YECs, did the universe begin?

[miamited]

shernren,

If you read the whole of the Scriptures you will find that in the end, those who will receive God's reward of eteranal life will all be sinners and yet we will live in peace and security with God. Why? Because all that live in the new Jerusalem will have agreed that God is God and only when we all live willfully under His authority can there be peace and security. The problem today with the world and christendom is that so much of the world will not bow to God's authority, however, I'm sure you disagree.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mr.Waffles]

I've asked this before but it's been quite a while.

YECs, do you think the universe had a beginning? Or has it always been here? How do you know?

Am I a YEC if I happen to believe the Big Bang model is an accurate and logical explanation of the universe's beginnings?

 

[TasManOfGod]

shernren,

If you read the whole of the Scriptures you will find that in the end, those who will receive God's reward of eteranal life will all be sinners and yet we will live in peace and security with God. Why? Because all that live in the new Jerusalem will have agreed that God is God and only when we all live willfully under His authority can there be peace and security. The problem today with the world and christendom is that so much of the world will not bow to God's authority, however, I'm sure you disagree.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

,I agree to some extent -but there will be some when even faced with evidence right in front of their eyes will still not aknowledge God -there being no place then for them other than the lake of fire.

 

[miamited]

hi tas,

I agree with what you wrote and that is pretty much what I was trying to convey in my post. The whole of mankind has no excuse not to know that there is a God based on the testimony of the creation and they have no excuse not to know the desires and purposes of that God based on the testimony of the the Son, the Spirit and the Scriptures. However, determining in each one's heart what is 'truth' and establishing that 'truth' as the only way of life that is pleasing to the One who created all things, has always been the problem. Even Eve allowed herself to get muddled over what was the truth. She chose rather to believe a liar and still today each one makes the exact same choice. Do we believe God or someone or something else? Do we establish what we set in our hearts as the 'truth' what God has said, or what someone else says? That, my brother, is the basic problem with the world and christendom.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[shernren]

... just because one knows they are a sinner doesn't mean they think they are the problem with christendom. Friend, we're all sinners.

Now that perplexes me. Who else could be the problem with the church, but the sinners in it? And if I am a sinner, am I not then the problem - or at least part of it? And if the problem with the world is that it will not bow to God's authority, then the problem with Christendom is that it does not bow fully to God's authority also. Doesn't Paul say that the Old Testament is written for our benefit? And what is the Old Testament besides the story of how God chooses a stiff-necked, promiscuous people - looking for new idols faster than a race-car can turn the corners on its track - and still loves them? If that is not a picture of the church of Christ, then what is?

We must be very careful not to imagine that we are already living in Heaven. When we get there, we will be perfect. Until then, however, the part of Revelations which is more appropriate to us is the Lord's stern warnings to the churches of Asia. You have forgotten your first love! You have not been true to Me! You are naked and pretend to be clothed, blind and think you can see! How something as abhorrent and deformed as that can consider itself not responsible for the world's problems, I do not know.

We must also not forget our sins of omission. If the foremost command is to love God with all my heart and soul and mind and strength, then the foremost sin is to withhold even a little of that from Him - and whenever I do so I am the foremost sinner. If the one that is like it is to love my neighbour as myself, then the sin that is like the foremost sin is to withhold any such love from my neighbour. Can I truly say that I have fulfilled these commands? If not, then I am a wretched sinner, and I am the problem with the world - how dare I even begin to blame others when I do not and cannot even fix myself. One recalls the words of Jesus Himself:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matt 7:1-5, ESV2011)​

Notice firstly that here in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is talking primarily to His disciples - the crowd being at one remove - and secondly that He assumes the log in the eye! That is, He assumes that whenever we point a finger at the sins of others, we always have equal if not more guilt to shoulder ourselves. How can I look at a passage like that and not always ask myself what my own log is? In other words, isn't Jesus telling me that no matter what wrongdoing I (legitimately!) see in others,

the biggest problem with the world - the log, as compared to the speck of dust - is still me and my sin?

