form and void.

If you're trying to suggest that this opens the way for the earth to be billions of years old for the reasons scientists say it is, you've got a serious problem in that an earth that is void and without trees, solid ground, an ATMOSPHERE or sun doesn't help the old earth or evolutionary theories AT ALL!

All of those things are required to be present for millions or billions of years in order for either theory to be true... the earth being void for any amount of time does nothing...nothing at all to support that.

Try again. :wave

Also... your quote "The bible does not say that the earth was created in six days." is flat out wrong, GOD HIMSELF when writing the Ten Commandments penned: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it"

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
Darn those pesky six days!! If it weren't for God saying that we wouldn't have any problem!!

:pound

:confused

God spoke in English?

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
If you're trying to suggest that this opens the way for the earth to be billions of years old for the reasons scientists say it is, you've got a serious problem in that an earth that is void and without trees, solid ground, an ATMOSPHERE or sun doesn't help the old earth or evolutionary theories AT ALL!

All of those things are required to be present for millions or billions of years in order for either theory to be true... the earth being void for any amount of time does nothing...nothing at all to support that.

Try again. :wave

Also... your quote "The bible does not say that the earth was created in six days." is flat out wrong, GOD HIMSELF when writing the Ten Commandments penned: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it"

Necessary? How so, He is God right? What need be necessary?

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Slippery
people have to realize evolution is a philosophy.<snip>

This is where it might need to be clarified as to what people's notions of evolution are.

Evolution is a scientific, observable, measurable fact. The dictionary says that it's meaning is to gradually develop or grow slowly. We evolve from babies into adults. Organisms evolve.

I think the common misinterpretation is that people think of evolution as the belief that we evolved from monkeys (as an example). That is an evolutional notion - a very misguided one - but just a notion.

The world as we know it is evolving every day.

We just need to distinguish the difference between literal creation of living things as is outlined in the bible, and the evolution of living things as believed by the Darwinian camp.

Incidentally, d'ya know that the main reason that the once strong Christian, Darwin, turned his studies to an athiestic concentration to try and disprove God? Because he lost a daughter to an illness and it turned his world upside down. He was then bent on trying to dissprove God and used a lot of what was his father's ideas (and ideas of others) to make his notes that turned into 'Origin of Species' where it is stated several times in the book, that the loose theory is just that - theory.

Sheesh - that guy has a lot to answer for ;):
--
Lynda

[Angyl]

Originally posted by frisian1970
:confused

God spoke in English?

Of course not...but how is it relevant? He said day and to further back it up he says evening and morning=1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. DAYS.

The language is irrelevant... that's how it was translated...that's how God wanted it to appear in English.

Either you believe that an Omnipotent God is capable of seeing His word preserved through translations or He can't...

If the latter is true you may as well throw the WHOLE THING OUT cuz you have absolutely no way of know what is true and what is a mistake.

Using scissors only makes a personal religion for you with your own God and your own rules...you don't need the Bible to act as a foundation for that, do you?

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
The language is irrelevant... that's how it was translated...that's how God wanted it to appear in English.


Huh?

Where is that written?

[Angyl]

Originally posted by frisian1970
Necessary? How so, He is God right? What need be necessary?

It is necessary because the only way scientists "know" the earth is billions of years old is by guaging rock strata and the things found within them and the carbon elements, etc...

NONE OF THAT WOULD HAVE EXISTED IN A VOID, FORMLESS EARTH

Erego, you wouldn't have that "appearance of age" for all the time the world sat that way, would you?

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
It is necessary because the only way scientists "know" the earth is billions of years old is by guaging rock strata and the things found within them and the carbon elements, etc...

NONE OF THAT WOULD HAVE EXISTED IN A VOID, FORMLESS EARTH

Erego, you wouldn't have that "appearance of age" for all the time the world sat that way, would you?

But it is not merely appearance of age that they posit, but of history.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
If you follow the geneology of mankind, which is painstakingly spelled out in the Bible... it adds up to approximately 6,000 years.

You either believe the Word of God... or you dont. I have no problem accepting that Man, in the 'image of God', has only existed for about 6000 years.

Its what comes before Adam that is the issue.

[Angyl]

Originally posted by frisian1970
Huh?

Where is that written?

Frisian. You are missing the basic point here. It isn't WRITTEN. It IS Either you believe the word of God, or you don't. Period. You've no basis to pick and choose what to believe. Either it's all wrong or it's all right or some parts are right and some are wrong and who are you to say which is which?

[Angyl]

Originally posted by frisian1970
But it is not merely appearance of age that they posit, but of history.

Regardless, there can be no history without substance. The history of WHAT? The formless waters? The blob (no land) that this void was for a supposedly indeterminant length of time? What history can you be speaking of when, for all intents and purposes, according to this theory NOTHING existed for eons?

[Rom831]

Originally posted by Angyl
Also... your quote "The bible does not say that the earth was created in six days." is flat out wrong, GOD HIMSELF when writing the Ten Commandments penned: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it"

That is KEY. One can claimthat man got it wrong. That man goofed in Genesis where it is day. And can argue that all day. But in Leveticus, man didn't write it. It was carved in stone by the very hand of God Himself. He didn't trust even Moses to get write it, Moses could still be shrugged off as a man. This was written by God Almighty Himself!

He meant day.

Bless...ArtS

[Rom831]

Originally posted by Hootmon
I have no problem accepting that Man, in the 'image of God', has only existed for about 6000 years.

Its what comes before Adam that is the issue.

That's easy. Lets ask God. He told us in Gen 1. No, don't add anything because you're not God. Just read it.

Bless...ArtS

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Angyl
If you're trying to suggest that this opens the way for the earth to be billions of years old for the reasons scientists say it is, you've got a serious problem in that an earth that is void and without trees, solid ground, an ATMOSPHERE or sun doesn't help the old earth or evolutionary theories AT ALL!
<snip>


I agree, but we cannot just ignore the fact that there are many, many evidences that cannot be explained away by a young earth. We cannot begin to understand what happened - we weren't there and God has chosen to be sparce with the details.

It would be foolish to just write off the possibilty of an older earth in the face of the evidence. We all know that God is not the author of confusion - as has been stated - why would he create an elaborate hoax?

Also... your quote "The bible does not say that the earth was created in six days." is flat out wrong, GOD HIMSELF when writing the Ten Commandments penned: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it"
Yes, Exodus 20:11 in every version that you can get your hands on says that quite clearly - but it does not reconcile the first two verses of the bible. I am not for one minute suggesting that God is a liar, the bible is wrong or anything like that - I just think that there is a lot more to it than we can fathom.

I don't pretend to have the answers, I just think that we should be a bit more open minded about the possibility that some of the scientific discoveries giving us dates of way before our young earth date, may well be correct.
/shrugs
--
Lynda

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Rom831
That's easy. Lets ask God. He told us in Gen 1. No, don't add anything because you're not God. Just read it. Unfortunately, I am not fluent in Hebrew.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Hootmon
Unfortunately, I am not fluent in Hebrew.

