How many creationists practise what they preach?

[Papias]

I haven't found anything in Scripture that states that the age of the universe is 5,000 years. But you sure sound as though you have an agenda that wants to force content on the Bible from your own worldview. That's called interpretive eisegesis - your reading into a text.

No, it's not eisgesis. It's what Christians have done for centuries - a literal reading of one's Bible gives a date of creation, and it's pretty close to 5,000 years. Not only is the date determined from scripture, but it's also nothing new to determine the date. Only ignorance of both history and scripture would lead one to say that a literal reading cannot say how old the earth is.

Here's some history:

For Ussher was in no way exceptional in believing that he knew the year in which the world was created: such knowledge was entirely normal in his time and for a considerable period after him. Ussher was only one in a long series of scholars who concerned themselves with biblical chronology, .... let me give you three names: Martin Luther, a religious genius of enormous importance; Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609), by far the greatest classical scholar of his time and among the greatest there has ever [p.3] been; and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), certainly the dominant scientific genius over a long period of the world’s history. None of these men had the slightest doubt that the date of creation was knowable and was known. It was there in the Bible for anyone to read. Everyone knew this. .... It is true that scholars could not agree on the exact figure; but that did not prevent them from agreeing that the exact figure could be known. ...There were in fact two main groups of dates. ....The higher date was the eastern figure, and it was so because the eastern current of Christianity followed the figures of the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament, which had higher figures in Genesis 5 and 11; the lower was widespread in the west, especially after the Vulgate of St Jerome familiarized western Christianity with the figures derived from the standard Hebrew text itself. Judaism, we may note, had the same tradition, though again with different (and lower) figures: this year, 1986-87, is the Jewish year 5747, i.e. 5747 from creation, creation took place in the year that by Christian dating is 3761 BC.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/chronology_barr.pdf Page 4 or so.​

In Christ

Papias

 

[Papias]

Your examples are not valid from the point of view that I have been told by atheists so many times that science does not prove anything. All it does is reach a consensus. That means science is not the truth, consensus is according to them.

That means the school would be teaching the consensus regarding the matter not the truth. The truth is for us to decide.

The difference here is between how we talk in science and how people generally talk in common speech. You are right that everything is science is at least a little bit tentative, but that amount of tentativeness often is what people in common language consider "proven".

In other words, when scientists say something is a "consensus" view, it means that it's "proven" and a "fact". Examples are that the earth is not flat, that many diseases are caused by germs, that animal bodies contain cells, that DNA transmits information for heredity, etc.

Papias

 

[KWCrazy]

What I belive is not important but the evidence clearly show an old universe. Your belief is contrary to physical reality.

Not in the least. the evidence is INTERPRETED to show an old earth. It was made that way. Science cannot validate or invalidate this because science cannot account for a supernatural creation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not in the least. the evidence is INTERPRETED to show an old earth. It was made that way. Science cannot validate or invalidate this because science cannot account for a supernatural creation.

Heh, no.

 

[dad]

No we don't. The universe is billions of years older than the earth.

In your sick dreams. But if you were right, that would have to mean that the stars Genesis refers to were maybe just the visible stars at that time. The visible universe. If that was the case then we could chalk up the far away stuff as part of previous creations or some such?

 

[dad]

I'm easy.

I'll give them what they want if I can.

If they want to claim the earth is 4.57 billion years old, fine with me.

I'll appease them.

But it just makes it harder for them to understand Genesis 1.

The thing is though, they still moan & groan about it, complaining embedded age is nonsense.

You just can't please them.

As to your point, I'm with you 100%.

I think their dating techniques are for the birds.

One of the reasons I don't claim to be a YEC is because I believe God did embed some age (or apparent age) into His creation.

Maybe not much: but Adam, for instance, came on the scene as a mature adult.

Right, there had to be a lot of that.

 

[Hoghead1]

There have been surveys, Ozpen, that would support that claim. The largest Christian church is the Catholic Church and they accept evolution. Most liberal Protestant denominations also accept evolution. I am PCUSA, which is still the largest and most liberal of all Presbyterian churches.
Also, I am not sure what you mean by circular reasoning. I think it most naïve to assume that everything the Bible says happened, happened exactly the way the Bible says it did. However, this is also true of other major historical figures. Socrates, for example, did exist, but much fiction is written into Plato's account of him. Also, there is more than one contradictory account of the actual personage of Socrates. The same also holds with other major historical figures. Much of what we know may be mythic. There is the Wyatt Earp of legend and the there is the Wyatt Earp of fact. It has been very difficult to separate the two. To this day, any one of a number of contradictory accounts remain as to actually what did go down at the OK Corral. I see no reason to doubt that Christ actually existed. However, there are two highly contradictory accounts of his life and ministry. There is the "orthodox" account, our NT, and then there are over 40 gnostic Gospels that tell a radically different story. And there is strong reason to believe both sources resorted to al lot of spin-doctoring.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well then I certainly hope no one interrupts His train of thought!