And then it is all the more a glorious Gospel that the best Man the world has ever seen would die for the worst man the world will ever know.

 

[1robin]

I could reply you point for point but then I'd be "adversarial, leading, and more concerned about winning an argument than having a discussion". (Incidentally, I don't think 1robin is qualified to tell me what I should do, which in this case would be to not be any of the above. But I'll let that slide.)

I didn't get this.

So let's have a discussion. I get that you're no young earth creationist. (In fact, I told you that you should consider calling yourself one, which I can't possibly say if I believed that you were already calling yourself one.) I'm intrigued that you think the age of the Earth is the Bible's weakest argument.

I have found out where all the confusion about what I believe may have come from. This thread sort of invites young earth creationists to debate, so it was presumed since I responded I was one. I just realised this so I apolagise for my frustration.

Okay, what makes you think it's weak? Honest question..

This one is easy. The bible doesn't really make an argument for a young earth. The 6-10 thousand years is never explicitly stated, it is inferred based on generational models. The account in Genesis would seem to suggest a young earth but never makes the point directly.

And if your answer is, as you've posted: "I am sure I could provide a scientist that would simply give equally speculative answers as to why the challenger is incorrect but I have no incentive to", then I'm curious if you could specifically name one of these speculative answers.

Incentive? Well, I'm trying to ask nicely, and I want to get to know your beliefs better. Of course, it may well turn out that you're just being adversarial, leading, and more concerned about winning an argument than having a discussion ...

I appreciate your benevolence. I have watched hundreds of evolutionary/religious debates and there is no doubt that evolutionists in general are the most abrasive of all, however there are exceptions (you may be one). I am not sure what you meant about providing some examples, I have provided dozens in this thread some with more detail than others. I don't regard any one claim as proof, but the cumulative case suggests the debate is anything but settled. If you want one, here is a random example but I may have missunderstood your request.
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see and the interview with the author in :45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.

Another I think has merit is: The human population levels today match a population curve that suggests thousands, nowhere close to millions of years.

 

[gluadys]

Another I think has merit is: The human population levels today match a population curve that suggests thousands, nowhere close to millions of years.

You really need to think this one through.

Most species, most of the time, don't have a population "curve" at all. They have only fluctuations in a stable population. Why could this not be the case with human populations for 50,000 years or so?

The first impetus to an increase in population came with the development of agriculture. The current rapid increase came with the development of modern hygiene and medicine. It has also been accompanied by a decrease in birth rate as the technology of birth control has been developed and made increasingly accessible. It is likely the human population will naturally stabilize within this century--unless it plunges due to catastrophic climate change.

Also, one needs to keep in mind that populations can decrease as rapidly as increase. The Black Plague reduced the population of Europe by 1/3 in less than a decade. Catastrophic climate change could reduce current populations by much, much more. If we survive at all, we will certainly be seeing a massive decrease from nearly 7 billion to fewer than 1 billion in global population confined to a few refuges from extreme heat.

Finally, one needs to see if the math is realistic not only for current populations, but for world population at every point back to one's chosen starting point. Using whatever population curve you have, determine what the global population must have been in say 100 CE. Then look up the population of the city of Rome at that time. You will likely find more people residing in Rome alone that your math tells you could be living on the whole planet.

Getting back closer to the alleged time of the flood, consider that this is also the time in which large pyramids were being built in Egypt. Where did the workforce for these projects come from? Even if Mrs. Noah and her daughters-in-law bred like bunnies, it would do no good because all the children would still be less than 10 years old--not the strong mature people needed to construct pyramids and other major building projects.

Much the same applies to China which has plenty of archeological records of a busy, functioning civilization at the time. Where did all these Chinese come from if the only people on the planet a decade or so earlier were the eight survivors on the ark? And those are only two examples.

As for "millions" of years--how many millions are you looking at?

How many species do you consider to be "human"?

Our species is not million of years old, only about 200,000.
And our genus is only about 2 million years old.

 

[1robin]

You really need to think this one through.

Most species, most of the time, don't have a population "curve" at all. They have only fluctuations in a stable population. Why could this not be the case with human populations for 50,000 years or so?

