Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

[-57]

You have been presented many reasons to believe the account in Genesis is literal and historical.

Only if special pleading and obscurantism count as reasons.

So, when the bible says....Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned....thats pleading and obscurantism?

OR

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

......that too is pleading and obscurantism?

 

[Speedwell]

More to my point. The bible informs us Jesus was God....and Jesus was part of the six day creation people deny.

Not the same as denying that Jesus was was part of creation.

 

[Speedwell]

So, when the bible says....Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned....thats pleading and obscurantism?

OR

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

......that too is pleading and obscurantism?

But believing that does not require believing that the text of the creation story is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[-57]

Not the same as denying that Jesus was was part of creation.

By "part of" I meant Jesus took part in the creation. Jesus was the creator as the following verses inform us:


COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

COL 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


JOH 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


JOH 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world *WAS MADE* through him, the world did not recognize him.


HEB 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.


ROM 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[-57]

But believing that does not require believing that the text of the creation story is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

The verses presented indicates a literal Adam and a literal fall that can be linked directly back to the Genesis account. The Theo-Evo minded individual must deny what Paul wrote. Paul tells us through one individual sin and death entered. The Theo-Evo sect says no.....populations evolved sin. Sin evolved within the population and had absolutly nothing to do with Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

[lesliedellow]

The Theo-Evo minded individual must deny what Paul wrote. Paul tells us through one individual sin and death entered. The Theo-Evo sect says no.....populations evolved sin. Sin evolved within the population and had absolutly nothing to do with Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

[Speedwell]

The verses presented indicates a literal Adam and a literal fall that can be linked directly back to the Genesis account. The Theo-Evo minded individual must deny what Paul wrote. Paul tells us through one individual sin and death entered. The Theo-Evo sect says no.....populations evolved sin. Sin evolved within the population and had absolutly nothing to do with Adam and Eve in the garden.

You don't get it, do you. Even if you could show that Adam really existed and his life and times were pretty much as described in the Garden story, you still would not have proved your claims about the text of the story.
After all, we have many, many stories about historical events which are reasonably accurate but none of them are the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.
And, in fact, there are a considerable number of "theo-evos: who generally accept the theory of evolution and an old cosmos but still believe in the special creation of man.

 

[-57]

You don't get it, do you. Even if you could show that Adam really existed and his life and times were pretty much as described in the Garden story, you still would not have proved your claims about the text of the story.
After all, we have many, many stories about historical events which are reasonably accurate but none of them are the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.
And, in fact, there are a considerable number of "theo-evos: who generally accept the theory of evolution and an old cosmos but still believe in the special creation of man.

There are some who sit on the fence. They accept some sort of literal day six...then simply disregard the other 5 days. Like you, they harm the Word of God by watering it down.

 

[-57]

It's almost 2 hours long....I don't really plan on sitting down and wasting an evening watching the guy talk.
Perhaps you could point out the minute marker where the best stuff is.

Secondly it shouldn't take a 2 hour long video to explain your position when a 5th grader can read Genesis and easily come to the correct conclusion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here is the problem in a nutshell.

Both sides are wrong and right but both refuse to apply the proper science.

The universe began accelerating when God "stretched out the heavens" during creation.

Acceleration causes clocks to slow.

Since both sides refuse to apply time dilation effects to the question of age it is impossible for either side to see how the earth would appear to be billions of years old in a mere few thousands of today's time.

Both sides incorrectly believe time is the same now as it was then. One sees the age of rocks which aged during that time of expansion at an exponential rate but refuses to adjust their clocks for time dilation even if theory demands they do. The others also refuse to adjust their clocks for that acceleration that took place and so can't understand how it could be that old since only 6,000+ years of "today's" time has passed.

Both sides just need to accept science and apply time dilation affects as they know they must in reality. Until then we will be stuck in this endless loop of pointless debates about age because both sides refuse to apply the proper science.

 

[-57]

Here is the problem in a nutshell.

Both sides are wrong and right but both refuse to apply the proper science.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1474449713049-1'); });
The universe began accelerating when God "stretched out the heavens" during creation.

Acceleration causes clocks to slow.

That's one theory..and I'm not saying your wrong..the YEC verdict is still out.
Currently I favor Russ Humphreys cosmology. Russ's theory basically says the couple day old earth was in a intense gravitational field which stopped time on earth while the rest of the universe's clocks were running at normal speeds. This model explains how the light from distant galaxies reached the earth in 6 earth days.

Both sides incorrectly believe time is the same now as it was then. One sees the age of rocks which aged during that time of expansion at an exponential rate but refuses to adjust their clocks for time dilation even if theory demands they do. The others also refuse to adjust their clocks for that acceleration that took place and so can't understand how it could be that old since only 6,000+ years of "today's" time has passed.