Shalom?

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Hootmon
Unfortunately, I am not fluent in Hebrew.
:laugh :tape

In all seriousness, it's good to debate, but I hope this doesn't turn onto one of those threads that get hostile :(:

Ya know, sometimes it's best to just agree to differ and look forward to the powerpoint presentation in heaven that explains everything :thumb

I'm sure we'll all be feeling a bit 'duh!' when God shows us what's for real.
:wave
--
Lynda

[Angyl]

Originally posted by purplelinny
I agree, but we cannot just ignore the fact that there are many, many evidences that cannot be explained away by a young earth. We cannot begin to understand what happened - we weren't there and God has chosen to be sparce with the details.

It would be foolish to just write off the possibilty of an older earth in the face of the evidence.

The possibility exists. I'm not saying 0.0 but I do seriously doubt it in the face of scripture.

See, where I choose Bible over science is largely a matter of faith, and it is based, in part, on how science has come up with the ideas that it has. When you strip it down to the basics, there are a lot of assumptions thrown into the age of the earth as science puports it (though they RARELY admit it, it's as true as can be). Any one of those assumptions can be wrong and if only ONE is, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

It is my belief that one (or more) of the assumptions that are found in evolution and/or the age of the earth are off...by a mile. It is that mistake that God will show to us when we get there that will make us all go OOOOOOOOH! Duh! :doh

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Angyl
See, where I choose Bible over science is largely a matter of faith, and it is based, in part, on how science has come up with the ideas that it has. When you strip it down to the basics, there are a lot of assumptions thrown into the age of the earth as science puports it (though they RARELY admit it, it's as true as can be). Any one of those assumptions can be wrong and if only ONE is, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.


I would think the interpretation of data would just change.

[Rom831]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by purplelinny
Ya know, sometimes it's best to just agree to differ

Unfortunately, this is a place I don't feel I can. I fully admit that for the majority of people, this is a nonissue. But for far too many, this single issue will seperate them from God forever. Many see this and, very rightly ask, 'If I can't believe what scripture says here, how can I believe it any where else?' And they will be forever lost.

Some reject Christianity for it completely while some accept a version of it that is so altered that it isn't Christianity. It is for these people I cannot agree and just let it go. It may not be a salvationl issue for you, me, Fris or Hoot, but it is for too many.

Bless...ArtS

Oh, BTW, there is not a thing out out by the naturalistic sciences that can't be explained by creation. It only takes starting with a presupposition of scripture over a presupposition of naturalism and uniformitarinism.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Rom831
[QUOTE]Originally posted by purplelinny
Ya know, sometimes it's best to just agree to differ

Unfortunately, this is a place I don't feel I can. I fully admit that for the majority of people, this is a nonissue. But for far too many, this single issue will seperate them from God forever. Many see this and, very rightly ask, 'If I can't believe what scripture says here, how can I believe it any where else?' And they will be forever lost.

Some reject Christianity for it completely while some accept a version of it that is so altered that it isn't Christianity. It is for these people I cannot agree and just let it go. It may not be a salvationl issue for you, me, Fris or Hoot, but it is for too many.

Bless...ArtS


Art,
There are many whom reject Christianity just the same, by adhering to a YEC viewpoint. I am certainly not saying to twist scripture to fit an agenda of ANY sort. I just don't think the issue is that cut and dry.

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Angyl
The possibility exists. I'm not saying 0.0 but I do seriously doubt it in the face of scripture.

I admire the acceptance of possibilty. It's 'cus you're not a guy :laugh ;):
Just kidding guys.. well, actually...

See, where I choose Bible over science is largely a matter of faith, and it is based, in part, on how science has come up with the ideas that it has. When you strip it down to the basics, there are a lot of assumptions thrown into the age of the earth as science puports it (though they RARELY admit it, it's as true as can be). Any one of those assumptions can be wrong and if only ONE is, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Absolutely - I would also choose bible over science any day. There are a lot of assumptions, but there are many more mysteries that cannot be logically explained away by young earth, using coral reef as one example.

I know I'll be far more studious in Heaven that I ever was down here!

It is my belief that one (or more) of the assumptions that are found in evolution and/or the age of the earth are off...by a mile. It is that mistake that God will show to us when we get there that will make us all go OOOOOOOOH! Duh! :doh
:): yeh - remember the spinach mistake that resulted in it being exploited as the muscle medicine that Popeye used? Wasn't it because they got the percentage of iron content wrong because someone had put the decimal point in the wrong place? Whereas actually spinach has no more iron than broccoli?! Those poor kids that were forced to eat spinach!

Oh, for infinate knowledge!
--
Lynda

[Rom831]

Originally posted by frisian1970
Art,
There are many whom reject Christianity just the same, by adhering to a YEC viewpoint. I am certainly not saying to twist scripture to fit an agenda of ANY sort. I just don't think the issue is that cut and dry.

You are very correct. But what are these people rejecting? God's Word which is the truth. So what do they want to accept? What they want to be the truth. They are not lost because of the truth, but because they reject it. Which leads me to seriously wonder if those who would turn from God over the truth, would have ever accepted the REAL God and not just a made-up version like I use to follow.

Personal belife: I believe that those that are 'lost' over this part of the truth, never accepted the truth to begin with and never would, reguardless of which truth it is.

Bless...ArtS

[KrispyKritter]

I'm beginning to think that if I used frisian1970 reasoning, we couldnt be sure of anything thats in our Bibles. So much for faith.

frisian1970, you're being antagonistic. Why? Also, why take this thread down rabbit trails? Stick to the topic.

1 Corintians 8:2 "And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know."

This applies to everyone here... including you, frisian1970. Be careful not to think yourself wise in human reasoning.

[purplelinny]

Originally posted by Rom831
[QUOTE]Originally posted by purplelinny
Ya know, sometimes it's best to just agree to differ

Unfortunately, this is a place I don't feel I can. I fully admit that for the majority of people, this is a nonissue. But for far too many, this single issue will seperate them from God forever. Many see this and, very rightly ask, 'If I can't believe what scripture says here, how can I believe it any where else?' And they will be forever lost.<snip>

I'm not sure I like the insinuation that my view means separation from God forever. It's not a salvation thing - it's a belief in interpretation issue. If your view were correct, that would also imply that people that hold differing views about the rapture were also not saved. Let's keep interpretation and salvation completely separate as that's how it should be.
--
Lynda

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Rom831
You are very correct. But what are these people rejecting? God's Word which is the truth. So what do they want to accept? What they want to be the truth. They are not lost because of the truth, but because they reject it. Which leads me to seriously wonder if those who would turn from God over the truth, would have ever accepted the REAL God and not just a made-up version like I use to follow.

