I was a leader in VBS this year at my church. We did the 7 c's of History... Creation, corruption, catastrophe,confusion, Christ and the Cross, Consummation. It was really interesting.

I was wondering how many Christians believed that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old and that God made the dinosaurs when he made man. We taught that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark with him. They had scientific evidence, facts about fossils. Ken Ham's group recorded it and it will be shown all over the world. Did you know that they recently found dinosaurs bones that still had blood cells and tissue in it? Interesting huh?

I was raised to believe in the"gap" theory. This is all new information for me to be honest but I am being really open to it. Any thoughts?

I believe in God but I do not believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old... it's just not logical to me.

Of course I am one of the even stranger science people I don't believe dinosaurs really existed, but the evidence of them is merely a trick of satan to cause people to fall away from the real truth.

The age from adam to now I agree is 6000, just not sure the years adam was in eden?? And if creation was one day as we know it.

Fr_Chuck... how can one find it within themselves to believe that? As much faith as I have, I'm not sure I could believe that because I'm such a logical person. Just curious!

I think the answer to this question comes down to what you believe more - scientific evidence, or your faith. You can be a Christian and not believe everything that is put out there by other Christians (consider that many sects contradict one another), so you are free to decide for yourself if the Earth is 6000 years old or not. If you have the ability to let yourself believe such things, and that belief satisfies your needs, go for it. If you think it is illogical and perhaps those who have said it/believe it are wrong, then go that way.

Maybe it will help if you do some reading on both sides of the argument. I'm sure a few Google searches will give you more information that you could ever possibly want! Visit a museum, talk to an archeologist (or paleontologist) to get the science POV. See if there is a religious leader in your area who believes the 6000 year theory and talk to him/her. Once you have more information you can make an informed decision.

Why not, I guess, how can you believe he would not ? He is called the prince of this world, he has all the power of the angels, Why could he not take some bones of some animals and move and set them them orders. Perhaps even made them from other bones and the such just to decieve mankind.

And of course I did not say it was a popular belief, but science has little understanding, carbon dating has been shown several times not to be as reliable as people are lead to believe. O2 dating has shown better promice.

And even at carbon dating, it is assuming carbon at some max level, going down, if all things were created at various "levels" or the energy used to create the earth can all change it, since carbon dating does not consider Gods power at creation as part of its formulas.

It is because I am logical I have decided this, because they just don't fit into anything, even in evolution, they were the stronger of the animals, they should have survived, if creation, and they were not created ( if they were not) then they can not exist.

I have worked in the church in areas of faith, and in area of things of the spirit so much I know there are many things that science and logic can not explain that are real,

But with that, pesonally I couldn't care less if they were real or not, since they are gone and I don't have to clean up after one.
But since they are used so much to try to destroy the idea of faith and christianity, I would say that anyone thing, that causes so much trouble, has to have been developed by satan.

I was a leader in VBS this year at my church. We did the 7 c's of History... Creation, corruption, catastrophe,confusion, Christ and the Cross, Consummation. It was really interesting.
I was wondering how many Christians believed that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old and that God made the dinosaurs when he made man.? We taught that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark with him. They had scientific evidence, facts about fossils. Ken Ham's group recorded it and it will be shown all over the world. Did you know that they recently found dinosaurs bones that still had blood cells and tissue in it? Interesting huh?
I was raised to believe in the"gap" theory. this is all new information for me to be honest but I am being really open to it. Any thoughts?

I believe that the earth is very young (between 6000 & 10,000 years old). If you believe that a day is as a 1000 years to God and that we within a 7 "day" (thousand year cycle) and that we are about to embark on the 7th and final day of this earth age, then the earth is probably about 6 to 7 thousand years old.

Wooly Mammoth's were found in artic regions almost fully intact and with buttercups still in their mouths. There may have been Mammoths on the ark but those found had been swept away by the flood of Noah.

Man was made on the 6th day. Beasts were made on the 5th day but since we are talking about literal 24 hour cycles... who's counting.


I was a leader in VBS this year at my church. We did the 7 c's of History... Creation, corruption, catastrophe,confusion, Christ and the Cross, Consummation. It was really interesting.I was wondering how many Christians believed that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old and that God made the dinosaurs when he made man.? We taught that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark with him. They had scientific evidence, facts about fossils. Ken Ham's group recorded it and it will be shown all over the world. Did you know that they recently found dinosaurs bones that still had blood cells and tissue in it? Interesting huh?I was raised to believe in the"gap" theory. this is all new information for me to be honest but I am being really open to it. Any thoughts?

If you believe that a day to God is as a 1000 years to man and that this earth age is about to embark on the millennial 7th day, then I would suggest that the earth is somewhere between 6000 to 7000 years old. Some say that it could be closer to 10,000. Regardless, ours is a young earth.

Wooly Mammaths were found in the artic region almost completely intact. They even had buttercups in their mouths. Clearly, the ones found hadn't made it on to the ark as they had been swept away by the flood of Noah.

Technically, dinosaurs fall into the category of "beast" so were created on the 5th day while man was created on the 6th day. But, since the days were literal 24 hour periods, who's counting?

If you believe that a day to God is as a 1000 years to man and that this earth age is about to embark on the millenial 7th day, then I would suggest that the earth is somewhere between 6000 to 7000 years old. Some say that it could be closer to 10,000. Regardless, ours is a young earth.

Wooly Mammaths were found in the artic region almost completely intact. They even had buttercups in their mouths. Clearly, the ones found hadn't made it on to the ark as they had been swept away by the flood of Noah.

Technically, dinosaurs fall into the category of "beast" so were created on the 5th day while man was created on the 6th day. But, since the days were literal 24 hour periods, who's counting?
Dude, I'm starting to agree with you. I'm scared... lol :)

You're right, Tessy, you asked what members here believe. I guess I got caught up in what I was writing and didn't provide my answer!

I'm a woman of science - I believe the Earth is much, much older than 6000 years.

Of course I am one of the even stranger science people I don't believe dinosaurs really existed, but the evidence of them is merley a trick of satan to cause people to fall away from the real truth.

The age from adam to now I agree is 6000, just not sure the years adam was in eden ??? and if creation was one day as we know it.

Too much evidence suggests that dinosaurs did exist in the past.

Job 41:1, "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? Or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? "Leviathan" represents some sort of reptilian creature.

The only trick that Satan may of performed regarding this issue is to convince people that dinosaurs did not exist.

Why not, I guess, how can you believe he would not ? He is called the prince of this world, he has all the power of the angels, Why could he not take some bones of some animals and move and set them them orders. Perhaps even made them from other bones and the such just to decieve mankind.

And of course I did not say it was a populare beleif, but scinece has little understanding, carbon dating has been shown several times not to be as reliable as people are lead to beleive. O2 dating has shown better promice.

And even at carbon dating, it is assuming carbon at some max level, going down, if all things were created at various "levels" or the energy used to create the earth can all change it, since carbon dating does not consider Gods power at creation as part of its formulas.

It is because I am logical I have decided this, because they just don't fit into anything, even in evolution, they were the stronger of the animals, they should have survived, if creation, and they were not created ( if they were not) then they can not exist.

I have worked in the church in areas of faith, and in area of things of the spirit so much I know there are many things that science and logic can not explain that are real,

But with that, pesonally I could care less if they were real or not, since they are gone and I don't have to clean up after one.
But since they are used so much to try to destroy the idea of faith and christianity, I would say that anyone thing, that causes so much trouble, has to have been developed by satan.
Well, yes Satan can do many evil things but last time I checked he couldn't create. He didn't make bones and place them all over this earth. Please don't take this the wrong way but... I don't see that you are logical at all. We have dinosaur bones... we have evidence. I agree that carbon dating isn't accurate.

Why not, I guess, how can you believe he would not ? He is called the prince of this world, he has all the power of the angels, Why could he not take some bones of some animals and move and set them them orders. Perhaps even made them from other bones and the such just to decieve mankind.

First of all...Satan is an individual...not an omnipotent god. I doubt that he went around the world finding huge, gigantic, oversized bones and went to all the work to form them into other giant, overisized bones. What would he possibly gain by doing that?

And of course I did not say it was a populare beleif, but scinece has little understanding, carbon dating has been shown several times not to be as reliable as people are lead to beleive. O2 dating has shown better promice.

I agree with you here. Carbon dating is a total, unreliable farce. That doesn't mean that large reptiles didn't exist at some point in history.