The first impetus to an increase in population came with the development of agriculture. The current rapid increase came with the development of modern hygiene and medicine. It has also been accompanied by a decrease in birth rate as the technology of birth control has been developed and made increasingly accessible. It is likely the human population will naturally stabilize within this century--unless it plunges due to catastrophic climate change.

Also, one needs to keep in mind that populations can decrease as rapidly as increase. The Black Plague reduced the population of Europe by 1/3 in less than a decade. Catastrophic climate change could reduce current populations by much, much more. If we survive at all, we will certainly be seeing a massive decrease from nearly 7 billion to fewer than 1 billion in global population confined to a few refuges from extreme heat.

Finally, one needs to see if the math is realistic not only for current populations, but for world population at every point back to one's chosen starting point. Using whatever population curve you have, determine what the global population must have been in say 100 CE. Then look up the population of the city of Rome at that time. You will likely find more people residing in Rome alone that your math tells you could be living on the whole planet.

Getting back closer to the alleged time of the flood, consider that this is also the time in which large pyramids were being built in Egypt. Where did the workforce for these projects come from? Even if Mrs. Noah and her daughters-in-law bred like bunnies, it would do no good because all the children would still be less than 10 years old--not the strong mature people needed to construct pyramids and other major building projects.

Much the same applies to China which has plenty of archeological records of a busy, functioning civilization at the time. Where did all these Chinese come from if the only people on the planet a decade or so earlier were the eight survivors on the ark? And those are only two examples.

As for "millions" of years--how many millions are you looking at?

How many species do you consider to be "human"?

Our species is not million of years old, only about 200,000.
And our genus is only about 2 million years old.

I believe that the mathematics of population growth when taken over a long period of time can incorporate all the aberations that you mentioned. Insurance companies have to the same kind of mathematics to generate their risk levels. Even if population grown estimates I mentioned are wrong by factors of several times over we are still closer to 10s of thousands than 100's of thousands in years. As far as your millions/thousand years and species. I just saw that some scientist somewhere are claiming that they found evidence of human constructed campfires from approx 1 million years ago. I have heard everything from 10,000 - 1 million year histories for Homo sapiens so take your pick. If you are doing a study of human population regression where could you draw the line. Just because some scientists declared a human looking skeleton to be in a different classification as we are is that relevant to the task? As far as any argument incorporating data from prehistoric times, it can never be to me anything more than suggestive of something not proof. That was the intention I had of putting it forward. If you want the mathematics behind a population regression. I found a site doing this that atleast they make the claim they are factoring in the anomalies you mentioned. This is not where I got my initial argument from and so I can't defend his approach specifically. Search for the below as I cannot post links at this time.
Babel and the World Population

Biblical Demography and Linguistics



I did find your remarks concerning the pyramids and the flood etc interesting. I will think on it. As a counter point isn't it interesting that as far as is known the old living organism (bristlecone pine) dates back to approx the end of the flood.

 

[Papias]

1robin, I know there are a lot of creationists out there, with websites and preachers decrying evolution as the spawn of the pit of hell.

However, there are also millions of Christians who see evolution as perfectly compatible with Christianity. Indeed, the majority of Evolution supporters in the United States are Christians. Similarly, the work of discovering evolution has mostly been done by scientists (of many fields) who are Christian.

I know what it is like to be convinced of something, and I'm sure you've heard many other Christians say that evolution is evil for a long time. However, please take the time to look into both sides with an open mind.

One place to start with examining the evidence for evolution is at www.talkorigins.org. There are plenty of others - including any high-school or college level biology class.

Important things to realize (and check these out, don't just take my word for it) are:

• Practically all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon. Creationists try to make it look like a controversy, but it’s not (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=56 ).
• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.
• Creationists don't agree on their basics. You can see this from OEC websites. Those creationists say the earth is billions (>2,000,000,000) of years old, while most creationists say it is about 6,000 years old.
• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years.
• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud.
• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution. Evolution is a firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception.

