Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'evolution'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Worthy Welcome
    • Worthy Welcome
    • Worthy Q & A for Seekers
    • Seekers Lounge
  • Outer Court
    • Outer Court
    • Apologetics
    • Have a problem? Looking for advice?
    • Soapbox Debate
  • Inner Court
    • Study Group
    • General Discussion
    • Theology
    • Prophecy
    • Worthy Q & A
    • Controversial Issues
  • Upper Room
    • Prayer Requests
    • Praises
    • Absolutely Positive!
    • Have a problem? Looking for advice?
    • Testimonies
    • What's the latest with the Worthy Network?
  • Fellowship Center
    • Fellowship Hall
    • Humor! Need a good laugh?
    • Worthy Chatters Lounge
    • Sports Lounge
    • Tech Lounge
    • Cooking
    • Hobbies
  • Videos
    • General
    • Comedy
    • Biblical Topics
    • Christian Music
  • Current News
    • Most Interesting News Developments
    • World News
    • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    • U.S. News
    • Christian News
    • Finance
    • Weird and Wacky News
  • Worthy Fantasy Football League's WCF Football Forum
  • Gardening.'s My bunch onions
  • Who's on the Lord side?'s Topics
  • Cooking club's What's your favorite recipe?
  • Cats, Cats, and Cats!'s Cats
  • Photography How To (tips and tricks)'s Equipment and Accessories and their use
  • Photography How To (tips and tricks)'s Panoramas - some tips!
  • Photography How To (tips and tricks)'s Generally about the club
  • Photography How To (tips and tricks)'s Have questions? Ask them here!
  • Maker's Club's So, what do you make, what have you made?
  • Maker's Club's Topics

Christian Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • WCF Events
  • Worthy Fantasy Football League's Calendar of Events

Marker Groups

  • Members

Found 18 results

  1. Big Bang Debunked

    Sorry, this is long. But this is an important topic. Either God created everything, or NOTHING exploded and became SOMETHING. For me, one of the main reasons i believe in God is the sheer impossibility of the alternative. We are living on a 6,371 km diameter rock, hurtling through space at a speed of 30 km/sec 93 million miles away from a 27 million degrees Fahrenheit inferno and no-one in charge. The Bible is not a book. It is a COLLECTION of 66 books, written over a span of 1600 years, across three continents by over 40 writers inspired by God in three languages. Big Bang Baloney- EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE BIG BANG THEORY Did the Universe begin with a super explosion of a small mass 10 billion years ago? Briefly, the following problems are observed in our solar system that defy the Big Bang explanation: 1. Uranus and Venus rotate in the opposite direction to the other planets. 2. Some planets have eccentric or tilted orbits. 3. Some planet’s satellite moons move in retrograde (backwards) motion. 4. Our moon has a lower density than earth. If it was thrown out from earth, it’s density would be more. 5. The sun’s angular momentum is 1/200th of the planets. This small angular momentum makes it unlikely that the planets could be thrown out of the sun. Source: “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation”. D.R. Peterson, p.45. Big Bang theory says that a large quantity of nothing condensed by gravity into a single tiny spot and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets and moons. Question: What is wrong with this theory? A lot! 1. Nothingness cannot pack together. 2. There would be no ignition to explode a speck of nothingness. 3. The theoretical explosion would fall back on itself giving a theoretical black hole. R L St. Peter, 1974. 4. There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter exists. (Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p.343). 5. The anti-matter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. 6. There is no way to unite all the outward rushing particles from the central explosion, because they would keep getting farther apart over time travelled. (See Novotny’s research). 7. The particles would maintain the same speed and direction forever, with no way for them to begin circling each other as gas clouds. Linear motion would not change to angular momentum. 8. Neither hydrogen or helium in outer space would clump together, because gases on earth push apart, but never clump together. Gas clouds in space expand, and don’t contract to form anything. 9. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars. 10. If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of evenly mixed stars and galaxies, there would only be an outer rim of fast moving matter. 11. There is not enough matter in the universe to explain the origin of matter and stars. The universe is 100 times less dense than the Big Bang theory requires. Where is this “missing mass”? This too little matter could not form stars. 12. The Big Bang would only produce hydrogen and helium, not the other 90 elements. 13. The nuclear gaps at atomic mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to produce any heavier elements, because neither a proton or neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. If it were not for this important “helium mass 4 gap”, the sun would radiate uranium towards earth. There is no stable atom of atomic mass 5 or 8. So a hydrogen fusion reaction (bomb) combines hydrogen to form deuterium, which doubles to form Helium 4 and stops there. Hence a hydrogen explosion (even in a star), does not cross mass 5 gap (E.g. H=1.008; Deuterium=2.016; He=4.006; Lithium=6.939; Berylium=9.012; Boron=10.811, etc.). 14. There are no first-generation stars (containing only hydrogen and helium) in the sky, which supposedly exploded to give second-generation stars, as the Big Bang theory requires. 15. Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits of suns, binary stars, galaxies, star clusters, planets and moons. 16. There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the heavier elements. We can see stars up to 15 billion light years away, but why are we not seeing many stellar explosions far out in space? Because the Big Bang theory is wrong. The stars are doing fine. 17. The most distant stars, which evolutionists date to the time of the Big Bang, are not exploding, and yet contain heavier elements. 18. According to the Big Bang theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But all stars, from ‘young’ to ‘old’, have similar amounts of heavy elements 19. Why do some stars spin backward to other stars? The Big Bang theory can’t explain this. 20. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could super fast straight line motion from a Big Bang change to rotating and orbiting motion with angular momentum? 21. Why is the universe so “lumpy” with galaxies grouped into galaxy clusters, which are grouped into larger super clusters? 22. Evolutionists claim that background radiation in space is the best evidence that the Big Bang occurred as the last remnant of a Big Bang explosion. This is wrong because: a) It comes from all directions except one direction being the Big Bang source. b) The radiation is too weak to fit the theory. (Fred Hoyle). c) It lacks the required 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory. d) The spectrum should be a much hotter 100oK black body spectrum than its 2.73K spectrum. e) It is too smooth. Instead, this background radiation is what we’d expect from the billions of stars in the universe. 23. According to Big Bang theory, the further we look out into space, the further back into time we see. This means that the furthest stars and galaxies should be the youngest. Yet research shows that furthest away stars are just like those nearby. 24. If Big Bang theory were true, all stars would be moving in the same direction, but stars, clusters and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another. 25. Every star is redshifted to some extent. The further a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. Big Bang theory concludes that this proves that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang. They base this on the hypothesis that the “speed theory” of redshift is the only cause of the redshift. (If light is travelling towards us, the wavelength is compressed or blueshifted. If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out or redshifted.). Other explanations for this redshift are: a) Gravitational redshift. In 1915, Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light and thus cause a redshift. This was later proven correct. As light travels towards us from distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to be shifted towards the red. b) Second-order Doppler shift: A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be redshifted. This would be explained by the universe moving slowly in a vast circle around a centre. c) Energy loss redshift: Light waves may lose energy as they travel across long distances. Big Bang theory maintains that the speed redshift is the only cause of the redshift, so they can say that the universe is expanding outwards as a result of the Big Bang. Speed redshift is not the only cause of redshift because: a) Nearly all stars and galaxies are redshifted. If Big Bang theory really occurred, the universe would be rushing out from where the explosion occurred, not away from earth. If there was a Big Bang we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts. b) The closest stars and galaxies are the least redshifted. The further away a star is, the more would gravitational and energy loss redshifts slow it. c) Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift. Some quasars have redshifts of 300% which equals speeds over 90% of the speed of light. Some quasars have redshifts of 400%. Three quasars, according to the speed theory are moving faster than the speed of light. One quasar appears to be moving 8 times faster than light, which is impossible. 26. Most binary stars circling one another are of different composition. Big Bang theory can’t explain this. 27. Stars within globular clusters ought to be all crashing into one another if any nonthinking force brought them together, but they are not. 28. Stars never get closer than 3.5 light years apart. Would randomness produce this? No. 29. Stellar evolution is non-observable. Stars are not evolving in space. Plants and animals are not evolving on earth. 30. The sun would have to spin extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates very slowly. 31. Big Bang theory cannot explain where stars, planets and moons originated, nor how they arrived at their present precise, intricate orbits. How could every moon be located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet, from a Big Bang explosion? 32. Uranus and Venus rotate backward compared to all the other planets. The other 7 rotate forward. 33. One third of the 60 moons rotate opposite to the rotational direction of their planets. Why? 34. Our planets and moons are so strikingly different that they could not have originated from the same Big Bang source. “If you look at all the planets and the 60 or so satellites (moons), it’s very hard to find two that are the same.” (Ross Taylor of ANU Canberra, in “The Solar Systems New Diversity”, Richard Kerr, Science 265, 2 Sep 1994, p.1360). 35. The chemical makeup of Earth’s moon and Earth are distinctly different, implying that the moon formed under different conditions. 36. Nearly all of Saturn’s 17 moons are extremely different. It has 3 sets of moons sharing the same orbit. Some moons travel clockwise, others travel anti-clockwise. The surface of Iapetus is 5 times darker on one side than the other. Hyperion is potato shaped. Enceladus has an extremely smooth surface, whereas other moons are much rougher. Why? Titan’s atmosphere is thicker than earth’s. How could all these moons originate by chance? Elemental Forces of the Universe. 37. Gravity Force is perfectly balanced. a) If gravity were stronger, smaller stars could not form. b) If gravity were weaker, bigger stars could not form, no heavy elements could exist, only dwarf stars would exist, which would radiate light too feebly to support life. 38. Proton/Neutron mass ratio The neutron mass can only exceed the proton mass by twice the electron’s mass (About 1 part per 1000). a) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were less, atoms would fly apart. b) If the proton to neutron mass ratio were greater, atoms would crush together, quickly decaying into a neutron, positron and neutrino, thus destroying hydrogen, the main element in the universe. The Master Designer planned that the proton’s mass would be slightly smaller than a neutron’s mass, otherwise the universe would collapse. If protons decayed, the universe would collapse. 39. Photon mass to Baryon mass ratio. If this ratio were higher, stars and galaxies could not hold together by gravitational attraction. 40. Nuclear force holds an atom together. a) If it were smaller, there would only be hydrogen and no heavier elements. b) If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen but only heavier elements. With no hydrogen there would be no stable stars, and no life. c) If it were 1% weaker or stronger, carbon could not exist, nor could life exist. d) If it were 2% stronger, protons could not exist. 41. Electromagnetic Force in an atom binds negative charged electrons to a positively charged nucleus a) If it were smaller or larger, no chemical bonds could form. b) If the electron charge were 3 times larger, no element could exist other than hydrogen. c) If the electron charge were one-third as large, all neutral atoms would be destroyed by the lowest heat-such as is found in outer space. Conclusion: It would be impossible for evolution to produce the correct balance of these forces. They were planned. These 4 basic forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces) differ so greatly in strength, that the strongest is 1040 times stronger than the weakest of them. Yet Big Bang theory mathematics requires that all basic forces had to be the same strength before and just after the Big Bang Explosion occurred. Evolutionists cannot claim that these precise, delicate balances of forces occurred by “natural selection”, or “mutations”, for we are here dealing with the basic properties of matter. There is no room for gradual “evolving”. The proton-neutron mass ratio has always been the same. It will not change. It began just right. There was no second chance. This applies to all the other forces and balances in elemental matter and the laws of physics governing them. If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will find theories about the origin of the universe and stars stated with great certainty to the public. By 1970, so much scientific data had repudiated the basic aspects of various cosmologies, that in April 1972, the top minds in stellar physics, chemistry and astronomy gathered at the Nice Symposium to resolve: a) How did the first cloud break apart and change into stars? b) How did the gas clouds whirl to form stellar objects to solve the angular momentum problem? c) How did the gas push itself into solids? d) How did the planets, with their present properties and solar distances form? If you attend such a closed-door conference, you will find worried men, desperate theories, scientific facts condemning these theories, a lack of alternative explanations, an atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven ideas, and no solutions or scientific experiments to alleviate the situation. Key: The problem is that evolutionists do not want the public to know that scientists cannot figure out how galaxies, stars and planets originated.