And even at carbon dating, it is assuming carbon at some max level, going down, if all things were created at various "levels" or the energy used to create the earth can all change it, since carbon dating does not consider Gods power at creation as part of its formulas.

Again, I agree. The conditions of the pre-flood earth were much different than the post flood era. Adam was created as a full grown man with age. Therefore, there is not reason that we should not believe that the earth was not created with age as well.

It is because I am logical I have decided this, because they just don't fit into anything, even in evolution, they were the stronger of the animals, they should have survived, if creation, and they were not created ( if they were not) then they can not exist.

Look at it this way. Before the flood, conditions were far more favorable to a large animal like a dinosaur to exist. There were plants galore and the climate was mile worldwide. After the flood, the majority of the earth's plant life was destroyed and there was a major climate change. The dinosaurs could have starved to death. Just a thought.

But with that, pesonally I could care less if they were real or not, since they are gone and I don't have to clean up after one.

LOL. I have to agree again. Who cares if dinosaurs existed or not. Not important to man's salvation.

But since they are used so much to try to destroy the idea of faith and christianity, I would say that anyone thing, that causes so much trouble, has to have been developed by satan.

I mostly agree again that bones and archeology are heavily used to dispute God's creation. But I am a truth seeker and if they did exist, it's an interesting fact worth knowing.

I was a leader in VBS this year at my church. We did the 7 c's of History... Creation, corruption, catastrophe,confusion, Christ and the Cross, Consummation. It was really interesting.

I was wondering how many Christians believed that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old and that God made the dinosaurs when he made man.? We taught that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark with him. They had scientific evidence, facts about fossils. Ken Ham's group recorded it and it will be shown all over the world. Did you know that they recently found dinosaurs bones that still had blood cells and tissue in it? Interesting huh?

I was raised to believe in the"gap" theory. this is all new information for me to be honest but I am being really open to it. Any thoughts?

I believe that scientists and man made measurements to determine how old is something is very much flawed and we can not truly know about the creation and aspects of it. It is all theory. Many scientific facts are just truly theories that scientists have come up with.

How the hell does somebody know that something is billions of years old. Not my idea of scientific fact.

I too believe that men and dinosaurs lived together. Not in the same bed mind you, lol JK. I hope you know what I am getting at.

6,000 years old seems a lot more realistic to me. The thing with the billions of years old theory from the scientists the only reason why they have used those numbers is so they can verify their own theory about evolution.

My thoughts are yes the earth is young. It is not as old as scientists theorize. I also believe we cohabitate with the dinasours at one time.

Tessy777 agrees: Dude... come on Satan is GOOD but he ain't that good. We got the bones!


There's NOTHING about Satan that is good. That's a fact Jack.

Tessy777 agrees: Dude...come on Satan is GOOD but he ain't that good. We got the bones!


There's NOTHING about Satan that is good. That's a fact Jack.
AJ,
I didn't mean he was "good" and you know it. I meant he was good at what he does... why do we always have to fight? You need to face the facts that I am right and you... are not... bummer huh?

AJ,
I didn't mean he was "good" and you know it. I meant he was good at what he does....why do we always have to fight? you need to face the facts that i am right and you...are not....bummer huh?

I know it but knew I would get your goat. LOL. Me... fight? Nada! Just stating a few simple facts. I know that kind of makes you angry when I do that but it's my job. Someone has to do it.

First let me answer the question. Have to go with science on this one 4.5 billion years old.

Second carbon 14 dating is only accurate to 60,000 years and is done by measuring the decay of the carbon 14 atom which is an unstable isotope of carbon to the stable isotope of carbon 12. It is not used to determine the age of the earth at least not to say that it is any more than 60,000 years old.

Third let me state that it doesn't matter to me what you believe I simply try put the facts out there. If you choose to believe in something that goes against observation that is your thing and doesn't effect me. Now that said let me put some facts out there.
Scientific theory is stated as theory because it evolves as we get more evidence and isn't a law until it is proven that nothing more can be added since we don't have an exact date, hour, minute and second the earth formed it will remain a theory probably forever because we will probably never have that info just to hard to get.
Theory also is different in science than a guess. In science a guess is your first step then you gather evidence, once you have sufficient evidence to support your guess you submit your paper to be peer reviewed by a panel and if the panel agrees with your evidence your guess becomes a theory.
My last point that is that since the earth is a geologically active planet earth rocks can't be used to date earth because the get melted and reformed every couple of million years or so, because of this they used meteorites that fell to earth and dated those. Check out The Age of the Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) it has most of the reasons we feel the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I encourage everyone to read evidence on both sides and decide for yourself.

I too, believe in a young, created earth. I have wrestled with evolution being a "fact" for a number of decades. I believe that there were dinosaurs because there is concrete evidence for them. I also believe that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man.

Because I am a Christian, I believe in what the Bible says and teaches. I, by know means, am any sort of expert on the Bible, nor on the theory of evolution. But, I will keep studying the Bible and other books in order to bolster my faith. Also, I find discussions and debates on this site to be interesting and informative.

I just finished reading an excellent book titled, "In Search of the Genesis World - Debunking the Evolution Myth", by Erich A Von Fange. I liked it so much, and want to be able to use quotes from it as a tool, that I am reading it again.

Life had been started from 2 people-Adam&Eve. Now it reached to 600crore. 6000years enough for it. Other religion, especially hinduism already said this, age of kali or kaliage now reaching near 6000years.

I believe that that there were "dinosaurs" the same time as man, but I also believe the earth is far older then 6,000 years old. I am definitely a believer in the "gap theory".

Radiocarbon dating is not inaccurate, it is accurate to 40,000 years ago with an accuracy of at least 700 years, so they can tell you with high confidence if a fossil is over 40,000 years old.

There is also Potassium-argon dating, this is very accurate for rocks that are over 100,000 years old, you're not telling me that satan created every rock on earth so that when we date them we find them to be billions of years old? I thought creating the earth was god's job :rolleyes:

i always thoughtt that the earth was here for millions of years or something. where did god come from? thats what i dont under stand

If you believe in "Cause and Effect" then you understand that there can only be one first Cause. If the first Cause was caused, then it was not the first cause. Therefore, since the first Cause was un-caused then the first Cause is eternal for nothing came before it. God is the first Cause and is eternal. Since the earth was intelligently designed, the first Cause is intelligent.

You can ask the same question of those who believe in evolution. They love to claim that the earth's climate and chemical conditions were just right for a single cell to pop into existence with no help from an outside source yet they have no way of explaining where the earth came from; where the chemicals came from; what caused the temperature to be just so, etc. It actually takes a greater faith to actually believe in evolution than it does to believe in God, the Creator and Designer of the universe.

You can ask the same question of those who believe in evolution. They love to claim that the earth's climate and chemical conditions were just right for a single cell to pop into existence with no help from an outside source yet they have no way of explaining where the earth came from; where the chemicals came from; what caused the temperature to be just so, etc. It actually takes a greater faith to actually believe in evolution than it does to believe in God, the Creator and Designer of the universe.

Completely wrong, it only requires faith if you believe that Earth is a special place in the universe, as you do, because eyou believe that God created it.

However, people who believe in evolution also believe in scientific principles such as the homogenaity of the universe. We have no problem in explaining why the Earth is just right for life. It's just right for life because if it wasn't life wouldn't be here to realise that it wasn't just right for life (see the Anthropic principle). Of the billions of planets out there, the chance that at least one can support life is very high.
We know exactly where the Earth comes from, the physics of planet formation are well understood. Light elements come from stellar processes. The temperature is caused by the distance from the sun (come on, how could you state we didn't know that?).

I don't claim to understand your religion or belief, that's why I ask questions about it. You seem to believe that you understand my beliefs completely and wish to make people believe less in my beliefs by making uninformed statements about it. Please treat me and my beliefs with respect as I treat you and yours. If you don't understand, then ask, rather than make sweeping statements incorporating your misunderstandings.

Completely wrong, it only requires faith if you believe that Earth is a special place in the universe, as you do, becaus eyou believe that God created it.
However, people who believe in evolution also believe in scientific principles such as the homogenaity of the universe. We have no problem in explaining why the Earth is just right for life. It's just right for life because if it wasnt life wouldnt be here to realise that it wasnt just right for life (see the Anthropic principle). Of the billions of planets out there, the chance that at least one can support life is very high.
We know exactly where the Earth comes from, the physics of planet formation are well understood. Light elements come from stellar processes. The temperature is caused by the distance from the sun (come on, how could you state we didnt know that?).
I don't claim to understand your religion or belief, that's why I ask questions about it. You seem to believe that you understand my beliefs completely and wish to make people believe less in my beliefs by making uninformed statements about it. Please treat me and my beliefs with respect as I treat you and yours. If you don't understand, then ask, rather than make sweeping statements incorporating your misunderstandings.