Take your time. There is no time limit to decide on evolution, and it will take time to test all of the statements above.

I see that you also haven’t yet responded to my post #52, and continue to post creationist PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times, like the t-rex tissue, the old pine, and the world population. These are all points that most of us here have heard over and over, and have been thoroughly debunked as helping creationism in any way. Your re-posting them here as if they were new makes you look naïve. Please, next time a creationist gets you to think they have any kind of new piece of evidence, first check it here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , using their search engine) before telling anyone. For instance, here is your t-rex tissue (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html), your population math (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html ), and the old pine (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html ).

Papias

 

[philadiddle]

If you want one, here is a random example but I may have missunderstood your request.
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see and the interview with the author in :45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.

Another I think has merit is: The human population levels today match a population curve that suggests thousands, nowhere close to millions of years.

Hey,

Before getting into other evidence that you have, could you please respond to post #37? Or are you throwing that argument out?

Thanks.

 

[1robin]

Hey,

Before getting into other evidence that you have, could you please respond to post #37? Or are you throwing that argument out?

Thanks.

Howdy,
There was so many points in that post, if you could point out which one or ones that you are specifically interested in I will try. Or I could use the argument in the post before this one. That all your points have been refuted by creationists so many times that I won't bother (I had to go back and ammend this statement as I did not notice that links to the actual counterpoints were provided and made my last statement inaccurate but it is true in other cases than this so I will leave it as a general sentament). However I am not that kind of person so tell me specifically what you want answered.

 

[1robin]

1robin, I know there are a lot of creationists out there, with websites and preachers decrying evolution as the spawn of the pit of hell.

However, there are also millions of Christians who see evolution as perfectly compatible with Christianity. Indeed, the majority of Evolution supporters in the United States are Christians. Similarly, the work of discovering evolution has mostly been done by scientists (of many fields) who are Christian.

I know what it is like to be convinced of something, and I'm sure you've heard many other Christians say that evolution is evil for a long time. However, please take the time to look into both sides with an open mind.

One place to start with examining the evidence for evolution is at . There are plenty of others - including any high-school or college level biology class.




Important things to realize (and check these out, don't just take my word for it) are:

• Practically all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon. Creationists try to make it look like a controversy, but it’s not
• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.
• Creationists don't agree on their basics. You can see this from OEC websites. Those creationists say the earth is billions (>2,000,000,000) of years old, while most creationists say it is about 6,000 years old.
• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years.
• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud.
• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution. Evolution is a firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception.

Take your time. There is no time limit to decide on evolution, and it will take time to test all of the statements above.


Papias

How the heck am I supposed to devote enough time to address all this but I will try to answer most anyway. As I have stated evolution doesn't have any impact on my faith only a minor one about a single interpretation and I believe if true that it would be morally neutral itself but have unpleasant implications but that has no bearing on whether it is true or not. As far as your bulleted points go.
1. As I have stated several times the numbers have an effect but not a conclusive one to my opinion.
2. See # 1, but I have seen statistics that say more Christians believe in creation than evolution. (by your reasoning this should make a big difference) but it doesn't to me.
3. See 1, 2, 3. Keep in mind (as it seems everyone keeps forgetting from their arguments) that I am not convinced that the Earth is young or old. I believe there it is not a forgone conclusion and the evidence requirement for that is lower atleast for me.
4. I don't know about others I am too lazy to conciously pull off the list of tactics you claim. Also I just don't care half enough to go through all that, but I will admit that I have had to reject some creation evidence myself.
5. I don't know if this is correct but I try to check it.

When Christians are charged to believe scriptures like: Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."
that we have less confidense in man than you do.

I can't even think of a way anyone could argue against the age of the bristlecone as I checked it before I posted it, but I appreciate your links to my specific points and I will check them out as soon as possible.