  2. YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE

    YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE Astronomical Records. Because of the rarity of solar eclipses at any given location, and because astronomers can date every solar eclipse going back thousands of years, when an ancient tablet or manuscript mentions a solar eclipse, we can accurately date that record, and other events associated with it in other countries. Before 2250 BC, we have no records of any solar eclipse being seen by man. “The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 BC, based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History”. (Ralph Linten, The Tree of Culture (1955), p 520). Writing. The oldest writing is a Sumerian pictograph written on clay tablets dated about 3500 BC. Iron Pot in Coal. Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines. Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948. Julia L (?) Metal Bowl. An intricately carved metal bowl was blasted out of solid pudding stone. (Scientific American, June 5, 1852). The Nampa Image is a baked clay figure obtained from a well being bored in 1889 at Nampa, Idaho. It was pumped from rocks 300 feet deep under a “Tertiary” lava sheet (12 million years old.) The problem for evolutionists is how can a man made clay figure 12 million years old (supposedly) have been laid down before man evolved 3 million years ago (supposedly)? Source: American Geologist, F.Wright, 23 (1899), p.267. Pollen in Pre-Cambrian Strata. Pollen from Angiosperm and Gymnosperm trees (woody plants supposedly 260 million years old have been found in Pre Cambrian Hakati shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly 570 million years old). The problem here for evolutionists is conifer pollen existing 300 million years before it appeared on earth. Some spores are stained with red oxide from surrounding rocks, thus proving that the spores are not from present day contamination. Source: Nature, R. Stainforth, 210 (1966) p.292. Turkmenia. Notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, 21 Nov. 1983, “A report from the Soviet news agency, Tass, says that about 1500 tracks made by dinosaurs have been found in Turkmenia – but among those prints are those resembling the footprints of a man. According to Professor Amanniyazov, director of Turkmenia’s Institute of Geology: “If further analysis proves that the prints have been left by anthropoids, the history of mankind will be extended to 150 million, not 5 millionyears.”” Why did Professor Amanniyazov assume dinosaur extinction 150 million years ago as absolutely certainty? Why did he not consider the alternative position of dinosaurs living with man recently? The fact that dinosaur and human footprints have been found in the same rock strata proves that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. This is a great problem to evolutionists who believe that dinosaurs became extinct 70 million years ago. Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs died out 67 million years before man appeared. These footprints prove that: a) Man and dinosaur lived at the same time, and b) The evolutionary geological column is completely wrong in its dating of rocks. The evidence for these tracks being genuine are: i) The tracks of man and dinosaur are widely distributed from Turkestan to Texas. ii) The tracks are mostly exposed by bulldozers or erosion. iii) Two Palaeontologists have pronounced them genuine: - Dr. Camp of the University of California, and - Dr. G. Westcott of Ypsilanti, Michigan. iv) The associated dinosaur tracks are accepted as valid. v) Some prints have ridges of mud pushed up around them. vi) Upon sawing through the footprints, the rock particles underneath are more compressed than particles surrounding the prints. Source: “Scientific American”, A.G. Ingalls: “The Carboniferous Mystery” 162 (1940), page 14. See R.L. Wysong “The Creation-Evolution Controversy”, p.373 Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their “in place” growth and fossilisation. Galaxy star clusters (spirals with billions of stars) move so rapidly that they would not stay together if the universe were very old. Large Stars. Some stars are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years, because their initial mass would have been too big. These O and B class stars, and P Cygni stars could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years. Abundant Hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen in stars is continually being converted into Helium. Hydrogen cannot be made from other elements. Fred Hoyle states that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists think, then there would be little hydrogen left, as it would be converted to Helium by now. Spectra from stars reveal abundant hydrogen in stars.This implies a young universe. Solar shrinking. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun’s diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. At this rate, 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil earth’s oceans, making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large. Comets elliptically orbit the sun and are thought to be as old as the sun. As comets orbit the sun, they lose some of their water and gases from the sun’s heat, gravity and tail formation. The tail consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. Some comets regularly seen in the 19th Century have broken up and vanished, or plunged into the sun. All comets should self-destruct in a short ime, less than 10,000 years. There should be no comets left. Evolution cannot explain comets in an old solar system. Comets are young objects created in a young solar system. Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in less than 10,000 years. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 18). Jupiter’s Moons. If they evolved, they should be physically alike, having the same amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. Evolution claims that all planets were molten 5 billion years ago and volcanic activity stopped 4 billion years ago as they cooled. The moons Ganymede and Callisto have no volcanoes and many impact craters. Europa has no volcanoes and no impact craters. Io has 7 active volcanoes and no impact craters. Titan has volcanoes. Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune (4) have rings, which could not survive 4 billion years. Jupiter’s intense magnetic field radiation would sweep out its rings. (Bradford Smith, a Voyager Scientist). Venus’ high temperature and little erosion, imply a young age for Venus. If Venus was 4 billion years old, its dense atmosphere should have worn away its craters. Mars has little erosion and some water. Mars has many sharp edged craters and volcanoes, as well as month-long dust storms. Several thousand years of this weather would have seriously eroded these edges and its strong colour differences. Powerful solar UV radiation would have long ago broken down the small amount of water, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere and hydrogen into space. Evolution predicts no surface water and much atmospheric oxygen, but measurements show the opposite being some surface water and very little atmospheric oxygen. Lunar Recession. Due to tidal friction, the moon is moving away from earth at about 4 cm per year (1 ½ inches). At this rate, 5 billion years ago the moon would have been 200,000km. closer. Meteorite Craters only occur on the earth’s surface, never being found in the rock strata. If earth were 5 billion years old, we would find many meteorite craters in the sedimentary rock strata, but we don’t. Thus all meteorites which have struck the earth, have hit it in the last 5000 years. Oil Well Pressure. When oil drillers first penetrate oil wells, oil gushes out because the oil and gas are under great pressure from surrounding rocks. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil wells are porous. Studies of these show that the oil would seep out before 100,000 years, but this has not happened. This great oil pressure argues strongly against millions of years age for oil wells, and implies an age for oil of around 10,000 years. Oil, coal and gas were formed during the Great Flood 4,400 years ago (in 2418BC). Earth’s Molten Interior. Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten. The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan’s Law of Radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth’s known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than “white hot” initially.“Popular Lectures and Addresses”(London: MacMillan, 1889, p.415). If earth were billions of years old, it would have cooled far more than it now has, even if we assume a radioactively generated heating mechanism. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 17). Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution claims. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements,imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates Ocean sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors for earth to be 5 billion years old. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year. If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away many times. There would be a layer of sediment on the ocean floor at least 60 miles thick. However, the average depth of sediment on the ocean floor is about 800 metres, and the continents have not eroded once yet. The Tasman Sea off Australia is not part of a subduction zone of ocean floor being pushed deep into the earth. Subduction zones could not dispose of 10% of incoming sediment. Hence, sea floors seem young. Tree Rings. The oldest living things are Bristlecone pines growing in Eastern Nevada, aged about 4,600 years old (sometimes producing 2 growth rings per year, so their age would be less), and Sequoia Gigantea in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods have no known enemies, and never have any dead trees among them. Unless man cuts them down, they never seem to die. 17 Bristlecone pines are dated about 4,000 years old. Since the Flood occurred about 2,418 BC, this implies that: a) all the pre-Flood Sequoias and Bristlecones were wiped out by the Flood, and b) there is no record of any living tree older than the Flood. Man’s Recorded History.If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC? This cuneiform tablet is the oldest human writing from Sumeria. When human records first appear, they show man to be highly developed with a sophisticated civilisation. This agrees better with a creation date of 4074 BC than with evolution’s 1 million year history of man. Why did man do nothing for 1 million years? Because he has only been here for 6,000 years.  reprinted with permission from Pastor Keith Piper. https://www.libertybaptistchurch.org.au/
  3. Evidence for creation in 6 days around 7,000 years ago. reprinted with permission from Pastor Keith Piper. https://www.libertybaptistchurch.org.au/ 92._EVIDENCE_FOR_CREATION_in_6_DAYS_in_4074_BC.pdf
