Enoch2021

"I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are." They offer just fine and are CITED for your benefit for further investigation for the veracity of the message and source identification. Also, due to the medium in which we are communicating, it would be impractical to CITE the whole article. Furthermore, we are discussing "science" subjects of which we are all not credentialed in so we research and provide CITED References in support of our claims so as to eliminate or reduce the Speculation/Conjecture Opinion Parade that so often accompanies subjects of this nature. Moreover, I'm not really interested in what they "Believe" only what they can prove. If there is a claim of "quote mining" then make the claim and support it. Thanks What can you prove about your beliefs? Very little in life can be proven I will not be commenting to you henceforth. Hope you find the Truth

"I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are." They offer just fine and are CITED for your benefit for further investigation for the veracity of the message and source identification. Also, due to the medium in which we are communicating, it would be impractical to CITE the whole article. Furthermore, we are discussing "science" subjects of which we are all not credentialed in so we research and provide CITED References in support of our claims so as to eliminate or reduce the Speculation/Conjecture Opinion Parade that so often accompanies subjects of this nature. Moreover, I'm not really interested in what they "Believe" only what they can prove. If there is a claim of "quote mining" then make the claim and support it. Thanks

Scientist: "we see galaxies at different stages of development. From these we can make discernment's" YEC: Can you define "discernment's"? Do those discernment's have any connection with this....“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.) Also by your "Stages" of development can you explain the "Winding Problem" in general and specifically with BX442 (which is 10 Billion Light Years away).... (Phys.org) July 18, 2012 -- Astronomers have witnessed for the first time a spiral galaxy in the early universe, billions of years before many other spiral galaxies formed. In findings reported July 19 in the journal Nature, the astronomers said they discovered it while using the Hubble Space Telescope to take pictures of about 300 very distant galaxies in the early universe and to study their properties. This distant spiral galaxy is being observed as it existed roughly three billion years after the Big Bang, and light from this part of the universe has been traveling to Earth for about 10.7 billion years. "The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," said David Law, lead author of the study and Dunlap Institute postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto's Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics. "Current wisdom holds that such 'grand-design' spiral galaxies simply didn't exist at such an early time in the history of the universe." A 'grand design' galaxy has prominent, well-formed spiral arms." http://en.wikipedia....ity_wave_theory Also can you speak to this.... 'The galaxy cluster lies in the direction of the southern hemisphere constellation Grus (the Crane). Dr Francis himself expressed the problem, ‘The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early universe and line it up in strings this large’, he said. ‘There simply hasn’t been enough time since the big bang to form structures this colossal.’ Why galaxy cluster is too grown-up for early universe, New Scientist 181(2430):14, 17 January 2004 Scientist: "Likewise, when we look at nebulae, we can see the birth of stars." YEC: I CALL ....SHOW!!!! Can you also explain in a 2LOT context whilst discussing Jeans Mass and Boyle's Gas Law. also..... STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111 Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect." Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998 YEC: I have so much more but I'll let my Brothers and Sister's take a crack @ this

Hey nebula, Sister I think "conventional scientific claim" is inaccurate and should be stated "Conventional Claim" that Scientists make. Due to the fact that "Scientific Claim" denotes or infers the Scientific Method was employed to verify/validate results. Of which.... unless they jumped in a time machine and can show Direct Observations leading to measured, repeatable, and falsifiable results then they can call them anything they want (stories/assumptions/bagels) but "Scientific" they are not. I know I'm insufferable but if you see me make the same or similar error, I would want you to correct me.

What is the Universe? Great Question!! I have no Idea I found this interesting.... (Ephesians 3:18) "May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;" Looks like 3 Spatial Dimensions and Time. Connection? Absolute Speculation on my part.... found it interesting.