 

[1robin]

Papias: I have checked out your point about the King Clone bush and admit that until further checking by me as it stands that rules out my bristlecone pine idea. I want to point out that that is just something I thought of and I do not claim that is what any YEC claims even though they might do so. Some claims I had that were not answered that I was especially wanting input on are:
Age of the earth:
(1) James Watt and Mr Newcomb (Inventors of Steam Power and the science of
Thermodynamics) estimated the earth age based upon thermal decay which is
how we determine about all of our heat processes and adding an error factor
of 2 to the calculation giving an older age the earth still falls less than
10,000 years old.
(2) NASA has repeated the data sets for this calculation at least 6 times.
Always it comes in the same numbers.
(3) The errors are assumed to be atomic energy allowing a longer life
span.... (excuses excuses)
(4) If atomic energy is allowed into the equation giving atomic decay you
run into several problems
-- Problem 1. There is insufficient atomic material to make a significant
amount of energy.
-- Problem 2. The reverse in time calculations would burn the earth to a
plasma in about 1 Million years. -- Not a chance of the supposed age.
-- Problem 3. The excuse for the Sun being a fusion engine also related to
the age of the earth doesn't work because there has never been any evidence
of the fusion reaction on the sun... The Neutrinos are missing! Neutrinos
are the atomic reaction products fusion produces.
-- Problem 4. The breakdown products from Atomic Fission are missing.
-- Problem 5. Best estimates of the actual atomic Fission decay indicate
that it is insignificant to the equation.
(5) Delta systems of rivers are not big enough. The Mississippi River Delta
is considered to be the oldest river delta on earth. It is estimated at 185
million years old and contains dinosaur bones and such indicating it was a
life location for such animals. The problem is that a river delta is a
clock you cannot fool. The Erosion of the delta is currently suppressed by
dams etc to what is probably substantially less than the natural levels. At
the current erosion rate the delta would fill all the way from 60 miles
north of Cairo, Il, to the sea and all undersea areas of the delta and from
the Pearl River in Mississippi to the Sabine River in Texas (The extent of
the Delta fill) in just 4300 years. Even giving this an error factor of
100 in favor of extreme age this would be 4.3 million years. ==> This
supposition fails obviously and catastrophically for the believers in long
age earth.
(6) You are excused from this equation on rivers by the claim of Subduction
in plate tectonics. This fails due to the fact that the Gulf of Mexico has
no such zones. Also it fails due to the fact that there is no evidence what
so ever world wide of Subduction. Subduction fails for the following
obvious reasons. Sea Floor rock is lighter than the continental base rock.
It would have to violate Archimedes Principal by which boats float to sink
below a continent. Also there is no evidence for such zones anyway. If you
look at the west coast of the USA and for that matter around the world in
the "zones of Subduction" as they are claimed you can see on Google Earth or
Google Maps (IE) the old river channels clear down to the sea floor with old
deltas related to them where water ran off the continents and filled up the
oceans. These would have been subducted under the continents if there was
Subduction going on.
(7) The existence of Calcium based sedimentary rock is inconsistent with the
processes claimed for their formation. Weathering of rock (volcanic) is
assumed to be the source of sedimentary rock with animal and plant material
added. Volcanic rock is largely silicate based rock. This gives no
calcium to the rock. The formation process is wrong.
(8) River systems worldwide have trivial delta systems to their "erosion"
base. The Grand Canyon for example is more than 10 times larger than the
delta content of the Colorado River. Counting the erosion effects claimed
for the Colorado river upstream of the Grand Canyon it misses by 100 times
or more.
(8) The earth is growing by 18 feet in diameter every year and this is
calculated into GPS and Very Long Baseline Array data for Geo-positioning
calculations. For the earth to get bigger like this isn't possible under
the Atomic Decay and Nebular Origin Hypothesis of the earth.
(9) The Solar Wind from the sun which by standard Rectilinear Equation
Physics does not behave correctly. The Solar wind should by standard
equations leave the sun the assumed energy source and decelerate going out.
In fact it accelerates going out. The velocity leaving the sun is typically
about 10,000m/sec (Speed of Light is 300,000m/sec) It often passes earth
going 75,000m/sec. It has been measured passing Saturn at 150,000m/sec.
This means that the cause of CME and the Solar wind is external charges to
the sun. The sun is not the source of energy of our solar system. The sun
is merely a body in the Solar System.

