How old is the world?

[Floodnut]

I didn't even read this post, because the first paragraph explains it all. Floodnut not only refers to himself in the third person, but tries to refute my argument by restating his unbacked assumption about pre-flood vegetarianism. It says nothing about it in the bible, and no history or science backs it up.

Congratulations on another proof of your arrogance and ignorance, Floodnut. You debate like a child.

Oh, so the grammatical form you require Professor Free, is first person, discussion type language? An exchange between two people. You don't like third person? Once the post is up and quoted, with no presence of the original comment there are convenient ways to refer to it, and third person works for me. If you lack the command of the English Language to comprehend this, I apologize.

And since you don't believe in the Bible, so what. It does say quite clearly that people before the Flood (which you deny) were vegetation eaters since God gave them vegetables in his original decrees in the Garden of Eden (which you deny). Then after they came off the Ark (which you deny) God gave them permission to eat meat.

The poor Free man is free to think as he wishes, but the Bible declares plainly that before the Flood men were commonly vegetarian.

 

[Floodnut]

i still think God would directly tell us rather than us having to assume

NO need to assume fuz, you can just add up the numbers. I can send you a time line if you would like.

 

[L'Anatra]

I see you're ignoring me, Floodnut. Very mature.

 

[Floodnut]

* * * * then you'd understand that ALL the BEST hermeneutics is not YECist, by any means.

Did someone say the best Hermeneutics is YEC? I believe that is the correct interpretive approach. The best hermeneuticists, including OE scholars agree that the plain and simple sense of the text is literal six days about 6000 years ago. I won't bore you with a list of YEC interpreters, you wouldn't look at it anyway. The simple approach can be examined at AiG and others.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

YEC interpreters, you wouldn't look at it anyway

you do not know me, and this is a flat out lie.
i publish my reading list for all to interact with at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/booklist.html

i in fact have read all the most important YECist books starting with the Genesis Flood back in the late 1970's. and continue to read the literature.

your remark is unbecoming a Christian, i expect more from a believer than shallow ad hominems.

 

[Floodnut]

How come they found a meteorite somewhere they claim is 4.5 billion years old and the tsunami uncovered stuff that is supposed to be more than 7.000 years old? I know carbon dating can be inacurate but 4 billion years off???

This almost sounds like a sincere question. Astronmers like Jason Lisle assert the dating methods used by those who assert the universe is billions of years old are based on false assumptions. The dating methods are off and the Bible is still true. The earth is about 6000 years old. Go to Answers In Genesis for more scientific answers from degreed scientists who believe in the Bible. Noreover carbon dating is never used for material supposed to be billions of years old. The dating proclamations are quite often not based on chemical analysis but on the strata in which an item is found, or based on the assumed dates of nearby objects. It is still quite costly to send off materials to a lab to be dated chemically, according to my prof in Anthropology anyhow.

 

[Ellethidhren]

If you believe the Bible and the geneology from Adam to Christ, then you know the approximate age of the earth. You must also remember (if you believe the Bible to be God's Word and ultimate truth) that there was no death before sin.
If other truths in the bible have been proved through science, archeology and fulfilled prophecy, then a young earth is the truth. Did not Jesus turn water into wine in a split second? What would the scientists have to say about that?
By the way, I just love I just love 1Cor 1:20-27.

 

[nvxplorer]

Oh, so the grammatical form you require Professor Free, is first person, discussion type language? An exchange between two people. You don't like third person? Once the post is up and quoted, with no presence of the original comment there are convenient ways to refer to it, and third person works for me. If you lack the command of the English Language to comprehend this, I apologize.

It's not a matter of comprehension, Floodnut. Referring to oneself in the third person is seen as arrogant by most people. Whatever your intention, if you continue to speak in this manner, people will continue to view it as such. Friendly advice.

 

[Asimov]

If you believe the Bible and the geneology from Adam to Christ, then you know the approximate age of the earth.

Hahaha...

You must also remember (if you believe the Bible to be God's Word and ultimate truth) that there was no death before sin.

It never says that.

If other truths in the bible have been proved through science, archeology and fulfilled prophecy, then a young earth is the truth.

Non-sequiter, and what would those be?

Did not Jesus turn water into wine in a split second? What would the scientists have to say about that?
By the way, I just love I just love 1Cor 1:20-27.

They would say "if it happened, we would have to study it in a controlled environemnet.

 

[Floodnut]

Lots of work with this one, so much ignorance is spouted:

Great. The Bible doesn't actually say that, now does it? You know as well as I do that that date is read into the Bible.

You know as well as I do that the math is quite simple. You add up the numbers in the genealogies and it equals about 6000 years. The Bible does actually show that the earth is about 6000 years old now doesn't it. But that doesn't matter, the Bible is not absolute as the Word of God to you.

Why should they follow your interpretation of the Bible? There is only one objective reality. And it does not agree with you. I will certainly trust God's Creation. And I will also trust that He is not deceiving me with it.

We should follow the simple sense of Scripture because that is how Jesus took it and He is the savior with whom we have a personal relationship.

Why should anyone explain it away? Why should any particular scientist care about what the Bible supposedly says (according to you) at all?

It is not secular scientists who must explain away the Bible, but the Christians who say they believe in Jesus who must explain away the Plain Sense approach which Jesus took toward Genesis.

They may. Who cares what they think? Christianity, as you know, is about your own personal relationship with Christ.

If it is about a personal relationship with Christ, I would inquire who is this Christ about whom you speak? He is a literal person who really was born during the reign of the actual Roman Emperor, Tibereas Caesar, and who was killed and rose during the governship of Roman Pontius Pilate.