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew." But the Author was Jesus Christ. I've "heard" that there is some proof that it was given to Moses 1 letter @ a time...can't support that statement. ..and he used Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles and other Jews to put it in pen. Jesus and Paul attest to Moses and what He said. Ro. 10:5 "Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning." I may be misguided but I thought he wrote it to me. I'm getting a feeling here that I either have to be a Jew or a Hebrew Scholar to be able to discern what the LORD is trying to say or distill the TRUE meaning....is that a fair assessment or am I misunderstanding the messages? Jews were charged to bring the ways and word of G-d to the nations and teach them about the one true G-d of Israel. The Bible is for all of mankind. The Jews did not fully obey their charge to the nations. You do not need to be a Jew or Hebrew scholar, but you cannot wipe out the Jewishness of the Bible or Jesus and expect to come to a clear understanding of the word. "The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables" What "church" might that be? In some churches, when teaching some parables, because they do not understand some of the Jewish customs of the times, have made efforts to completely interpret it on what they think it is saying. For ex. Mt 5:22. The eye is good, eye is bad referenced here is still talking about money. Some want to say that it has to do with what you are looking at, instead. The whole parable has to do with money. The good eye in the Jewish culture meant some one who was generous and giving. The bad eye was someone who was closed-fist and not generous. That is why Jesus said you cannot serve both G-d and money. "Once you do, however, they burst open with meaning." I would have to agree with you.... in some instances. Perhaps someone can speak to this. "G-d states there are mysteries here. You have to do a little detective work." 100% agree..... (Proverbs 25:2) "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." One last issue....I've seen alot of posts in the forum with "G-d". Is it that difficult to add the "O" and spell it "GOD" or I am "out of the loop" and not following proper etiquette? I deeply apologize to you. I read your post , but got confused that it was from Shiloh. I was a little sensitive to the comment about being difficult to add "O" to G-d and thought he was on my case again. The last bit was not meant for you and obviously not for Shiloh either since he did not post it. I hope you accept my apology. Please feel free to ask me anything. I promised I will read it more carefully and not let myself get confused by being distracted by other activities when posting. Sorry No worries. Confusing me with Shiloh is a compliment of the Highest Order in my eyes

Writing G-d instead of the way you write it stems from the Jewish perspective that G-d's name is most holy, as G-d states, and must be respected, protected and highly regarded. It is written this way to not write out in entirety and to safeguard not taking His name in vain. You must respect this as an expression for the love of G-d and not as a violation of proper etiquette. I'm not a Jew so can I write it "GOD" and not offend any of our Jewish Brothers and Sisters? "Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew." But the Author was Jesus Christ. I've "heard" that there is some proof that it was given to Moses 1 letter @ a time...can't support that statement. ..and he used Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles and other Jews to put it in pen. Jesus and Paul attest to Moses and what He said. Ro. 10:5 Yes, Thanks. Was Luke Jewish?....just for my information and no disrespect to you or your point above intended. "Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning." I may be misguided but I thought he wrote it to me. I'm getting a feeling here that I either have to be a Jew or a Hebrew Scholar to be able to discern what the LORD is trying to say or distill the TRUE meaning....is that a fair assessment or am I misunderstanding the messages? Jews were charged to bring the ways and word of G-d to the nations and teach them about the one true G-d of Israel. The Bible is for all of mankind. The Jews did not fully obey their charge to the nations. You do not need to be a Jew or Hebrew scholar, but you cannot wipe out the Jewishness of the Bible or Jesus and expect to come to a clear understanding of the word. Was that what I was doing? "The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables" What "church" might that be? In some churches, when teaching some parables, because they do not understand some of the Jewish customs of the times, have made efforts to completely interpret it on what they think it is saying. For ex. Mt 5:22. The eye is good, eye is bad referenced here is still talking about money. Some want to say that it has to do with what you are looking at, instead. The whole parable has to do with money. The good eye in the Jewish culture meant some one who was generous and giving. The bad eye was someone who was closed-fist and not generous. That is why Jesus said you cannot serve both G-d and money. Now that I did not know, thanks.

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew." But the Author was Jesus Christ. I've "heard" that there is some proof that it was given to Moses 1 letter @ a time...can't support that statement. "Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning." I may be misguided but I thought he wrote it to me. I'm getting a feeling here that I either have to be a Jew or a Hebrew Scholar to be able to discern what the LORD is trying to say or distill the TRUE meaning....is that a fair assessment or am I misunderstanding the messages? "The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables" What "church" might that be? "Once you do, however, they burst open with meaning." I would have to agree with you.... in some instances. Perhaps someone can speak to this. "G-d states there are mysteries here. You have to do a little detective work." 100% agree..... (Proverbs 25:2) "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." One last issue....I've seen alot of posts in the forum with "G-d". Is it that difficult to add the "O" and spell it "GOD" or I am "out of the loop" and not following proper etiquette?