These are off the beaten path and so I was interested in any counter arguments.
Thanks

 

[jpcedotal]

I've asked this before but it's been quite a while.

YECs, do you think the universe had a beginning? Or has it always been here? How do you know?

Yes, the universe had a beginning, though the Creator does not.

 

[gluadys]

I believe that the mathematics of population growth when taken over a long period of time can incorporate all the aberations that you mentioned.

Don't believe it until you check the math.

Insurance companies have to the same kind of mathematics to generate their risk levels. Even if population grown estimates I mentioned are wrong by factors of several times over we are still closer to 10s of thousands than 100's of thousands in years.

How do you know if you haven't done the math yet?

As far as your millions/thousand years and species. I just saw that some scientist somewhere are claiming that they found evidence of human constructed campfires from approx 1 million years ago. I have heard everything from 10,000 - 1 million year histories for Homo sapiens so take your pick.

Depends on your definition of "human". Do you consider Homo erectus "human" or only Homo sapiens? Those million-year old campfires are found with Homo erectus fossils, not Homo sapiens. If you include Homo erectus within the definition of human, then, yes, humans were making campfires a million years ago. But those humans were not Homo sapiens.

If you are doing a study of human population regression where could you draw the line. Just because some scientists declared a human looking skeleton to be in a different classification as we are is that relevant to the task? As far as any argument incorporating data from prehistoric times, it can never be to me anything more than suggestive of something not proof.

Science doesn't do proof. That is for mathematicians and logicians. Science offers evidence and holds that we can infer highly probable conclusions from observed data. It is not absolute certainty, but it is far more certain than suggestion.

That was the intention I had of putting it forward. If you want the mathematics behind a population regression. I found a site doing this that atleast they make the claim they are factoring in the anomalies you mentioned. This is not where I got my initial argument from and so I can't defend his approach specifically. Search for the below as I cannot post links at this time.
Babel and the World Population

Biblical Demography and Linguistics

In the first, I refer you to the section on population between Noah and Abraham, especially those dealing with the time of the Tower of Babel about 101 years after the flood. A conservative calculation gives the world population (presumably all at Babel) at the time as 85. That includes children and infants as well as adults. A more generous calculation goes up to 1250.

Even taking the latter figure, does this allow enough able-bodied adults to carry out a major building project?

And while it may provide for Babel, there is plentiful evidence that 4200 years ago (counting back from 1945) there were several thousands of people populating several cities in Egypt, many more thousands in China and in India and still thousands more in the Americas which have been populated for well over 10,000 years and in Australia which has had a human population much longer still.

If there were no more than 1250 people altogether at that time, how did any of them get to those far-flung places, much less carry out building the towns and cities and temples we find in them as old or older than the tower of Babel?

 

[ebia]

(1) James Watt and Mr Newcomb (Inventors of Steam Power and the science of
Thermodynamics) estimated the earth age based upon thermal decay which is

Eh? Did you mean Tomas Newcomen? Newcomen invented the steam engine, but he was dead before James Watt (who did not invent the steam engine) was even born! How could they work together on anything?

 

[miamited]

hi shernren,

You posted: Now that perplexes me. Who else could be the problem with the church, but the sinners in it?

Friend, the sinners in it are the purpose of the church. A Christ centered fellowship of believers is the only place on the earth where born again sinners can find comfort and solace as we journey this life. Paul's letters and John's letters and Peter's letter, et.al, were for the purpose of training up the believers in the church. Sure, we're all sinners saved by the grace and goodness and mercy of our Creator, but the purpose of the fellowship of the church is to renew and strengthen our faith. This seems to me to be what all the new covenant letters support. I'm troubled that it perplexes you so much and possibly you, and the OP, misunderstand the 'church'.

You then posted: And if I am a sinner, am I not then the problem?