Personal belife: I believe that those that are 'lost' over this part of the truth, never accepted the truth to begin with and never would, reguardless of which truth it is.

Bless...ArtS

Huh? I don't have a made up God. I look to not have God fit into my personal taste, as that would just make it merely subjective.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
I'm beginning to think that if I used frisian1970 reasoning, we couldnt be sure of anything thats in our Bibles. So much for faith.

frisian1970, you're being antagonistic. Why? Also, why take this thread down rabbit trails? Stick to the topic.

1 Corintians 8:2 "And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know."

This applies to everyone here... including you, frisian1970. Be careful not to think yourself wise in human reasoning.

No, I am no wiser than anyone else.

Antagonisitic? Intellectually, perhaps. I have no malice.

Rabbit trails? I don't follow.

Certainly a balance of God-given reason, and faith. Why not?

[Rom831]

Originally posted by purplelinny
I'm not sure I like the insinuation that my view means separation from God forever. It's not a salvation thing - it's a belief in interpretation issue. If your view were correct, that would also imply that people that hold differing views about the rapture were also not saved. Let's keep interpretation and salvation completely separate as that's how it should be.
--
Lynda

I am not trying to call into question your faith nor frisan's. That was a in general comment and yes, this will happen so it can very well be a major salvational issue for some. Maybe not for you two, but very much for some. Even if they don't reject Christianity outright. Let me use the old me as an example.

My God:
-- did not create the earth in six days
-- did not create it covered in water
--did not create plants before the sun nor the earth before the sun
--did not create man from clay
--did not create a woman from man's rib
--did not create a garden called Eden
--did not have a man build an ark
--did not destroy the earth with a flood
--did not ask a man to sacrifice his son
--did not have a boy defeate a giant
--did not send plagues on Israel
--did not part the Red Sea
--did not lead His people by a column of fire
--did not lead a slave to second in command of a nation
--did not protect three men from a firey death in a furnace
--did not protect another in a Den of Lions
--did not mean for people of our century to follow the rules given to another century
--did not mind premarital sex or homosexuality
--did not mind divorce (if they were really unhappy)
--did not mind adultry if it was an agreed upon 'open marriage'
--did not care about white lies, or small thievery (its only a dollar...)

And on and on. But my god WAS named Jesus who had a father in Heaven and who came to earth, preached, healed, forgave, had disciples and died on a cross for my sins so that I could join him in heaven. And I believed in my god very strongly. Was I saved?

I don't have an answer to that. But my God sounds less like the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob who is the Great I Am, and more like the God of Arthur, the great who-I-want-him-to-be.

Why? Because of this single issue. I did not believe the scriptures. To me, science had 'proven' them wrong. The Bible was 'poetry with a point' and nothing more. The OT merely Aseop's Fables and the New Testament 100% truthful preaching for those 2000 years ago but not for today. Why? All because science had proven Genesis 1-11 wrong in my mind.

So, what god was I worshipping? Was I saved? Do you see my point?

Bless...ArtS

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by Rom831
I am not trying to call into question your faith nor frisan's. That was a in general comment and yes, this will happen so it can very well be a major salvational issue for some. Maybe not for you two, but very much for some. Even if they don't reject Christianity outright. Let me use the old me as an example.

My God:
-- did not create the earth in six days
-- did not create it covered in water
--did not create plants before the sun nor the earth before the sun
--did not create man from clay
--did not create a woman from man's rib
--did not create a garden called Eden
--did not have a man build an ark
--did not destroy the earth with a flood
--did not ask a man to sacrifice his son
--did not have a boy defeate a giant
--did not send plagues on Israel
--did not part the Red Sea
--did not lead His people by a column of fire
--did not lead a slave to second in command of a nation
--did not protect three men from a firey death in a furnace
--did not protect another in a Den of Lions
--did not mean for people of our century to follow the rules given to another century
--did not mind premarital sex or homosexuality
--did not mind divorce (if they were really unhappy)
--did not mind adultry if it was an agreed upon 'open marriage'
--did not care about white lies, or small thievery (its only a dollar...)

And on and on. But my god WAS named Jesus who had a father in Heaven and who came to earth, preached, healed, forgave, had disciples and died on a cross for my sins so that I could join him in heaven. And I believed in my god very strongly. Was I saved?

I don't have an answer to that. But my God sounds less like the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob who is the Great I Am, and more like the God of Arthur, the great who-I-want-him-to-be.

Why? Because of this single issue. I did not believe the scriptures. To me, science had 'proven' them wrong. The Bible was 'poetry with a point' and nothing more. The OT merely Aseop's Fables and the New Testament 100% truthful preaching for those 2000 years ago but not for today. Why? All because science had proven Genesis 1-11 wrong in my mind.

So, what god was I worshipping? Was I saved? Do you see my point?

Bless...ArtS

But see your analogy doesn't follow then to mean nothing is of truth or it is pick and choose. Those that would claim to be theistic evolutionists, or allow for that possibility... don't imply that to mean God lied. They interpret it differently.

[Rom831]

Originally posted by frisian1970
But see your analogy doesn't follow then to mean nothing is of truth or it is pick and choose. Those that would claim to be theistic evolutionists, or allow for that possibility... don't imply that to mean God lied. They interpret it differently.

It follows perfectly because I WAS a thiestic evolutionist. And reguardless of what they, mean to imply, my list still holds true. I did not claim God lied. Yet all those things I believed. I intrepreted them as poetry, as fables, not as real. My God did not do any of those things above. It was all just 'poetry with a point'. That didn't mean I thought god lied, but yet I still didn't believe much that was in scripture.

No matter how strong my faith in that god was, no matter my intent, all those things were still true. You can't avoid the truth of that and the extreme doubt it brings to my salvation simply by dismissing it. I WAS the person I now fight for and I WAS that person for one reason: Science, to me, had proven Gen 1-11 wrong.

Is this a salvational issue? You tell me. Was the God I worshipped because of this single issue the real God or a false one? I can't answer it for me, little lone for others. But I certainly know God would have had to be VERY leiniant to claim me as his as I was then.

Bless...ArtS

[frisian1970]

Ok, Art I suppose we just disagree.

[Slippery]

Good points Rom831. I think people usually are of the philosophy that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1-2, because they are ashamed of certain parts of the Bible, when it is presented alongside so called "scientific discoveries of great scientists".

I saw Hagee once tried to explain dinosaurs, by using a verse in Peter which says that the world of old perished with a flood, to mean that there was a world before Adam, which had dinosaurs. It's really disheartening to read these pitiful attempts at reconciling science based on a evolutionary perspective with the Bible. And the major errors that are born of this type of thinking is that Christians become like the philosophers of the world. They depend on their own thinking and own reasoning to justify this gap theory, even using snipets of the Word here and there, and not the word as plainly taught with aid of the Holy Spirit. And when they become solely dependent on their reasoning, it is nothing more than Idolatry. Because it is not the God of the Bible and his Word that must be trusted, but their Interpretation of what the God of the Bible did in accordance with so called evolutionary scientific discoveries. Sophisticated Paganism nonetheless. Kinda like the snake in the Garden, "You will be as gods knowing both good and evil".