That was my last reply on the topic. I was surprised it went past 2 posts

Silly Games, eh? Your technique is mostly equivocation after equivocation and I've called you on it a number of times. An equivocation is a fallacy, another words....A FALSEHOOD. "I am really not sure what you are getting at" The difference between them is OBSERVATION or experience, Empirical Science is not dealing with the past. TRUTH/FACTS are derived from OBSERVATION and conducting REPEATABLE TESTABLE experiments. So when you postulate an idea you can then show support with Empirical EVIDENCE. You can't do repeatable experiments with "science" disciplines such as (Paleontology, Anthropology, Cosmology et al) because they're dealing with past events and you can't do Repeatable Experiments so it's not really science.... “Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.) When dealing with Forensic and Historical Sciences the only technique that can be used to arrive @ a conclusion is Mathematical Probability...it's not as reliable and doesn't carry the same veracity as OBSERVATION and Empirical/Operational Science via direct experimentation. What was the point? .... I'm providing a direct refutation of your statement concerning "People bashing science when they use the internet" fiasco. So the question still stands....what does the study of fossils have to do with the internet or my cell phone use? Internet and cell phones are a result of Technology derived from EMPIRICAL/Operational Science. The study of Fossils fall into Paleontology, a Classic Historic Science. Is that clear now? I would suggest you read a paper called The observational Approach to Cosmology by Edwin Hubble, he would disagree with your view, as do I. It seems that people want to split science down the middle so they can have their cake and eat it too. When science does something they agree with (i.e. medicine, the internet) then that is the "good" science and when they dont agree with it, then that is the "bad" science. You can't be serious.....READ A PAPER? IT'S SELF EVIDENT for goodness sakes

Too funny, After I hit add reply...i said, wait a minute LOL Sorry..... Peace Sister

By body language, I meant tone of voice and facial expression. The kinds of questions you asked came across more like attack questions than inquiry questions. Yes, perhaps I did mis-perceived, which is why I expressed how I felt about what you said rather than responding in a way that aligned with my misconception. OK, technology requires science (usually some form of physics), and quite often the two are tied together - i.e. in news feeds you will find the category "science and technology". But technically, yes, they are different things (else the category would be scitech or something weird like that). Truth - well, "truth" isn't exactly in science vocabulary, unless people are intermixing philosophy or theology into their science - which actually happens quite a lot. Most of science should be presented as: "The evidence indicates...," not "This is how it is...." A great example of that would be nutrition science. First they say, "This is good for you," then they say, "This is bad for you," then they say, "This is good for you in moderation." (You know what I mean.) What they should say is, "Our latest studies indicate ....." Now granted, we have physics principles that are more well-grounded than the revolving door of nutrition, but hopefully you get the idea. As far as the history of the universe goes, though, you have to know the material between what is fact (the observed evidence) and what is interpretation of the fact. And that can get complicated. OK, no problem. "A great example of that would be nutrition science." That is too funny and more IRONIC than you know. Almost fell off the chair....LOL And as I implied there are many types of "science" and my point was Empirical/Operational Science has tenets that others do not. I didn't say they find TRUTH or FACTS each and every time but that is their goal and this type of science lends itself to this scenario. Peace Brother

