How old is the world?

[Floodnut]

You never learn, do you?

You never learn do you? You can, just keep seeking Jesus you will find him and he will show you that the Bible is 100% true.

 

[GodsSamus]

The Bible is the infallible Word of God and the early Chapters of Genesis were written to be taken as history. At least you are a rarity willing to admit that they were intended as history, but you are upfront in rejecting their accuracy. You don't engage in the lunacy of saying they should be interpreted in some allerogical manner so you can hold on to a misguided "faith" in an old book written by men. You do know that it was written as HISTORY, but you reject it. Ah how refreshing is your honesty.

The Bible is accurate history and it shows that the earth is about 6000 years old.

Earth's magnetic field is decaying with a half-life of 1400 years, yet it's supposed to be billions of years old? If it repolarizes, why's this theory based on no evidence whatsoever?

 

[L'Anatra]

You never learn do you? You can, just keep seeking Jesus you will find him and he will show you that the Bible is 100% true.

I'm tired of your delusion, although I'm glad it comforts you. There is no way anyone can know anything without evidence to be 100% true. Anyone I've ever met to claim so, in my opinion, needed to have themselves examined.

It doesn't matter how much I seek Jesus, I will never place myself above Him and claim I know His true nature as you claim to. What you are doing is idolizing the Bible, and I flatly refuse to accept that as a reasonable course of action. To me, it is unquestionably heretical.

 

[L'Anatra]

Earth's magnetic field is decaying with a half-life of 1400 years, yet it's supposed to be billions of years old? If it repolarizes, why's this theory based on no evidence whatsoever?

Half-life is a term used in reference to the decay of radioactive isotopes, not a magnetic field.

Earth's magnetic field is not decaying in the way you say it is and it has repolarized many times in the past.

 

[A Freethinker]

You know, I really don't see you as my PR guy advising me how to appeal to more people. I am just telling people what the Scripture says about the age of the earth. It is six thousand years.

So it is OK for you to say that Creationists do not use the Scientific Method? Then I will say that Evolutionists, Chirstian or Not, Do not really follow the Bible on the matter of Origins, but they explain it away and reinterpret it in a sense never taken by Jesus and the Apostles. Of Course Old Earthers who are Christian think we are not following the Bible. We can't both be right, but hopefully if we are following Jesus with respect to Salvation we will both get to heaven and the Old Earthers will find out they were wrong But then Freethinker doesn't care since he thinks the Bible is Bunk. He knows as well as anyone that the plain sense of Scripture is six days and six thousand years. If the Bible conveniently said, God formed the earth over many thousands and thousands of years through mysterious process which will one day be called Evolution, he would still think it is bunk. It is not going to help Freethinker to accept the Bible to imagine this fanciful interpretation, so I will stick with the plain and simple sense of Scripture, the earth is about 6000 years old.

I'm an ex-catholic. I know the Bible well. So well, infact, that I saw the flaws in it and realized that it was foolishness. Even if the bible did say "As of the year 2005 AD, the Earth is 6000 years old", I still wouldn't care, because it's not part of my religion. Why do you keep bringing up the fact that I don't believe in the Bible? You sound defensive saying things like that; like you are completely confused by it.

 

[GodsSamus]

Half-life is a term used in reference to the decay of radioactive isotopes, not a magnetic field.

Earth's magnetic field is not decaying in the way you say it is and it has repolarized many times in the past.

Lol. What I meant, which you SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN FROM THE CONTEXT, is that 1400 years ago, the magnetic field would be 2x as strong as it is now.

I have bad news for your reversal hypothesis. It's based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. We now know that it occurs because of a strong electrical current in the Earth's interior. 20,000 years ago, the Earth would have melted. This would make it hard for dinosaurs to have lived "millions of years ago", wouldn't it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Earth's magnetic field is decaying with a half-life of 1400 years, yet it's supposed to be billions of years old? If it repolarizes, why's this theory based on no evidence whatsoever?

Where are you getting your magnetic field data?

 

[GodsSamus]

I'm an ex-catholic. I know the Bible well. So well, infact, that I saw the flaws in it and realized that it was foolishness. Even if the bible did say "As of the year 2005 AD, the Earth is 6000 years old", I still wouldn't care, because it's not part of my religion. Why do you keep bringing up the fact that I don't believe in the Bible? You sound defensive saying things like that; like you are completely confused by it.

Prove it has flaws.

 

[Floodnut]

list a few so we can read them.
i suppose that from your viewpoint to holdfast to your interpretation of Scripture despite it's obvious and painful contradiction by the Creation is noble and heroic.

Hey, head off to AiG, they will provide you with the evidences. I am just telling you that the earth is 6000 years old according to the simple sense of Genesis as History, which is how Jesus took it.

but it is leading the Church down a rabbithole that like slavery 150 years ago in the US will discredit theology and lead to another abandonment of Christianity, not on the grounds of the Cross but on the grounds of a mistake 6 day 24 hrs creation.