KrispyKritter, thanks for the abrupt and straight to the point argument concerning the 6000 years.

As R.C Sproul said, where Science and the Bible departs, we must trust the Bible over science, where the Bible is silent and science speaks, we use the laws of logic to evaluate it, "because nothing in nature can correct the word of God. That is illogical because it is saying that the creation finds error and can be of counsel to the Creator. But God's word is the opposite. It is the Creator who finds fault with his creation and offers counsel to the point of his only begotten Son to save them from hell.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Slippery
Good points Rom831. I think people usually are of the philosophy that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1-2, because they are ashamed of certain parts of the Bible, when it is presented alongside so called "scientific discoveries of great scientists". Its not a matter of being 'ashamed'.

Its a matter of trying to incorporate what has been learned into what has been revealed.

I am puzzled as to why so many see that as a 'bad thing'. God made us curious for reason, didnt He?

[Slippery]

How old is the earth?
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

First published in Refuting Evolution
Chapter 8

For particles-to-people evolution to have occurred, the earth would need to be billions of years old. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.

On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000th of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.

This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.

The rocks
The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:

Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.

The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’

It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.

However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.

Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field.2 Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.3

In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4 The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5

So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.

Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.

The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.

Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.

Radiometric dating
As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:

Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.

However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:


An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).
We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.

The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.

The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.

Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:

For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.

It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.

Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:

It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.

This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.

Anomalies
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975!

What happened was that excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40Ar* causing ‘dates’ of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.10

If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old!11 Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with 14C still present. Detectable 14C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers.12

According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios.13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1—the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma.

Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14

The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15

Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17

The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18

Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19

A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the AiG pamphlet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.

Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.

Addendum: John Woodmorappe has just published a detailed study demonstrating the fallacy of radiometric ‘dating,’ including the ‘high-tech’ isochron method: The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).

[Rom831]

Slippery, prepare to be assulted for that! It never fails... Hang on for the ride! :)

Bless...ArtS

[liljoemsu]

I suggest that you check out Dr. Kent Hovind's materials on Creation and Evolution. Things we have been sold as facts by the scientific community are misleading and sometimes outright lies.

His website is here: www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com)

I have seen most of the series on creation science and found it quite enlightening.

I know you can purchase the whole thing on DVD.... I think its 7 total.... for about 100 bucks and it comes with some kind of book. At one time you could download the video files from his website at no charge and watch all of them on your computer.

In His Grip,

Jeff

[Slippery]

good website liljoe.

[kerri]

The Book of Genesis presents a disturbing problem for many Bible-believing Christians. Did God really create the heaven and the earth in just six 24-hour days? How does a serious student of the Torah - the five books of Moses - reconcile the Genesis account with the "billions of years" encountered in the dictums of astronomy, geology, et al?

Many continue to attempt to circumvent the problem by assuming that the six days represent "geological eras," or that the traditional text is simply a rhetorical "framework" for a literary summary of the creative process. Various forms of "theistic evolution" have been contrived in attempts to reconcile the Biblical text with the various theories and conjectures which dominate our evolution-based society.

However, the sincere student cannot escape the confrontations which result from the straightforward reading of the text with the ostensible declarations of "science." How can we deal with these fundamental issues?

Why Is It So Critical?

There are four basic questions that confront all of us: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going when I die?

And your eternal destiny will be determined by your "world view" in addressing these issues. And there are really only two world-views: either everything - including you - is the result of some kind of cosmic accident, or this is all the result of a deliberate design by a Designer.

This issue could not be more fundamental to everything. It comes as a shock to many to discover that every major theme and doctrine in the Bible has its roots in this "Book of Beginnings": sovereign election; salvation, justification by faith, believer's security, separation, disciplinary chastisement, the Divine Incarnation, the "rapture" of the church, death and resurrection, the priesthoods (both Aaronic and Melchizedekian), the Antichrist, and even the Palestinian Covenant that is being challenged by the continuing tensions throughout the world today all have their roots in this critical foundational book of the Bible. And each of these issues also has its consummation in the Book of (the) Revelation. (Like every good textbook, the answers are always in the back!)

Who Really Wrote the Torah?

There are those who have suggested the books of Moses were actually compilations by a number of redactors over the years - the common "Documentary Hypothesis" being one of the most prevalent theories. Fortunately, these previously popular notions have been thoroughly shredded by competent scholarship. But allow me to save you many hours of boring library research. I know who wrote the Books of Moses: Moses did. How do I know? Jesus Christ Himself said so! Many times.1

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? - John 5:45-47

Jesus quotes from each of the books of the Torah and attributes them each to Moses. The New Testament includes 165 direct quotes (and over 200 allusions) to the Book of Genesis, and over 100 of these are from the first 11 chapters. These include the Creator and the creation, 2 (and allusions3), creation of man and woman,4 the fall of man,5 the Flood of Noah,6 etc. So if you believe in Jesus Christ, you have no problem as to who wrote the Book of Genesis. (And if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you have much bigger problems than the authorship of Genesis!)

But "Six Days"?

The account of the creation of the universe in six days still is a "bone in the throat" to many Christians. Many point out that the word for "day" is yom , and is translated to 54 other words; however, 1181 of 1480 occurrences it is "day," and when used with a number it is always a literal day. But the real problem isn't the account in Genesis. It is in Exodus. In the middle of the Ten Commandments, the Creator Himself wrote it with His own finger in stone!

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11

It is undeniable that God intended us to understand that it was, indeed, six literal days. So how do we deal with the common understanding that "billions of years" was involved? How do we deal with the astronomical distances of millions of "light years" between the galaxies of the universe? Can anyone familiar with the discoveries of modern science take the Genesis account seriously?

It may come as a pleasant surprise to discover that the more you know about modern science - the real physics, not the mythology and conjectures that masquerade as "science" - the more you can take the Biblical text seriously. The Lord always rewards the diligent. (A recent book includes articles by fifty top scientists - from many different fields of specialization - who declare why they believe in a literal six-day creation. 7)

The Nature of Time

One of the many advantages that 20th century science has given us is that, thanks to Dr. Albert Einstein's brilliant discoveries, we now know that time is a physical property and is subject to mass, acceleration, and gravity. We have come to realize that we live in a four-dimensional continuum properly known as "space-time." (This is what Paul seems to imply in his letter to the Ephesians!8) It is interesting that when one takes the apparent 10(12) expansion factor involved in the theories of the "expanding universe," that an assumed 16 billion years reduce to six days!

Furthermore, the astronomical timetables now seem to be entirely overturned with the reluctant acknowledgments that the speed of light is not longer regarded as the constant that the high priests of physics had been previously convinced of.

