Hey Guys you won't like this but there is room for both views. You have heard of the Gap between Gen 1 and Gen 2 If the Earth was formless and void, did it exist or not?
I suggest that it existed but perhaps not as we know today. I also suggest there is not much evidence for human beings as modern man more than 6,000 years ago, irrespective of what my aboriginal neighbours might say. The sudden change in circumstance doesn't wash without the intervention of God. So the scientific view and the Biblical view may be reconcilable without the mental gynmastics. Truly it isn't about such things but about why we need Jesus Christ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Hey Guys you won't like this but there is room for both views. You have heard of the Gap between Gen 1 and Gen 2 If the Earth was formless and void, did it exist or not?
I suggest that it existed but perhaps not as we know today. I also suggest there is not much evidence for human beings as modern man more than 6,000 years ago, irrespective of what my aboriginal neighbours might say. The sudden change in circumstance doesn't wash without the intervention of God. So the scientifc view and the Biblical view may be reconcilable without the mental gynmastics. Truely it isn't about such things but about why we need Jesus Christ

---

There is enormous evidence for modern man more than 6 thousand years ago. Jericho, a city in the Bible, has been dated to 9 thousand years ago. "Modern" man is variously dated from 200,000 years ago to one million years ago. Are you aware of the cave paintings in Lascaux, France from 35,000 years ago? Please research on the net - it's very simple.

What do you mean by "modern man"? And what do you mean by your "aboriginal neighbours"?

paraclete and athos,
I agree.
Evidence that mankind has existed fir many, many thousands of years is found in many places on this planet.
Fred

Again, these rocks and artifacts didn't come with a tag saying "X" number of years old. The dating methods are dubious at best and every dating method relies on underlying assumptions about the sample before the testing begins. For example, testing labs "dated" rocks found at Mt. St. Helens just months after they were formed in that volcanic explosion as over 1 million years old. Why? Because the testers weren't told the KNOWN age of the rocks which was just a few months. Don't get me wrong, it isn't that I think creation should be taught in the classroom because I don't. I just don't think there is any need at all to teach evolution in our classroom either since neither belief system has any direct input or affect on true science(observable, repeatable, testable.) Speculation based on assumptions should be left to the philosophy class.
Why some scientist say some things are facts when they aren't anywhere near provable is just wrong. Yes, science can test a rock and find out what elements are in it and what it is made up of. That is true science. To determine the age though, they rely on certain assumptions like how much of the mother elements were in the original rock formation(which they can't be know) if the rate of decay has been constant(since many things effect the rate of decay) and if surrounding rocks influence. One of dirty little secrets of "science" is that they use surrounding fossils to determine the age of rocks and also use the age of rocks to determine the age of fossils. Ask any geologist or Paleontologist how they date the fossil or rock aside from the actual testing assumptions. Send any rock off to a lab to be tested for its age. They ask for the money upfront, ask you what age range you are looking for and surprise! Your rock comes back as having tested out in that very age range or slightly older. Older is always better for a scientists rep. If they dig up an entire automobile and say wow! This car dates all the way back to 1953 no one cares, but if they found an automobile inside one of the tombs of egypt, that persons career would be made.

homesell,
That'
;s very interesting.
Thanks much. Fred

Revelations (12: 7-12) John sees the war that actually took place in Heaven in the Beginning when Satan and his followers was cast out. Telling us were he was cast too.
The name Satan may not be used in the book of Genesis because he is a deceiver and wants to remain that way as long as he can. Unknown to the new inhabitants of the earth. This I thought was seminary Bible study 101 basics.

The problem here is man.

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever. Unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a Saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord and becometh as a child , submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him , even as a child doth submit to his father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homesell

The dating methods are dubious at best and every dating method relies on underlying assumptions about the sample before the testing begins. For example, testing labs "dated" rocks found at Mt. St. Helens just months after they were formed in that volcanic explosion as over 1 million years old. Why? because the testers weren't told the KNOWN age of the rocks which was just a few months.

---

Homesell, this is very disingenuous of you. The Mt. St. Helens samples/results have long since been discarded as bad science. The lab itself admitted its faulty methodology and has stopped testing of this sort. Anyone can research this for himself by a simple Google.

