• 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.

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,526.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK, but I have to remind you, as one Christian to another, that creation science is not honest science and using it to evangelize puts Christanity in a bad light.

Here is what Augustine of Hippo had to say on the point:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

And again, Thomas Aquinas:

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
I absolutely disagree that Creation science is honest science UNLESS we can agree that old Earth Creation science is also NOT honest science. Also, I would not use Creationism to attempt to evangelize the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the unsaved billions of the world do indeed believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old. Therefore, we know that it's much more effective to reach out to the unsaved with the Gospel without talking to them about the creation of the universe and the Earth, as well as without attempting to get the unsaved to understand Genesis chapters 1-3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Lamb
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,526.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What else would you call him? I really don't see why Luke or Paul would need to be inspired to do so. They already knew that Adam was the name given by God to the first man.
Therefore, Adam was not a myth.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,477
4,235
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I absolutely disagree that Creation science is honest science UNLESS we can agree that old Earth Creation science is also NOT honest science. Also, I would not use Creationism to attempt to evangelize the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the unsaved billions of the world do indeed believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old. Therefore, we know that it's much more effective to reach out to the unsaved with the Gospel without talking to them about the creation of the universe and the Earth, as well as without attempting to get the unsaved to understand Genesis chapters 1-3.
If you can bring a person to Christ without YECism, why do you need it at all?
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,526.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Then Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden literally happened with Adam being the very first human and with him being the very first human sinner, aka the doctrine of original sin.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,526.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you can bring a person to Christ without YECism, why do you need it at all?
Because YEC fits all of the creationism verses of Scriptures far better than OEC possibly ever could, imo.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,477
4,235
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Then Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden literally happened with Adam being the very first human and with him being the very first human sinner, aka the doctrine of original sin.
And you conclude all that from God naming the first man Adam?
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,477
4,235
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Because YEC fits all of the creationism verses of Scriptures far better than OEC possibly ever could, imo.
It depends on how you read them. The authority of the story depends on its divine inspiration, not its adherence to any arbitrarily chosen literary agenda.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,526.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And you conclude all that from God naming the first man Adam?
I conclude all that based also on Luke's genealogy of Jesus Christ in Luke chapter 3 and also on what the Bible says about Adam in Romans chapter 5.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,621
16,311
55
USA
✟410,278.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I absolutely disagree that Creation science is honest science UNLESS we can agree that old Earth Creation science is also NOT honest science.
Old Earth Creation Science *is* just as much pseudoscience as Young Earth Creation Science. Neither is actual science.
Also, I would not use Creationism to attempt to evangelize the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the unsaved billions of the world do indeed believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old. Therefore, we know that it's much more effective to reach out to the unsaved with the Gospel without talking to them about the creation of the universe and the Earth, as well as without attempting to get the unsaved to understand Genesis chapters 1-3.
Not of interest to me.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,146
3,176
Oregon
✟929,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
I absolutely disagree that Creation science is honest science UNLESS we can agree that old Earth Creation science is also NOT honest science. Also, I would not use Creationism to attempt to evangelize the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the unsaved billions of the world do indeed believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old. Therefore, we know that it's much more effective to reach out to the unsaved with the Gospel without talking to them about the creation of the universe and the Earth, as well as without attempting to get the unsaved to understand Genesis chapters 1-3.
I find myself wondering about the status of those believers who do believe in a very old earth. Are they not saved in your opinion?
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,626
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟356,526.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I find myself wondering about the status of those believers who do believe in a very old earth. Are they not saved in your opinion?
I know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ with salvation from sin and forgiveness of sins is available to anyone regardless of what believers actually believe about a very old Earth or a young Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCP1928
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You assumed the dating for this was right? Ha
Well, if it is tested multiple times, using different methods, by different people, and all of the results agree with each other to within the expected margin of error, why wouldn't I believe it?

I mean, imagine if a bunch of people measure how high a building is, and they do so by the following methods:

  • Person 1: Measures out a distance from the building and then measures the angle they need to look up at in order to see that top of the building. They then use trigonometry to determine the height of the building.
  • Person 2: Goes to the top of the building and drops an object and measures how long it takes for that object to fall to the ground.
    Person 3: Takes barometric readings at the base of the building and at the top of the building and uses those to determine the height.
  • Person 4: Attaches a weight to the end of a long cable and lower it to the ground, then sets it swinging. The period of the swing is determined by the length of the rope, which is the same height as the building.