  4. Evolution?

    If evolution is true, how do you explain polystrata fossils? These are WHOLE fossilized trees crossing several rock strata. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary-imagined time span of millions of years.
  5. A collection of some of the Proofs of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Bible 🎉 💓 ✝️ 💓 🎉 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *******Please go to YouTube and search for "Proofs of God, Christ, and the Bible Playlist" to find a playlist of 78 videos and growing of proofs of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Bible!******* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enjoy the written articles, here! Scientific The scientific evidence against spanking, timeouts, and sleep training http://qz.com/310622/the-scientific-evidence-against-spanking-timeouts-and-sleep-training/ Young Earth Science http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth#20110326 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe Ten Reasons Why Sex Should Wait Until Marriage http://www.unification.net/tfv/tenreasons.html Archaeological Biblical Archaeology: Factual Evidence to Support the Historicity of the Bible http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/ Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/ten-top-biblical-archaeology-discoveries/ Archaeology and the Bible http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Does Archaeology Support the Bible? https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/ Archaeology and the Bible http://www.alwaysbeready.com/archaeological-evidence-for-the-bible Archeological Evidence http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm 50 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically! http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/50-people-in-the-bible-confirmed-archaeologically/ Archaeological proof of the Exodus from Egypt (Not an affiliate) http://www.patternsofevidence.com/ History Institute Creation Research “The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way.” http://www.icr.org/biblical-record History Of The Bible http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/history-of-the-bible.htm Health Health Benefits of Fasting! (Cleansing not recommended) http://www.santosaphuket.com/fasting-water-vs-dry/ These Identical Twins Prove That Smoking Ages You http://guff.com/these-identical-twins-prove-that-smoking-ages-you/501 Nature / The Universe The Fibonacci Sequence Represented in the Universe, Plants, Animals, the Human Body, and more! https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10100518867557259&type=1&l=4e3a6843cd Beauty in every grain: For the first time remarkable photographs reveal hidden charms of ordinary SAND http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2011471/Pictures-sand-Close-photographs-reveal-incredible-beauty.html 26 Pictures Will Make You Re-Evaluate Your Entire Existence http://zumfeed.com/space/1222-26-pictures-will-make-you-re-evaluate-your-entire-existence.html Medical Science Proof We Can Think With Our <3 Hearts <3 Like the Bible has Made Clear! http://www.naturalnews.com/028537_organ_transplants_memories.html The Most Powerful Natural Antibiotic Ever – Kills Any Infections in The Body http://www.getholistichealth.com/41297/the-most-powerful-natural-antibiotic-ever-kills-any-infections-in-the-body/ Lemon is allegedly 10,000 stronger than chemotherapy in killing cancer cells! http://www.getholistichealth.com/42611/heres-why-you-should-always-freeze-your-lemons/ New Study Links GMOs To Cancer, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/ How Negative Thoughts and Emotions Harm Your Body http://steptohealth.com/negative-thoughts-emotions-harm-body/ The Dangers of Synthetic Foods http://3harmfulfoods.com/?v15=1&rc=1 Astronomy New Astronomical Proofs for the Existence of God http://www.reasons.org/articles/new-astronomical-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god The Bible and Astronomy http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-the-bible-true/the-bible-and-astronomy
  6. A one sided debate

    Please notice, that I put this in the comedy section. The reason for that is that I found it more humorous, than I found compelling. It is a man lecturing on origins, and whoever made this video, put together snippets from an opposite viewpoint, to make the opposition look stupid. I do not find that to be an intellectually honest method, to debate people from soundbites, and not allow them to speak for themselves. We do not see the context, so this is not a fair fight at all. The creationist here, is made to look like a bully, though he did not make the video. Also, notice that this is an old video, pretty dated. Why all of this info in an introduction? Well, I am just hoping people will watch it for the humor, and not turn this into a debate thread that belongs in another section of the forum. Now I know, it is pointless to expect that people will resist, and exercise some self control, there are always people who have to be heard, have to make sure that others know their opinion, at least that is my take from having reads thousands of threads here. Having said that, I am not going to try to keep this thread focused on any particular direction, in fact, it might not even be a discussion thread. I am just presenting this for entertainment value, and walking away unless it 'evolves' into something that must be dealt with. Enjoy! http://youtu.be/3YcGXZD2jmY <-Low quality, but short version High quality long version below.
  7. On the significance of the age of the Earth Omegaman 3.0 Republished from an earlier post on Feb 28, 2009 Is the Earth Old or Young ? No answers here, but some things to think about. I hear this question frequently, but I always wonder what is in the mind of the person asking the question. Is the answer to this question important, and if so, why and in what ways? An unbeliever might like to pit the conclusions of modern scientists, who almost universally hold to the idea that the Earth is very old against the apparent assertions of the Bible that the Earth is relatively young. In other words, if the Bible says the Earth is young, and scientists say the Earth is ancient, then clearly the Bible is wrong and not to be believed. A believer, on the other hand, might look at this problem and conclude, that the unbeliever has a point. Out of concern for the skepticism of the unbeliever, the believer might want to make it easier for the unbeliever to accept the Bible. Similarly, the believer may have his/her own doubts about this and so adopt the position that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is that the Earth is old and in harmony with the consensus of scientists. Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation, or moral failures and their implications etc. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance. Therefore, I shall be addressing this topic from the stand point of the believer – what it means to us. Is it important what we believe? What should we believe? What concerns me the most, is not what we believe in regards to this question so much as why we believe what we believe. A standard rule of Biblical interpretation, is that we interpret the Bible literally, unless we are compelled to do otherwise. Some might make the case that the science is so compelling, that we have to interpret Genesis in some figurative way. I have to ask, what is it, that makes the science so compelling? I am a scientifically minded person, I run much of my daily life depending on ideas which science has observed and proven. Obviously, science has proven to be a powerful and useful tool. However, I think that the most trustworthy part of science, is the part where we can observe current phenomena, develop theories about the phenomena, and test those theories. When we begin to attempt to apply science to metaphysics – the spiritual part of our universe, science has left it’s realm of expertise. When examining topics of an historical nature – the issues of the formation of the universe, the development of life etc, science has also strayed from it’s expertise because it is attempting to guess what has happened in the past, from clues in the present. Most of the time, this will be of questionable reliability, since there is no way to repeat history in a test tube. It is gone, and not subject to thorough examination. For me, what it comes down to then is this: “Which do you trust more, the pronouncements of a demonstrably infallible God, or the pronouncements of demonstrably fallible men?” Now, to be certain, we can make mistakes in our interpretation of the Bible, so both methods have a risk of error. Never-the-less, I believe that the Christian who maintains that the Bible teaches or allows for and ancient earth, is knowingly electing to disbelieve the most natural literal interpretation of the Bible, in favor of the theories of men, derived from the natural sciences. Personally, if I am wrong in my assessment that the Earth might be quite young, I would rather have the clear conscience of taking God at His word and be in error than choosing to trust the dictates of men that God pronounces to be fools for their unbelief of Him. It is true that there are reputable scientists who believe in an old Earth and who profess to be Christians. I do not doubt that most of these men and women are saved, trusting Jesus for their salvation. I do find it very odd, however, that they are willing to trust God about the scientifically unlikely event of the His resurrection, upon which their salvation rests, but cannot find it within themselves, to take Him at His word with regards to issues of origins. In fact, I find it saddening. As you have probably concluded, I am of a younger Earth persuasion. This is not to say that I believe that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. as some assert. I note that the Bible never makes such a claim, and that this number is merely the result of calculations of a man who added up life spans and genealogies in the Bible. I have never checked his math, but in as much as the Jews were known to practice genealogies with gaps in them, recording more notable ancestors, it seems to me that there is some room for some extra time. In my estimation, all you can prove from the Bible about when the Earth was created, is that Adam, the first man, was created in 4004 B.C. or earlier. How much earlier, I have no idea. In other words, I do not believe the Bible makes any definitive statement on how old the Earth is. Having said that, can I prove there are gaps. Yes and no. The Bible as we know it, notes them itself, by comparing genealogies in some books versus others. In other words, different book describe ancestral lines with differing numbers of people in them. Therefore, some of these have to be incomplete, or else other have extra generations. If there are extras, then those passages are either untrue, or they are some sort of allegory. The do not appear to be allegory, so the most logical choice is that the others are not complete. If they are not complete, then we know that gaps were an allowable custom. Knowing that gaps are allowable, we can assume that all of the genealogies could contain gaps. Now, a little known and underdiscussed fact is, that the Hebrew text from which the 4004 B.C. creation date comes, is the Masoretic text, the major text underlying the translations of many modern Old Testaments. However, copies of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, written some 300 years B.C. with extant copies going back to 400 A.D.) predates the Masoretic text by at least 350 years (the the oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text is Masoretic text dating to the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.) . Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted the Septuagint, so it is safe to assume it was thought reliable as the word of God. The genealogies of the Septuagint, if totaled in the same way that the 4004 B.C. Creation date was arrived at, push the creation date back to 5315 B.C. See how muddy and impossible it is to determine the date from the scripture? To me then, the Bible allows for an undetermined age of the Earth, and mankind is at least 6000 years old (7300 if going by the Septuagint). Which brings us to the length of creation time passed before God created mankind. The Old Earth Theorists, will have to hold to the idea that the 5 days prior to the creation of man, are not 5 literal days, but days which are of undetermined lengths of time, even millions of years each. This is done to force the scriptures to harmonize with scientific conclusions. That people may choose to interpret the Bible according to the dictates of predominantly atheistic scientists, is their own business. I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent, which allows for changing the meaning of the word of God, to suit whatever belief is in fashion. This is already being done in other portions of scripture. For example, science is looking to find a genetic causation for the behavior of homosexuality. If a link can be found to exist between heredity and sexual orientation, then what will follow is a discounting of the Biblical notion that the practice homosexuality is a sin. Now, that leap will not be a logical one, but the leap will be made, never-the-less. I could cite other examples, but this one will serve to illustrate the point. However, even if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically caused, it still does not alter the fact that God calls it a sin to practice, just as He calls it a sin for heterosexuals to act out their carnal desires outside of the man/woman marriage that He ordained. For myself, I shall not ever use the temporary and ever-changing opinions of science (or political correctness) to interpret the God inspired scriptures which never need adjustment, but that is just me. Many Old Earth Creationists are aware of the supremacy of God’s word, but just do not have enough faith in the most natural interpretation of scripture to overcome their faith in modern science. In such cases, I can understand that, but I wish more of them were honest about that fact that that is what the problem is. Sadly, too many choose instead, to find that the traditional beliefs of Christianity are suspect and inferior. It should not take any effort on my part, to convince anyone that the most natural interpretation of the creation days of Genesis, is that they are 6 literal days. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Old earth creationists will sometimes go to great lengths to point out that the Hebrew word for day, does not always mean a literal, twenty-four hour day. They are absolutely correct on that point. This Hebrew word is “Yom”. Gen 1:4-5 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day. (NIV) The first thing to notice about the word “day” as used in the creation account, is that it comes to us pre-defined. The light God called day. We do the same thing to this day. Also, one light and dark cycle, is also called a day. Just like we do. The implications of this one verse are a monumental obstacle, to anyone who wishes to maintain the notion that a day in Genesis, represents a length of time of thousands or millions of years. For one thing, we see here that in context, the word day is used identically as it is normally used in modern English. The internal, literary evidence therefore points to the conclusion that God intended this portion of scripture to be understood as literal, that a day is simply one cycle of light, most likely, near 24 hours long. To assume that something else is intended, is a gross violation of long established rules of interpretation, not only of the Bible, but for any document. Let’s suspend those rules momentarily, and allow for the idea that this day is, for example, not 24 hours, but one million years. Does this help Genesis square with modern scientific opinion? An interesting thing to note in the Genesis account, is that during this first day, the Sun has not yet been caused to shine upon the earth. The lightness and darkness that is cycling, is not sunlight. This gives some wiggle room because this light and dark, may not be dependent upon the rotation of the earth. We could say perhaps, that days were longer at that time. It get’s more difficult to maintain this notion though at creation day 4: Gen 1:16-19 16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day. (NIV) If these days are not 24 hours long, and we go back to the idea that a day is one million years long, might it be that the light was on for 500,000 years during a light/dark cycle. Since the old Earth theory is done to accommodate scientific opinion, then we should be consistent and assess the implication of 500,000 years of light. Is this light of similar intensity to what we experience from the Sun? If so, what would the surface temperature of the Earth rise to? Would the plants (created on the third day) survive the temperatures? Could they survive 500,000 years of darkness and no photosynthesis? I think interpreting the scriptures to accommodate scientific consensus, causes more problems that it solves. I think we have seen that interpreting Genesis passage literally, makes the most sense from a literary perspective. We have seen that interpreting it in the light of science, makes the text into nonsense. What about this word "yom" we touched on briefly, is there a reason to expect that it might mean other than 24 hours in the original Hebrew? My Bible software reports that this word "yom" occurs 2304 times in the Old Testament. That should be plenty of data to work with, to discover the likelihood that yom should be understood as some sort of age. How many times is yom not 24 hours in the Bible? Here are examples of how it is used otherwise: (1)The span of human life. – Gen 5:4: “And the days of Adam …. were eight hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk …. then I will lengthen thy days” (1 Kings 3:14; compare Ps 90:12; Isa 38:5). (2) An indefinite time. – Existence in general: Gen 3:14: “All the days of thy life” (compare Gen 21:34; Num 9:19; Josh 22:3; Luke 1:24; Acts 21:10). (3) A set time. – Gen 25:24: “And when her days …. were fulfilled”; Dan 12:13: “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days” (compare Lev 12:6; Dan 2:44). (4) A historic period. – Gen 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days”; Judg 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel” (compare 1 Sam 3:1; 1 Chron 5:17; Hos 2:13). (5) Past time. – Ps 18:18: “the day of my calamity”; Ps 77:5: “I have considered the days of old” (of Mic 7:20; Mal 3:7; Matt 23:30). (6) Future time. – Deut 31:14: “Thy days approach that thou must die”; Ps 72:7: “In his days shall ….” (compare Ezek 22:14; Joel 2:29; Matt 24:19; 2 Peter 3:3; Rev 9:6). (7) The eternal. – In Dan 7:9,13, where God is called “the ancient of days.” (8) A season of opportunity. – John 9:4: “We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Rom 13:12-13; 1 Thess 5:5-8). See DAY (4), above. That was from the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Copyright ©1996 Did you see anything there that seemed to suggest eons of time? Most of those uses are less that a human lifespan. Some, are references to historical periods – in other words AFTER the creation of man. The one possible exception, is number 7 above, but it is a reference to God Himself, not his creation. In short, to say that the word Yom contains the potential to represent millions of years, is forcing a definition or use of it, that is so extreme compared to actual uses of the word, that it can be considered as nothing other than a desperate grasping at straws by those that lack the faith to take God at His word. If any choose to believe the unstable opinions of the sciences over the revelation of God’s word, I am okay with that, I really am. I just wish they would have the honesty to state that they feel the need to abuse the science of hermeneutics to satisfy their own uneasiness about God’s word, instead of trying to convince others that it is somehow justified or legitimate to force personal beliefs upon the interpretation of scripture. To quote Prof. James Barr from the EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE: “If the word ‘day’ in this chapter does not mean the period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”. Is the evidence too strong against the bible, or at least of a literal interpretation of it? Certainly if scientific consensus is going to be the determining factor concerning out faith and theology, we have to ask the question: What about the resurrection? Scientific consensus would be that a man who dies, and remains dead for three days, stays dead. If God cannot defy the opinions of scientists, then no miracles happen, not now, not ever, and the resurrection never took place. If that is true, then Christianity is little more than a collection of interesting tales, sort of like Aesop's Fables. If God is going to be limited to our understanding of the laws of nature, then why would we be wondering about the length of the creation period. A God without the power to do the miraculous, could not bring the creation into existence in the first place. If that creation did not happen, then why would we suspect that creation has an author at all, and without such and author, does sin really exist? Who gets to define what is sin and what is not, who decides how salvation is accomplished or if it is even necessary. Is there really even an afterlife? Apart from a revelation from a supernatural God, these things are all unknowable, and Christianity has no real value. It may not be critically important, how long creation took, but knowing that it took place, believing God by faith that it did, is important, and I have to wonder how much we really believe God, if we cannot trust Him to accurately describe and make plain, the details of His own creation. Consider some of the implications of a lengthy creation. How does it affect other beliefs or statements from the Bible? Do other passages make reference to the creation events – do we call them into question? Did Jesus or the apostles mention anything about the creation account that would leave you to believe that they took it literally – if so, how does that affect their credibility? If we can choose to ignore a literal interpretation in Genesis – do we then grant ourselves the same license in other parts of the Bible – if so, how will you know where and when? These are questions each person must address and consider. While science has century by century, worked to discover how the universe works, each generation of scientists has seen major scientific opinions come and go. Each generation of scientists indeed, has at it’s disposal, new knowledge and new tools to investigate the natural world. Each generation has advanced the collective knowledge of mankind, and each has refuted theories held dearly by colleagues of previous generations, and yet, after thousands of years, is still seeking answers to fundamental questions, answers that are elusive. Meanwhile, the Christian is able to hold the same views as Jesus and the apostles expressed 2000 years ago, with no need to apologize for any of them. The 20th Century saw the sciences advance at a tremendous rate, but as theories about origins and cosmology became more refined and old ones discarded as obsolete, we found that the theories of prevailing science, are looking more like the bible all the time. Of course, science cannot truly address origins and cosmology ultimately, because those things are outside of it’s scope of examination. Science works in the present, it examines present clues about past events. The past is not like electricity or chemistry, it cannot be replicated or examined directly. Modern science is even more at a disadvantage, to look into matters of a spiritual nature. Science examines natural phenomena, the supernatural is outside it’s purview. Still, it is interesting to observe that scientists seem to be edging their way toward beliefs that the bible expressed all along. Considering that the bible is not intended to be a science text book, it is remarkable how many scientific facts it got right before scientists would discover them. Addendum, added on 11/14/2014 Some years ago I developed a calculator which computes theoretical future population numbers from assumed starting calculation numbers and factors like length of generations, birth rates etc. It cannot adequately factor in unknown and unpredictable events like plagues, wars, etc. due to complexity and my own ignorance on those subjects. I also know that there is some error in the math, that skews the results by a generation or two, and I have not been able to figure out where the error lies, and have given up trying, I have more important things to do. However, if you would like to speculate and experiment with the calculator, using your own chosen assumptions, I have