It still takes a leap of faith to believe in evolution (,the theory of) and there still are no credible explanations as to where the ingredients that made evolution "possible" came from. Well, someone might say, "the rocks were formed by the blending of this chemical with carbon which was pressurized to a certain pressure with such and such heat...." But no explanation for the origin of the chemicals, the carbon, the energy to add pressure, the heat source, etc. Leap of pure faith in theories and man's own vain "intelligence."

It takes a much bigger leap of faith to believe that satan put those bones there to test us.

no explanation for the origin of the chemicals, the carbon, the energy to add pressure, the heat source,

All of these are explained in undergraduate level astrophysics and physics. Just because you don't understand something doesn't meant that there's no scientifically accepted explanation.

The one thing we don't understand is where the energy came from in the beginning of the universe. You say that God being eternal as the first cause would be the best explanation. I'm sure that Occam's razor and the majority of the scientific community would say that energy being eternal would be an equal and less faith-based assumption.

I'd like to hear your beliefs on why we can date rocks back for billions of years, and see billions of light years away, if the earth is indeed only 6000 years old?

I can see 2 explanations:

1) God created the world in the present state 6000 years ago in order to intentionally decieve us (not very nice of him, why would an omniscient, omnipotent being need to decieve little old us?)
2) Satan created the world in the present state 6000 years ago in order to intentionally decieve us (not very nice of him, but he's satan and that's okay. Seems pretty omnipotent of him though?)

As I said, I don't understand your beliefs so I would like to hear your views.

Of course I am one of the even stranger science people I don't believe dinosaurs really existed, but the evidence of them is merley a trick of satan to cause people to fall away from the real truth.


The evidence that the planet earth is billions of years old, and that life has been here for at least 1 billion years, is (forgive the pun) rock solid. If you truly believe in a young earth, then you disagree with our fundamental understanding of geology (plate tectonics), anthropology, archeology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology. And if you think through this "argument" that all that evidence is there simply to trick us, then by that same reasoning one could just as well argue that the world is only 100 years old - i.e, that all the evidence of human history older than 100 years is also some trick. Take that argument it to its extreme, and you could argue that the world was created yesterday (i.e, your own memories of what you did the day before yesterday is a trick, implanted in your brain by a dark power). Clearly this is a nonsense argument. The only rational solution is for christians (and I count myself as one) to reconcile the Genesis account and scientific evidence is to understand that both accounts have their place and serve their purpose, but you should not try to confuse the two.

Now I am Christian, but Personally, I am a believer in evolution. I think the Earth is Much Much older than a mere 6,000 years. There was a movie made in 1960 about evolution and religion called "inherit the wind". There was a great quote from this movie, which I have always liked very much. I don't have the actual quote, but It said something along the lines of there is no way to know or understand the amount of time that passed during the creation of the world. There is no way to know how long God thought a day was. A day could have been a literal 24 hour period, or it could have been a year, 1,000 years, 1 million year, etc. there is no way to know.

There is so much evidence showing that the earth is older than we originally thought. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that? I agree that carbon dating is not "as" accurate as we would like, but it is pretty accurate. I mean God gave us minds that could expand for a reason, to learn.

As for the wolly mammoth thing someone mentioned earlier. The reason that mammoth had its food still in its mouth and in its stomach, if I remember correctly, is because it was frozen solid in a matter of seconds during by falling into icy conditions, maybe a river or lake. completely preserved. You can read about that here: Woolly Mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth)

This is just my personal beliefs, and Im in no way saying that it is the truth. I am a person of faith, I believe in God and I don't need prove of his existence, but I also believe there is room for science there. I try not to pretend that I have the capapbility to understand what God can understand. I figure, he gave me a brain to use, and that is what I do. He made me the way I am for a reason, and I like to believe in what makes sense to me. The scientific findings make sense to me, and many of these things have been proven, and God made those men and women in science as smart as they are for a reason, and that is to help us expand our knowledge and understand our world..

I'd like to hear your beliefs on why we can date rocks back for billions of years, and see billions of light years away, if the earth is indeed only 6000 years old?

I can see 2 explanations:

1) God created the world in the present state 6000 years ago in order to intentionally decieve us (not very nice of him, why would an omniscient, omnipotent being need to decieve little old us?)
2) Satan created the world in the present state 6000 years ago in order to intentionally decieve us (not very nice of him, but he's satan and that's okay. Seems pretty omnipotent of him though?)

As I said, I don't understand yoru beliefs so i would like to hear your views.

I believe God created a mature Earth and a mature universe. Just as Adam and Eve were created as mature humans, man and woman. Even though they were just minutes old they were mature and it would look like they had been many years old. So to with the Earth and universe.

So why does God want to decieve us in this way?

I don't see it as deceiving, but that we as finite beings, do not fully understand the workings of the infinite.

I don't understand that either. Why not start at 0 instead of at +1.5 billion?

I am a conservative Christian who believes that mainstream science is correct in dating the earth to billions of years old.

... but I also believe that the universe was Created... and that science probably knows less than they think they do - and that it certainly is possible that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Plus we have much evidence of human history before 4000BC, did he create that too? Seems a bit redundant to create the garden of eden (all new with no history), and a whole world that looks like it's already been lived in.

If God creates a big shade tree. Lets say, fifty feet tall, He would do it in an instant. A person would walk up to that tree and study it, then would have to say "that tree must be eighty years old". Even though it was created just hours ago, it would look as if it was eighty years old.

I guess that's why they call it 'blind faith'.

I like your point Cap...

Tessy777 disagrees: hmmm? Well God says man is 6,000 years old... period. I don't care what science thinks it has found.. . the earth.. I don't know?

Tessy, I ask that you have respect for my beliefs, like I have respect for yours. Talk to me like I am human like you.

Tessy, i ask that you have respect for my beliefs, like i have respect for yours. Talk to me like I am human like you.
I don't know what you read there but I just didn't agree with you. I wasn't rude or unkind. I just said what I believe to be the truth. Geesh! Dude don't get testy on me.

I think he was upset because the "disagree" reputation is for when the information given is incorrect, like when you give someone advice that is just wrong, not when your opinion is not the same. You should refrain from giving reputation on a thread where there are mainly opinions being shared. That is why the option is disabled in the member discussion area.

I think he was upset because the "disagree" reputation is for when the information given is incorrect, like when you give someone advice that is just wrong, not when your opinion is not the same. You should refrain from giving reputation on a thread where there are mainly opinions being shared. That is why the option is disabled in the member discussion area.

Ok... sorry. I didn't mean anything by it.

NHNF.. now you know! :)

Ok...sorry. I didn't mean anything by it.

That's okay I still love you ;)

If you still believe in a 6000 year old earth, why do you still not believe in a flat earth or a earth centered universe? These were once church doctrine. Now you might say that these were also scientific theories at one point but also remember that during that time if scientist went against the church they might be burned at the stake. So that probably affected their results. Why not just incorporate accepted scientific theory into the religion like has been done in the past?

If you still believe in a 6000 year old earth, why do you still not believe in a flat earth or a earth centered universe? These were once church doctrine. Now you might say that these were also scientific theories at one point but also remember that during that time if scientist went against the church they might be burned at the stake. So that probably affected their results. Why not just incorporate accepted scientific theory into the religion like has been done in the past?

The Bible never said anything about a "flat" earth or an "earth centered universe." Those beliefs belonged to an evil European cult that thrived during the dark ages. A powerful group who would kill anyone who disagreed with their unfounded conclusions. However, the Bible does say that the earth was created fiat (out of nothing) by the power of the Word. The Bible does say that the entire creation period was a literal 7 day span. If scientist teach something else then those scientists are wrong.

The Bible does say that the entire creation period was a literal 7 day span. If scientist teach something else then those scientists are wrong.

I'm sure you're missing a part of a logical conclusion here... hmmmmm :rolleyes:

Yes, there should be an "or" in there somewhere, I'm sure that isn't the only conclusion you can reach is it?

2 words, "Carbon Dating." So, "yes," I do personally believe that the Earth is much older than just 6,000 years.
I feel that people take the Bible TOO LITERALLY.

