Granite disprov a 6000 year old Earth.

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The bible said it happened on day 1. Gen 1:5.
Sun and moon, day 4
Plants, day 3
Man day 6.

Secondly, Strongs say's you're wrong.

Thirdly, no one uses the word fatted in Gen 1:1

Fourthly, none of the commentaries agree with you.


No one uses the word, because it is the original Hebrew.
I am only discussing Verse 1--there is no question about the rest as far as I'm concerned. No one has to agree with me. All I am saying is, that it seems to say that at some point God created the earth and the heavens, He laid the foundstions--then came back and filled it. So the earth, rock, and water could have been here for millions of years--so it is no surprise that there would be rocks that are eons old--nothing else.
 
Upvote 0

Jezmeyah

member since 7-14-16
Jul 14, 2016
401
200
Indiana
✟32,170.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I said it alludes to a pre-Adamic race.
No where does the bible say the earth existed prior to day 1.
If you state that it alludes to a pre-adamic race, then where is that race? Where is the scripture that talks about there being one? As I read the Genesis record, 'from day 1' no pre-adamic race is mentioned.. but only the Adamic race formed on day 6.

As to your second statement,.. Then you certainly conclude differently from the text than I do. By your statement there was only water for the Spirit of God to brood over, that there was no land submerged.
But I do not consider that Genesis, in talking about "the darkness upon the deep" that it was describing only a water ball with no earth submerged underneath all that liquid.
And when it said "Let the dry land appear" you must take it to mean that it suddenly existed where before it didn't. But I take it to mean that the water abated or shifted or dissipated to reveal the land that had been submerged.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No one uses the word, because it is the original Hebrew.
I am only discussing Verse 1--there is no question about the rest as far as I'm concerned. No one has to agree with me. All I am saying is, that it seems to say that at some point God created the earth and the heavens, He laid the foundstions--then came back and filled it. So the earth, rock, and water could have been here for millions of years--so it is no surprise that there would be rocks that are eons old--nothing else.

Day 1 in the bible begins with Gen 1:1 and ends with Gen 1:5.

The bible doesn't say God laid the foundation then came back and finished creation.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Psalm 102:25
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Jump to Previous
Job 38:4
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.Hebrews 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Not one single person has to agree with me.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Psalm 102:25
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Jump to Previous
Job 38:4
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.Hebrews 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Not one single person has to agree with me.

God laid the foundations in the beginning of day 1.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,138
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,135.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It won't hurt my feelings if you disagree. I just don't have to argue with anyone about why there are rocks millions of years old.
* cough * Remember me?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟871,701.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But evolution is fact proven by many fields of science

Evolution is a fact, with massive amounts of evidence from diverse fields, but like everything else in science, it's not proven. Science doesn't deal in proof.
--------------------------------


No such thing as scientific proof.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof


One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.


Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.


Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725


After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?


Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.


Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.
 
Upvote 0

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Evolution is a fact, with massive amounts of evidence from diverse fields, but like everything else in science, it's not proven. Science doesn't deal in proof.
--------------------------------


No such thing as scientific proof.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof


One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.


Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.


Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725


After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?


Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.


Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

Bad wording from me, of course. Not proven but maby "confirmed" is better word then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Maybe they don't understand?
It may well be. Certainly it's safe to say that none of the creationists on this board are arguing against the real theory of evolution. There is real ignorance and some intentional misrepresentation but no acknowledgement whatever of the actual theory itself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟871,701.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Your problem is, is that evolutionism is all you've been indoctrinated into.

Actually, your problem is that "evolutionism" is a figment of your imagination and doesn't exist.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Some of those guys are pretty darn bright. I'm pretty sure they do understand.

Your problem is, is that evolutionism is all you've been indoctrinated into.

Well, I think, to look so simplified, is not good. Black or white. Yes or no. Creation or evolution. Any such limitations are bad.

Because, God is so much greater. We can see it in all things. He can work in much more mysterious ways and the underlying laws of life and matter and all that there is, we know only 0.0000000000000000001% or much less than that of all that there is to know.

Evolution might be God's mechanism for creation built-in in all living organisms, we don't know. It maybe that no scientist today, for example, know the "critical ingridient X" that's in play and they strive to search with what they have and know for now and hit a glass wall. It's sort of blindness.

There is absolute intelligence in all of creation. Materialist who reject any "supernatural", which can be unknown "law of nature", is religious person. Not in particular "evolutionist" , or whatever, but more broadly, a closed-minded, self-limited person. Not to recognize the obvious. There is intelligence. Not just in design, but also in operation, in existance.

It's not rejecting a certain interpretation of creation by God, in order to establish possibility of evolving, adapting life. Anybody who reads a text and derives to certain conclusions about mechanism of life, well, also self-limiting. It's their interpretation. Made into absolute law, or another religion.

Why not observe reality, and all come to consensus? Why endlessly quarrel over how to break an egg - from thin or thick end, like Lilliputians did?

God is smarter >> 1000000000000000000000000 times than all human beings who ever lived and will live.

If anyone, anyone, anyone thinks they "have God" in their pocket, what a totally laughable delusion!!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟871,701.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0