No, you are the glory of God and the proof of the testimony of the gospel. If you stand as a born again believer among the 'church', then you represent the image of the invisible God and by your testimony others may find the water of life. Not the problem, my friend, but the proof of the truth of the gospel. Praise God!!! And by your evidence and testimony others may also come to the truth. You are the one responsible, as a born again believer, to continue building the 'church' until our Lord and Savior returns. This is the parable of the talents. Jesus taught that as a part of the 'church' we use our gifts and testimony to do the work of multiplying believers just as the worthy servants used their 'talents' to multiply the gifts that God had given them.

Then you wrote: And if the problem with the world is that it will not bow to God's authority, then the problem with Christendom is that it does not bow fully to God's authority also.

That is absolutely true and is evidenced by the many, many posts on this very site that deny the authority and truth of God.

Then you posted: Doesn't Paul say that the Old Testament is written for our benefit? And what is the Old Testament besides the story of how God chooses a stiff-necked, promiscuous people - looking for new idols faster than a race-car can turn the corners on its track - and still loves them? If that is not a picture of the church of Christ, then what is?

All true and it is exactly what I believe and what supports my own argument. I'm glad that we agree on the natural wickedness of man. But that is not the problem with the church, unless you have an unclear definition of what the new covenant description of the 'church' is. It is not a building. It is not all of those who visit such a building. The 'church' is the total of the born again believers in Christ and his work and testimony, which then leads to an unshakeable and well grounded faith, belief and trust in God. That, my friiend, is the church. The 'church' is one single group of people all over the face of the earth who have believed and established as the foundation of their life, the truth of God.

The rest of what you have written I somewhat agree with as regards faithlessness of those that the world calls the 'church'. I also agree that we must judge with God's measure rather than our own. However, this in no way means that a believer should not teach the truth to others. If so, then Paul, Peter, John, et.al, will come under the same condemnation. So long as our judgment is in line with God's measure, then we will be judged by that same measure which is clearly what the Scriptures teach.

And then it is all the more a glorious Gospel that the best Man the world has ever seen would die for the worst man the world will ever know.

Amen!! And again I say, Amen!!

Now, the ultimate question, as regards this thread, is whether you or I will teach the truth of God?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[philadiddle]

tell me specifically what you want answered.

All of it please. You cut and pasted your argument. I actually took the time to type out a response to it point by point. The post works as one big counter argument to the point that you tried to make. You should be able to explain why each part is wrong.

Even you want to claim that you don't have the time to do that, then you pick a few points I made that can easily be refuted and explain to me how they have been refuted.

I am warning you though, this will take you on the path that I once went on. Having to think about the creationist evidence in more and more detail eventually led me to have to drop the creationist view, the evidence just isn't really there.

 

[Keachian]

Friend, the sinners in it are the purpose of the church. A Christ centered fellowship of believers is the only place on the earth where born again sinners can find comfort and solace as we journey this life. Paul's letters and John's letters and Peter's letter, et.al, were for the purpose of training up the believers in the church. Sure, we're all sinners saved by the grace and goodness and mercy of our Creator, but the purpose of the fellowship of the church is to renew and strengthen our faith. This seems to me to be what all the new covenant letters support. I'm troubled that it perplexes you so much and possibly you, and the OP, misunderstand the 'church'.

I'd argue that my hypocrisy and animosity towards people, especially on this site serves more to push people away from Christ than bring them into Christ. I also disagree with you that the Church is where sinners find comfort and solace, with judgmentality and people taking the place of the Holy Spirit in regards to sinners, that is a problem in the church and totally unlike how Paul describes we should treat these people; on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty. If I live in such a way as to perpetuate this or any other problem then I am myself a part of the problem and only serving to put a bushel over the lamp that is the Church.

 

[Keachian]

I missed this one:

I am having problems reconciling these statements Could you help me please . I have so far checked with N T Wright but cant see where he believes in evolution and billions year old earth

N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve - YouTube

N.T. Wright on Genesis - YouTube

And John Walton in case you were looking

John Walton on Understanding Genesis - YouTube

And just to make clear, the Biologos foundation is an Evangelical Theistic Evolution group and I hardly think that NT Wright or John Walton would have done videos for them if they disagreed with the foundations aims and beliefs

BioLogos