When you post stuff like this as though it were the truth, everything else you say comes into question. You claim to be a "scientist" (or, at least, have claimed a scientific background, and a "genius" IQ), but, in these days, people like yourself who so casually make statements about science to support creationism are increasingly being challenged - and rightly so.

You seem like a nice guy, sincere, but posting false science does you and your position no good. Sorry.

In our image simply means Father ( Elohim) God and (Jehovah) Son of man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Homesell, this is very disingenuous of you. The Mt. St. Helens samples/results have long since been discarded as bad science. The lab itself admitted its faulty methodology and has stopped testing of this sort. Anyone can research this for himself by a simple google.

When you post stuff like this as though it were the truth, everything else you say comes into question. You claim to be a "scientist" (or, at least, have claimed a scientific background, and a "genius" IQ), but, in these days, people like yourself who so casually make statements about science to support creationism are increasingly being challenged - and rightly so.

You seem like a nice guy, sincere, but posting false science does you and your position no good. Sorry.

---

So what methods do you support that prove the age of the earth?
And how do you know they are accurate?

I must agree with Athos on that.
Posting bad science is bad news.
Fred

BUT is what Homesell said 'bad science'?

N0help4u,
That's a good question.
Obviously some folks think it is.
Fred

I'm not the one that tested the rocks. Am I to be blamed that their testing methods were faulty? If they used faulty testing methods how am I using bad science?
So they no longer do testing like that - how do we know the testing they are doing now is accurate?
All that testing - regardless of what they tell you - and regardless of how accurate it is, depends on a lot of assumptions. My final answer. Thank you, those that have found my answers throughout AHMD thought provoking. The worst thing anyone can do is blindly accept what the public school system and the media spout. I know my detractors say the worst thing I do is blindly accept the absolute word of my Creator God. Guilty. Farewell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homesell

I'm not the one that tested the rocks. Am I to be blamed that their testing methods were faulty? If they used faulty testing methods how am I using bad science?
So they no longer do testing like that - how do we know the testing they are doing now is accurate?
All that testing - regardless of what they tell you - and regardless of how accurate it is, depends on a lot of assumptions. My final answer. Thank you, those that have found my answers throughout AHMD thought provoking. The worst thing anyone can do is blindly accept what the public school system and the media spout. I know my detractors say the worst thing I do is blindly accept the absolute word of my Creator God. Guilty. Farewell.

---

No, of course you are not to be blamed for their testing methods. The fault is in using them (bad science) to support your position. Surely, you see the difference.

The testing they are doing now is irrelevant. You cited them re the Mt. St. Helen's rocks, and that testing is the issue, not any other testing.

I don't know what your "detractors" say or not say, nor does the public school system or the media have anything to do with my post. But I certainly respect your right to blindly accept what you perceive as the absolute word of your Creator God - my only objection is offering faulty science to support that position.

My Lutheran minister father was as conservative as they come. He believed that God, after creating Adam and Eve, went on to create more people. My father did not believe the woman Cain married was a relative.

I posted a post in religious discussions on why I do not believe God created other humans.
Basically the Bible says we all decended from Adam AND Eve. If there were other humans there would have been people on the earth without sin because they would not have the blood of Adam and Eve. If there were others that were put here after Adam and Eve they would have had to have had a sin nature and God can not create sin.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ve-373109.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

If there were other humans there would have been people on the earth without sin because they would not have the blood of Adam and Eve.

---

Of course, that assumes one believes the Garden story.

Quote:

---

If there were others that were put here after Adam and Eve they would have had to have had a sin nature and God can not create sin.

---

My father died in 1994, so he isn't available right now. Otherwise, I'd ask him if that was something he had considered.

I do now believe that Cain marries a relative, probably a sister.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Of course, that assumes one believes the Garden story.


My father died in 1994, so he isn't available right now. Otherwise, I'd ask him if that was something he had considered.

---

Assuming I don't believe there really isn't oxygen because I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Assuming I don't believe there really isn't oxygen because I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't real.

---

You can't see your breath in the wintertime?