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.
Just to clarify for Biblical creationists, none of these sources are from God's word and all are man's word and... again, no recorded history beyond 5,000 years ago so by logical conclusion we can know these are all based upon assumptions and inferences."the 2nd point is that if humans have been around for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, it is very odd that there is no recorded history beyond 5,000 years"
Simply denying that history exists, is not justification for the idea that history doesn't exist.
Banpo - Wikipedia
Yangshao culture - Wikipedia
Cishan culture - Wikipedia
Earliest domestication of common millet (Panicum miliaceum) in East Asia extended to 10,000 years ago
Jiahu symbols - Wikipedia
Peiligang culture - Wikipedia
Pengtoushan - Wikipedia
Xianren Cave - Wikipedia
Everything you wrote (and repeated ad nauseam in subsequent posts) is irrelevant and just an attempt to discredit me (though I'm not making the assertions that there is evidence for the Bible, geologists, biologists, astrologists, physicists, etc... with PhD's in their respective fields are... and frankly because you're only in your early 30's, many of them also have more experience in the field. You are, by extension, just trying to discredit me in hopes to discredit what biblical creationists believe, in hopes to discredit what the Bible actually says. It's okay that you don't believe... I didn't write the Bible - that's from God, penned down by men - it is of no offense to me. My goal is simply to show there is plenty of evidence to support what the Bible says about history, that the secular conclusions are derivatives of assumptions, biases, and a lack of any direct observation. In contrast, the Bible is from someone who was there, who created all things, and who will make all things new again - I think they know what they are talking about. Therefore, those who choose to believe what the Bible says, should be encouraged. That is the title and purpose of this thread."As probably most here know, one of the anchoring principles used in assigning dates within uniformitarian geology (and acting as an enabler for the hypothesis of evolution) is called radiometric dating."
You've already demonstrated that you aren't familiar with the science of geology, and are in no credible position to challange geologists. Your words are nothing more than baseless claims.
@NobleMouse
If you disagree, perhaps we can pull quotes from prior discussions demonstrating your lack of familiarity with the science.
The truth is that, the earth was established as being far older than 6,000 years, hundreds of years before radiometric dating was even discovered. Radiometric dating is more of a form of confirmation, than it is an "anchor" in recognizing an old earth.
For example:
The problem of the Green River Formation
Here is one of many topics discussing uniformitarian geology.
Young earth beliefs are incapable of explaining even single individual formations, let alone entire sequences of rock.
The problem of the Green River Formation
Early scientists recognized the expanse of individual rock types and formations, that individually would take hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to form, individually. Given that individual formations such as the green river formation, really only make up a small percentage of the geologic succession (maybe 1%), young earth beliefs cant even account for the smallest of fractions of earths geology.
The founding fathers realized this hundreds of years ago (1700s) and established uniformitarianism.
It wasn't until the 1900s that radioactive dating entered the picture, in which radioactive dating was discovered and was realized to coincide with uniformitarianism.
For example:
If we look at continents today, they migrate at what is perhaps 5cm or so, per year. In some cases a little more, in some cases a little less.
If we measure the distance between the mid oceanic ridge and the east coast of north america, we get a number of cm around ~350,000,000 cm (depending on what part of the ridge you measure from).
If uniformitarianism is true, that would mean that at a rate of 5cm per year, the oldest rocks of the ocean should be somewhere in the ballpark of 70 million years old.
Here comes radioactive dating.
Hey, how about that. Radioactive dating actually provides results that match what we already knew based on uniformitarian geology. Most rocks along the edges of continents on either side of the mid oceanic ridge, date somewhere in that ballpark of 80 to 100 million years, depending on where you measure.
The oceanic ridge is closer to south america than north america, and so it should also follow that you have older rocks along the north american coast than south american. And so it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So back to the original point. Radioactive dating, really is just complimentary to what was already established as an earth that is millions of years old. The established old age being a product of simple geologic principals such as...the law of inclusions, superposition, lateral continuity, original horizontality, cross cutting relations and more. These laws being really basic and fundamental concepts grounded in logic.
For example, original horizontality suggests that layers originally should deposit horizontally. Because of gravity. And any tilted layers beyond such, are a product of actions acting upon bedrock, after it has already been deposited and lithified.