This may seem like an odd question, but WHERE in the Bible does it say that the world is 6,000 years old ?
Yes, I have read it, especially like the Old Testement parts, but I cannot recall ever reading anything like this.

This may seem like an odd question, but WHERE in the Bible does it say that the world is 6,000 years old ?
Yes, I have read it, especially like the Old Testement parts, but I cannot recall ever reading anything like this.
Quite honestly Ben, I do not think it says that it is 6,000 years old.

God created everything in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested. The idea is, I think. That each day represents 1000 years in God years. We do not know how many years from the time from adam and eve, to when Jesus came. It has been approximately 2,000 years past since Jesus came to earth.

So that would make the earth approximately 9,000 years old. So the question is how much time elapsped between Adam and Eve to When Jesus came?

I hope anybody can correct me if I am wrong. Or give us the facts about it?

Jewish chronology dates Creation to September 25 or March 29, 3760 BC. I think that's where the belief comes from.

Quite honestly Ben, I do not think it says that it is 6,000 years old.
God created everything in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested. The idea is, I think. That each day represents 1000 years in God years. We do not know how many years from the time from adam and eve, to when Jesus came. It has been approximately 2,000 years past since Jesus came to earth.
So that would make the earth approximately 9,000 years old. So the question is how much time elapsped between Adam and Eve to When Jesus came?
I hope anybody can correct me if I am wrong. Or give us the facts about it?

Bishop Usher of Ireland in the 16th to 17th century came up with a dating system that many believe is fairly accurate. He followed known dates backwards in history and came to his conclusions. If I'm not mistaken, he dated the world back to about 4000 BC or thereabouts. It's been a while since I did any studying in this department.

The time God took to accomplish what is stated below

Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Can be viewed as a separate period from the Earth habitation preparatory days which followed allowing for the passage of billions of years.

Also, the Hebrew words referring to "day" permit the understanding of the seven preparatory days as being longer than twenty-four hours each.

See, this is what confuses me to no end. Two posts in a row from devout people with two wildly opposing conclusions: AJ says it's 6,000 years old and Starman proposes billions of years. :confused:

Nk, I say it is very young two. I think though that the majority here believe the earth is young. Only a couple believe it is as old as scientists say.

See, this is what confuses me to no end. Two posts in a row from devout people with two wildly opposing conclusions: AJ says it's 6,000 years old and Starman proposes billions of years. :confused:
No reason for confusion, NK. It's a perfect example of the dilemma that however much one holds in awe, reverence and esteem the words in a holy book, and calls it "God's Word", one still ends up being forced to do the dirty and thankless work of interpretation. And however hard one tries to arrive at a literal (read "interpretation-free") interpretation, someone else who holds the book in just as high esteem as you do, and tries just as hard as you do to interpret it "correctly", will arrive at a different interpretation and disagree with yours. I can certainly see how vexing that would be, can't you?

In a way, it's not so very different from what geologists and other earth-scientists do in trying to interpret the evidence of their observations and experiments. The most notable difference to me is that scientists are not as prone to claim that their interpretation has to be correct because God revealed it to them, and therefore those who disagree with it are clearly Satan's spawn. Not to say, of course, that scientists are always models of christian charity toward their opponents in the debate.

Only a couple believe it is as old as scientists say.

Only when it comes to THIS ONE THREAD, Joe!!

I notice that my earlier question still goes unanswered.
Had a feeling it would.

This may seem like an odd question, but WHERE in the Bible does it say that the world is 6,000 years old ?
Yes, I have read it, especially like the Old Testement parts, but I cannot recall ever reading anything like this.

It doesn' t say it is 6,000 years old. It says man is approximately that. Christians have many different ideas as to when God made man. Was it right after he created heaven and earth or did He wait millions of years before He said.. let there be light. Hope that helps.

I don't think it is in the bible... at least I don't remember reading it... and I was raised Christian. With respect to all parties (I don't mean to offend anyone, and sometimes my words are read differently than I had intended) I think that the religious people who are dating this, by using the dates and times and different formulas, are doing exactly what the scientists are doing - taking small facts and figures, and trying to piece them together - mainly, guessing... You won't be able to tell one that the other is right. There is good evidence to both things, but I personally think that the evidence surrounding an older world, is a bit more solid.

Hang on there Tessy;

I was wondering how many Christians believed that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old

Errrrrm in the words of a ZX81, DoEs NoT CoMpUtE

Nice catch.

Your right Curlyben our bad she didn't ask the non christians we shouldn't have responded.

I only started to reply because someone was spreading complete fallacy about scientific understanding.

Im Christian... and I still think it is an incorrect belief...

Perhaps she only values the opinion of the Christians and the claims of the non-Christians are falling on deaf ears... Either way I didn't see anything which said "Only Christians may respond to this question" I think it was a lively debate however, and perhaps will continue to be one.

I concur... it interests me.

Im Christian...and I still think it is an incorrect belief...
That's just it, it is a BELIEF and nothing more.
belief - Definitions from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief)

The great thing about fanatic religious beliefs is that they need no grounding in reality at all.

Very true indeed. I guess I think too logically. I can believe in a God or a creator, but I have a hard time believing that this creator who supposidly loves us, would deceive us. (Which is the argument against scientific fact that I most often see) When there are cold hard facts documenting certain things, how can you ignore them. God gave us minds to think, not minds to look at something say "No, Your facts dont mean anything because I have 1 book that says differently", and then move on...

That is exactly how I feel angel! If God gave us brains to use then why would he want to decieve us. Doesn't add up to me.

This might piss some peeps off but how DO we know that God and the Bible are real...

Only when it comes to THIS ONE THREAD, Joe !!!

I notice that my earlier question still goes unanswered.
Had a feeling it would.

I thought I answered it??

This might piss some peeps off but how DO we know that God and the Bible are real...

God is within us all, God is all around us.

Just because you can not see the air, does not mean it is not there. Or that we need it to be able to breath.

As far as the bible. It is real, Or we would not have one. Lol Bible is a book. It is written and many accounts of history recorded. That is a fact.

Joe

I thought I answered it?????

You sort of HALF answered it as you were unsure.

I always believed in God but my family never really took me to church when I was young, so over the years I have questioned my faith a lot. It has all gotten harder for me to comprehend and believe.

Well I have found god and HIS name is Higgs boson THE God Particale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_Boson)

Perhaps she only values the opinion of the Christians and the claims of the non-Christians are falling on deaf ears.... Either way I didn't see anything which said "Only Christians may respond to this question" I think it was a lively debate however, and perhaps will continue to be one.

I don't value the opinions of Christians more... I was just curious to see what they think. I had a pretty good idea what non-Christians would think already. I meant no harm... of course ANYONE should respond that wants to...

This might piss some peeps off but how DO we know that God and the Bible are real...

First of all, FAITH is all one really needs; however, for those who need evidence, there's some of that too.

First of all, we have all heard of cause and effect. If you were to trace every effect back to its cause, you would find that things have a sort of domino effect. One thing happens and causes the next thing to happen and so on. All that having been said, there can only be one first Cause. There has to be a first Cause. Nothing could have caused the first cause else the first cause would not be the first cause as whatever caused the first cause would then be the first cause. Get my drift? Since the first Cause is uncaused, it must be eternal. The First Cause is God.

The Bible is "real" in many respects because the history recorded therein has been documented in extra-biblical writings. Also, many of the geographical locations spoken of in the Bible that were hidden from view for centuries have been discovered by archeologists. There is even extra-Biblical documentation that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Not that anyone actually saw Him rise but there were Roman soldiers guarding the cave where Christ lay and the cave was covered by a large boulder. By morning, the boulder had been moved and Christ was not to be found within the tomb.

Bottom line, faith is all a Christian needs. Faith.

First of all, we have all heard of cause and effect. If you were to trace every effect back to its cause, you would find that things have a sort of domino effect. One thing happens and causes the next thing to happen and so on. All that having been said, there can only be one first Cause. There has to be a first Cause. Nothing could have caused the first cause else the first cause would not be the first cause as whatever caused the first cause would then be the first cause. Get my drift? Since the first Cause is uncaused, it must be eternal. The First Cause is God.


Then could it be that god made that first cause then set up a series of rules that must be followed to achieve his desired outcome and if this is the case than couldn't science just be humans finding the rules that god set up. Therefore the more you learn about science the more you learn about god.

