Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's just really frustrating to see someone who claims to believe the Bible put so much effort into attacking what the Bible teaches about the earth's history. The creationist response to old earth theories varies from reasonable to compelling. In some cases, it's hard to truly prove one viewpoint one way or another, so the creationist viewpoint is at least reasonable. In other aspects, it's compelling, in that the creationism poses problems to the old earth view. For example, we know the rate at which helium escapes into space, and we know the rate at which it decays and enters the atmosphere, and there's not enough helium in the atmosphere to account for an old earth.
And in this video, for example, problems for the old earth (and, by extension, old universe and old solar system) view are demonstrated for pretty much everything we see in the solar system. And these are compelling, because uniformitarians must invent rescue devices for their theories, for which no scientific evidence exists.
You have to be kidding. Spike Psarris is not even an astronomer. He has a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and has done graduate work in Physics. There's no mention from what I've seen that he ever received a Ph.D. He was, or claims to have been an engineer in the U.S. military space program. In what? Electrical Engineering? And you think that qualifies him as an expert in the origin of the universe? Looking at some of his listed videos, he denies the big bang origin of the universe which is the major view of the universe's beginning, though there are other views.
Young earth creationists simply cannot be trusted to give accurate information about the origin of the universe.
And once again, I am not attacking the Bible.
As for the claim by young earth creationists that there's not enough helium in the atmosphere, here's a quick refutation of that claim.
Thou knowest not what thou sayest. There are scholars who do some figuring of their own from scripture.
The timeline of creation of Adam and Eve from scripture has already been proven. That's how they know it was 6000 years ago.
With recorded history and dates, lineage, and years of age, etc., given in scripture the timeline can be figured with great accuracy.
But that's only if you believe the scripture, I don't think I'm currently communicating with that person.
I know exactly what I'm saying and young earth creationists cannot be trusted. Some are quite willing to lie, and some simply do sloppy research.
The biblical timeline for Adam and Eve, who may not have even historically existed, is meaningless. We have both fossil and DNA evidence that the human race is far older than 6 to 10 thousand years. Once again, you deny scientific evidence in preference for a story.
When you say ''believing the scripture'' you are talking about taking it literally without regard for the various genres in the Bible. Not taking the Genesis creation and flood stories literally is not disbelieving the Bible. It's understanding that those stories were not intended to be understood literally and historically.
You have to be kidding. Spike Psarris is not even an astronomer. He has a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and has done graduate work in Physics. There's no mention from what I've seen that he ever received a Ph.D. He was, or claims to have been an engineer in the U.S. military space program. In what? Electrical Engineering? And you think that qualifies him as an expert in the origin of the universe? Looking at some of his listed videos, he denies the big bang origin of the universe which is the major view of the universe's beginning, though there are other views.
Young earth creationists simply cannot be trusted to give accurate information about the origin of the universe.
And once again, I am not attacking the Bible.
As for the claim by young earth creationists that there's not enough helium in the atmosphere, here's a quick refutation of that claim.
Is not this the carpenter's son? God uses the weak things, the fooling things of the world to confound the things that are, the strong. Try addressing the veracity of what he's saying instead. A child can understand that goo to you via the zoo is preposterous, but the educated cannot.
And, yes, you are attacking the Bible. It can be clearly seen from the Bible that Jesus, Paul, and Peter taught about Adam and the Flood quite literally. It's one thing to understand that many of the symbols of future prophecy (e.g., Revelation) are symbolic and not always strictly literal. But to say that God tells us about past events (the creation of the heavens and the earth) symbolically, and in a way quite contrary to the didactic meaning (man bringing death into the world vs. death bringing man into the world), when there's literally no reason He could not have created the world in six days, is to seriously attack the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3 is even quite prophetic, because what he describes, "things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" is essentially what uniformitarianism propounds. And those who deny the Flood are "willingly ignorant."
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Here are some facts. These are conservatively stated, so nobody having knowledge of the appropriate branch of science would disagree.
