What else do I lose if I give up on a young earth?

[RDKirk]

If you're finished making creation mean whatever it means by words you've assigned for that purpose, and you're ready to give up your Humpty Dumpty ways; then maybe you can provide something from God's Logos instead of your own logos.

Do you have any valid helio veruse geo information? I'd say it's doubtful, but feel free. Alice will understand.

You live on a planet that has such incredible mass that its star revolves around it.

That's a different planet from the one I live on, so I see we don't have a common frame of reference in which to carry on the discussion.

 

[RDKirk]

Indeed. Just look at the Genesis testimony on the creation.

Creation was a one-off. As such, it's a miracle regardless of method. Otherwise, how can anyone assert what the "normal" method of creation would be?

What rules have I imposed? I merely read the text and it says, in six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I'm allowing God to establish how He created the world. That's a very different model than the Big Bang.

It's interesting that when the Big Bang theory was first postulated, cosmologists resisted it for decades (preferring the Steady State theory) precisely because it was clearly a miraculous occurrence.

"Let there be light" is the Big Bang theory.

I could ask you the same question. You're very outspoken that creating wine the natural way is just as much a miracle as Christ turning water to wine. You claim that a miracle is merely the result of God upholding natural laws. What gives you that right?

I never said such a thing.

I said that if Jesus had taken 24 hours to create the wine, it would still have been a miracle. But wine naturally takes much more than 24 hours, and can't be naturally created from water at all.

What if Jesus had said a week before the wedding, "Pour wine into those jars. On the day of the wedding, they will be filled with wine." Would that not still be a miracle?

I never said that a miracle is merely the result of God upholding natural laws. It's you that seem to say a miracle necessarily must happen instantaneously.

I say God can do a miracle any way He wants.

What might be the "natural law" for a one-off creation event? It happened once--there isn't a "law" that applies. It's a miracle by the fact that something happened that had never happened before and will not happen again. The length of time it might have taken is irrelevant to its character as a miracle.

Even cosmologists admit that the current "natural laws" would not have applied in the Big Bang.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You live on a planet

Incorrect. Planet is from the Greek planetes, meaning "wanderer". The earth is fixed and does not move.

that has such incredible mass that its star revolves around it.

How would you know what the mass of the earth or the sun is? How does anyone? And as for gravity, I suggested addressing forces (and you indicating what gravity "IS"); but forces should come after kinematics.

You don't want to address any of it, but insist on your rote science indoctrination as being the absolute truth.

That's a different planet from the one I live on,

Yep. You think you're on an oblate spheroid hurtling around a sun while rotating at phenomenal speed. LOL. All because you've been duped by ancient mystical religion purposely, patiently, and subtly leveraged as "secular" authority of alleged empiricism.

Feel free to worship the sun. I worship the Son, who is God's Logos made flesh. I believe Him and what He said by inspiration of His Spirit through faithful men of God rather than the Hegelian Dialectic of men to pervert truth.

so I see we don't have a common frame of reference in which to carry on the discussion.

Translation... You have no real answers to the specific questions I've posed, nor any real evidence and falsifiability for heliocentricity; and all contrasted to the Neo-Tychonic Geocentricity model and accounting for the luminiferous aether of space.

I understand. Indoctrination, ideology, and cognitive dissonance are difficult masters. I used to be enslaved by them as you and most others are.

You have nothing.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Either birds does the calculations and have a deep understanding of the laws of thermodynamic or it's already done for them (God). There is one example of the birds that flies from Alaska to Hawaii each year and builds up just enough body fat for the trip. At first scientist thought they didn't have enough fat to make the trip but later learned they save energy by flying the V formation. Using the V formation they had just enough with a little extra in case of trouble.
Either animals are a lot smarter than we think or/and they got a very smart Shepherd.

So now birds (and animals) have logos capacity instead of instinct. Alrighty, then.

 

[Calminian]

...It's interesting that when the Big Bang theory was first postulated, cosmologists resisted it for decades (preferring the Steady State theory) precisely because it was clearly a miraculous occurrence.....

Oh, no question the BB is a miraculous occurrence. It is naturalistically unexplainable. But it's not a biblical miracle. The miraculous biblical account is different. I prefer the biblical one, that's all. I figure, if all your naturalistic explanations of the world require a miracle in front of them anyway, 13.7 billion years ago, why not just accept a sooner one that lines up with revelation?

It would be like looking at Christ's wine creation miracle and compromising, saying you believe it was brought about by Christ, but that he used natural methods to form the wine 5 years prior. That way you can be both on the side of science and revelation.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh, no question the BB is a miraculous occurrence. It is naturalistically unexplainable. But it's not a biblical miracle. The miraculous biblical account is different. I prefer the biblical one, that's all. I figure, if all your naturalistic explanations of the world require a miracle in front of them anyway, 13.7 billion years ago, why not just accept a sooner one that lines up with revelation?

It would be like looking at Christ's wine creation miracle and compromising, saying you believe it was brought about by Christ, but that he used natural methods to form the wine 5 years prior. That way you can be both on the side of science and revelation.

I don't know how the wine was aged. Clearly is was aged "Naturally" because a scientist examined it and claimed it to be the finest specimen of wine at the party. The "miracle" is that aged wine suddenly was present. Most "miracles" have a similar "Aged-ness" to them.
Same as Creation.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I don't know how the wine was aged. Clearly is was aged "Naturally" because a scientist examined it and claimed it to be the finest specimen of wine at the party. The "miracle" is that aged wine suddenly was present. Most "miracles" have a similar "Aged-ness" to them.
Same as Creation.

