The creation is not under question

[The Barbarian]

Get a calculator and tell me how many years transpired from vs 1 to vs 8.

You're assuming that the numbers translated as "years" are actual years.

If you can do that, can you use that same calculator and tell me how many years transpired between Genesis 1:1 and the birth of Christ?

But as you know, we can't do that. In fact, there are conflicting stories about Christ's ancestors in the Bible, if you try to take them as literal histories.

(regarding dates and ages)
What you don't get is that those are two ways of saying the same thing.

No, they aren't.

Yes, they are. That's why you keep running into walls.

Can God make a rock tomorrow, so old it falls apart with age?

All things are possible with God. And if you can insert a non-scriptural miracle to cover up every problem with your exegesis, then any story is equally plausible.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, there are conflicting stories about Christ's ancestors in the Bible, if you try to take them as literal histories.

For the sake of arguing, let's say you're right.

Are you saying then, that there are so many gaps in the genealogies as to cover a period of some two million years, when man first appeared on the earth?

If Adam was created in 2,000,000 BC, and Christ was born in [as is supposed] 4 BC, you mean to tell me that there are massive genealogies not accounted for?

It's no wonder Paul refers to evolution as ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you saying then, that there are so many gaps in the genealogies as to cover a period of some two million years, when man first appeared on the earth?

It is pointing out that Biblical "genealogies" were never intended to be literally interpreted, since we know that they are mutually contradictory.

So the whole structure fails, now that we know we can't depend on them as literal genealogies.

Scripture isn't a journal of the age of the Earth, and is obviously not intended to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is pointing out that Biblical "genealogies" were never intended to be literally interpreted, since we know that they are mutually contradictory.

And again, contradictory, missing, or otherwise, you can't put two and a half million years of anything ... humans, dog, cows, whatever ... between Adam and now.

 

[The Barbarian]

And again, contradictory, missing, or otherwise, you can't put two and a half million years of anything ... humans, dog, cows, whatever ... between Adam and now.

We don't know which species of human Adam was. If he was an anatomically modern human or Neandertal, perhaps 50,000 years. Archaic H. sapiens, maybe 100,000 years. H. erectus, maybe 500,000

There is abundant evidence for these ages. Would you like to learn how we know?

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't know which species of human Adam was.

Are you kidding me?

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you kidding me?

No, God didn't see fit to tell us that.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, God didn't see fit to tell us that.

Who, in your opinion, is the first Homo sapiens mentioned by name in the Bible?

 

[The Barbarian]

Who, in your opinion, is the first Homo sapiens mentioned by name in the Bible?

We don't actually know the species of human first given a living soul by God. He didn't tell us.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't actually know the species of human first given a living soul by God. He didn't tell us.

Adam comes to mind.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[The Barbarian]

Adam comes to mind.

Would you be offended if God gave the first living soul to a man who was H. erectus? Why would it matter to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you be offended if God gave the first living soul to a man who was H. erectus? Why would it matter to you?

There were no H. erectuses until roughly 1450 BC.

 

[lismore]

Here's the problem geology has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the Earth is at least several billion years old, astronomy has proven the universe is close to 13 or 14 billion years old. How do you explain that.

I found the situation concerning the virus in March this year interesting.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson talked about 'following the Science', not shutting down sporting events immediately, 'building herd immunity'. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon talked about 'following the Science' and said precisely the opposite.
'Science' proves the bias of the people undertaking it.

 

[Online.Gamer.79]

I found the situation concerning the virus in March this year interesting.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson talked about 'following the Science', not shutting down sporting events immediately, 'building herd immunity'. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon talked about 'following the Science' and said precisely the opposite.
'Science' proves the bias of the people undertaking it.

I am not pro Science or religion as I am pro math. We can measure the distance of light. The farthest Galaxy found was over 13 billion light years away...that means we are seeing something from 13 billion years ago that how long the light from that galaxy took to get here. 2 + 2 will always equal 4, 7+10 will always equal 17 and 20 x 10 will always be 200. The earth is not flat, the center of the universe, sickness is cause by disease not evil spirit or curses. Can I believe in a god who created the universe with a big bang yeah. I am sorry Geology, Astronomy, and Historians have debunked much of the bible. I believe the bible is part Jewish History, Myths, and a guide on how to have a relationship with god.

 

[Brightmoon]

I found the situation concerning the virus in March this year interesting.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson talked about 'following the Science', not shutting down sporting events immediately, 'building herd immunity'. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon talked about 'following the Science' and said precisely the opposite.
'Science' proves the bias of the people undertaking it.

you do realize that Johnson didn’t understand what herd immunity entails ? 80- 90 % of people catching Covid 19 with a huge number of them dying or suffering long term problems. This is why the emphasis is on not catching it in the first place ! Wear your mask and social distance!

 

[lismore]

you do realize that Johnson didn’t understand what herd immunity entails ? 80- 90 % of people catching Covid 19 with a huge number of them dying or suffering long term problems. This is why the emphasis is on not catching it in the first place ! Wear your mask and social distance!

Johnson was on the podium with one set of Scientists saying one thing Sturgeon was on a podium with another set of scientists saying the opposite. The point is that the term 'science' is often quoted as if it's a monolithic block. When people say 'Science proves evolution' it's meaningless.

 

[Brightmoon]

But science does have evidence for evolution, a lot of evidence and not a bit that demonstrates separate creation. The fact that scientists disagree over a detail ( which is rarely understood by the general public ) doesn’t negate it. Since you can watch short lived organisms evolve, that’s proof enough!!!

And the fact a non scientist misunderstood something is just evidence that they needed a better education

 

[Brightmoon]

In fact his ridiculous level science illiteracy was one of the reasons I didn’t listen to Trump when he first spouted off about the coronavirus . News info I was getting, suggested that this was a serious problem . I decided to be safe rather than sorry and started looking around biology info .

 

[Oseas]

Would you be offended if God gave the first living soul to a man who was H. erectus? Why would it matter to you?

In according Scriptures, it can be seen the discussion is not more than a discussion own from two grasshoppers. Isaiah 40:v.21-26
Just to clarify what Scriptures say.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. You just have to be aware that rates of sedimentation vary widely. You didn't know that?

A simple search on how fossils are formed shows that the organisms most be buried rapidly in wet sediment before scavenging or decomposition occurs!

No, that's wrong. A complete vertebrate fossil, yes. Either buried in wet sediment quickly, buried in dry sediment to be dessicated, or in anoxic conditions. Most complete skeletons are in one of those situations. Of course we more often find parts, which were obviously scattered and buried long after death.

The point being there could be no rate of sedimentation because the layers would have had to been laid down all at once in order to quickly bury living organisms!

The polystrate trees forming near my house easily refute that assumption.

Large animals such as whales are observed to settle to the bottom and are scavenged while they decompose and do not completely disappear into the sediment!

Which is why we usually find only bones, not soft tissue fossils.

The vast majority of mosasaurs wouldn't have been fossilized because only those that were around to be rapidly buried in wet sediment and fossilized would be found!

The vast majority of mosasaurs weren't fossilized. Thought you knew.

Fossilization is a pretty rare thing at present

It's going on constantly around us. Like those trees near my house, or the forams being buried in the ocean.

Lots of years, lots of fossils. That's how it works.