The Earth is not 6,000 years old.

[coffee4u]

I love these poorly thought through claims. Everything bred so much faster, and there was no death. How long before the Earth would become overcrowded? Let me guess - God had an undocumented plan to turn off reproduction/transport animals to another planet..... or did He plan all along to bring about the Fall so he could change these behaviours and introduce death to keep the numbers down?


All animals were herbivores who never defecated/defecated magic, disappearing faeces. How did God cope with the ever growing piles of poo? Or did you mean all animals were herbivores except the ones which weren't?

The fall happened very soon after creation and God knew it would happen.

At creation all animals were herbivores and the humans Vegan.

Genesis 1
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The fall happened very soon after creation and God knew it would happen.

God knew Adam would sin? So He planned it all along. Are you sure you want to stick with that argument?

 

[coffee4u]

God knew Adam would sin? So He planned it all along. Are you sure you want to stick with that argument?

God wanted a people unto himself, people who chose him with free will.
God can see the beginning and end as he is outside of time, time is merely something he made for us. So he not only knew that Adam would fall but that he would have to come in the form of a man and die on the cross to redeem mankind back.

 

[Astrid]

God wanted a people unto himself, people who chose him with free will.
God can see the beginning and end as he is outside of time, time is merely something he made for us. So he not only knew that Adam would fall but that he would have to come in the form of a man and die on the cross to redeem mankind back.

Easier to just say "planned it all along"

 

[Astrid]

The fall happened very soon after creation and God knew it would happen.

At creation all animals were herbivores and the humans Vegan.

Genesis 1
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

So no bird nor other creature ate seeds, nuts, fruit until
after the "fall".
So, as the purpose of fruit and berries is to get animals
to eat them and spread the seeds, the fall had to happen
pretty soon, to get seed distribution going.

Giant squids used their tentacles to reach out of the water
for tufts of grass. Spidrrs ate grass.
Strange.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am not the one being ridiculous, far less am I evasive.

For a start, "infallible" does not come in degrees.
No superlative does.

All that "fully understand " is where "ridiculous " comes
In- its pure strawman. I'd never call you to go
extrabiblical with fine details!

You have stated that "God's word" is inerrant, you' e told
me His Word indicates 6000yr earth, and a flood.
That is all I am talking about.
Simple, basic, no details.

If you say those things happened, zero chance you
are wrong- though ever so many disagree- then there
is no way that is not a claim of personal infallibility.

Not in all things, not in all details.
But in this, infallible.

Only q is whether you can squarely face what your claim means.

The question of infallibility is too ambiguous in this case perhaps it would be more fruitful if you showed where I may have erred then we can continue from there. Asking if it possible that I may error in interpreting the Bible is extremely over-generalizing because it brings into question my interpretations for all the teachings of the Bible instead of the one particular teaching we’re discussing.

 

[Astrid]

The question of infallibility is too ambiguous in this case perhaps it would be more fruitful if you showed where I may have erred then we can continue from there. Asking if it possible that I may error in interpreting the Bible is extremely over-generalizing because it brings into question my interpretations for all the teachings of the Bible instead of the one particular teaching we’re discussing.

I am very interested in how this works,
so thanks for your patience.

Try this-
You say there was a worldwide flood
as described in the Bible, a few thousand years
ago.
Is that correct?

 

[VirOptimus]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

No.

 

[Astrophile]

Worthless to others who did not experience it, yes. I like to use this example. If, as a long time resident of NYC, I am a victim of a plane crash at sea and wash up, completely naked on the beach of a desert island peopled by a population with no contact with the outside world, my inability to "prove" NYC exists and their lack of belief in my claims do not cause it to disappear in a puff of logic.

I get that the natives think my story is too spectacular. Some will believe, and some won't. The bible calls them Sheep and Goats, or wheat and weeds.

If I present evidence that the Earth is 4540 million years old and that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and you say that you do not believe this, does my failure to prove the great ages of the Earth and the universe to your satisfaction mean that the evidence I have presented is intrinsically worthless?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am very interested in how this works,
so thanks for your patience.

Try this-
You say there was a worldwide flood
as described in the Bible, a few thousand years
ago.
Is that correct?