Silly Games, eh? Your technique is mostly equivocation after equivocation and I've called you on it a number of times. An equivocation is a fallacy, another words....A FALSEHOOD. "I am really not sure what you are getting at" The difference between them is OBSERVATION or experience, Empirical Science is not dealing with the past. TRUTH/FACTS are derived from OBSERVATION and conducting REPEATABLE TESTABLE experiments. So when you postulate an idea you can then show support with Empirical EVIDENCE. You can't do repeatable experiments with "science" disciplines such as (Paleontology, Anthropology, Cosmology et al) because they're dealing with past events and you can't do Repeatable Experiments so it's not really science.... “Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.) When dealing with Forensic and Historical Sciences the only technique that can be used to arrive @ a conclusion is Mathematical Probability...it's not as reliable and doesn't carry the same veracity as OBSERVATION and Empirical/Operational Science via direct experimentation. What was the point? .... I'm providing a direct refutation of your statement concerning "People bashing science when they use the internet" fiasco. So the question still stands....what does the study of fossils have to do with the internet or my cell phone use? Internet and cell phones are a result of Technology derived from EMPIRICAL/Operational Science. The study of Fossils fall into Paleontology, a Classic Historic Science. Is that clear now?

"Empirical /Operational Science : Relying on or derived from observation or experiment". Free Dictionary "Forensic Science: is the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past." Wiki "Historical Science: The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events." Free Dictionary Again: Are there any differences or a Massive Difference between Empirical/Operational Science and say: A. Forensic Science B. Historical Science? In other words, so we don't equivocate or get confused between them..... what is the one distinguishable characteristic that Empirical/Operational Science has that the other 2 don't have or which the other 2 can't claim as a tenet?

Yes, they are two different things, the latter normally leads to the former. And MRI is technology that is based upon science. Without the science behind magnetism and electricity this technology would not work. This is the same behind every piece of technology that we employ today. "Yes, they are two different things" Good, we established Truth. "And MRI is technology that is based upon science. Without the science behind magnetism and electricity this technology would not work. This is the same behind every piece of technology that we employ today." More precisely, however; "And MRI is technology derived from Empirical/Operational science. Without the Empirical/Operational Science behind magnetism and electricity......" Are there any differences or a Massive Difference between Empirical/Operational Science and say: A. Forensic Science B. Historical Science? In other words, so we don't equivocate or get confused between them..... what is the one distinguishable characteristic that Empirical/Operational Science has that the other 2 don't have or which the other 2 can't claim as a tenet?

The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof. But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions. It takes a lot of work for any particular conclusion to be accepted as "the answer", and it likewise takes a lot of work to disprove the accepted answer as being incorrect. Very few things are actually "proven". But that doesn't mean it's "wrong". After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven" but they work as they should every time. "The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof." Agreed and it's usually those "sciences" that fall outside Empirical/Operational science "But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions." To establish TRUTH, right. Then what do you use in support of that TRUTH to bring it above speculation....evidence? Also your "Has Been" discovered denotes in the past or Unobserved phenomenon..... That means it's Forensic or Historical Science and not Empirical/Operational science. "Very few things are actually "proven" How about the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Biogenesis are they proven? or are they just speculations or falsehoods? "After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven" Is 1 + 1 = 2 a Math Principle? Is the previous math statement true? Can we prove that to establish TRUTH? OK, Enoch - I do not know what your body language actually is, but your post comes across as having a lot of angst, and I feel like responding something between, "Calm down," and "What is your point?" In any event, I feel like walking back very slowly and just let you be. "I do not know what your body language actually is" I'm sitting @ my laptop in sweats typing listening to my kids run around the house playing....I guess you could characterize my body language as neutral. "but your post comes across as having a lot of angst" Well you must have mis-perceived it then. You made generalized statements on your thoughts regarding science and proof which then led to specific questions to distill what EXACTLY you meant. By my count, I asked roughly 7 questions for clarification. Nothing more, nothing less. "Calm down" What has led you to believe that I'm not calm? "What is your point?" Well my initial point was to show that equivocating Science and Technology is a fallacy and that the Goal of Empirical/Operational Science is to establish TRUTH systematically then provide evidence to support that TRUTH.