Then could it be that god made that first cause then set up a series of rules that must be followed to achieve his desired outcome and if this is the case than couldn't science just be humans finding the rules that god set up. Therefore the more you learn about science the more you learn about god.

I love science. I have no problem with science at all until it contradicts God. There are many scientists who are Christian. Many have written books disputing the conclusions of non-Christian scientists. A large portion of my library consists of said books.

This might piss some peeps off but how DO we know that God and the Bible are real...

Scientifically, we don't know. That's why you have believers and non-believers.

Some people are born with faith, others, aren't. Some lose their faith. Some find it. I believe some just aren't born with the capacity for it. Religion (or lack thereof) is a very personal thing, and no one can MAKE you believe one way or another, you have to decide for yourself. So if you think the idea of God (Christian or other) makes sense and it's something you are comfortable with, you have faith. If you find it impossible to believe there is an all-powerful man in the sky, then you don't. As far as the Bible, well, it's a tangible thing, so we know it exists, the question is; is it the word of God or is it a collection of stories. Again, only your faith can answer that for you.

ActionJackson, how can you say you love science until it contradicts God? Isn't that just saying you agree with what other people say until you don't? Of course scientists can be Christian, but that doesn't mean they are better/worse more right/more wrong than scientists of other religions.

Tessy I'm sorry, my post was supposed to be taken in a teasing manner, I hope I didn't offend you!

[QUOTE=jillianleab]
ActionJackson, how can you say you love science until it contradicts God? Isn't that just saying you agree with what other people say until you don't? Of course scientists can be Christian, but that doesn't mean they are better/worse more right/more wrong than scientists of other religions.
QUOTE]

True science will never contradict God for God is the author of all knowledge. I should have said the "science community" who preach non-scientific theories as true science. For instance, "evolution" has never been demonstrated in a lab yet it is passed off as a scientific fact. It's not. The "big bang" is based on pure conjecture and has NEVER been recreated in a lab setting and yet it is passed off as a viable, scientific probability. Christian scientists, themselves, aren't better or worse but their conclusions are, in many cases, more believable than the alternative.

Then could it be that god made that first cause then set up a series of rules that must be followed to achieve his desired outcome and if this is the case than couldn't science just be humans finding the rules that god set up. Therefore the more you learn about science the more you learn about god.

Absolutely. True science will always lead to God's creative ability. True science is simply the search for truth. True Christianity is also the search for truth. Therefore, true science and true Christianity go hand in hand.

I wasn't going to go any further posting on this thread, I have enough ideas, theories, speculations, and yes even facts on the subject of the "pre-history" of the earth to fill a whole book. And probably cause this thread to go into at least 30 different side topics.

But this thread seems to be going in this direction anyway so here are a couple of things to ponder.

Firstly, let us all not forget that the book of Genesis was not originally written in English. Contrary to popular belief it was not even originally written in Aramaic, but in a combination of very very ancient Chaldean and Egyptian. And if you don't believe me about the Egyptian just look at the name of Israel. (Is)is (Ra) (El)Yon. Remember the book of Genesis is believed to be written by Moses and he was raised a Prince of Egypt. Sometimes to fully understand the Bible you have to do a little word study, sometimes a cultural and literary study as well. I could go further on this but like I said have enough for a whole book. I'll just give you a clue to work with.

Look at the words "day" and "creation".
When you look at these words remember they are English. Could there be two different meanings for the same word even in the same chapter?

Secondly, here is a question for everybody why does God ask Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth not "populate" it?

Why does God ask Adam and Eve to replenish the earth not populate it? Good question. What is your answer to this.

Joe

Why didn't God make 5,000 humans to begin with so the touchy subject of incest is removed?

I wasn't going to go any further posting on this thread, I have enough ideas, theories, speculations, and yes even facts on the subject of the "pre-history" of the earth to fill a whole book. And probably cause this thread to go into at least 30 different side topics.

But this thread seems to be going in this direction anyway so here are a couple of things to ponder.

Firstly, let us all not forget that the book of Genesis was not originally written in English. Contrary to popular belief it was not even originally written in Aramaic, but in a combination of very very ancient Chaldean and Egyptian. And if you don't believe me about the Egyptian just look at the name of Israel. (Is)is (Ra) (El)Yon. Remember the book of Genesis is believed to be written by Moses and he was raised a Prince of Egypt. Sometimes to fully understand the Bible you have to do a little word study, sometimes a cultural and literary study as well. I could go further on this but like I said have enough for a whole book. I'll just give you a clue to work with.

Look at the words "day" and "creation".
When you look at these words remember they are English. Could there be two different meanings for the same word even in the same chapter?

Secondly, here is a question for everybody why does God ask Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth not "populate" it?


OK Portal..

You have got my attention.

[QUOTE=ActionJackson
For instance, "evolution" has never been demonstrated in a lab yet it is passed off as a scientific fact. It's not. [/QUOTE]

So when you doctor with an infection do you say give me the old antibiotics or the new ones that the microbes haven't evolved to be resistant to them yet. You have to least admit that organisms change over time this has been shown many time in a lab. Many people have done some interesting work with fruit flies showing how introducing a new challenge to their environment causes them to change and that is evolution.

So when you doctor with an infection do you say give me the old antibiotics or the new ones that the microbes haven't evolved to be resistant to them yet. You have to least admit that organisms change over time this has been shown many time in a lab. Many people have done some interesting work with fruit flies showing how introducing a new challenge to their environment causes them to change and that is evolution.

I don't take antibiotics. I don't eat pork so I don't get sick. However, I'll bite. The organism may become more resistant to your antibiotics but it doesn't change into a monkey... it's still the same "brand" of organism that its mommy and daddy were. Furthermore, it didn't become a living organism out of non-organic material.

True science will never contradict God for God is the author of all knowledge. I should have said the "science community" who preach non-scientific theories as true science. For instance, "evolution" has never been demonstrated in a lab yet it is passed off as a scientific fact. It's not. The "big bang" is based on pure conjecture and has NEVER been recreated in a lab setting and yet it is passed off as a viable, scientific probability. Christian scientists, themselves, aren't better or worse but their conclusions are, in many cases, more believable than the alternative.

I've learned my lesson. It's impossible to debate with someone who's response to everything is: "God did it".

How nice that we all have opinions!

Many people have done some interesting work with fruit flies showing how introducing a new challenge to their environment causes them to change and that is evolution.

Yes... I've heard of the fruit fly tests. The mutations that occurred in the lab harmed rather than helped the poor little fruit fly. It would not have survived in the wild.

Get on the web and take a gander at a book by Michael Behe called "Darwin's Black Box"
(10th Annivery). He's a non-Chrisitian scientist who specializes in the fields of microbiology and biochemistry. A monumental book dealing with his discovery of "irreducible complexity." The "theory" of evolution was already in trouble but this book pounded the nails into the coffin. Great read and there is NO DOUBT that evolution is bygone and passe'. Time to jump off that bandwagon and find a new, anti-Creation fad to join.

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe)
Haven't read the book book but it was interesting reading about him. It's not often that a scientist admits and proves himself wrong. He admits that intelligent design is not scientific theory and his concept of "irreducible complexity" didn't hold up under his own studies.

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe)
Haven't read the book book but it was interesting reading about him. It's not often that a scientist admits and proves himself wrong. He admits that intelligent design is not scientific theory and his concept of "irreducible complexity" didn't hold up under his own studies.

Darwin's Black Box book reviews:

"Overthrows Darwin at the end of the twentieth century in the same way that quantum theory overthrew Newton at the beginning" George Gilder in National Review

"A persuasive book. It will speak to the layman and perhaps even to professional evolutionists as well, if they are able to suspend for a little while their own judgment about origins, the ultimate black box." The Washington Times

"An argument of great originality, elegance, adn intellectual power...No one can propose to defend Darwin without meeting the challenges set out in this superbly written and compelling book." David Berlinski, author of A Tour of the Calculus

Behe stands behind his work to this day. I am sure that you took some tidbit of a statement made by him and twisted it in a manner that you hope supports your preconceived ideas. There's nothing new under the sun.

AJ,
Read the link and get back to me. Remember I'm not trying to convince you I know I can't do that. I'm just trying prove you wrong. :)

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe)
Haven't read the book book but it was interesting reading about him. It's not often that a scientist admits and proves himself wrong. He admits that intelligent design is not scientific theory and his concept of "irreducible complexity" didn't hold up under his own studies.

