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.
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.
To be clear, I attempted to bring the discussion back to the creation aspect of Genesis. Your want is to go else where.
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.
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.
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.
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'!
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.
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 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.
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.