@LookingForAnswers "You do not have technology without science." I use an Oven to make a Pineapple Upside Down Cake...are you saying my Pineapple Upside Down Cake is an Oven? Science and Technology are two different terms

The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof. But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions. It takes a lot of work for any particular conclusion to be accepted as "the answer", and it likewise takes a lot of work to disprove the accepted answer as being incorrect. Very few things are actually "proven". But that doesn't mean it's "wrong". After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven" but they work as they should every time. "The trouble is the way scientist present science, it often sounds like it is all about proof." Agreed and it's usually those "sciences" that fall outside Empirical/Operational science "But in actuality, science is about discovering and interpreting what has been discovered to draw conclusions." To establish TRUTH, right. Then what do you use in support of that TRUTH to bring it above speculation....evidence? Also your "Has Been" discovered denotes in the past or Unobserved phenomenon..... That means it's Forensic or Historical Science and not Empirical/Operational science. "Very few things are actually "proven" How about the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Biogenesis are they proven? or are they just speculations or falsehoods? "After all, we use math principles all the time that are not "proven" Is 1 + 1 = 2 a Math Principle? Is the previous math statement true? Can we prove that to establish TRUTH?

The point then is..."Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Wiki You do not have technology without science. Then it would read "Provable Explanations", not testable. "You do not have technology without science." That doesn't make them the same...you're equivocating again. If not then there wouldn't be the word "Technology". Also it would've been more accurate to say "You don't have Technology without Empirical/Operational science", right? Would it be fair to say that we would have cell phones without the study of fossils? "Then it would read "Provable Explanations", not testable." Why would you attempt "Provable Explanations" sir if you weren't searching for TRUTH then supporting it with EVIDENCE?? Why do Scientists conduct experiments?.....to make informed speculations or to eventually discover TRUTH? Moreover, what is the goal of bringing Forensic Scientists into a courtroom?

"I think it is important to note that science does not prove anything, that is not the point of science" What is the point then? "I have not seen or heard anyone on here that claims science has proven the age of the earth." Well this is the 14th message on this thread and I suppose technically you're right.... nobody (on this thread) has. In the Dr. Schroeder article was the age of the earth/fossils/dino's represented as long ages? "Science is a tool that helps us to understand things and to improve our world." I thought technology did that.... "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Wiki Science...."Testable Explanations". Sounds like a Proof to me. "Technology (from Greek τέχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia) is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function." Wiki Technology.....(Solve, Improve, Achieve, Handle). "It is often funny to read people on the internet bashing science, when there would be no internet if not for science." Don't have any idea of the "People" "Bashing Science. I surely don't. However, I do have a problem with people equivocating "Empirical/Operational" science with (evolution, paleontology, anthropology, cosmology et al) then fallaciously attempting to somehow connect my belief/disbelief in the tenets of these with my use of computers/cell phones, refrigerators, medical technology when these were birthed from Empirical/Operational science..... so as to show some kind of a contradiction. I fail to see the connection or relevance.

Spock "Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists." Dr. Gerald Schroeder I've run across these gentlemen in past and also have run across bits and pieces of the subject matter and conclusions thereof that Dr. Schroeder concisely arrived at. The "erev" and 'boker" and it's relationship to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) is something that struck me a couple years ago as very compelling and I speculated about this very subject on a number of threads. I have never been dogmatic about it because I'm not a Hebrew Scholar and the fact that I'm a "Baby Christian" ...I just found it interesting. There is one word that slapped me right in the face and left me looking for the exit...."Kabbalists!!" You do your own research which I vehemently suggest....I will not be speaking of this again. Overall as whole, the feeling I got right from the beginning of the article was an overwhelming sense to try and fit GOD'S WORD with man's word. The Presupposition of: Big Bang, 14 billion years, Fossil age, and Dinosaur Age treated as FACTS is quite troubling to me. So your position is.... there is room in Scripture for Millions/Billions of years and the compelling factor with that is.... "science" has PROVEN these Long Ages? Ok. Please start with the Big Bang. Then lets go through each one in isolation to thoroughly eval merits and efficacy of each. Thanks

"While Adam was in Eden - Satan was running around with millions of angels." Can you please show Chapter and Verse where the angels (fallen?) were "Running Around" with satan in or outside of Eden and where it says "Millions" of them? "Were these demons possessing animals and causing death?" First, nowhere in Genesis does it state demon possession. Second, you're equivocating angels and demons. Do a word search first with angels and then demons. (The AKJV calls them "devils") List angels in one column and demons in another then compare and contrast the list of attributes for each. Are they different? "Had the enemy of Death already been loosed by Lucifer?" I think a better question would be; "did GOD allow satan to loose them?" The clear answer to that is----NO. If yes, please show Chapter and Verse. "The Bible doesn't say specifically" The Bible doesn't say specifically that satan wasn't riding a six winged Pegasus in Eden.... so, should we leave our options open to the possibility? "Having a number modifier doesn't mean much if they weren't in the original manuscripts". When it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day of 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morning”, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. So comparing Scripture with Scripture and context....it's quite compelling. Also.... are you implying that they weren't in the Original Manuscripts? Then implying that they were somehow added later? If so, that brings us to a bigger issue then ...what can we trust as Absolute TRUTH in the Holy Bible sir?