I read the link and saw nowhere Behe denouncing his findings. I saw a lot of other men criticizing his findings but without any scientific data. It comes as no surprise that Wikipedia would try to belittle or ridicule a man whom they disagree with. Ultra liberals often denounce truthful information if it furthers their goals. That would be like me sending you to a 700 Club site for an unbiased review of Charles Darwin and his book. Read Behe's book then get back to me (not!).

AJ you obviously did not read the link thoroughly. Let me help you:


Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claims.

This means he intentionally published his book to the masses because he knew it would not hold up to peer review.


Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[27] During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[28] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

This is where he admits, under oath, there are no peer reviewed articles supporting his claim. He also admits he changed the definition of "theory" to fit his argument. That means it's not science. He also admits the mutations could happen, even if the environment wasn't ideal.


"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

This means in order to accept his claims, you must believe in God. Belief in God is not science.


Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition

This is where it is explained his view is religious, not scientific.


"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

This is where it is evidenced he ignores known evolution menthods in order to fit his claim. This also explains why his idea of "irreducible complexity" is incorrect.


Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."

Well, there you go!

Did he formally denounce his findings? No. Did he admit to manipulating his results and generally accepted scientific procedures and methods to make his idea work? Yes. A majority of these quotes are from what a judge ruled, which have not been skewed by Wiki. In fact, you can link to the fully published ruling by clicking the little blue numbers after each statement.

Hope I helped!

AJ,
Read the link and get back to me. Remember I'm not trying to convince you I know I can't do that. I'm just trying prove you wrong. :)

I'm still waiting. Or are you done?

I'm still waiting. Or are you done?
Yea I'm done.

AJ you obviously did not read the link thoroughly. Let me help you:

Thoroughly enough that I was satisfied that he did not refute his findings.

This means he intentionally published his book to the masses because he knew it would not hold up to peer review.

God intentionally wrote His Book for the masses as well and didn't give two hoots about "peers." If I am going to go to all the trouble of writing a book as comprehensive as Darwin's Black Box, I sure hope that it appeals to the masses. Any fool knows that his "peers" aren't interested in anything but status quo...all comfy in their little black box.

This is where he admits, under oath, there are no peer reviewed articles supporting his claim. He also admits he changed the definition of "theory" to fit his argument. That means it's not science. He also admits the mutations could happen, even if the environment wasn't ideal.

Oh, and pro-evolutionists don't write articles and create definitions to "fit their arguments." LOL. Who cares if there are no "peer reviewed articles?" I mean really! His book is well written and has truly interesting information. He clearly isn't lying about his findings. They are what they are. When someone can come along and prove that the religion of evolution is not based on a whole lot of pure faith, I will bend...not until then.

This means in order to accept his claims, you must believe in God. Belief in God is not science.

It is if you apply the argument of cause and effect. There can only be one first Cause. The first Cause is uncaused. Science, by the way, has not been able to disprove God's existence. A bunch of wishful thinking, theories, an blind faith in evolution is not science.

his is where it is explained his view is religious, not scientific.

Their unscientific opinion. They're as protective of their religion as Christians are of theirs. Their feathers wouldn't be all ruffled if Behe wasn't a threat to their established faith.

This is where it is evidenced he ignores known evolution menthods in order to fit his claim. This also explains why his idea of "irreducible complexity" is incorrect.

"Evolution methods?" You make it sound as though some "method" has been discovered by which the theory of evolution is provable. We all know that there are lots of various theories. They're crammed down our throats quite relentlessly but "methods." Could ya do us all a favor and list them there "methods?" If you would be so kind.

Well, there you go!

Yeah, I'm going alright. No real good reason to stick around.

Did he formally denounce his findings? No. Did he admit to manipulating his results and generally accepted scientific procedures and methods to make his idea work? Yes. A majority of these quotes are from what a judge ruled, which have not been skewed by Wiki. In fact, you can link to the fully published ruling by clicking the little blue numbers after each statement.

Judges allow murderes and rapists free every day. Judges legalized the murder of unborn children. Activist judges perpetuate injustice every day in this land. Why should I give a d--n what a judge ruled concerning this issue? You gotta be kidding, right?

Hope I helped!

Actually, you helped a great deal. I love these kinds of posts. It shows the true colors of those who deeply hate the religion of Christianity. Please note that I didn't go into an atheist site to start trouble with you. You, on the other hand, purposely entered a site titled Christianity to disrupt and create problems here. Let it be recorded in heaven.

Yea I'm done.

Now wasn't THAT a waste of precious time.

Actually, you helped a great deal. I love these kinds of posts. It shows the true colors of those who deeply hate the religion of Christianity. Please note that I didn't go into an atheist site to start trouble with you. You, on the other hand, purposely entered a site titled Christianity to disrupt and create problems here. Let it be recorded in heaven.
That is the problem with public forums, they are open to the public. If you didn't want anyone raining on your parade then you would be in a private place and be surrounded by those like you and there would be no problems.

That is the problem with public forums, they are open to the public. If you didn't want anyone raining on your parade then you would be in a private place and be surrounded by those like you and there would be no problems.

Oh... it's you. Nobody is stopping you or even trying. I simply stated that it helps the Christian cause. It's actually a fulfillment of prophecy as it is written that there would be scoffers and that Christians would be persecuted for Christ's namesake. It's a good thing. The more you force us into the Bible the better off we are.

Not knowing exactly what was meant by a day is a sticking point as to the age of the earth in terms of when man was here, but the evidence that there has been life on earth for billions of years in scientific terms, has been put to rest by all, but the most stubborn unscientific mind. And yes dinosaurs existed in the time of man, but he called them birds. As proof go to the Chicago Museum of Natural History, and compare the Rex, that's been there forever, with the skeleton of a chicken, and only the beaks and wings and size make them different. Actually I have no problem believing the Creator is skilled enough to use evolution, or quantum mechanics, in his works. It was a piece of cake. For sure he knows more than ancient man can explain, and some modern ones. Where I can respect the bible, it is not the only book that contains the truth, nor should it be the only one when we consider science.

This may seem like an odd question, but WHERE in the Bible does it say that the world is 6,000 years old ?
Yes, I have read it, especially like the Old Testement parts, but I cannot recall ever reading anything like this.

You won't find just one verse in the Bible that says the age of the Earth, or how long man has inhabited the Earth. The 6000 years comes from adding up the genealogies that are given. The 6000 years is an approximation.

Hopes that helps Curly.

AJ I don't hate Christians, not at all. What I hate is when Christian theology is spread as science.

You seem to be missing the point about scientific claims and theories. A claim is not an accepted scientific theory until it has been subject to peer review. Your buddy didn't do this because he knew it would not hold up. There are a lot of well written and interesting books out there, it doesn't mean they hold scientific fact. I didn't say or imply he's lying about his findings, but if he admitted in open court, under oath, before God, that his findings were manipulated, that bears some consideration.


A bunch of wishful thinking, theories, an blind faith in evolution is not science.


I can do that too: A bunch of wishful thinking, theories and blind faith in religion is not science. See how that works?

I'm not saying you should change your way of thinking because of what the judge ruled, but you have obviously overlooked the fact that the man you are holding as your "science expert" admitted his findings had been manipulated. Just because a judge paraphrased it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I don't dispute this guy is a scientist. BUT, he is also a religious theorist, and what he has presented as "science" is nothing more than "religion".

Let everything I say and do be recorded in Heaven, Hell, Pakistan, Mars or Omicron Persei 8, makes no matter to me.

You are free to believe what you wish, and I'm in no way trying to convince you of another belief. However, when you claim a man has presented a scientific theory and hold him in such high regard, it is probably wise to know about him from more than one angle. I didn't expect my translation of the Wiki article to change your mind, but hoped it would help you understand this is a religious theory, not a scientific one. You are a person of faith, good for you. I am not. Good for me.

You won't find just one verse in the Bible that says the age of the Earth, or how long man has inhabited the Earth. The 6000 years comes from adding up the genealogies that are given. The 6000 years is an approximation.

Hopes that helps Curly.

I thought the question was how old is the earth, not how long man has been here.

I thought the question was how old is the earth, not how long man has been here.

You are right, The question is about the age of the Earth, but if one follows the literal six day creation, then it relates to the age of the Earth.

[QUOTE=talaniman] but the evidence that there has been life on earth for billions of years in scientific terms, has been put to rest

You said it...I didn't. I probably would have said "laid to rest."