decided to publish the calculator as it is. While it is imperfect, I beleive it does demonstrate that the young earth model is more feasible that the ancient earth model, based on math and what we know about population growth and statistics, if the interests you at all, have fun by: clicking here. (http://omegazine.com/population/populationpredictions/populationpredictions.htm) Below were 10 Responses to the original posting of “On the significance of the age of the Earth”: shawn Says: March 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am This is such an unfortunate topic for Christians. I am a believer in Yeshua. I also believe that Rome High jacked Christianity and changed it into what ever they wanted. Not only did they change the Shabbat to the day they worshiped the sun, as well as a great many other holy days, but they also changed the relationship between the Torah and science. In Judaism the Torah and modern science go hand in hand. Many of the great Jewish sages hundreds of years ago calculated the age of the universe to be 13 billion years old and they did this using the same bible that christians use to say the earth is only 6000 years old. Because Rome high jacked christianity and changed a great many of things we have not only lost great spiritual gifts but we have also lost a most basic understanding of our natural universe that the rabbi’s have until this very day. If you want to rectify the bible and science you dont need to try and debunk science, science is from Hashem. Science is good, it is our roman inheritance of the hatred of science that is bad. Rome hated science because they hated any opposition to their views on how to interepret the bible. But if we take back what rome stole from us, our Israelite heratige as christians, then we will finally be able to rectify not only science but also a great many spiritual gifts and understandings that were stolen from us. Blessing to you and your community in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach our Rabbi. josiah Says: April 6th, 2009 at 7:35 am hi..My name is Jos , from new zealand and im 38 years of age, currently studying at otago unversity in new zealand. I disagree with some of your statements, and would like to offer a rebuttal.I dont think this is a unfortunate topic, nor do i agree with your quote that it is irrelevant..I quote from your text “Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance” If you look into the historical context, to the unbeliver, the church has always suppresed the formation of scientific ideas formed from observation and interpretation of the results.This is why we had “dark ages” and why they are called “dark ages”. Christians are all too happy to accept the material benifits of technological and scientific endevour, such as internet, computers, carpets and the lightbulb but when it comes to facing up to the questions asked by the scientific community, most immediatly go into ostritch mode and pretend they dont exist until the thing goes away. but the thing doesnt go away, and now all the things that havent gone away are taught as scientific fact to your children.I dont have any children, so that why i say your children. I am a christian – that is i belive and try to adhere to the teachings of Jesus of nazereth and his disiples.I belive Jesus of nazereth is the son of God. I belive he died on our behalf for my sins and wrongdoings against God, and by accepting his sacrifice on my behalf i will have eternal life with him in The presence of God the Father and The holy spirit and all the Angels and others who have believed as i do. I also belive that the law and the prophets, the old testament was inspired by God and in some books directly transmitted by God Orally to Moses, such as the book of Genesis. I belive that the interpretation of the words of Genesis is literal, that is creation took 6 literal 24 hour periods.I am also a scientist. I am currently returned to university to undertake a B.A. in Lingustics, with a minor in Geology. I like volcanoes. i know that the current interpretation of the Geological record is in error. The majority of the Geologic community dissagree with me. some might even go so far as to say that i am misguided, or quite simply a religous nutter.you can imagine that someone with views like mine goes down in academic circles like a lead balloon at a party.lol. But there are flaws in the theory of geologic time, that can be found. The truth points to itself. Its time for us to admit we don’t know all the answers, nor should we pretend too.This is the crux of what scientific method or reasoning is about -to quote websters dictionary… “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses..” but i do belive we should tackle these problems with Faith in the Lord Jesus christ as our guide, pray for guidance, and look for credible scientific evidence to support the creation story and present this to everyone freely for discussion and debate because surely as eggs are eggs if we dont try to answer the hard questions, and tackle the problems presented by the current view of the community at large for a old earth and no God, why should people resonably listen to us when we try to share our beliefs? And as you can see currently in the textbooks of any mainstream high school, the Devil is not lax. What makes us different from the ten-thousand other wacko’s with thier own take on The metaphysical universe? I personally dont belive, although i may be wrong, that Paul the apostle, who was a learned man would agree with your arguement, but putting it in context, he said” i count it all as loss for the gospel,” yet he reasoned with men, trying to win them over to the gospel by showing them thier errors in logical thinking as well as christian works of good deeds, and living at peace with all men as far as possible. I hope you take my argument to heart and consider it. afterwards, you may still belive that i am wrong.I would like to hear your thoughts. jos..11.35, 6th april 2009. Omegaman 2.0 Responds: April 10th, 2009 at 12:31 am Hi Jos, I don’t think I have anything to disagree with there, and yet my mind has not changed. How is this possible? I am an apologist, I believe in being ready always to give and answer for the hope that I have. Does my hope lie in the age of the earth, or in questions like “how could all the animals fit on the ark”? My hope lies in a risen savior. That is what I am supposed to defend. I am a young earther personally, but I find that giving answers to defend that view to be a poor investment in time. I have those answers, and answers for the animals on the ark etc. How about the existence of God? Yes, I can defend those too. I have spent hours at a time doing so many times, and in my experience, all I end up doing is convincing people that I am more knowledgeable than they first believed, and that I actually have some good points. Good for my ego, but not worthwhile. That is all well and good, if my task is to win debates, but I think it more important, to win souls. So, I may have not been clear on my comments, by not being thorough enough in my explanation. My point is, that Christians can go round and round debating the age of the earth themselves, the topic is not relevant to unbelievers from our point of view if it does not move them closer to a decision. I think that these kind of doubts, shared by believers and unbelievers alike, distract us from the real issues. If a person is curious about how I can hold a young earth view, I will make my response in as brief and yet convincing way that I can, but I am going to change the topic to the gospel as quickly as I can – the heart of what I am called to defend. What I find is, that as soon as I defend the early age of the earth, the subject will then go: “what about the animals”, I answer and the subject then goes “what about all the contradictions in the Bible”, and so on and so on and so on. Games of "what about" and "what if", are the ploys of one who seeks to win a debate, not one who wants to ponder the issues. Paul described a type of person that would exist in the last days: ” They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. – 2 Tim 3:6-7 NIV I do not want to enable anyone to remain in that category – merely always learning. I want to attempt to get them to acknowledge the truth. In as much as Jesus instructed the disciples: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.” - Matt 10:14 I take it He meant that we need to be wise, not wasting time casting our pearls before swine, but instead, moving on to greener pastures, where the sheep know they need a shepherd. Lest you still miss my point, I was not trying to say that the age of the earth is of no relevance, and certainly your point about Christians needing to have credibility is a valid one. However, most of the people that the normal Christian encounters, are not scientists, are not familiar with the research nor the scientific method. For the average Christian to try to convince the average unbeliever on the topics in early Genesis, is very difficult. After all, if that person is swayed by science, he will most likely automatically ignore the opinion of a Christian, who is not a scientist normally, and favor the opinion of an actual expert. If he is not swayed by science, then you are wasting your time anyway, as he will not listen to either one of you. Remember, even Christians disagree on the topic, so, I would rather move on to the topic all Christians agree on, the person of Jesus Christ, the center of our faith and hope. To quote you: “I like volcanoes. i know that the current interpretation of the Geological record is in error. The majority of the Geologic community disagree with me. some might even go so far as to say that i am misguided, or quite simply a religious nutter.you can imagine that someone with views like mine goes down in academic circles like a lead balloon at a party.” I believe you, and I believe the the unbelieving world get that. If you cannot convince your colleagues, I am not sure how successful you will be with those who are more willing to believe them that you. Now in the context of academic circles, I believe these topics are critically important. I am just referring to the day to day encounters of believers, who spend time in debates that cannot be won, because in those debates, it is not the truth that matters to some, the only thing that matters to them is to win, or, in some cases to not lose, and therefore remain comfortable in their unbelief. In as much as there are Christians who believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, who came and died for our sins, that we might be forgiven and have eternal life, who also believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God and who also believe in an ancient earth and a lengthy creation process, I have little desire, nor do I see much benefit, to devoting too much time to topics that do little to advance the case of Christ. The topic is not related to salvation, and that is why I give it little significance. That is all I meant by that paragraph that you so eloquently and respectfully rebutted. Thank you for taking the time to read my ‘article’ and investing the time to correct me. Omegaman Omegaman 2.0 Responds: April 11th, 2009 at 3:12 am Quoteing Shawn: “In Judaism the Torah and modern science go hand in hand. Many of the great Jewish sages hundreds of years ago calculated the age of the universe to be 13 billion years old and they did this using the same bible that christians use to say the earth is only 6000 years old. ” Do you have any sources for this Shawn, that would be interesting to see. I also cannot fathom that anyone could “calculate” 13 billion years using anything in the Bible. If it was Rome that hijaaked the faith and came up with the 6000 year old calculation, why does the Jewish calendar indicate that it as been 5769 years since the creation? FresnoJoe Says: May 31st, 2009 at 4:05 am The Reason I Must Discount The Speculations Of Various White Coats And Such Is The Record Of Book Of Beginnings And All The References (OT/NT) To My LORD’s Part As Creator And The Accounting Of The Short Lineage Of The Brothers/Sisters From Jesus All The Way Back To The Sixth Day Of Creation “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” “Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,” “Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,” “Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,” “Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,” “Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,” “Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,” “Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,” “Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,” “Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,” “Which was th”e son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,” “Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,” “Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,” “Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,” “Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,” “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:23-38 If One Believes In The Resurrection (After Three Days!) Of The Uncorrupted Physical Body Of Our LORD And Our Savior And The Redemption Of Vile Hateful Sinner Man By The Holy And Pure Blood Of The Lamb Of God Then The Creation Of Life, The Universe And Everything Is Just The Finger Play Of God And Will Be Nothing Compared To The Knowledge Of The Heights Of The Love And The Amazing Grace God Offers To The Sons Of Adam To Folks Such As You And I Love, Joe andrew o'shea Says June 19th, 2009 at 7:04 am: oh the mysteries of God. all will be revealed at the gathering of the saints, children of God who believe in the Son Jesus Christ, Yeshua. people by nature like to argue, that has always been man’s problem and why we have to have wars. It is by faith we believe God, a gift He gave us. I had my experience and have never looked back, i believe God. The only thing that matters to me is that i can relate to people the love God has for them that may recieve remission of sins and eternal life, John 14 v 26 the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and bring to our rememberance all the things we have been taught.’ it really doesn’t matter to me how old the earth is rather how much time is left. a great deception of the enemy is to get us to focus on things any thing that distracts from the salvation message, eternal life. we can ask and be told how old the earth is,i did, God bless you all on your journeys, no i wont ‘measure the earth’ i wouldn’t know where to begin. searching scripture i came to approx. 6000 years, think about God’s time line, 7 is a sabbath,mmmm getting close to Jesus return. come Lord come hallelujah, repent and be save God loves us amen Linda Says July 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 pm: Here’s a way to think about the “How old is the earth” question. When God created Adam he created a man. Not baby. Not a child. Simply put…. who is to say that God did not create the earth as an “adult earth”. Why do we think it had to be created in an infant stage? Lean not to our own understanding. Omegaman 2.0 Responds: July 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm Hi Linda. I believe you are relating an argument often put forth by those who hold to an old earth theory, in answer to those who hold to the idea of an more recent creation on the basis that the universe and the earth appears old, much older than 6000 ears. The young earthers sometimes respond to the that the earth has an appearance of age, because God created it that way, mature as you put it. There answer to that would be that the earth does not just appear mature, it appears worn out. By analogy with adam, it would be like God created Adam with teeth that were worn down, were stained yellow, had cavities and perhaps few missing as well. By this analogy, Eve would be looking in the mirror at her gray hair and wrinkles on her first day, if she had been created with the appearance of age, instead of mere maturity. Many scientists and those who follow their lead, believe the earth worn, not merely mature. While my point was that the whole issue should not given more importance than it merits. That being said, I will give the response that the Old Earthers would give. They would also point out, that if God created the world to look that old, when it was in fact only a few thousand years old, then that would make God a deceiver, as though He was trying to fool people into believing the young earth was ancient, when that is not the case. Personally, I find that to be one of the most powerful arguments from the Old Earth camp. Of course, like most things there are difficulties. While an old earther can state that creating an earth to look old, makes God a deceiver if it is in fact young, does not the old earther have the same dilemma, if the earth is actually old, yet God chose to say it is young in His word? I prefer to accept that the earth is young, doing my best to understand scripture, and maintain that God is not a deceiver, but that some scientists are in error in how they interpret data, and in some cases, maybe they are the deceivers. I could go into details of what I think might be solutions to why the young earth appears old, but that is not the purpose of the post. I am not putting forth an apologetic for a young earth, I am making the point that faith in what God has said, trumps evidence from modern science for believers who think like I do. Sohei Says: August 21st, 2009 at 3:48 am Wasn’t Jesus a Jewish rabbi? Then he was taught same as others, which he didn’t dispute. They say Earth is 5769 years old. I would guess you would have to argue with what Jesus was taught. Sohei, do you have any source material demonstrating that the belief among Jewish rabbis 2000 years ago, was in a young earth of the age you suggest? I don't think Jesus was a rabbi in the way we usually think of the term, but I do suspect, that He would have understood from the scripture, that the earth was fairly recent, and of course being the Creator, He actually knew for certain at some level. winsomebulldog Says March 26th, 2010 at 9:53 am: I’m not positive about how old this post is, but I just wanted to leave a quick comment none-the-less. I have read through several of your posts and find it comforting to encounter another “scientifically minded” Christian. Sometimes, those two things instigate internal battles, and some might even argue that the very notion is an oxymoron. My husband and I cannot, however, change who and what we are. We are intelligent people who respect and appreciate the sciences. We are also Christians. Our faith does, and in truth must, outweigh our intelligence. Our God gave us both the ability to learn and a hunger for learning. Hubby is an engineer and at one time was in the aeronautical engineering program at Perdu University with an eye toward NASA. He has a grasp of physics and math that I cannot even fathom at times. But even he knows that science is nothing more than an effort by finite, fallible humans to define and quantify the unfathomable. Personally, I am willing to admit that there have been times in my life that I found myself struggling to reconcile what my mind wanted to believe and what my faith demanded that I accept. It is very easy, I think, for a scientifically minded Christian to be seduced by all the scientific “evidence.” It can sound so convincing. And Lord knows that scientists these days are very fond of spouting off their theories as if they are in fact scientific laws. (One look at the pervasive THEORY of evolution is evidence of that.) Hubby and I are fond of scientific programming on television and have watched more than a few that dealt with everything from dinosaurs to the big bang theory. How anyone with a critical mind could not see the evidence of the countless suppositions that are made here is beyond us both. We have both concluded that it would be vastly easier to be Christians without a bent toward scientific, critical thinking. But God did not create us that way and so we must both strive to never let our brains override our faith. I have rambled on far longer than I intended. But I really wanted to let you know how much I have appreciated your posts. Thank you for speaking your mind without fear. And thank God for forums like this that allow Christians everywhere to connect and share. God Bless You.
  8. Interesting factoid: I was reading that one gram of DNA, can theoretically store 455 exabytes of information, the equivalent of over 8,403,726 times as much information as was contained in all of the books ever written, as of 2006. I was doing further research on this and found a different statistic, it said that one gram of DNA can only hold a little more than 700 terabytes of data. For a monent there, I was almost impressed at the efficiency of cosmic accidents! Of course, as impressive as the storage capacity of DNA is, DNA in life forms, whether human or in a lowly, single celled bacterium, is just a storage medium. Apart from information, it is like an empty hard drive in a computer (except that it is a small part of something larger which is already microcsopic, and it holds a lot more data than a hard drive). An empty hard drive is as useful as a paperweight, a DNA molecule cannot be used as a paperweight. For a hard drive (or a DNA molecule) to be useful, it has to have information written on it. Hard drives have information on them because we, as intelligent beings, have put information there. However, in order for us to do that, we need other intelligently designed mechanisms, to put the information in there. Computer programs do not exist, without computer programmers. Now, to be sure, those hard drives do not pop into existence, by themselves, they are manufactured by machinery that makes each individual part of the hard drive, and there is other machinery, that assembles all of the parts, assisted of course, by humans who are intelligent enough, to make the tools necessary to handle and assemble the hard drives. The machinery that makes and assembles the hard drive parts, is controlled by the information contained on (you guessed it) other hard drives, which have information on them, programmed by intelligent programmmers. Wouldn't be amazing, that if a long time ago, there was nothing. Then in the middle of nothing, something came to exist. Since there was previously nothing, then the existence of something, happened with out a cause, since there was nothing to cause it. After some more time, this something that now existed, became other stuff that came to be, different kinds of stuff. Then for a long time, this newer stuff, became even more stuff, and continued to change. Then of course, as amazing as this was, some of this stuff began to live. Here is the fun part: In order for something like that to survive, it needed to have a way to store information, we call this DNA. The DNA though, is just the information storage medium, like the magnetic platters inside the hard drive, that store information that a computer needs and uses. So, this DNA not only came into existence, in came into existence, with a set of blueprints, that describe how the life form that this DNA existed in, was to be built. All the information needed to describe all the parts that the life form needed, to extract energy (food) from it's environment. were already in place in the DNA molecule. It also needed a mechanism, a life form, which would host the DNA, a mechanism that could flawlessly copy the DNA and replicate itself. Without this life form, the DNA molecule would just be non-functional matter. So, of course, this means the the DNA molecule, had to exist, with a program intact, in a functional cell, at the same time and place, or subsequent life and DNA would not continue. In other words, nothing, with enough time, became life, with the ability to make copies of itself and to survive in it's enviroment. All of this happened uncaused without any intelligent designer, and yet, at the same time, this simple life form, with nothing to assist it, became more and more complex, until one day, more sophisticated lifeforms would exist, who can read this page. Yet, for all of the intellence that these later life forms posess, they cannot yet, explain nor understand how all of this really worked, they just know, that somehow, it did. Personally, I think there are two perfectly good explanations how this might have all, come to pass. The first explanation, we can call "magic without a magician", or the "big bang / evolution model". The second explanation, we just call God. Related: http://www.omegazine.com/blog/funwithnumbers.html