The Nature of Light

Not only have recent scientific articles highlighted the discoveries that the speed of light has changed over the centuries (something that Barry Setterfield has been declaring for decades) the very nature of light has ripped open the entire world of quantum physics that has shattered our concepts of reality itself.

The changes in the velocity of light not only impacts our understanding of the astronomical distances and properties, it affects the atomic behavior involved in the red shift of spectra, the reliability of radiological dating, etc. It is the peculiar properties of photons themselves that continue to astonish the quantum physicists wrestling with the very nature of our physical existence. It is now recognized that subatomic particles lack a property known as "locality." All subatomic particles are now understood to be immediately connected. There is a simultaneity - a "non-locality" - among all photons that has been confirmed in the laboratory. It now appears that our entire universe may actually be a gigantic hologram of some kind. 9

The Fabric of Space

Most of us assume that space is simply an empty vacuum with nothing "in it." However, it is increasingly evident that even empty space has astonishing properties that have yet to be fully understood. We now know that this "firmament," (raqia ) which the Scripture presents, possesses electromagnetic properties including dielectric permittivity, magnetic permeability, an intrinsic impedance,10 and has an astonishing "zero-point" energy sufficient to keep all the electrons in the entire universe in their orbits.11 The term "stretching the heavens" appears at least 17 times in the Scriptures.12

According to the Scriptures, the heavens can be "torn,"13 "worn out" like a garment,14 "shaken,"15 "burnt up,"16 "split apart" like a scroll,17 rolled up" like a mantle 18 or a scroll.19 The concept of being "rolled up" carries some additional insights. There must be some dimension in which space is "thin." If space can be "bent," there must be a direction it can be bent toward. Thus, this tells us that there must be additional dimensions beyond those of space itself. It is now understood that we live in even more than four dimensions: ten dimensions is the current estimate (which is precisely what Nachmonides concluded in his commentary on Genesis back in the 13th century!) The more we understand from the current perspectives of modern physics, the more comfortable we are with the chronicle in Genesis One.

The Architecture of the Solar System

The more we study our solar system, the more questions get raised. Here, too, the prevailing assumptions that are broadly taught are totally specious. The "Nebular Hypothesis," that the planets were somehow thrown off by the sun, is mathematically untenable. There is no plausible explanation that would support a solar origin of the planets. The sun contains 99.86% of all the mass of the solar system, and yet contains only 1.9% of the angular momentum. The nine planets contain 98.1%. Furthermore, the outer planets are far larger than the inner ones. (Jupiter is 5,750 times as massive as mercury, 2,958 times as massive as Mars, etc.)

There are many other provocative enigmas concerning our planetary history:

o There are three pairs of rapid-spin rates among our planets: Mars and Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, and Neptune and Uranus, are each within 3% of each other. Why?

o Earth and Mars have virtually identical spin axis tilts (about 23.5°). Why? (From angular momentum and orbital calculations, it would seem that the three pairs of these planets may have been brought here from elsewhere.)

o Why does Mars have 93% of its craters in one hemisphere and only 7% in the other? It would appear that over 80% occurred within a single half-hour!

It's almost as if God designed it to challenge any naturalistic hypotheses!

"Evening" and "Morning"?

The Hebrew terms, Erev,and Boker, now refer to "evening" and "morning" but their origins remain obscure. Erev designates obscuration, mixture (increasing entropy). The time when encroaching darkness begins to deny the ability to discern forms, shapes, and identities; thus, it becomes a term for twilight or evening.20 This also marks the duration of impurity, when a ceremonially unclean person became clean again,21 and thus, the beginning of the Hebrew day.

Boker is a designation for becoming discernible, distinguishable, visible; perception of order; relief of obscurity (decreasing entropy). It thus is associated with being able to begin to discern forms, shapes, and distinct identities; breaking forth of light; revealing; hence, denotatively, dawn, morning. (As traditional designations for the Hebrew day, technically it would seem to only designate the nighttime hours, but it is used connotatively for the entire calendar day.)

It is noteworthy that neither of these are recorded on the seventh day, and thus their original significance may have been to designate the increments of creation.

Other Issues

There are other questions that arise from the Genesis narrative. When was the earth created? It seems to have preceded the rest of the universe. Surprisingly, there are some cosmologists that are (again) beginning to suspect that the universe may be geocentric after all! How did plants (3rd day) flourish without the sun's photosynthesis (4th day)? When were the angels created? (They apparently witnessed the events of Genesis 1.) 22 When did Satan fall? He had apparently already fallen by Chapter 3.

As we explore these, and other, enigmas that emerge from the Biblical text, let us not confuse the precision of the text with conjectures and mythology that pervades our pagan culture and uninformed classrooms. (It's tragic that we can't insist on evidence-based education for our children rather than the foolishness and dogma that continues to strip them of their God-fearing heritage.)

But the more acquainted you become with the amazing discoveries and insights from the frontiers of science - and are able to dismiss the nonsense that prevails among the uninformed - the more comfortable the Genesis text becomes! We plan to continue this series of articles in the unmitigated aspiration of stimulating you to dig ever deeper into God's inerrant Word!
http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/20031101-492.html

[kerri]

Part two in this discussion:

Most of us take our physical world for granted. To many, our physical world is all that is truly "real." But the more we learn from modern science, the more illusive and intangible our "reality" becomes.

We understand that the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is on the order of 10(-13 cm.), and that the radius of its electron's orbit is on the order of 10(-8) cm. - a difference of 100,000 times. (If we were to make a model of that, making the nucleus the size of a pinhead, the electron would be a football field away!) Looking at this volumetrically, for every part of "matter," there are 10(15) parts of "non-matter"! (That's about the same ratio of one minute to a billion years!) The atoms which make up the molecules of all physical things are more empty than filled!

So if matter is made up of so much "empty space," it is any wonder that neutrinos routinely pass through our entire world unnoticed? And then it isn't so difficult for us to imagine how our Lord Jesus Christ, in His resurrection body, was able to pass through walls - even though He was manifestly tangible, not just a "spirit":

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have . - Luke 24:39

Our Finite Universe

One of the most significant discoveries of 20th century science has been the fact that our universe is not infinite, but finite. It had a beginning. That's what has led to the many conjectures making up the "Big Bang" models. We are asked to accept the explanation that "first there was nothing, and then it exploded…"

From thermodynamics we know that heat flows from warm bodies toward colder bodies. If the universe was infinitely old, it would be at a uniform temperature; it isn't. It is still cooling. It had a beginning. And it will have an end.

But it is in the microcosm that we find the most disturbing discoveries. You would think that if we take any length, we could cut it in half, and then take a remainder and cut it in half, etc. At least theoretically, we assume this process could go on forever. However, we now discover that when we get down to 10(-33) cm., it loses its "locality." We now understand that all matter, energy, and even time are made up of "quanta": indivisible units. (That's why they call this arena of study "quantum physics.") The "Planck length" is 10(-33 )cm.; the "Planck time," 10(-43) sec.

