• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,487
4,242
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,736.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Just to be clear, suggesting that He may be confused, missing or lying about creation is disputing the existence of God. Call it a tomato if you like.
It's a good thing, then, that nobody here is doing that. The issue apparently under discussion is a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of an ancient holy book.
 
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
It's a good thing, then, that nobody here is doing that. The issue apparently under discussion is a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of an ancient holy book.
You calling belief in what God said shallow or inadequate is of no value except as expressing an unsupportable belief.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,146
3,176
Oregon
✟929,679.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Just to be clear, suggesting that He may be confused, missing or lying about creation is disputing the existence of God. Call it a tomato if you like.
To be clear, I attempted to bring the discussion back to the creation aspect of Genesis. Your want is to go else where.

When looking at the geology of the Earth itself and looking at what God's own Creation is telling us about it's self, it's crystal clear that we live on a very, very old planet. One that is many billions of years old.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,856.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To be clear, I attempted to bring the discussion back to the creation aspect of Genesis. Your want is to go else where.

When looking at the geology of the Earth itself and looking at what God's own Creation is telling us about it's self, it's crystal clear that we live on a very, very old planet. One that is many billions of years old.
It is "crystal clear" when looking at the geology of the Earth itself that we live on a planet which is billions of years old ONLY IF the scientific evidence is interpreted from a point of view which believes in the old Earth doctrine of creation. On the other hand, the Bible has multiple passages of Scripture that strongly indicates that the most accurate interpretation of Genesis chapters 1&2 is young Earth creationism. Also, there are geologists whom are Christians who believe that, when looking at Scriptural and scientific evidence together, that YEC is the correct interpretation of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,856.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,856.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,856.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,621
16,320
55
USA
✟410,468.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It is "crystal clear" when looking at the geology of the Earth itself that we live on a planet which is billions of years old ONLY IF the scientific evidence is interpreted from a point of view which believes in the old Earth doctrine of creation.
Nope. Not a "point of view" or a "doctrine". Examination of the geological layers understanding the processes required to make each indicates that the Earth is 10s of millions of years old or more. Radioactive dating puts precise numbers on the overall age and various layers.
On the other hand, the Bible has multiple passages of Scripture that strongly indicates that the most accurate interpretation of Genesis chapters 1&2 is young Earth creationism. Also, there are geologists whom are Christians who believe that, when looking at Scriptural and scientific evidence together, that YEC is the correct interpretation of the evidence.
These are just theological interpretations. They are not scientific.


creation . com is a ministry, not a research organization of any kind. It's positions are theological, not scientific.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,856.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nope. Not a "point of view" or a "doctrine". Examination of the geological layers understanding the processes required to make each indicates that the Earth is 10s of millions of years old or more. Radioactive dating puts precise numbers on the overall age and various layers.

These are just theological interpretations. They are not scientific.


creation . com is a ministry, not a research organization of any kind. It's positions are theological, not scientific.
I believe that your post is incorrect about a number of things, including creation.com Although they are a ministry, they are still a research organization with multiple scientists on there world wide staff.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,621
16,320
55
USA
✟410,468.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I believe that your post is incorrect about a number of things, including creation.com Although they are a ministry, they are still a research organization with multiple scientists on there world wide staff.
A ministry that employs people with scientific credentials to put a sciency veneer on their theology is still just a ministry.
 
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
To be clear, I attempted to bring the discussion back to the creation aspect of Genesis. Your want is to go else where.
Not at all. We can start by realizing that creation means the bible book that told us how it happened. Why do you falsely claim I 'want to go elsewhere'? I responded to a poster that tried to limit what a rational position on these matters to having to admit you (and God and the bible) might be wrong!
When looking at the geology of the Earth itself and looking at what God's own Creation is telling us about it's self, it's crystal clear that we live on a very, very old planet. One that is many billions of years old.
When looking at the geology of the earth, and creation and His word on how it came about, it is crystal clear that we live on a created planet that was created the same week the first man was created. On the issue of why things look old to unbelievers, it seems to me the root cause is that they leave God out of the picture. Avi tried to include God and suggested that on day one, some things looked old. Geology does not address that! All geology does is say basically, that 'IF there was no God and no creation, and all things got here by their little selves and what we call 'natural' processes that would have could have should have taken a long time'!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
A ministry that employs people with scientific credentials to put a sciency veneer on their theology is still just a ministry.
Others might view it more as that unbelievers put a sciency veneer on their beliefs and doubts and fables
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Nope. Not a "point of view" or a "doctrine". Examination of the geological layers understanding the processes required to make each

Nope. 'required to make IF there was no creation and natural processes dunnit all! So yes that is a point of view.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,366.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Not at all. We can start by realizing that creation means the bible book that told us how it happened.

Then why does the fossil record not show back the Genesis creation account? Why do aquatic animals appear at different intervals in the world's history, same with flying animals? If the Genesis account is fact, then they should all have appeared at one specific point in time.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,487
4,242
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,736.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You calling belief in what God said shallow or inadequate is of no value except as expressing an unsupportable belief.
No, I'm calling your opinion about what God said shallow and inadequate for the purposes of discussing the creation. As far as I am concerned, you can believe anything you like about the Bible as long as you find the Gospel of Christ in it. But you don't own the Bible and you are in no position to dictate to other Christians how to interpret what it has to say on the subject of creation.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,487
4,242
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,736.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Not at all. We can start by realizing that creation means the bible book that told us how it happened. Why do you falsely claim I 'want to go elsewhere'? I responded to a poster that tried to limit what a rational position on these matters to having to admit you (and God and the bible) might be wrong!