  9. On the significance of the age of the Earth Omegaman Republished from an earlier post on Feb 28, 2009 Is the Earth Old or Young ? No answers here, but some things to think about. I hear this question frequently, but I always wonder what is in the mind of the person asking the question. Is the answer to this question important, and if so, why and in what ways? An unbeliever might like to pit the conclusions of modern scientists, who almost universally hold to the idea that the Earth is very old against the apparent assertions of the Bible that the Earth is relatively young. In other words, if the Bible says the Earth is young, and scientists say the Earth is ancient, then clearly the Bible is wrong and not to be believed. A believer, on the other hand, might look at this problem and conclude, that the unbeliever has a point. Out of concern for the skepticism of the unbeliever, the believer might want to make it easier for the unbeliever to accept the Bible. Similarly, the believer may have his/her own doubts about this and so adopt the position that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is that the Earth is old and in harmony with the consensus of scientists. Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation, or moral failures and their implications etc. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance. Therefore, I shall be addressing this topic from the stand point of the believer – what it means to us. Is it important what we believe? What should we believe? What concerns me the most, is not what we believe in regards to this question so much as why we believe what we believe. A standard rule of biblical interpretation, is that we interpret the Bible literally, unless we are compelled to do otherwise. Some might make the case that the science is so compelling, that we have to interpret Genesis in some figurative way. I have to ask, what is it, that makes the science so compelling? I am a scientifically minded person, I run much of my daily life depending on ideas which science has observed and proven. Obviously, science has proven to be a powerful and useful tool. However, I think that the most trustworthy part of science, is the part where we can observe current phenomena, develop theories about the phenomena, and test those theories. When we begin to attempt to apply science to metaphysics – the spiritual part of our universe, science has left it’s realm of expertise. When examining topics of an historical nature – the issues of the formation of the universe, the development of life etc, science has also strayed from it’s expertise because it is attempting to guess what has happened in the past, from clues in the present. Most of the time, this will be of questionable reliability, since there is no way to repeat history in a test tube. It is gone, and not subject to examination. For me, what it comes down to then is this: “Which do you trust more, the pronouncements of a demonstrably infallible God, or the pronouncements of demonstrably fallible men?” Now, to be certain, we can make mistakes in our interpretation of the Bible, so both methods have a risk of error. Never-the-less, I believe that the Christian who maintains that the Bible teaches or allows for and ancient earth, is knowingly electing to disbelieve the most natural literal interpretation of the Bible, in favor of the theories of men, derived from the natural sciences. Personally, if I am wrong in my assessment that the Earth might be quite young, I would rather have the clear conscience of taking God at His word and be in error than choosing to trust the dictates of men that God pronounces to be fools for their unbelief of Him. It is true that there are reputable scientists who believe in an old Earth and who profess to be Christians. I do not doubt that most of these men and women are saved, trusting Jesus for their salvation. I do find it very odd, however, that they are willing to trust God about the scientifically unlikely event of the His resurrection, upon which their salvation rests, but cannot find it within themselves, to take Him at His word with regards to issues of origins. In fact, I find it saddening. As you have probably concluded, I am of a younger Earth persuasion. This is not to say that I believe that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. as some assert. I note that the Bible never makes such a claim, and that this number is merely the result of calculations of a man who added up life spans and genealogies in the Bible. I have never checked his math, but in as much as the Jews were known to practice genealogies with gaps in them, recording more notable ancestors, it seems to me that there is some room for some extra time. In my estimation, all you can prove from the Bible about when the Earth was created, is that Adam, the first man, was created in 4004 B.C. or earlier. How much earlier, I have no idea. In other words, I do not believe the Bible makes any definitive statement on how old the Earth is. Having said that, can I prove there are gaps. Yes and no. The Bible as we know it, notes them itself, by comparing genealogies in some books versus others. In other words, different book describe ancestral lines with differing numbers of people in them. Therefore, some of these have to be incomplete, or else other have extra generations. If there are extras, then those passages are either untrue, or they are some sort of allegory. The do not appear to be allegory, so the most logical choice is that the others are not complete. If they are not complete, then we know that gaps were an allowable custom. Knowing that gaps are allowable, we can assume that all of the genealogies could contain gaps. Now, a little known and underdiscussed fact is, that the Hebrew text from which the 4004 B.C. creation date comes, is the Masoretic text, the major text underlying the translations of many modern Old Testaments. However, copies of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, written some 300 years B.C. with extant copies going back to 400 A.D.) predates the Masoretic text by at least 350 years (the the oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text is Masoretic text dating to the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.) . Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted the Septuagint, so it is safe to assume it was thought reliable as the word of God. The genealogies of the Septuagint, if totaled in the same way that the 4004 B.C. Creation date was arrived at, push the creation date back to 5315 B.C. See how muddy and impossible it is to determine the date from the scripture? To me then, the Bible allows for an undetermined age of the Earth, and mankind is at least 6000 years old (7300 if going by the Septuagint). Which brings us to the length of creation time passed before God created mankind. The Old Earth Theorists, will have to hold to the idea that the 5 days prior to the creation of man, are not 5 literal days, but days which are of undetermined lengths of time, even millions of years each. This is done to force the scriptures to harmonize with scientific conclusions. That people may choose to interpret the Bible according to the dictates of predominantly atheistic scientists, is their own business. I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent, which allows for changing the meaning of the word of God, to suit whatever belief is in fashion. This is already being done in other portions of scripture. For example, science is looking to find a genetic causation for the behavior of homosexuality. If a link can be found to exist between heredity and sexual orientation, then what will follow is a discounting of the biblical notion that the practice homosexuality is a sin. Now, that leap will not be a logical one, but the leap will be made, never-the-less. I could cite other examples, but this one will serve to illustrate the point. However, even if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically caused, it still does not alter the fact that God calls it a sin to practice, just as He calls it a sin for heterosexuals to act out their carnal desires outside of the man/woman marriage that He ordained. For myself, I shall not ever use the temporary and ever-changing opinions of science (or political correctness) to interpret the God inspired scriptures which never need adjustment, but that is just me. Many Old Earth Creationists are aware of the supremacy of God’s word, but just do not have enough faith in the most natural interpretation of scripture to overcome their faith in modern science. In such cases, I can understand that, but I wish more of them were honest about that fact that that is what the problem is. Sadly, too many choose instead, to find that the traditional beliefs of Christianity are suspect and inferior. It should not take any effort on my part, to convince anyone that the most natural interpretation of the creation days of Genesis, is that they are 6 literal days. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Old earth creationists will sometimes go to great lengths to point out that the Hebrew word for day, does not always mean a literal, twenty-four hour day. They are absolutely correct on that point. This Hebrew word is “Yom”. Gen 1:4-5 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day. (NIV) The first thing to notice about the word “day” as used in the creation account, is that it comes to us pre-defined. The light God called day. We do the same thing to this day. Also, one light and dark cycle, is also called a day. Just like we do. The implications of this one verse are a monumental obstacle, to anyone who wishes to maintain the notion that a day in Genesis, represents a length of time of thousands or millions of years. For one thing, we see here that in context, the word day is used identically as it is normally used in modern English. The internal, literary evidence therefore points to the conclusion that God intended this portion of scripture to be understood as literal, that a day is simply one cycle of light, most likely, near 24 hours long. To assume that something else is intended, is a gross violation of long established rules of interpretation, not only of the Bible, but for any document. Let’s suspend those rules momentarily, and allow for the idea that this day is, for example, not 24 hours, but one million years. Does this help Genesis square with modern scientific opinion? An interesting thing to note in the Genesis account, is that during this first day, the Sun has not yet been caused to shine upon the earth. The lightness and darkness that is cycling, is not sunlight. This gives some wiggle room because this light and dark, may not be dependent upon the rotation of the earth. We could say perhaps, that days were longer at that time. It get’s more difficult to maintain this notion though at creation day 4: Gen 1:16-19 16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day. (NIV) If these days are not 24 hours long, and we go back to the idea that a day is one million years long, might it be that the light was on for 500,000 years during a light/dark cycle. Since the old Earth theory is done to accommodate scientific opinion, then we should be consistent and assess the implication of 500,000 years of light. Is this light of similar intensity to what we experience from the Sun? If so, what would the surface temperature of the Earth rise to? Would the plants (created on the third day) survive the temperatures? Could they survive 500,000 years of darkness and no photosynthesis? I think interpreting the scriptures to accommodate scientific consensus, causes more problems that it solves. I think we have seen that interpreting Genesis passage literally, makes the most sense from a literary perspective. We have seen that interpreting it in the light of science, makes the text into nonsense. What about this word "yom" we touched on briefly, is there a reason to expect that it might mean other than 24 hours in the original Hebrew? My Bible software reports that this word "yom" occurs 2304 times in the Old Testament. That should be plenty of data to work with, to discover the likelihood that yom should be understood as some sort of age. How many times is yom not 24 hours in the Bible? Here are examples of how it is used otherwise: (1)The span of human life. – Gen 5:4: “And the days of Adam …. were eight hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk …. then I will lengthen thy days” (1 Kings 3:14; compare Ps 90:12; Isa 38:5). (2) An indefinite time. – Existence in general: Gen 3:14: “All the days of thy life” (compare Gen 21:34; Num 9:19; Josh 22:3; Luke 1:24; Acts 21:10). (3) A set time. – Gen 25:24: “And when her days …. were fulfilled”; Dan 12:13: “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days” (compare