. And yes dinosaurs existed in the time of man, but he called them birds. As proof go to the Chicago Museum of Natural History, and compare the Rex, that's been there forever, with the skeleton of a chicken, and only the beaks and wings and size make them different.

I don't know what "he" you are talking about but it certainly wasn't "He." Just because a dinosaur had a similar skeletal structure as a chicken doesn't make the dinosaur a chicken. That would mean that all animals that had similar skeletal structures as that of a chicken would all be chickens. Colonel Sanders would have had a heyday.

Actually I have no problem believing the Creator is skilled enough to use evolution, or quantum mechanics, in his works.

Not only would that contradict what He claims to have done to bring the earth and all life into existence but it makes no sense. Why would an almighty God who can simply speak something into existence go through the tedium required to make itty bitty changes over a quintillion year period (you say billions...I say quintillion...my guess is as good as yours). So you don't agree with your cohorts that an organism sprung forth from inorganic matter by happenstance?

It was a piece of cake.

Chocolate or vanilla?

QUOTE]

So some of your buddies have faith that all living organisms sprung forth from non-organic matter by pure chance billions, and billions, and billions, and billions, and trillions of years ago (no mention as to where the carbon and other chemicals came from). You, on the other hand, have faith that God produced the first cell with His mighty power then tediously helped the poor little fella along until it was able to sprout some teeny weeny little legs. In the meantime, He created a little microscopic tree for our little ancestor to feed on. Now that does take faith. Oh, did He also take a gelatinous rib and create a little female cell He called Eve? Bottom line is that it takes a whole lot of faith to believe either of the two scenarios above. If you scoff at the faith of a Christian, you are a hypocrite.

If you scoff at the faith of a Christian, you are a hypocrite.

Because I don't follow your path, or are as sensitive about my faith, doesn't mean I don't respect you, or your right to believe whatever you choose. But am I allowed to express my opinion, with out you feeling persecuted, and paranoid??

AJ
You seem to be missing the point about scientific claims and theories. A claim is not an accepted scientific theory until it has been subject to peer review. Your buddy didn't do this because he knew it would not hold up. There are a lot of well written and interesting books out there, it doesn't mean they hold scientific fact. I didn't say or imply he's lying about his findings, but if he admitted in open court, under oath, before God, that his findings were manipulated, that bears some consideration.

Standing before a large group of people was Jesus Christ. Standing near Him was Pontius Pilate. Also before the group was Barabus. Barabus was a hardened criminal while Jesus Christ was innocent of any wrong doing. Pilate even stated the fact. When put to a vote of the "peers" in the audience, Christ was chosen for crucifixion while Barabus was set free. The founders of the United States understood that "democracy" was "mobocracy" thus the country was founded on the principles of a Republic. Just because a majority of people say something is so doesn't make it so. The leaders of the Romish church during the dark ages believed the world was flat. Was the majority of "peers" correct? No sir/ma'am. Have you read the book? Have any of the scoffers jabbing and jeering read the book? No? Then how can you offer a critique of his work? I did read the book and it was well written. He offers numerous facts. Also, he HAS made headway in the scientific community. Many scientists who were afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs are beginning to stir.

I can do that too: A bunch of wishful thinking, theories and blind faith in religion is not science. See how that works?

Oh, I know how it works. I've been accused of it many times by the scoffers and jabbers. All I am saying is that it works both ways. See how that works?

I'm not saying you should change your way of thinking because of what the judge ruled, but you have obviously overlooked the fact that the man you are holding as your "science expert" admitted his findings had been manipulated. Just because a judge paraphrased it doesn't mean it isn't true.

What a gigantic and obvious generalization. You make it sound like every chapter and every point made in Behe's book was "manipulated" and that he basically admitted that the book was a fraud. LOL and LOL. The judge "paraphrased" a single statement concerning a single issue. Are you going to tell me that every word out of your mouth is flawless? Come now.

I don't dispute this guy is a scientist. BUT, he is also a religious theorist, and what he has presented as "science" is nothing more than "religion".

And secular humanists aren't "religious theorists?" First plank of the Humanist Manifesto I: "Religious Humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." Firstly, Humanists regard themselves as religionists. Secondly, it takes as much faith to believe that man sprung forth from inorganic matter billions and billions and quadrillions of years ago as it does to believe that God created the universe in a lesser amount of time.

Let everything I say and do be recorded in Heaven, Hell, Pakistan, Mars or Omicron Persei 8, makes no matter to me.

Lets!

You are free to believe what you wish, and I'm in no way trying to convince you of another belief. However, when you claim a man has presented a scientific theory and hold him in such high regard, it is probably wise to know about him from more than one angle. I didn't expect my translation of the Wiki article to change your mind, but hoped it would help you understand this is a religious theory, not a scientific one. You are a person of faith, good for you. I am not. Good for me.

Thank you for allowing me that freedom. I certainly appreciate that. You may not be trying to convince me of another belief but you're doing your damndest to cast doubt on the one I have. Why else would you be here? I hold anyone who goes against the flow of status quo in high regard if he does so with the intention of showing new evidence not previously seen. I appreciate that in a person...not just Michael Behe. I appreciated it in Isaac Newton as well. You, my friend, have become the stubborn establishment while Behe is the fresh new voice of our changing times. We live in a world of extraordinary technical advances. Behe put the new tools to use and discovered some new facts and all of a sudden and out of the blue, he's villainized. He simply used the scientific methods that you all worship but since his findings don't adhere to your preconceived notions, he's some sort of a kook. What hypocrites!

Because I don't follow your path, or are as sensitive about my faith, doesn't mean I don't respect you, or your right to believe whatever you choose. But am I allowed to express my opinion, with out you feeling persecuted, and paranoid??

You wield your sword and I wield mine. It's a spiritual battle that we're in. I simply can't blend my beliefs with yours. I'm not entitled to. When a Christian puts his faith in God and the Holy Bible, there is no room for compromise on issues of this magnitude. Paranoid? Where did you come up with that? I'm fearless when it comes to matters of this importance. I'll stand toe to toe with anyone in defense of Christ and matters related to His Word. It's what I love to do. You don't "respect" me for one moment. That's clear by the wording of many of your posts.

I wasn't going to go any further posting on this thread, I have enough ideas, theories, speculations, and yes even facts on the subject of the "pre-history" of the earth to fill a whole book. And probably cause this thread to go into at least 30 different side topics.

But this thread seems to be going in this direction anyway so here are a couple of things to ponder.

Firstly, let us all not forget that the book of Genesis was not originally written in English. Contrary to popular belief it was not even originally written in Aramaic, but in a combination of very very ancient Chaldean and Egyptian. And if you don't believe me about the Egyptian just look at the name of Israel. (Is)is (Ra) (El)Yon. Remember the book of Genesis is believed to be written by Moses and he was raised a Prince of Egypt. Sometimes to fully understand the Bible you have to do a little word study, sometimes a cultural and literary study as well. I could go further on this but like I said have enough for a whole book. I'll just give you a clue to work with.

Look at the words "day" and "creation".
When you look at these words remember they are English. Could there be two different meanings for the same word even in the same chapter?

Secondly, here is a question for everybody why does God ask Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth not "populate" it?


Excuse my language here, but what the hell happened to this poster? You hook us in deep but then you do not explain yourself. Still waiting here for an answer, I am not interested in some of the arguments that have gone on since then, but I would like to know your answer to that last question that you left us with.

Joe

AJ you continue to miss the point. Your "science guy" admitted he ignored accepted scientific principles to fit his idea.


Just because a majority of people say something is so doesn't make it so

Correct. What "makes it so" is the evidence which supports it.


You make it sound like every chapter and every point made in Behe's book was "manipulated" and that he basically admitted that the book was a fraud.

I make no such assertion. I assert that Behe ADMITTED IN OPEN COURT he manuipulated accepted scientific principles to fit his idea.


The judge "paraphrased" a single statement concerning a single issue.

Correct. Just so happens it's a rather important one to your claim this is a scientific theory.


Are you going to tell me that every word out of your mouth is flawless?

Is that your way of admitting Behe might have been wrong? Good for you! Bravo! And no, I don't make any claim whatsoever that every word out of my mouth is flawless. Anyone who does so is a fool. Anyone.


it takes as much faith to believe that man sprung forth from inorganic matter billions and billions and quadrillions of years ago as it does to believe that God created the universe in a lesser amount of time.

The difference is you attribute it to an unseen, invisible being. I just say we simply haven't figured it out yet. If it is proven that "God did it" I'll give you a big 'ol greenie. Promise.