If they did, you would never know it. Indeed, He could interrupt it and take it up again and we would be completely oblivious to the incident. Although, since He is beyond time, and the Creator of time, it would be a kind of mystery how He could have an interruption occur.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In your sick dreams. But if you were right, that would have to mean that the stars Genesis refers to were maybe just the visible stars at that time. The visible universe. If that was the case then we could chalk up the far away stuff as part of previous creations or some such?

Uh . . . . sure . . . . (?)

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then why was the earth created before the sun, moon and stars?

Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables He was speaking the word to them, so far as they were able to hear it; and He did not speak to them without a parable;
NASU

 

[KWCrazy]

Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables He was speaking the word to them, so far as they were able to hear it; and He did not speak to them without a parable;
NASU

So you believe that Jesus wrote Genesis?

 

[dad]

Uh . . . . sure . . . . (?)

Let me slow it down for you...you're wrong.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So you believe that Jesus wrote Genesis?

Well, I do believe in the Trinity, you know . . .

 

[KWCrazy]

Well, I do believe in the Trinity, you know . . .

Do you know that Moses and Jesus were different people discussing different topics with different people in an entirely different way? Do you know that there are NO supporting passages of Scripture which speak to anything other than the special creation of man?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do you know that Moses and Jesus were different people discussing different topics with different people in an entirely different way? Do you know that there are NO supporting passages of Scripture which speak to anything other than the special creation of man?

We should all recall that the age of the earth and universe as determined by scientists is based on actual measurement of physical things and not on the Bible. Same thing goes for the findings of evolution and common descent of all life. Therefore, the fact that these things are not in the Bible is not a surprise to any of us.

The Bible was written at a time when mankind was not ready for such literal truths as the actual age of the earth and the fact of evolution. Therefore, the Lord gave us parables.

 

[KWCrazy]

We should all recall that the age of the earth and universe as determined by scientists is based on actual measurement of physical things and not on the Bible. [\quote]
Science can't measure the past. Science can only measure what is and speculate about what was. For example, radiometric dating presupposes a natural formation of isotopes. It fails with a special creation of a mature planet ready to support life.

Same thing goes for the findings of evolution and common descent of all life.

The commonality of life stems from a common Creator, not common descent. The only common descent is the descent of the animals on the ark.

Therefore, the fact that these things are not in the Bible is not a surprise to any of us.

The Bible specifically states that all living things were created in their mature state, including man. Man was created from the dust of the earth on day 6.

The Bible was written at a time when mankind was not ready for such literal truths as the actual age of the earth and the (lie) of evolution.

The special creation of man, the establishment of marriage, the fall of man etc make up the foundation of Christianity. Jesus quoted from Genesis extensively. Genesis is quoted more than any other book. Conversely, not a single passage of Scripture supports evolution. It is undeniable that the Bible says man was created. He did not evolve.

 

[lasthero]

Science can't measure the past. Science can only measure what is and speculate about what was. For example, radiometric dating presupposes a natural formation of isotopes. It fails with a special creation of a mature planet ready to support life.

The problem with this is that things that aren't from Earth measure old, too, like meteors and rocks from other planets and moons.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thaumaturge - a problem for atheists!

Not really. Even if you could provide an example of a miracle that could not have alternative explanation for it (all the ones in the bible do, btw), you would just demonstrate miracles can happen. It wouldn't depict what causes them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Loudmouth,

Your 'mountains of facts' need you to provide the evidence for these facts. Could they be associated with your agnosticism towards God and Scripture? I note you label yourself as an agnostic.

Why don't you share with us the facts about Jesus' life, death and resurrection? Facts and how you know they are facts?

Oz

To be blunt, historically, it is impossible to say if Jesus was even the correct name. The biblical figure could have been based off of multiple people, legends, etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They do not calculate the age of the earth.

All they show is how long the universe has been in existence.

Not really, even in the bible, stuff such as water existed before god starts creating things, so to think of the universe itself as old is not even against a literal biblical interpretation.