Or the law of cross cutting relations. A fault or dyke which cross cuts a layer of rock, must post-date the rock at which it cross cuts. Else the features would be cross cutting empty space and wouldnt be cross cutting anything at all.
Or the law of inclusions. Clasts which are included in the matrix of another body, must post date its matrix, else it would be included in empty space and wouldnt be called an inclusion at all.
Simple, logically justified, supported by the evidence.
Just to clarify for Biblical creationists, none of these sources are from God's word and all are man's word and... again, no recorded history beyond 5,000 years ago so by logical conclusion we can know these are all based upon assumptions and inferences.
Everything you wrote (and repeated ad nauseam in subsequent posts) is irrelevant and just an attempt to discredit me
I've given some thought over the years about what the purpose is for believing in a universal common ancestor (hopefully this is what you are asking and I'm not just off on a tangent). There IS value in understanding biology, how cells work, how life adapts, this has been cited as a foundational principle for immunology and other areas of medicine that deal with developing vaccines and the treatment of diseases. This; however, has nothing to do with believing all life arose from some microbe or bacterium from 3-4 billion years ago.I don't really get the point of that. Are these the same people
who home bake casseroles and travel to other states to celebrate
their family reunion every summer? Do they get excited to see
the same stubby toe on distant relatives from two states away?
Are they charter members of ancestry.com? What is the purpose?
I've given some thought over the years about what the purpose is for believing in a universal common ancestor (hopefully this is what you are asking and I'm not just off on a tangent). There IS value in understanding biology, how cells work, how life adapts, this has been cited as a foundational principle for immunology and other areas of medicine that deal with developing vaccines and the treatment of diseases. This; however, has nothing to do with believing all life arose from some microbe or bacterium from 3-4 billion years ago.
Further, the purpose for believing in billions of years of slow geological processes is another quandary. It has been cited that understanding where coal and other natural resources grow is a key benefit to understanding geology, and I would agree... but again, this has nothing to do with believing it takes many millions or billions of years for these resources to form. Whether we're talking about coal and oil deposits, diamonds, stalactites, stalagmites, etc... all of these have real, observed cases where they have formed rapidly... it can take millions of years if we assume slow gradual processes, but it's not required for any of them.
To add, God could also have used slow gradual processes to achieve His plan, but His word does not seem to indicate as much. God could have created one life form and then morphed it into something else, but His word does not seem to indicate as much. God could have caused a local flood, only causing people and life in that region to perish, bug His word does not seem to indicate as much. For atheists, I can understand why they cling to the notions of abiogenesis and evolution... as if to suggest that if we just mix some random molecules around for long enough that we'll end up with billions of base pair nucleotides, not just logically and sequentially, but also spatially such that it will eventually become a person, no creator God required, just time and chance, just the "appearance of design" as Dawkins would say. This is exactly what S. Meyer and others address in the videos I linked at the beginning and is what atheistic evolutionists ardently balk at in response--natural selection and random mutations do not produce the kind of changes needed to support the hypothesis of evolution.
As for Christians who want to believe in evolution from a universal common ancestor, well that's fine - not a salvation issue... I just don't personally give credence into the idea of invoking God as the rescue device for filling in the apparent failings of a man-imagined process. Genesis doesn't give a lot of details around specifics, but what it does provide runs counter to evolution.
I would agree that God planned and executes the orbit of each electron, but could you help expound upon the tie-in to evolution (whether as a proponent or opponent)?God planned and executes the orbit of each electron in the Cosmos.
This solves the problem people have with evolution.
God says the earth is ancient. People don't want to take it literally.
The Bible does also describe the earth as "ancient" (ex. Deuteronomy 33:15: "with the finest produce of the ancient mountains and the abundance of the everlasting hills," [emphasis added]), but this is going to be relative ("ancient" is not a number... as a 42-yr old, a 5-yr old may describe me as "ancient", but to an 80-yr old I am still a "young pup").
Do you have anything scriptural to back that?Ancient, eternal, and everlasting are use to describe the age of the earth.
Let's get literal. Not young.
Also, check the creation of the earth. Not fast. Not instant. Not even quick.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?