How do we know about this Jesus with whom we have a "personal relationship?" It is through the Infallible Scriptures taken in their simple and plain sense, disregarding any findings of modern science that declare a Virgin Birth and Physical Resurrection are impossible.

That is not necessarily the plain sense. It is your interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago that's been translated hundreds of times.

Actually it is based on a book which is infallible and which was given by God to reveal the truth to us. As such it is understandable in the present age for those who are willing to take it serioiusly. Actually it has been translated THOUSANDS of times, more than any other book in history, and in the present. However the version that I commonly read has not been translated.

Maybe... as I said, it is his right. Still, there still is only one objective reality. And it does not agree with you.

There is only one reality and that is the God of the Universe as He is revealed in Jesus Christ. The material world is subject interpretation. And of course the Bible is subject to interpretation. You say I interpret the Bible incorrectly and I say you interpret the material world incorrectly. The thing is that your faulty interpretation of the material world is OUT OF HARMONY with reality, that is it is out of harmony with Jesus Christ who took the Creation account of Genesis as literal, and after all as you know, it is all about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Why do you assume that your interpretation of the Bible is correct? Why do you not see the logical fallacy here? Why do you not subscribe to Jesus' teaching of humility? Why do you assume you know the true nature of God? How arrogant is your attitude?

How arrogant is your attitude, assuming that your opinion of objective reality is absolute truth, 4.55 billion year is off by several hundred million years, but what a few years here and there between naturalists who don't care what the Bible says. You assume your interpretaton of the Material Temporal World is correct? How arrogant is that! Why do you not submit to the teaching of Jesus on humbly believing Moses? Oh, yeah, the literal understanding of the Words of Jesus is not the accepted approach.

 

[Floodnut]

Then it is not faith, by definition. You are placing the Bible above God.

The Bible is the word of God. Chrisitan Faith is depending on the Word of God, by definition. Boy oh Boy you are such a scholar. God places the Bible here for us to believe. You don't believe the Bible, you don't believe God.

 

[Floodnut]

That is not science. Science has no room for baseless presuppositions.

Your misguided idea about science has no room for the solid basis of the infallible Word of God, which Jesus says will not pass away till all be fulfilled. There are many creationists who are degreed scientists. You saying they are not does not change the fact that they are.

 

[Lucretius]

You know as well as I do that the math is quite simple. You add up the numbers in the genealogies and it equals about 6000 years. The Bible does actually show that the earth is about 6000 years old now doesn't it. But that doesn't matter, the Bible is not absolute as the Word of God to you.

So the Genealogies being 6,000 years is substitute for the accumulation of 150 years of scientific evidence?

 

[Floodnut]

You're lying.

whoo hooo, talk about scholarship and reason. this is so deep and scarey! More goofy name calling.

Secular use of dating methods is misguided and full of lies. They lie when they have to. They change the dates to suit their own objectives and suggest there must have been contamination when it doesn't fit their ideas. The old age daters are liars. Liar liar liar.

L'Anatra, don't you think it is silly to just call someone a liar?

 

[Floodnut]

None of this means that the Bible is an accurate history.

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.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

whoo hooo, talk about scholarship and reason. this is so deep and scarey! More goofy name calling.

Secular use of dating methods is misguided and full of lies. They lie when they have to. They change the dates to suit their own objectives and suggest there must have been contamination when it doesn't fit their ideas. The old age daters are liars. Liar liar liar.

L'Anatra, don't you think it is silly to just call someone a liar?

i'm sorry but i've had enough of this unChristian behavior.
you are not here to learn and to share but to preach.
even if your message was consistent with the Gospel your behavior online is not.

Add Floodnut to your Ignore List
submit

that is only the second time in 5 years online that i have done this to a Christian, but your postings are not worth reading let alone responding to.


....

 

[Floodnut]

Tell him about the archaeological finds that support the Bible.

Actually we are talking about matters that pedate most archaeological material, but there are several good archaeology sites that show how the lives of the Post Flood patriarchs are accurately described in the HISTORICAL DOCUMENT called Genesis. I would imagine that AiG could direct you to those sites. Then there was Sir William Ramsey who went to Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) to show the inaccuracies of the Book of Acts through archaeology. He found out his hypothesis was wrong and became a believer in the New Testament instead, receiving Jesus Christ as his Lord.

 

[Lucretius]

AiG is a joke. They take evidence and throw rational interpretation out of the window.

The Grand Canyon wasn't formed over time by water, it must have been a flood that covered the Earth! Yes, a flood that covers everything happens to magically carves intricate paths like the Grand Canyon in certain places, whereas in others it doesn't.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

You are right! It is shear Lunacy to interpret a story about a Man made from dirt, a Woman Made from a Rib, a Talking Snake and a Tree Of Knowledge of Good and Evil as "Allegory!" As if it even comes close to sounding like an allegory!

 

[L'Anatra]

whoo hooo, talk about scholarship and reason. this is so deep and scarey! More goofy name calling.

Secular use of dating methods is misguided and full of lies. They lie when they have to. They change the dates to suit their own objectives and suggest there must have been contamination when it doesn't fit their ideas. The old age daters are liars. Liar liar liar.

Wrong.

L'Anatra, don't you think it is silly to just call someone a liar?

I do. That's why I think about it first. That's why I make sure someone is lying before I call them out on it.

Additionally, I did not call him a liar. I told him he was lying. GodsSamus has been shown to be incorrect on a number of occasions about radiometric dating methods. As he had not revised his argument in light of the actualities of radiometric dating that had been provided, he was lying, intentionally or unintentionally.

I find it insulting that you would consider my assessment of his behavior as a personal attack. I'm sure GodsSamus is a wonderful Christian, but it doesn't change the fact that he was lying.