So the astonishing discovery is that we exist within a finite boundary between the macrocosm of astronomy and the microcosm of quantum physics. In fact, we are in a digital simulation!1 The eminent atheist Paul Davies has admitted that "it seems that the entire universe may be nothing more than a thought in the mind of God."

There are some scholars that suspect that the original Creation was fractured as a result of the curse in Genesis 3, and that the four dimensions presently available to us which we call the "physical world" (three physical dimensions, plus time) are only a subset of a more comprehensive reality: the "spiritual" world.

Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the Law of Entropy - may be what Paul refers to as the "Bondage of Decay" 2 that the whole creation groans to be delivered from, which was also a result of the curse in Genesis 3. (Everything we know about the Creation is, of course, limited from our post-curse point of view.)

The Architecture of Man

It is significant that the real personality of man - both Mr. and Mrs. Man - call it "soul," "spirit," or whatever - is "software," not "hardware." The "real" you and I are simply resident in temporary bodies and are, hopefully, destined for an upgrade!

Just as the architecture of the software inside a computer cannot be inferred from observing its external behavior, neither can the architecture of our own internal software be adequately inferred from observing our behavior. The only way to comprehend the internal architecture is by consulting the Designer's handbook.3

If I take a blank computer disk and weight it on a scale, it will weigh about 0.7 oz. If I spend hundreds of dollars and load it with over a million bytes of software, it will still weigh 0.7 oz. Software has no mass. Although it may be resident in a physical system, it has no mass of its own. It can even be transmitted through the airwaves.

(The mass of my current residence has a bit too much mass, but that's another problem altogether…)

As we pointed out in our article last month, time is a physical property: it varies with mass, acceleration, and gravity. Therefore, since software has no mass, it has no time dimension of its own. The real "you" - call it soul, spirit, or whatever - is eternal whether you are saved or not. That's the problem. Where will you spend your eternity?

Will you be qualified to spend your eternity in the presence of God? Or denied the presence of a Holy God?

The Reality of Hell

We don't like to think about the dark side of the "afterlife." But Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven. He was emphatic that we really understand that we each have a very unpleasant destiny unless we respond to His instruction. And there will be a Final Judgment that will include an accounting of every detail of our entire lives:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. - Matthew 12:36

Preparing for the Ultimate Adventure

If we were anticipating being transferred to a foreign assignment, our desk would be littered with brochures, books, and all the reliable information that we could find out about our anticipated destination. Yet you and I have an appointment that is more certain than any other fact of our existence.4 Have you done your homework on this most important assignment of your life?

We will definitely need special credentials for our forthcoming trip to avoid certain disaster - and the visas we will need are only granted on this side of the border! Are you ready to pass through that inevitable portal? There is no other priority in your life more urgent than this one.

The first act of religion was man's attempt to cover himself, but God taught him that he would be covered by the shedding of innocent blood.5 So this isn't about "church" or "religion." It is about a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.6

Don't spend your eternity counting the "if only's." Don't gamble your eternal destiny on the premise that the Bible is wrong.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/20031201-498.html

[Hootmon]

Discussion?

What do YOU think, Kerri?

[Slippery]

good article Kerri :thumb

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by kerri
And your eternal destiny will be determined by your "world view" in addressing these issues. And there are really only two world-views: either everything - including you - is the result of some kind of cosmic accident, or this is all the result of a deliberate design by a Designer.


What does your eternal destiny have to do with how old the earth is? Nice conjecture.

[kerri]

Originally posted by frisian1970
What does your eternal destiny have to do with how old the earth is? Nice conjecture.

I don't believe it said just that.

I think you need to read it again.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by kerri
I don't believe it said just that.

I think you need to read it again.

You are correct in that it didn't just say that. That is the premise however.

[kerri]

Originally posted by Hootmon
Discussion?

What do YOU think, Kerri?

I think I have enough info to be comfortable in the fact that I wasn't there- therefore don't know the method God used in creating the earh, time etc..., or how that played into what we see today as far as a mature universe.

So what do I do about it? Nothing- just have faith.

Just trust in God that He knows exactly what happened and how He created this incredible universe for us.

And I know above all that the evidence is striking that He indeed is the one who not only created it, but that He even holds it all together to this day.... so when I am looking into this kind of thing- I go with that presupposition and see (or guess) how it all fits- knowing that it does indeed fit.

I just find all of God's creation fascinating (especially on the quantum level :eek).

What did you guys think about matter/non-matter ratio?

Pretty amazing, huh?

[kerri]

Originally posted by frisian1970
What does your eternal destiny have to do with how old the earth is? Nice conjecture.

Actually, the premise is that there is an enormous amount of evidence that suggests (or better yet- SCREAMS) intelligent design, and that we do indeed have a soul.... and basically ends with the question- what are you going to do about that?

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by kerri
Actually, the premise is that there is an enormous amount of evidence that suggests (or better yet- SCREAMS) intelligent design, and that we do indeed have a soul.... and basically ends with the question- what are you going to do about that?

Ah, perhaps premise is incorrect, introduction. Usually one can read just the introduction and the conclusion and assume the inner points.

[kerri]

Originally posted by frisian1970
Ah, perhaps premise is incorrect, introduction. Usually one can read just the introduction and the conclusion and assume the inner points.

You know what they say about assuming ;):

Did you read both aritcles in full?

You should, they are very interesting.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by kerri
You know what they say about assuming ;):

Did you read both aritcles in full?

You should, they are very interesting.

Well I think I am covered in that respect. Won't speak for you.

:P:

Nah, not yet...once I get to something that is absurd I don't read any further. Perhaps tomorrow I will have the time to read it in entirety.

[kerri]

Originally posted by frisian1970
Well I think I am covered in that respect. Won't speak for you.

:P:

Nah, not yet...once I get to something that is absurd I don't read any further. Perhaps tomorrow I will have the time to read it in entirety.

Well, you DID assume, as you said- which is why I asked if you had read them in full- it's not quite fair to make comments on something you haven't even read in full, is it? ;):

You are implying the articles are absurd without having read them to their conclusions? Interesting.

I thought your "stance" now, apologetically speaking, was that you are somewhat of an "intellectual antagonist" that gives equal time to questions on either side of an issue that surface.

(Am I wrong in my perception?)

Please show me the absurdities- because from what I saw, there was not much conjecture added in- it was mostly just mathematical facts, with comparisons as to what those facts seem to suggest (ex: the "non-matter" he spoke of, and compared to a hologram (to give the best analogy of what it was, I suppose) is a mathematical and scientific fact in quantum physics).

I just thought the whole thing was fascinating, and was hoping to get some Christian opinions on the mathematical and scientific portions of the article, and if anyone else found them as extraordinary as I did.

[frisian1970]

Not sure where my stance was defined.