@WillfromTexas "We should all be scripturally honest enough to say that we don't know either way." I don't think anyone is trying to be dishonest..... and between what: "Day-Age Theory" or "Gap Theory" ?? "Day-Age": (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Pretty clear cut to me. "Gap Theory": Found this interesting....A Graduate Student writing his Master's Thesis concerning 'Christianity and Evolution' decided to ask the 20 leading Hebrew Scholars in the USA if there were any exegetical evidence to allow a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2....they all unanimously replied--------NO! Henkel, M. (1950), “Fundamental Christianity and Evolution,” Modern Science and the Christian Faith, ed. F. Alton Everest Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press, p.49 "We should also recognise that thinking the Universe is old doesn't mean you have to believe in evolution or things like that." Very True "That seems to be the Young Earth theorists biggest issue thinking old earth is pushing an evolutionary agenda." Well evolutionists do push it because they must...but it's dead either way. "Young earthers argue 'yom' ONLY means ONE day." That's because when it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in a historical narrative (As In the Genesis Account) it always means a literal 24 hour day...... 359 times in the OT outside of Genesis 1. When it's modified by "evening and/or morning" it also means a literal 24 hour day....38 times outside Genesis 1. So the basis for our thinking is supported by comparing Scripture with Scripture. "But it's been shown that all the rules and regulations put on the word were put there by young earth theorists." Say again?? "We don't know much at all pre-Eden, or how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden" Pre-Eden??....formless and void? How long?..... Genesis 5:3 states that Adam lived for 130 years. "Let me tell you it is hard to say the Earth is 6,000 years old when you're standing in the shadow of a mountain cut in half. When you can look up and count 10,000+ years of layers it makes you wonder." That's Your FEELING. And how about that feeling when your looking up through those "layers" @ Polystrate Fossils (Trees) penetrating each layer? "We also put words in God's mouth saying 'he says' the Earth is 6,000 years old." It's an inference made using simple math derived the Genealogy Lists provided. "Maybe God created Earth and the Universe with apparent age, maybe the speed of light was instant back then, maybe this or maybe that. We won't know until we are in the arms of our loving savior." That's when you have to rightly divide the WORD of GOD. For some issues the Bible is not clear for others it's CRYSTAL... then treat each accordingly "The worst thing of all is people start to turn this into a salvational issue or condescend that you don't know your Bible. You can believe in an old Earth and be saved and to say otherwise is absurd". I Concur "Like I said -I do not know- but I can also say -you do not know-." Are you saying because you don't know something then it's unknowable by someone else? "None of us know and don't let it rip apart the unity of the Body of Christ." Well I surely won't attempt to do that. However, it is as Plain as "Day" to me and.......(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" I put my thoughts out there and support them. Sometimes I get corrected (which I Love by the way ) because that helps me learn more about the LORD.

So what exactly is the question? Here is proof that earth is 4.5 billion years old. Any rebuttal? Or do you now agree? Hey Spock, I am no Geologist and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night but check this reference..... Andrew Snelling PhD Geology "All K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dates" of volcanic rocks are questionable, as well as fossil "dates" calibrated by them." Andrew Snelling; Excess Argon: The Achilles' Heel of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks", Impact, January 1999 Also, the proof of the Earth being 4.6 Billion Years Old was not a result of K-Ar Dating....see message #15 in this thread where I touched on this (there is a specific example of a K-Ar dating debacle). And, it''s not just K-Ar.... ALL Radiometric Dating methods are suspect due to 3 Assumptions that have to be made.

AMEN Brother!!