That's four completely different measurements take. If they are all clustered around 20 meters for the height of the building, then it is safe to conclude that the building is about 20 meters tall. I mean, if it was 50 meters tall, then what are the chances that all of these wildly different measuring methods be in error by the same amount?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Anyone who does that could be wrong. God of course could not be wrong, so what He said is not subject to that criteria is any way shape or form
But everything you know about what God has said has come from a person, and that person could have been wrong.
 
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well, if it is tested multiple times, using different methods, by different people, and all of the results agree with each other to within the expected margin of error, why wouldn't I believe it?
Because the results are wrong! Here is a litmus test for the method. Please tell us the date of rocks in the garden of Eden? You do not know. Not even where it was or when it was. In the case of science, I daresay you do not even know if it was! Tell us the nuclear composition as God was creating it? Tell us the ratio of isotopes the second it was all finished? No. All you do is look at it now. Then you assume God did not create it, and then you add dates accordingly. Your method is only valid IF there was no creation, and no God. You want us all to accept that as a starting point and basis and foundational premise and belief.
I mean, imagine if a bunch of people measure how high a building is, and they do so by the following methods: --
You cannot measure anything from creation is any way though. You cannot tell us what the Great Spirit Jesus was like and what forces He used to create. You cannot even detect Him today! A better comparison might be twenty blind men in a warehouse all comparing notes on the colours in the building and agreeing it must be blue! No science can see anything regarding creation. Their belief it came about as a result of physical processes that we see is less than laughable.
That's four completely different measurements take.
Like the blind men in the warehouse rubbing their fingers on the walls and smelling them and tasting the paint and listening to the echo of their sandwiches splattering on the wall. Four methods all telling them it is blue. Yet they have no actual clue. No actual ability to determine. No tools that apply. They should just be honest and say 'we don't know'

Worse than this, in the case of science trying to tell us where we came from or how long ago, the blind guys in the warehouse claim also that the warehouse formed by natural causes and was not built!

There are no methods that science has that tell actual ages or read isotopic ratios correctly IF there is a God and creator. So their agreeing with each other is just comedy.
 
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
But everything you know about what God has said has come from a person, and that person could have been wrong.
That person is me. I am right! I also believe the other people that God told to write things are correct. I also know that science has nothing it can say about it. Why would I call Paul and the apostles liars? Why would I call my parents liars? Why would I call a lifetime of experiences confirming God wrong? Why would we accept a philosophy that starts off with no God in the picture or calculations? I consider people who interpret ratios and such without respect and acknowledgement of the creator and creation to be glorified tea readers. (falsely called science)

By the way, if God used people that could be wrong that makes Him wrong. If He used men that had it so far from what He wanted to say, that much of the core of the bible is wrong, what does that say of the One who gave it through the writers?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I find myself wondering about the status of those believers who do believe in a very old earth. Are they not saved in your opinion?
The question arises whether they believe sin entered the world through one man (the first created man) as the bible tells us? If not, besides making the bible a lie, how do they explain how sin got here? Do they think some cavemen that came from apes had a bad party? Or?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,477
4,235
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The question arises whether they believe sin entered the world through one man (the first created man) as the bible tells us? If not, besides making the bible a lie, how do they explain how sin got here? Do they think some cavemen that came from apes had a bad party? Or?
I thought we covered that. It's really quite straightforward. Sin and death entered the world when man developed the self-aware intelligence necessary to consider the consequences of his acts and contemplate his own mortality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I thought we covered that. It's really quite straightforward. Sin and death entered the world when man developed the self-aware intelligence necessary to consider the consequences of his acts and contemplate his own mortality.
So Paul was a false prophet speaking lies as well as Genesis being totally wrong in their book. Interesting.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

That is a lot of the bible they toss out. I bet if I pressed the question further, we might as well toss it all out. For example, do they think Jesus is the creator and God?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,266.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
So Paul was a false prophet speaking lies as well as Genesis being totally wrong in their book. Interesting.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

That is a lot of the bible they toss out. I bet if I pressed the question further, we might as well toss it all out. For example, do they think Jesus is the creator and God?

A person can believe in Jesus and God as the creator and not believe in a full 100% literal reading of the Bible. They are not mutually exclusive.
 
Upvote 0