When looking at the geology of the earth, and creation and His word on how it came about, it is crystal clear that we live on a created planet that was created the same week the first man was created. On the issue of why things look old to unbelievers, it seems to me the root cause is that they leave God out of the picture. Avi tried to include God and suggested that on day one, some things looked old. Geology does not address that! All geology does is say basically, that 'IF there was no God and no creation, and all things got here by their little selves and what we call 'natural' processes that would have could have should have taken a long time'!
What? You are not trying to say that science denies the existence of God, are you? What a disgusting blasphemy that would be!
 
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Then why does the fossil record not show back the Genesis creation account?
Why would there be dead fossilized creatures created? If we believe God and that He is the creator of all things, and the record He gave of how it happened, we can put your question into perspective. Your question becomes 'how did all the fossils get here and why are some remains, such as of mankind absent?' Then we separate what we know and do not know. We know man was here from the beginning. Jesus confirmed that. We know man was created the same week as other creatures and animals. So now look at what we do not know from your question. We do not know why some creatures did and other creatures did not leave remains. We do not know that the remains we do see go all the way back to the beginning...etc. It seems to me the problem arises only when we insist on dismissing Genesis, and accepting the notion that all that exists was 'created' by itself basically and made in natural ways.

You do realize that creation is a miracle? The millions of galaxies and nebulae and stars out there, all created by what man must call a miracle. Life also. The world and sun and moon also. A mistake of unbelievers is to try to explain it all 'naturally'. There could be no such silly explanation. Nature is 'after the fact' of creation. Nature is not something we can use to tell us how it was created!
Why do aquatic animals appear at different intervals in the world's history, same with flying animals? If the Genesis account is fact, then they should all have appeared at one specific point in time.
You assume that fish existed only when their dead fossilized remains are seen. Sorry, there was not a single fossil in the week of creation I would think. Yet the oceans teemed with fish and whales and etc. So then the second assumption you make in the question is that all whales and fish and etc must have left fossilized remains when they all died. The basis for that belief is unsupportable and solely rests on what happened today in nature. Nature had nothing to do with creation! There was no 'mother nature' here at all. There was nothing. No ponds. No worms. No stars. etc. I daresay we should not even assume that there were forces of nature yet. It could be that God is the force, and that this is simply manifested in various ways (forces) in whatever created reality that comes to exist including our physical reality.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,366.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Why would there be dead fossilized creatures created? If we believe God and that He is the creator of all things, and the record He gave of how it happened, we can put your question into perspective. Your question becomes 'how did all the fossils get here and why are some remains, such as of mankind absent?' Then we separate what we know and do not know. We know man was here from the beginning. Jesus confirmed that. We know man was created the same week as other creatures and animals. So now look at what we do not know from your question. We do not know why some creatures did and other creatures did not leave remains. We do not know that the remains we do see go all the way back to the beginning...etc. It seems to me the problem arises only when we insist on dismissing Genesis, and accepting the notion that all that exists was 'created' by itself basically and made in natural ways.

You do realize that creation is a miracle? The millions of galaxies and nebulae and stars out there, all created by what man must call a miracle. Life also. The world and sun and moon also. A mistake of unbelievers is to try to explain it all 'naturally'. There could be no such silly explanation. Nature is 'after the fact' of creation. Nature is not something we can use to tell us how it was created!

You assume that fish existed only when their dead fossilized remains are seen. Sorry, there was not a single fossil in the week of creation I would think. Yet the oceans teemed with fish and whales and etc. So then the second assumption you make in the question is that all whales and fish and etc must have left fossilized remains when they all died. The basis for that belief is unsupportable and solely rests on what happened today in nature. Nature had nothing to do with creation! There was no 'mother nature' here at all. There was nothing. No ponds. No worms. No stars. etc. I daresay we should not even assume that there were forces of nature yet. It could be that God is the force, and that this is simply manifested in various ways (forces) in whatever created reality that comes to exist including our physical reality.

That was a very long winded and rambling way to say that you cannot answer my question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
What? You are not trying to say that science denies the existence of God, are you? What a disgusting blasphemy that would be!
I would say science is a stranger to God and displays no desire to change that relationship
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,146
3,176
Oregon
✟929,679.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
When looking at the geology of the earth, and creation and His word on how it came about, it is crystal clear that we live on a created planet that was created the same week the first man was created. On the issue of why things look old to unbelievers, it seems to me the root cause is that they leave God out of the picture.
In reading through this thread, it seems to me that the bases of your argument about the age of the earth is based on interpretation. Quite honestly I don't know what that means. In the hope of finding out, if you don't mind, I'd like to work with the Yellowstone Hotspot. Also please note, I'm very much a Lover of God.

The Earth has shown us that the Yellowstone Hotspot appeared at the Oregon/Nevada border 16.5 years ago. I've visited that area. Through a series of eruptions the Yellowstone Hotspot burned its way to it's present location as the North American Plate moved westward over it. Where these eruptions occurred and when is well studied and understood. It's what God's own Creation, the Earth, is directly showing us.

I've provided a map below.

There's a lot more involved such as the relationship the Yellowstone Hotspot has with the Columbia River Basalt flows and such. But I've made this example focused on the Yellowstone Hotspot only and made it as simple as I know. Hopefully your are able to provide your interpretation of the geology and age of movement of the Yellowstone Hotspot. I'd like to understand your interpretation.

Here's a map showing the various eruptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot as the North American Plate moved over it:

vhp_img4.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0