The simple sense taken by Jesus is the right sense, six literal days about 6000 years ago. Jesus and Moses are not leading us down a rabbithole.

the only foolishness we are to believe is the foolishness of the Cross and Him crucified. To align this extraordinary atonement with Gen 1 and try to hold off the hordes of unbelieving scientists on the topic of YECism is not just foolish but human foolishness, not Godly.

So you admit that you have abandoned the simple sense of Genesis because YOU are unable to "hold off the hordes of unbelieving scientists." You really don't care what the text is conveying as intended by the human authors. I will continue to believe in the "FOOLISHNESS of HIM who was crucified who taught me that Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings created. Your well-meaning attempts to make the Truth more acceptable to the hordes is what is foolish and misguided. Stick with the plain sense as Jesus did. The approach of the Servant of Yahweh, that Genesis is history is the approach I want to take.

best to you, i appreciate the passion but believe that it is not just badly misdirected but will prove to be fatal to your faith in the long run.

Thanks rmwill, but I don't think taking God at his word in the simple sense in which it was intended is misdirected and on the Contrary Jesus has the words of eternal life and I will not turn to the fatal poison of scientists who misinterpret the revelation of nature as badly as Old Earthers misinterpret the simple sense of Scripture which declares the Earth to be about 6000 years old.
Best wishes to you in your efforts at promoting the Cross,

 

[L'Anatra]

The Bible is the infallible Word of God and the early Chapters of Genesis were written to be taken as history.

Jesus Christ, for the last time, is the only Word of God. To declare otherwise shows you know a lot less of the Bible than you claim. How can you be so sure what Genesis was intended as?

At least you are a rarity willing to admit that they were intended as history, but you are upfront in rejecting their accuracy.

I do not admit that they were intended as history. I don't claim to know what they were intended as--I didn't write them.

You don't engage in the lunacy of saying they should be interpreted in some allerogical manner so you can hold on to a misguided "faith" in an old book written by men. You do know that it was written as HISTORY, but you reject it. Ah how refreshing is your honesty.

No, it was not necessarily written as history. I do not reject Genesis. I do, however, reject your interpretation of it. It is really that simple. Stop reading into my words. It is disingenuous. It is unimportant to me whether you can accept that or not.

The Bible is accurate history and it shows that the earth is about 6000 years old.

Too bad God's Creation doesn't show that at all.

 

[GodsSamus]

I'm tired of your delusion, although I'm glad it comforts you. There is no way anyone can know anything without evidence to be 100% true. Anyone I've ever met to claim so, in my opinion, needed to have themselves examined.

It doesn't matter how much I seek Jesus, I will never place myself above Him and claim I know His true nature as you claim to. What you are doing is idolizing the Bible, and I flatly refuse to accept that as a reasonable course of action. To me, it is unquestionably heretical.

We don't limit Jesus. YOU do. We just limit ourselves to letting Jesus tell US what He did, rather than tell Him what He did (After all, He was there, we weren't. However, you claim you saw the formation of the Earth by saying it's billions of years old.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

look at this thread.
can you imagine the lack of work if everytime an engineer or a scientist tried to do some work if everyone began discussing the theology of the measurements etc?

that is one reason why the supernatural was banned from science.
utility.

no one seems to be able to agree on anything with respect to the supernatural
evidence-->this thread.


....

 

[A Freethinker]

You are quite frustrated that I am not giving you the debate you want, so Waaaahhhh cry: ) lets have a pity party. I am not here to debate the facts of Scripture, but to state them. If you want the "evidences" go to any of several Creation Science sites mentioned previously.

Hehe, it's great to see you act like a 12-year-old child. Not one person in this thread will likely say you act your age. This quote sounds like it came from a 5th grader.

You're here to "state the facts of scripture" when infact they are only your interpretations, and you assume what kind of debate I "want".

If I expected anything from a debate, why would I waste my time doing it? It's much more fun to see you dodge facts and questions, generally behaving like a baby.

 

[L'Anatra]

Lol. What I meant, which you SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN FROM THE CONTEXT, is that 1400 years ago, the magnetic field would be 2x as strong as it is now.

I have bad news for your reversal hypothesis. It's based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. We now know that it occurs because of a strong electrical current in the Earth's interior. 20,000 years ago, the Earth would have melted. This would make it hard for dinosaurs to have lived "millions of years ago", wouldn't it?

It is, in fact, based on plenty of evidence. There are lava flows that couldn't exist as they do if the Earth's magnetic field was not polarized in the opposite direction in the past, indicating it has the field has reversed at least 60 times within the last 20 million years. Reversals of the magnetic field were discovered over 100 years ago.

I'm not a geologist, but here's a link:
http://geomag.usgs.gov/faq.html

 

[L'Anatra]

We don't limit Jesus. YOU do. We just limit ourselves to letting Jesus tell US what He did, rather than tell Him what He did (After all, He was there, we weren't. However, you claim you saw the formation of the Earth by saying it's billions of years old.

No I do not. The Earth says it's billions of years old.

Jesus did not write the Bible. I believe He made the Earth. Put two and two together.