:confused

Anyway, I had a disagreement with a portion of it, which I addressed. Which to me was absurd. Like I said, will read the rest at a later time.

:):

[Jiggy37]

Most of what has been said in this thread is in one of three categories: Either something I agree with or something I can neither agree nor disagree with. This one thing stood out to me, however:

Originally posted by Angyl
The language is irrelevant... that's how it was translated...that's how God wanted it to appear in English.
The question this raises is whether or not, then, God also wanted the NASB, the NLT, or the worst-case scenario, The Message, to be translated as they were also. How can we confirm that "The Message" is a less accurate translation than the KJV and is not exactly what God wanted to appear in English unless we're scholars in Hebrew and have access to original scripture manuscripts?

[frisian1970]

But of course Jiggy.

;):

[frisian1970]

Ok Kerri, after reading the article in whole, I still came to the same conclusion sans previous assumption. The concept behind the article was to articulate that you should either believe the Bible or Science, and your eternal destiny is based upon this distinction. It refers to many scientific concepts that I am not learned in, it then asserts "many scientists are beginning to believe" and such... that claim no scientific study or name no scientist. If the material between the introduction and the conclusion were understandable to me, there are no references to which to evaluate how accurate the writer is, and to see that he/she is also not biased and looking merely to conclude with his initial assertion.

[kerri]

Originally posted by frisian1970
Ok Kerri, after reading the article in whole, I still came to the same conclusion sans previous assumption. The concept behind the article was to articulate that you should either believe the Bible or Science, and your eternal destiny is based upon this distinction. It refers to many scientific concepts that I am not learned in, it then asserts "many scientists are beginning to believe" and such... that claim no scientific study or name no scientist. If the material between the introduction and the conclusion were understandable to me, there are no references to which to evaluate how accurate the writer is, and to see that he/she is also not biased and looking merely to conclude with his initial assertion.

If you were determined to look into it enough, I'm absolutely certain you could clear up your confusion ;):

Do some basic quantum physics searches on google and look for the size of the nucleus of the hydrogen atom, the distance between the nucleus itself and its electrons (the radius of its orbit) etc.... or look up non-matter or whatever it is you are having a problem understanding... these are all verifiable scientific realities.



And also- your assertion about the "concept behind the article" is still incorrect, based on a straightforward reading (unless of course, you go into reading it with bias in hand).

Its not making a distinction between OEC or YEC, as far as salvation issues- it was written as Creation with a Creator vs. Evolution by freak accident.....

the articles were written to...

#1 talk about the 6 days viewpoint scientifically and biblically, and gives reasons as to why it shouldn't just be shrugged off by the scientific community.

#2 To give support for Intelligent design throughout all fields of science... from the microcosm of quantum physics to the macrocosm of astronomy.

The final conclusion is then for those who deny the existance of a Creator at all- and can then be summarized like this... "since there is evidence that supports a Creator- what are you (those who deny that) going to do about it? Are you going to prepare to meet your Maker or not?"

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by kerri
Its not making a distinction between OEC or YEC, as far as salvation issues- it was written as Creation with a Creator vs. Evolution by freak accident.....

the articles were written to...

#1 talk about the 6 days viewpoint scientifically and biblically, and gives reasons as to why it shouldn't just be shrugged off by the scientific community.

#2 To give support for Intelligent design throughout all fields of science... from the microcosm of quantum physics to the macrocosm of astronomy.

The final conclusion is then for those who deny the existance of a Creator at all- and can then be summarized like this... "since there is evidence that supports a Creator- what are you (those who deny that) going to do about it? Are you going to prepare to meet your Maker or not?"

What is a "final" conclusion?

Evolution is never directly "attacked" as far as I can see.

Really it is an article for YEC's by YEC's.

On second thought, I'll see if I can't hunt down PanTerra or Csharp, and see if this matches up what they know.

:wave

[kerri]

Originally posted by frisian1970
What is a "final" conclusion?

Evolution is never directly "attacked" as far as I can see.

Really it is an article for YEC's by YEC's.


I agree with your first statement- it's not "attacked", just examined.... but your second statement is contradictory, considering your first.



On second thought, I'll see if I can't hunt down PanTerra or Csharp, and see if this matches up what they know.

:wave [/B]

actually- I figured you'd do that anyway (was waiting for one of them to be "hailed" into this thread) ;):

Anyway, they will agree with the facts that were provided- they're undeniable.... they may not agree with the conclusions- but they certainly can't deny the facts.

You seem to have taken a dislike to the article off the bat- so I am no longer expecting you to give it unbiased consideration anyway (no offense- your beginning bias was shown by negatively commenting on it without having read it in full first... so naturally, I wasn't surprised to still see the negativity after you read it in full) :wave

[Morph]

if god is so powerful how come it took him six days to create the earth?

and why did he need to rest?

[kerri]

Originally posted by Morph
if god is so powerful how come it took him six days to create the earth?

and why did he need to rest?

Is this question sincere or is it said in mockery? :hrm

I suggest you do a study of the Hebrew word which you are speaking of ..."to rest" actually means "to cease".

[Joshua's Gen]

Originally posted by Morph
if god is so powerful how come it took him six days to create the earth?

and why did he need to rest?

Because now we're talking about the whole grand scheme of things.

God seen that His creation would falter, and would need redemption even before the beginning of the world.

That's why - in the last book of the bible (Revelation), we are told that the Lamb was slain from BEFORE the foundations of the world.

Wer're delving into eternity past - and trying to look at the whole view of things..

God did this to institute a pattern. God told Moses to make the tabernacle thereof and all of its measurements ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN God showed Moses in the mount.

God works in cycles and patterns with us. There was a purpose to taking one week's time, not anything to do with God's power or lack of. And there was a purpose to each and every thing created in the day that it was created in.

There was a purpose why the Messiah didn't come until about 4,000 years from Adam. Not because God is lacking in power.

And there's a purpose why we've accumulated approximately 6,000 years from Adam (and 2,000 from Messiah) - to fulfill the pattern, to fulfill the Word of God.

God will return and reign for 1,000 years we're told in Revelation - and usher in a new era of peace and rest. That's God resting on the seventh day.



Isaiah 40:21 -
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isaiah 41:4 -
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isaiah 41:21 -
Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.

Isaiah 41:22 -
Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.

Isaiah 41:26 -
Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous? yea, there is none that sheweth, yea, there is none that declareth, yea, there is none that heareth your words.

Isaiah 42:9 -
Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

Isaiah 46:9 -
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Isaiah 46:10 -
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Isaiah 48:3 -
I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

Isaiah 48:5 -
I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

Isaiah 48:6 -
Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by kerri
I agree with your first statement- it's not "attacked", just examined.... but your second statement is contradictory, considering your first.




actually- I figured you'd do that anyway (was waiting for one of them to be "hailed" into this thread) ;):

Anyway, they will agree with the facts that were provided- they're undeniable.... they may not agree with the conclusions- but they certainly can't deny the facts.