Yes

 

[Speedwell]

The question of infallibility is too ambiguous in this case perhaps it would be more fruitful if you showed where I may have erred then we can continue from there. Asking if it possible that I may error in interpreting the Bible is extremely over-generalizing because it brings into question my interpretations for all the teachings of the Bible instead of the one particular teaching we’re discussing.

Not necessarily. In some of your interpretations of the Bible's teaching you agree with the essential doctrines of the faith, so no error in interpretation is imputed.

 

[Direct Driver]

No.

Well, opinions vary.

 

[Direct Driver]

If I present evidence that the Earth is 4540 million years old and that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and you say that you do not believe this, does my failure to prove the great ages of the Earth and the universe to your satisfaction mean that the evidence I have presented is intrinsically worthless?

Why would I not believe it? But yes, if I didn't believe it, it would imply that I have other sources of information that I trust more than your evidence source. Perhaps an all knowing spaghetti monster that visits me in my dreams.

I sincerely appreciate your use of the word "evidence" rather than "proof". A lot of people think they mean the same thing.

 

[Astrid]

Yes

Ok
In a previous post you contrasted the "claims"
of science v the "Word of God" with God the clear
winner if there is disagreement.

How do you "know" what the Word of God is,
or what it means?

 

[Speedwell]

I sincerely appreciate your use of the word "evidence" rather than "proof". A lot of people think they mean the same thing.

You're right about that and we spend a good deal of time in this forum trying to educate creationists about it.

 

[Direct Driver]

You're right about that and we spend a good deal of time in this forum trying to educate creationists about it.

Well, to stay "non-partisan" on the issue, I'll say I think it's important to educate people on both sides that don't know the difference.

When I separated the information in the Bible from Science back around 1985, all sorts of lightbulbs suddenly came on for me. And just between you and me, too many Christians are not defending what the bible says. They are defending a particular interpretation of what the bible means. And often that interpretation is not really very supportable. Rather, it's what they've been taught since they were a very young child so it's hard to unlearn it. My advantage - if you want to call it that - is that I did not come into the fold until I was 27. There was nothing to unlearn. Well, not very much anyway.

 

[Astrid]

Well, to stay "non-partisan" on the issue, I'll say I think it's important to educate people on both sides that don't know the difference.

When I separated the information in the Bible from Science back around 1985, all sorts of lightbulbs suddenly came on for me. And just between you and me, too many Christians are not defending what the bible says. They are defending a particular interpretation of what the bible means. And often that interpretation is not really very supportable. Rather, it's what they've been taught since they were a very young child so it's hard to unlearn it. My advantage - if you want to call it that - is that I did not come into the fold until I was 27. There was nothing to unlearn. Well, not very much anyway.

Are you free of unsupportable interpretations?

 

[Direct Driver]

Are you free of unsupportable interpretations?

Nope. Nobody is, in my opinion. It is a lifelong cleansing process.

That being said, Epstein didn't kill himself.

 

[sjastro]

Thylacoleo carniflex an Australian carnivore which might have added humans to its diet near the time of its extinction is an example of evidence of the Earth is older than 6000 years.

Thylacoleo became extinct around 35000 years ago but since it became extinct in recent times it can be dated by two separate and independent methods.
First is by OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminescence) where quartz in sedimentary layers above and below Thylacoleo fossils can be dated.
Second is the presence of carbon in the teeth of Thylacoleo fossils can also be ¹⁴C dated.

Where both methods are available on fossils the dates are consistent with each other, so the argument employed by creationists the dating process is suspect is unlikely to say the least.

 

[Astrid]

Thylacoleo carniflex an Australian carnivore which might have added humans to its diet near the time of its extinction is an example of evidence of the Earth is older than 6000 years.

Thylacoleo became extinct around 35000 years ago but since it became extinct in recent times it can be dated by two separate and independent methods.
First is by OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminescence) where quartz in sedimentary layers above and below Thylacoleo fossils can be dated.
Second is the presence of carbon in the teeth of Thylacoleo fossils can also be ¹⁴C dated.

Where both methods are available on fossils the dates are consistent with each other, so the argument employed by creationists the dating process is suspect is unlikely to say the least.

Of course there's polar ice, far more extensly
studied and cross checked.
There are a number of hilariously inane
"explanations' for the depth and age of the uce.