You may not be trying to convince me of another belief but you're doing your damndest to cast doubt on the one I have.

Nope, simply providing you with information you may not have had access to. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.


Behe put the new tools to use and discovered some new facts and all of a sudden and out of the blue, he's villainized. He simply used the scientific methods that you all worship but since his findings don't adhere to your preconceived notions, he's some sort of a kook. What hypocrites!

Well, see that's the thing. Behe DIDN'T use new tools to discover anything. He took old tools and just didn't follow their directions and came up with new findings. Is a screwdriver a hammer if I use it to beat a nail into the wall? I don't think he's a kook; I just think he's a religious theorist. I never said religious people were kooks. You've made the assumption that because I am not a Christian that I hate Christians and everything they stand for. I have respect for other people's views, but when presented in an advice thread (which has turned into a debate thread) I see no problem with presenting my side of things.


I simply can't blend my beliefs with yours.

How come you let tal off the hook but you seem determined to beat a dead horse with me? There is no way you will bring me to your line of thinking. Contrary to what you may think, I'm not trying to get you to believe what I believe. You provided Behe's name as a authority, and I've shown you that perhaps, he's not one. I'm trying to make you think, to reconsider. You have no support to your argument that Behe's theory holds any water in the scientific sense. If you simply say, "I believe his theory because I have faith" I can accept that, but as long as you claim science has anything to do with it, when clearly it has been demonstrated to the contrary, I have to insist you are mistaken. Want to prove yourself right? Get the scientific community to agree with you instead of me.

Right before this degenerates into a free for all I'd like to make something perfectly clear.
I AM technically a Christian, BUT, and here's the kicker, I don't allow religion to run my life.
One of then tenets of christianity is TOLERANCE, now that isn't being displayed here.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how flawed.

I believe in what I can see and can be proved with HARD evidence.

Now when this comes to creation then the evidence for this world points towards the widely held theory of Evolution and not some creator being.
Now when it comes to the universe as a whole I'm not so sure.

There could well of been a creator that started the Big Bang, could well of fired the stars, could well of seeded life on the planets, BUT until there is HARD proof it's all belief.

Have a look at the ancient civilizations, Maya, Egypt, etc.
In their histories there are MASSIVE leaps forward, now is this due to "god" or some other outside influence?

Who nows, we can only guess as there in NO hard proof.

Look at it this way.
If it LOOKS like a duck, SOUNDS like a duck, then it must be a DUCK.

Now there are fanatic zealots on both side of this debate. Either agree to disagree (without contradicing yourself) or STOP posting.
Simple really.

Ben,

Many people think of belief as fact. When somebody believes so strongly in something and they have the evidence through life experiences and within their hearts and minds and bodies they feel moved with the spirit of God. Who can really prove such a thing. It is such an individualized experience and I do believe God has given us a chanch to learn here.

Belief needs to have faith. To be able to see what is not seen takes faith. I believe in focusing on the spiritual, the unseen. We are effected by each other.

I also do know that no matter what differences there are or how many people get heated up and bothered about it. We need to treat each other respect and understand we all have our differing beliefs or opinions on this. Especially with God there are so many different wide open beliefs.

So each individual needs to stand up for what they believe in, at the same time respect each others beliefs.

I also take to your point Ben about how many of the theories that scientists have mention, example evolution, or big bang. That if such a process really did occur, who was behind it. I do believe that God is the answer.

As far as the very fast advances in civilizations. That has been the question for ages, who or what was responsible for these revelations.

Joe

In a way this thrwead has been enlightening to me as a parent. It certainly has given a clue in which direction I do not want to raise my children. I love tha fact that this earth is populated with a wide variety of interesting people, I take them as individuals not as groups.

I was a leader in VBS this year at my church. We did the 7 c's of History... Creation, corruption, catastrophe,confusion, Christ and the Cross, Consummation. It was really interesting.

I was wondering how many Christians believed that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old and that God made the dinosaurs when he made man.? We taught that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark with him. They had scientific evidence, facts about fossils. Ken Ham's group recorded it and it will be shown all over the world. Did you know that they recently found dinosaurs bones that still had blood cells and tissue in it? Interesting huh?

I was raised to believe in the"gap" theory. this is all new information for me to be honest but I am being really open to it. Any thoughts?
Yes the world is very much more then 6000 years old. I don't want to get into it too much but, have you ever thouhtg that what you just talkd about was fake and is being use to control you and your money. Why don't you find out what existentialisam means and try to believe in something that is real, like yourself.

In a way this thrwead has been enlightening to me as a parent. It certainly has given a clue in which direction I do not want to raise my children. I love tha fact that this earth is populated with a wide variety of interesting people, I take them as individuals not as groups.
We are all individuals with our individual choice to chose what we do and/or do not believe.

Nk, I agree with you here.

Joe

I tried to rate you but got the spread the love first message.

JH,
It's so obvious we have kids 'cause we're both up early (crazy maritimers we are).

One of then tenets of christianity is TOLERANCE
I wish that this were true, but I've searched in vain for evidence of it. The absence of it in Christian writings and discourse is one of the main reasons I left the fundamentalist Christian church of my youth. The fundamentalist belief system requires a life of conflict and enmity.


You wield your sword and I wield mine. It's a spiritual battle that we're in. I simply can't blend my beliefs with yours. I'm not entitled to. When a Christian puts his faith in God and the Holy Bible, there is no room for compromise
AJ, this is a wonderfully succinct statement of the fundamentalist approach to religion and the spiritual life. May you find fulfillment and satisfaction in your battles.

AJ

Well, see that's the thing. Behe DIDN'T use new tools to discover anything. He took old tools and just didn't follow their directions and came up with new findings.

The advancements in modern labratory tools ARE new tools. My old wood handled shovel broke awhile back. I went and bought a new one. It had a fiberglass handle with a foam rubber grip and the shovel was more ergonomically desgined. New tools provide better work environments. So what you're saying is that he didn't follow the standard marching orders which allowed him to "come up with NEW FINDINGS." Cool!

Is a screwdriver a hammer if I use it to beat a nail into the wall?

Certainly. Not a good one though; however, if the nail is in the wall, I guess that's all that matters.

How come you let tal off the hook but you seem determined to beat a dead horse with me? There is no way you will bring me to your line of thinking.

Oh I know that I won't change your mind and I have no intention of trying. I'm just exposing the fallacies of your arguments. You haven't even read the book and yet you play judge, jury, and executioner as you take potshots at Behe's credibility. I find that unprofessional and hypocritical. That's all. You still haven't admitted that you haven't read the book because you don't want to look bad.

You provided Behe's name as a authority, and I've shown you that perhaps, he's not one.

At least you used the word "perhaps." That's not a scientific absolute. Bravo. I provided his name as an alternative to the norm and status quo. Everyone knows about the theory of evolution that is relentlessly passed of as fact. It's not a fact. There are many, many missing pieces to the evolutionary puzzle. Behe, on the other hand, shows the layman how microsopic organism operate and function and simply asks how that organism could survive without any one of its components. It's a good question. No answers as of yet from the scientific peanut gallery. He's attacked for some statement he may have made but nobody has attacked his findings. If any of his discoveries or findings were faulty, you could rest assured that the science gurus would be all over it.

I'm trying to make you think, to reconsider.

In an earlier statement, you said that you weren't trying to change my mind. Okey-dokey then.

You have no support to your argument that Behe's theory holds any water in the scientific sense.

But Behe does and you have no evidence to refute his facts.

If you simply say, "I believe his theory because I have faith" I can accept that, but as long as you claim science has anything to do with it, when clearly it has been demonstrated to the contrary, I have to insist you are mistaken. Want to prove yourself right? Get the scientific community to agree with you instead of me.

The scientific community believes the world is flat (metaphorically speaking) so I have no intention of trying to convince them of anything. If Behe's common sense, well written, fact based book can't do it then neither could an atom bomb. A few Michael Behe types will have to be burned at the scientifc stake before the dullards will give up on their beloved god, Charles Darwin. And good day to you.

AJ, this is a wonderfully succinct statement of the fundamentalist approach to religion and the spiritual life. May you find fulfillment and satisfaction in your battles.

I shall and thank you. Adhering to the fundamentals of Christianity and God's Word is a good thing. Christ did it; Paul did it; Peter did it; why shouldn't I?

As this thread is becoming more argumentative I'm closing it NOW.
If you have a problem with this feel free to PM me.