The Universe is over 13 Billion years old. The Earth is over 4 Billion years old. The Grand Canyon is over 6 Million years old. The species Homo Sapiens has been on the earth for nearly 200,000 years.
Those ages alone render any flood involving human beings and the formation of the Grand Canyon impossible. Now. Take the story of Noah, read it as non-literal and see what moral lessons are contained in it. That's the value. It's not history. Think of it as a moral lesson, like Aesop's Fables, which we know aren't to be taken literally.
I know exactly what I'm saying and young earth creationists cannot be trusted. Some are quite willing to lie, and some simply do sloppy research.
The biblical timeline for Adam and Eve, who may not have even historically existed, is meaningless. We have both fossil and DNA evidence that the human race is far older than 6 to 10 thousand years. Once again, you deny scientific evidence in preference for a story.
When you say ''believing the scripture'' you are talking about taking it literally without regard for the various genres in the Bible. Not taking the Genesis creation and flood stories literally is not disbelieving the Bible. It's understanding that those stories were not intended to be understood literally and historically.
Yes, take it literal until you find reason from scripture not to believe it's literal but figurative.
Where is your proof or just reasoning from scripture it's not literal? I'll take a close look at that.
Is not this the carpenter's son? God uses the weak things, the fooling things of the world to confound the things that are, the strong. Try addressing the veracity of what he's saying instead. A child can understand that goo to you via the zoo is preposterous, but the educated cannot.
And, yes, you are attacking the Bible. It can be clearly seen from the Bible that Jesus, Paul, and Peter taught about Adam and the Flood quite literally. It's one thing to understand that many of the symbols of future prophecy (e.g., Revelation) are symbolic and not always strictly literal. But to say that God tells us about past events (the creation of the heavens and the earth) symbolically, and in a way quite contrary to the didactic meaning (man bringing death into the world vs. death bringing man into the world), when there's literally no reason He could not have created the world in six days, is to seriously attack the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3 is even quite prophetic, because what he describes, "things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" is essentially what uniformitarianism propounds. And those who deny the Flood are "willingly ignorant."
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Creation.com is a nonsensical web site. They do not publish real science. The same is true for Discovery.org, IntelligentDesign.org, AnswersInGenesis.org and a number of others. You can find a list of some of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Yes, take it literal until you find reason from scripture not to believe it's literal but figurative.
Where is your proof or just reasoning from scripture it's not literal? I'll take a close look at that.
I'll take the time for that, but not for science.
You error in restricting yourself to what the Bible says at the expense of scientific evidence. But maybe I'll devote a new thread to the fact that the firmament in the Genesis creation account is not an expanse of sky but is a hard solid dome covering a flat earth.
Is not this the carpenter's son? God uses the weak things, the fooling things of the world to confound the things that are, the strong. Try addressing the veracity of what he's saying instead. A child can understand that goo to you via the zoo is preposterous, but the educated cannot.
And, yes, you are attacking the Bible. It can be clearly seen from the Bible that Jesus, Paul, and Peter taught about Adam and the Flood quite literally. It's one thing to understand that many of the symbols of future prophecy (e.g., Revelation) are symbolic and not always strictly literal. But to say that God tells us about past events (the creation of the heavens and the earth) symbolically, and in a way quite contrary to the didactic meaning (man bringing death into the world vs. death bringing man into the world), when there's literally no reason He could not have created the world in six days, is to seriously attack the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3 is even quite prophetic, because what he describes, "things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" is essentially what uniformitarianism propounds. And those who deny the Flood are "willingly ignorant."
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
No, the big bang is not garbage. The big bang has solid evidence such as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, or CMB which was predicted by the big bang theory and which is detectable. A map of the CMB has been made.
And no, I am not attacking the Bible. Jesus mentioning the creation and flood stories can be explained by him using the stories that the Jews knew to make a point.
You error in restricting yourself to what the Bible says at the expense of scientific evidence. But maybe I'll devote a new thread to the fact that the firmament in the Genesis creation account is not an expanse of sky but is a hard solid dome covering a flat earth.
LOL, we've graduated to a flat earth now! That's just great!
Is it still flat or has it changed since then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