 

[Floodnut]

You most certainly do deny scientific evidence. You are truly deluding yourself. Granted, it doesn't matter to me what that means for you, as you're entitled to delude yourself. On the other hand, you have absolutely no right to delude anyone else.

Actually it is the Bible deniers who have no right to delude, but they do it any how. CF allows people to come here and pretty much say what they want against the Word of God. They allow it. I most certainly do not deny scientific evidence. I don't accept incorrect interpretations of Scientific Evidence by fallible men when they are against the inffalible Word of God. You are entitled to delude yourself L'an, but I am not gonna be deluded by your nonsense of rejecting the Word of God, the Infallible Scriptures.

Maybe. Either way, it is a fact that your arrogance and hubris levels are off the charts.

Rats, I don't know what Hubris is, and I don't feel like looking up this word provided by the great scholarship of the name-calling L'an. But her arrogance at pronouncing and saying things like, "FOR THE LAST TIME. . . " he hehehehehee. I am trying to keep myself from falling off the chair at this hilarious huffing and puffing. Talk about arrogance!

It is hilarious that a man simply says that the Bible is true in declaring that the Earth is about 6000 years old and that is called arrogance. And then fallible men come along and reject the infallible Word of God in Genesis based on their ignorant interpretations of Nature and that is not arrogance? Excuse me while I laugh.

The only Word of God is Jesus Christ.

Now how do you know that? Where did you get that idea? From Betty Crocker? No, I don't think so. You got it from the Scriptures which JESUS said is the infallible Word of God. We know that Jesus is the Logos, the Word, because John wrote in the infallible Scriptures that he is. And in the same Scirptures John says that Jesus is the creator. Jesus says that Adam and Eve were actual people just like the Plain reading of Genesis declares. So if Jesus is "only Word of God," then why not believe him?

 

[Floodnut]

Your smug attitude does not make you right. Neither does whatever experience you claim to have. You do not have a monopoly on the absolute, so much as you'd like to believe, and you never will. Now isn't that a pity?

How can you come in here with a straight face and pontificate about smugness. Your smugness is laughable. God's Word is the monopoly of the Absolute. If you will believe you can have it too! And I am not talking about my experience, but the simple reading of the Scripture. Now it is truely such a pity that you don't avail yourself of the truth of Scripture. Quit being so smug and arrogant and all-knowing and believe the Scripture. By the way if you will cease and desist from the tactic of judging my character then I will stop throwing you own words back in your lovely face.

 

[Floodnut]

No I do not. The Earth says it's billions of years old.

Jesus did not write the Bible. I believe He made the Earth. Put two and two together.

But Jesus did write the Bible, don't you know ANYTHING?

 

[L'Anatra]

Actually it is the Bible deniers who have no right to delude, but they do it any how. CF allows people to come here and pretty much say what they want against the Word of God. They allow it. I most certainly do not deny scientific evidence.

Yes, you do.

I don't accept incorrect interpretations of Scientific Evidence by fallible men when they are against the inffalible Word of God. You are entitled to delude yourself L'an, but I am not gonna be deluded by your nonsense of rejecting the Word of God, the Infallible Scriptures.

Once again, Jesus is the Word of God.

Rats, I don't know what Hubris is, and I don't feel like looking up this word provided by the great scholarship of the name-calling L'an.

Hubris is overbearing pride and presumption.

But her arrogance at pronouncing and saying things like, "FOR THE LAST TIME. . . " he hehehehehee.

His. That is not arrogance, it is vehemence. Your perception is flawed.

I am trying to keep myself from falling off the chair at this hilarious huffing and puffing. Talk about arrogance!

Nobody's huffing and puffing but you.

It is hilarious that a man simply says that the Bible is true in declaring that the Earth is about 6000 years old and that is called arrogance. And then fallible men come along and reject the infallible Word of God in Genesis based on their ignorant interpretations of Nature and that is not arrogance? Excuse me while I laugh.

You are arrogant because you assume you have a monopoly on absolute truth. That is arrogance, otherwise known as unwarranted self-importance.

Now how do you know that? Where did you get that idea? From Betty Crocker? No, I don't think so. You got it from the Scriptures which JESUS said is the infallible Word of God. We know that Jesus is the Logos, the Word, because John wrote in the infallible Scriptures that he is. And in the same Scirptures John says that Jesus is the creator. Jesus says that Adam and Eve were actual people just like the Plain reading of Genesis declares. So if Jesus is "only Word of God," then why not believe him?

I do believe Him. I just don't believe your version of Him... your version that accepts Bible idolatry.

 

[L'Anatra]

How can you come in here with a straight face and pontificate about smugness. Your smugness is laughable.

I'm glad you're having a good laugh at my expense.

God's Word is the monopoly of the Absolute.

Great.

If you will believe you can have it too! And I am not talking about my experience, but the simple reading of the Scripture. Now it is truely such a pity that you don't avail yourself of the truth of Scripture. Quit being so smug and arrogant and all-knowing and believe the Scripture. By the way if you will cease and desist from the tactic of judging my character then I will stop throwing you own words back in your lovely face.

I am not judging your character. I am providing an assessment of the gaping flaws in your arguments.