This represents the Omphalos Hypothesis (Aged Earth). I'd say it's among the most plausible of the creationist views in some "Neo" form.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Oh, no question the BB is a miraculous occurrence. It is naturalistically unexplainable. But it's not a biblical miracle. The miraculous biblical account is different. I prefer the biblical one, that's all. I figure, if all your naturalistic explanations of the world require a miracle in front of them anyway, 13.7 billion years ago, why not just accept a sooner one that lines up with revelation?

It would be like looking at Christ's wine creation miracle and compromising, saying you believe it was brought about by Christ, but that he used natural methods to form the wine 5 years prior. That way you can be both on the side of science and revelation.

LOL. Great post. I've said this for years in some form or another. Your phrasing seems even more poignant.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I understand how some people think the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and the whole billions of year old thing is a result of God making the earth appear older then it actually is, but how does this theory deal with the age of fossils?

Since it seems that there have been fossils that have been dated, and were creatures that lived longer then 10,000 years ago.

 

[Calminian]

I understand how some people think the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and the whole billions of year old thing is a result of God making the earth appear older then it actually is, but how does this theory deal with the age of fossils?

Since it seems that there have been fossils that have been dated, and were creatures that lived longer then 10,000 years ago.

Well in a nutshell, creationists don't believe the dating methods are accurate. They think the clocks that we're seeing in the present are flawed.

Generally speaking, the fossils that are believed to be millions of years old are, by creationists, believed to be fairly recent made by the Flood. What the naturalist sees as the prehistoric world, the creationists sees as the antediluvian (pre-flood) world. Both worlds are similar, BTW—tropical, even at the poles, filled with very large creatures (along with lots of small ones as well). The postdiluvian world would have been radically different from the antediluvian world. Thus you either need millions of years to explain the change, or something radical like the flood which bottlenecked the entire creation bringing about massive changes.

 

[Smidlee]

nm

 

[AmericanChristian91]

disregard this post

 

[Nick316]

I understand how some people think the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and the whole billions of year old thing is a result of God making the earth appear older then it actually is, but how does this theory deal with the age of fossils?

Since it seems that there have been fossils that have been dated, and were creatures that lived longer then 10,000 years ago.

We all have the same facts. How we interpret the facts is something different.

The dating methods have shown to be flawed. Red blood cells have been found in T-Rex bones. Yet they still say these bones are "70 million years old".

- Radiometric Dating Game -

Are you going to believe the fallible word of some silly scientists, or the infallible Word of God? I will admit that I haven't read too much of the Bible yet, as I am a relatively new Christian, but from all of the evidence I have seen online, I am confident that Genesis is an historical, literal account of creation.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

We all have the same facts. How we interpret the facts is something different.

The dating methods have shown to be flawed. Red blood cells have been found in T-Rex bones. Yet they still say these bones are "70 million years old".

Here is an article that is quite in depth about it.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine


And tell me what sources have you read/looked at (besides Genesis) to believe the idea that the earth is very young?

 

[SAT]

Just go with the Bible that is what you are to teach otherwise you would be teaching your opinion or just the view of our times, if you are asked questions. Just answer using the bible.

Visit "answer in Genesis" website to help with any questions that science uses against the bible.

the world is supposed to come in to conflict with your faith so worry not, it just means you are growing up in the faith. God Bless.

 

[SAT]

How do you know its 1 billion years old, how do you know that when God Created say that Tree he didn't create it with an age that of its appearance, I.e. on the day God created it if you had chopped it down then you could have counted the rings and that count would equal the apparent age. And the same with all things that was created over those times. How do you even know that your machines that measure the age of the earth have the capacity to do it? After all you can't say take a reference say a rock to calibrate it as you don’t know that rocks age.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Here is an article that is quite in depth about it.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine


And tell me what sources have you read/looked at (besides Genesis) to believe the idea that the earth is very young?

And here it is... The continuous insistent appeal to the dialectic consensus of men rather than the didactic truth of God.

These are the same Kabbalists who are giving us dark energy and dark matter as cosmic fudge factors for their unfalsifiable drivel that they've indoctrinated everyone with for multiple centuries.

Empiricism... isn't. What a crock.

 

[Nick316]

Here is an article that is quite in depth about it.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine


And tell me what sources have you read/looked at (besides Genesis) to believe the idea that the earth is very young?

Evidence for a Young World

Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear

The Moon is Still Young

I also don't believe in an old-earth because of the massive inaccuracies of modern dating methods. They rely on sloppy, unknowable assumptions which are easily questionable by modern discoveries.

Accelerated decay - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

I know of some more articles, but I don't feel like linking them right now. When I get back from my shower I might work on that.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Evidence for a Young World

Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear

The Moon is Still Young

I also don't believe in an old-earth because of the massive inaccuracies of modern dating methods. They rely on sloppy, unknowable assumptions which are easily questionable by modern discoveries.

Accelerated decay - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

I know of some more articles, but I don't feel like linking them right now. When I get back from my shower I might work on that.

Thank you for those links

Just wondering, have you ever used these links and others, that support a young earth, and compared them to sources that show some evidence for their being an old earth?

Have you done any research dealing with the other side of the debate (how much do you know about what your arguing against)?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

And here it is... The continuous insistent appeal to the dialectic consensus of men rather than the didactic truth of God.

I wasn't putting science over God (that is stupid), i was merely giving him an article about that finding of red blood cells in a T-Rex, if he wanted more info about it.