You seem to have taken a dislike to the article off the bat- so I am no longer expecting you to give it unbiased consideration anyway (no offense- your beginning bias was shown by negatively commenting on it without having read it in full first... so naturally, I wasn't surprised to still see the negativity after you read it in full) :wave

Nah, I just saw where it was going to begin with, anyhow...I like that picture in your signature, what is it from?

[frisian1970]

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117233&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

I see this has been gone over before.

:wave

[kerri]

Originally posted by frisian1970
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117233&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

I see this has been gone over before.

:wave

Interesting- and yet that was only half of the article, with Martin adding his bias and presumptions with nothing indisputable to back it- as usual- and then someone threw out the flat earth strawman to boot.

I am interested in you personally being open enough to discuss this yourself ....will you try to educate yourself enough to agree with or refute without holding to your bias? If not- we really have no where else to go in the discussion :): :wave

edit: actually after reading some of that other thread you posted (from after I left for my vacation back then)- it seems that Martin was trying to refute something that Missler wasn't even suggesting... he totally missed the point of what was really being suggested (or perhaps intentionally did), and went on to "trash" (in his opinion, not mine) someting entirely different....interesting.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by kerri
Interesting- and yet that was only half of the article, with Martin adding his bias and presumptions with nothing indisputable to back it- as usual- and then someone threw out the flat earth strawman to boot.

I am interested in you personally being open enough to discuss this yourself ....will you try to educate yourself enough to agree with or refute without holding to your bias? If not- we really have no where else to go in the discussion :): :wave

My bias?

1. I don't find old earth or young earth to be a salvation issue.
2. I don't believe using solely naturalistic methods one will ever posit a "Creator" or supernatural originator.
3. I believe within a naturalistic paradigm one can always posit some naturalistic explanation that sounds logical.

I don't understand science well enough to say with subjective certainty that this is how this or that explanation is most sensible. What I do see is the majority of the scientific community believes are logical explanations aren't in aligment with the YEC viewpoint. I don't buy that it is merely an atheistic answer to assume no God, or creator. As is often said, the same "evidence" is there to be evaluated. Is there bias? Of course, find me someone that approaches things with absolutely no bias. I would say someone could make a valid logical construct related to nearly anything to oppose a view.

To me, the Bible is not a science book, it is theological in base and is intended to deliver a message about God sovereignty, man's fall, God restoration via grace. How does one fit a naturalistic paradigm into a religious one? Some don't think they need do so at all, I think I lie somewhere in the middle in that I like to hear what opposing sides (or multiple ones for that matter) posit and lean toward that which is logical based on reason, faith, and understanding in general the process conclusions are reached and assumptions are apparent.

So my initial point in relation to your article posted was its bias. Of course YEC's are the only ones biased, as I said we are all biased. Yet, it doesn't mean there is no relative fact presented. Sorting through that is where one can find some apparent truth in relation to science or theology.

[frisian1970]

Originally posted by kerri
edit: actually after reading some of that other thread you posted (from after I left for my vacation back then)- it seems that Martin was trying to refute something that Missler wasn't even suggesting... he totally missed the point of what was really being suggested (or perhaps intentionally did), and went on to "trash" (in his opinion, not mine) someting entirely different....interesting.

hmmm, well shoot bring that back alive and point it out to him.

:):

[kerri]

Originally posted by frisian1970
My bias?

1. I don't find old earth or young earth to be a salvation issue.
2. I don't believe using solely naturalistic methods one will ever posit a "Creator" or supernatural originator.
3. I believe within a naturalistic paradigm one can always posit some naturalistic explanation that sounds logical.

I don't understand science well enough to say with subjective certainty that this is how this or that explanation is most sensible. What I do see is the majority of the scientific community believes are logical explanations aren't in aligment with the YEC viewpoint. I don't buy that it is merely an atheistic answer to assume no God, or creator. As is often said, the same "evidence" is there to be evaluated. Is there bias? Of course, find me someone that approaches things with absolutely no bias. I would say someone could make a valid logical construct related to nearly anything to oppose a view.

To me, the Bible is not a science book, it is theological in base and is intended to deliver a message about God sovereignty, man's fall, God restoration via grace. How does one fit a naturalistic paradigm into a religious one? Some don't think they need do so at all, I think I lie somewhere in the middle in that I like to hear what opposing sides (or multiple ones for that matter) posit and lean toward that which is logical based on reason, faith, and understanding in general the process conclusions are reached and assumptions are apparent.

So my initial point in relation to your article posted was its bias. Of course YEC's are the only ones biased, as I said we are all biased. Yet, it doesn't mean there is no relative fact presented. Sorting through that is where one can find some apparent truth in relation to science or theology.

1- neither did the article- and yet you poopooed it.
2- Well, just because you don't believe it- and in truth is most likely the case- doesnt mean that the universe isn't filled with thing that directly DO point to a Designer- that is the premise of both articles.
3- I agree- even if that means closing their eyes to the evidences that support what goes against their logic.

And as I have been trying to say in other threads- because there is such a total lack of fullness of knowledge, and the capabilities to get there scientifically (at least at this point, and most like will continue that way)- we are ALL biased in what we believe to be the truth in certain matters.

I think, even within the bounds of science, we can still rightly look at the unknowns in creation through the dual lenses of our faith as supported by Scripture (either YEC OR OEC) and of science.

And in fact- I would even go a step further and say these scientific unknowns, when looked at through the lense of Scripture paint a fascinating and utterly amazing picture of our Creator and how complex of a Designer He is.

I believe this article focuses on those inexplicables of the scientific community through the lense of scripture... and rightly so.

[Morph]

Originally posted by kerri
Is this question sincere or is it said in mockery? :hrm

I suggest you do a study of the Hebrew word which you are speaking of ..."to rest" actually means "to cease".

no i wasn't being facetious.

Josh: you didn't mention what the purpose was. You would think that God could have made everything at once, what would be the problem in that?

[Chris4Christ]

Originally posted by Morph
no i wasn't being facetious.

Josh: you didn't mention what the purpose was. You would think that God could have made everything at once, what would be the problem in that?

Why do you think God should do things in YOUR timing and not His? :confused

Is He somehow less powerful because He chose His timing and you did not? ;):

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Morph
You would think that God could have made everything at once, what would be the problem in that? The fact that he chose to break up the creation into several steps would imply some meaning of its own, yes?

[Joshua's Gen]

I thought I already went over that.

It was a blueprint for 6,000 years of human history that God would deal with mankind in his plan of redemption.

[christiansoul]

I guess that's why we keep having earthquakes....it's the earth "settling"

[UNeverEverNo]

To God, there is no "time". He created it for us. So we, with our tiny little minds, try to figure out every detail.

If Adam and Eve were created as adults, couldn't the earth and the heavens have been created with a few years on them, too?