I don't think our earth rocks aged at an expotential rate. These rocks contain fossils..which I believe your theory would have had them laid down and buried prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Both sides just need to accept science and apply time dilation affects as they know they must in reality. Until then we will be stuck in this endless loop of pointless debates about age because both sides refuse to apply the proper science.

We must remember not to filter the bible through faulty science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's one theory..and I'm not saying your wrong..the YEC verdict is still out.
Currently I favor Russ Humphreys cosmology. Russ's theory basically says the couple day old earth was in a intense gravitational field which stopped time on earth while the rest of the universe's clocks were running at normal speeds. This model explains how the light from distant galaxies reached the earth in 6 earth days.



I don't think our earth rocks aged at an expotential rate. These rocks contain fossils..which I believe your theory would have had them laid down and buried prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.



We must remember not to filter the bible through faulty science.

These rocks contain fossils because the creation of previous life had nothing to do with when man was created.

And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste. Because people of old had preconceived ideas they translated that Hebrew word wrong. It doesn't mean "was" it means "to become", "to fall out."

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

Which is also why the verb in the first verse is past tense, completed, finished.

Also why the old manuscripts have a pause mark after the first verse. You were to stop and marvel at the creation, before being told of its recreation and the creation of man.

Also why the Hebrew word for creating from nothing is only used in verse one. The others translated create mean from pre existing matter.

The heavens were stretched out in the beginning, not when the atmosphere was cleared of the dus/ash from the asteroid that rendered it desolate and waste.

 

[-57]

These rocks contain fossils because the creation of previous life had nothing to do with when man was created.

And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste. Because people of old had preconceived ideas they translated that Hebrew word wrong. It doesn't mean "was" it means "to become", "to fall out."

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

Which is also why the verb in the first verse is past tense, completed, finished.

Also why the old manuscripts have a pause mark after the first verse. You were to stop and marvel at the creation, before being told of its recreation and the creation of man.

Also why the Hebrew word for creating from nothing is only used in verse one. The others translated create mean from pre existing matter.

The heavens were stretched out in the beginning, not when the atmosphere was cleared of the dus/ash from the asteroid that rendered it desolate and waste.

Where?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where?

Right here.

But you must have missed the part where I said "translated" it as "was", when you can't find that word as a single meaning of hayah.

But don't let the meanings of Hebrew words change your beliefs, doesn't seem to matter to those who translate the Bible either that "was" is not a meaning of hayah at all.

But people have a tendency to ignore what words mean if it conflicts with what they believe.

I said they incorrectly translate it, but you don't want to believe it so you totally ignored what the Hebrew word really means.

It's ok, I understand.

 

[-57]

Right here.

But you must have missed the part where I said "translated" it as "was", when you can't find that word as a single meaning of hayah.

But don't let the meanings of Hebrew words change your beliefs, doesn't seem to matter to those who translate the Bible either that "was" is not a meaning of hayah at all.

But people have a tendency to ignore what words mean if it conflicts with what they believe.

I said they incorrectly translate it, but you don't want to believe it so you totally ignored what the Hebrew word really means.

It's ok, I understand.

Amazing....everyone got it wrong except for you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, not everyone, just those with preconceived beliefs they won't let go of.

But you got a whole list of words for hayah, why don't you show me where was is an accepted translation???

"Hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I notice you keep avoiding the meaning of the Hebrew word. Just because someone jumps off a clif are you going to?

You got a mind, use it. Jesus warned you those would come along and change scripture.

Now here you got people saying it is "was" and yet you can't show me in a concordance where the Hebrew word means was.

You can try to play it off, but why are you refusing to accept the definition of the Hebrew word?

 

[David_M]

All of the geological strata are a result of the flood of Noah and are the same age.
We have evidense for this when we find sodt tissue in dino's that are suppose to be 65+ MY's old.....or C14 in coal. (neither of which should be there)

Your first claim is preposterous. Even if we allow claims that radiometric dating could somehow be "reset" by the flood that still does not bypass the undeniable fact that the strata of the geologic column are not of the same age. Of course the fact that some of the layers cannot have formed under water also destroys this claim.

 

[David_M]

Whwn will you evos realize that when the Cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

They don't. Most of the major classes of life appear much later than the Cambrian, i.e. all life on land.

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the Cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

They don't, go do some research on the Ediacaran fossils, they clearly show ancestors of the Cambrian "explosion".

 

[-57]

Your first claim is preposterous. Even if we allow claims that radiometric dating could somehow be "reset" by the flood that still does not bypass the undeniable fact that the strata of the geologic column are not of the same age. Of course the fact that some of the layers cannot have formed under water also destroys this claim.

I don't think anyone was making the claim that radiometric dating was "reset" during the flood.
Secondly you didn't address the issue why we still find soft tissue in dino bone/fossils that shouldn't be there as well as C14 that should have decayed in 57K years and it still being found in coal and diamonds.

Calling my claim "preposterous" without demonstrating why it is, is preposterous.