Lev 12:6; Dan 2:44). (4) A historic period. – Gen 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days”; Judg 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel” (compare 1 Sam 3:1; 1 Chron 5:17; Hos 2:13). (5) Past time. – Ps 18:18: “the day of my calamity”; Ps 77:5: “I have considered the days of old” (of Mic 7:20; Mal 3:7; Matt 23:30). (6) Future time. – Deut 31:14: “Thy days approach that thou must die”; Ps 72:7: “In his days shall ….” (compare Ezek 22:14; Joel 2:29; Matt 24:19; 2 Peter 3:3; Rev 9:6). (7) The eternal. – In Dan 7:9,13, where God is called “the ancient of days.” (8) A season of opportunity. – John 9:4: “We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Rom 13:12-13; 1 Thess 5:5-8). See DAY (4), above. That was from the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Copyright ©1996 Did you see anything there that seemed to suggest eons of time? Most of those uses are less that a human lifespan. Some, are references to historical periods – in other words AFTER the creation of man. The one possible exception, is number 7 above, but it is a reference to God Himself, not his creation. In short, to say that the word Yom contains the potential to represent millions of years, is forcing a definition or use of it, that is so extreme compared to actual uses of the word, that it can be considered as nothing other than a desperate grasping at straws by those that lack the faith to take God at His word. If any choose to believe the unstable opinions of the sciences over the revelation of God’s word, I am okay with that, I really am. I just wish they would have the honesty to state that they feel the need to abuse the science of hermeneutics to satisfy their own uneasiness about God’s word, instead of trying to convince others that it is somehow justified or legitimate to force personal beliefs upon the interpretation of scripture. To quote Prof. James Barr from the EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE: “If the word ‘day’ in this chapter does not mean the period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”. Is the evidence too strong against the bible, or at least of a literal interpretation of it? Certainly if scientific consensus is going to be the determining factor concerning out faith and theology, we have to ask the question: What about the resurrection? Scientific consensus would be that a man who dies, and remains dead for three days, stays dead. If God cannot defy the opinions of scientists, then no miracles happen, not now, not ever, and the resurrection never took place. If that is true, then Christianity is little more than a collection of interesting tales, sort of like Aesop's Fables. If God is going to be limited to our understanding of the laws of nature, then why would we be wondering about the length of the creation period. A God without the power to do the miraculous, could not bring the creation into existence in the first place. If that creation did not happen, then why would we suspect that creation has an author at all, and without such and author, does sin really exist? Who gets to define what is sin and what is not, who decides how salvation is accomplished or if it is even necessary. Is there really even an afterlife? Apart from a revelation from a supernatural God, these things are all unknowable, and Christianity has no real value. It may not be critically important, how long creation took, but knowing that it took place, believing God by faith that it did, is important, and I have to wonder how much we really believe God, if we cannot trust Him to accurately describe and make plain, the details of His own creation. Consider some of the implications of a lengthy creation. How does it affect other beliefs or statements from the Bible? Do other passages make reference to the creation events – do we call them into question? Did Jesus or the apostles mention anything about the creation account that would leave you to believe that they took it literally – if so, how does that affect their credibility? If we can choose to ignore a literal interpretation in Genesis – do we then grant ourselves the same license in other parts of the Bible – if so, how will you know where and when? These are questions each person must address and consider. While science has century by century, worked to discover how the universe works, each generation of scientists has seen major scientific opinions come and go. Each generation of scientists indeed, has at it’s disposal, new knowledge and new tools to investigate the natural world. Each generation has advanced the collective knowledge of mankind, and each has refuted theories held dearly by colleagues of previous generations, and yet, after thousands of years, is still seeking answers to fundamental questions, answers that are elusive. Meanwhile, the Christian is able to hold the same views as Jesus and the apostles expressed 2000 years ago, with no need to apologize for any of them. The 20th Century saw the sciences advance at a tremendous rate, but as theories about origins and cosmology became more refined and old ones discarded as obsolete, we found that the theories of prevailing science, are looking more like the bible all the time. Of course, science cannot truly address origins and cosmology ultimately, because those things are outside of it’s scope of examination. Science works in the present, it examines present clues about past events. The past is not like electricity or chemistry, it cannot be replicated or examined directly. Modern science is even more at a disadvantage, to look into matters of a spiritual nature. Science examines natural phenomena, the supernatural is outside it’s purview. Still, it is interesting to observe that scientists seem to be edging their way toward beliefs that the bible expressed all along. Considering that the bible is not intended to be a science text book, it is remarkable how many scientific facts it got right before scientists would discover them. Addendum, added on 11/14/2014 Some years ago I developed a calculator which computes theoretical future population numbers from assumed starting calculation numbers and factors like length of generations, birth rates etc. It cannot adequately factor in unknown and unpredictable events like plagues, wars, etc. due to complexity and my own ignorance on those subjects. I also know that there is some error in the math, that skews the results by a generation or two, and I have not been able to figure out where the error lies, and have given up trying, I have more important things to do. However, if you would like to speculate and experiment with the calculator, using your own chosen assumptions, I have decided to publish the calculator as it is. While it is imperfect, I beleive it does demonstrate that the young earth model is more feasible that the ancient earth model, based on math and what we know about population growth and statistics, if the interests you at all, have fun by: clicking here. (http://omegazine.com/population/populationpredictions/populationpredictions.htm) Below were 10 Responses to the original posting of “On the significance of the age of the Earth”: shawn Says: March 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am This is such an unfortunate topic for Christians. I am a believer in Yeshua. I also believe that Rome High jacked Christianity and changed it into what ever they wanted. Not only did they change the Shabbat to the day they worshiped the sun, as well as a great many other holy days, but they also changed the relationship between the Torah and science. In Judaism the Torah and modern science go hand in hand. Many of the great Jewish sages hundreds of years ago calculated the age of the universe to be 13 billion years old and they did this using the same bible that christians use to say the earth is only 6000 years old. Because Rome high jacked christianity and changed a great many of things we have not only lost great spiritual gifts but we have also lost a most basic understanding of our natural universe that the rabbi’s have until this very day. If you want to rectify the bible and science you dont need to try and debunk science, science is from Hashem. Science is good, it is our roman inheritance of the hatred of science that is bad. Rome hated science because they hated any opposition to their views on how to interepret the bible. But if we take back what rome stole from us, our Israelite heratige as christians, then we will finally be able to rectify not only science but also a great many spiritual gifts and understandings that were stolen from us. Blessing to you and your community in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach our Rabbi. josiah Says: April 6th, 2009 at 7:35 am hi..My name is Jos , from new zealand and im 38 years of age, currently studying at otago unversity in new zealand. I disagree with some of your statements, and would like to offer a rebuttal.I dont think this is a unfortunate topic, nor do i agree with your quote that it is irrelevant..I quote from your text “Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance” If you look into the historical context, to the unbeliver, the church has always suppresed the formation of scientific ideas formed from observation and interpretation of the results.This is why we had “dark ages” and why they are called “dark ages”. Christians are all too happy to accept the material benifits of technological and scientific endevour, such as internet, computers, carpets and the lightbulb but when it comes to facing up to the questions asked by the scientific community, most immediatly go into ostritch mode and pretend they dont exist until the thing goes away. but the thing doesnt go away, and now all the things that havent gone away are taught as scientific fact to your children.I dont have any children, so that why i say your children. I am a christian – that is i belive and try to adhere to the teachings of Jesus of nazereth and his disiples.I belive Jesus of nazereth is the son of God. I belive he died on our behalf for my sins and wrongdoings against God, and by accepting his sacrifice on my behalf i will have eternal life with him in The presence of God the Father and The holy spirit and all the Angels and others who have believed as i do. I also belive that the law and the prophets, the old testament was inspired by God and in some books directly transmitted by God Orally to Moses, such as the book of Genesis. I belive that the interpretation of the words of Genesis is literal, that is creation took 6 literal 24 hour periods.I am also a scientist. I am currently returned to university to undertake a B.A. in Lingustics, with a minor in Geology. I like volcanoes. i know that the current interpretation of the Geological record is in error. The majority of the Geologic community dissagree with me. some might even go so far as to say that i am misguided, or quite simply a religous nutter.you can imagine that someone with views like mine goes down in academic circles like a lead balloon at a party.lol. But there are flaws in the theory of geologic time, that can be found. The truth points to itself. Its time for us to admit we don’t know all the answers, nor should we pretend too.This is the crux of what scientific method or reasoning is about -to quote websters dictionary… “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses..” but i do belive we should tackle these problems with Faith in the Lord Jesus christ as our guide, pray for guidance, and look for credible scientific evidence to support the creation story and present this to everyone freely for discussion and debate because surely as eggs are eggs if we dont try to answer the hard questions, and tackle the problems presented by the current view of the community at large for a old earth and no God, why should people resonably listen to us when we try to share our beliefs? And as you can see currently in the textbooks of any mainstream high school, the Devil is not lax. What makes us different from the ten-thousand other wacko’s with thier own take on The metaphysical universe? I personally dont belive, although i may be wrong, that Paul the apostle, who was a learned man would agree with your arguement, but putting it in context, he said” i count it all as loss for the gospel,” yet he reasoned with men, trying to win them over to the gospel by showing them thier errors in logical thinking as well as christian works of good deeds, and living at peace with all men as far as possible. I hope you take my argument to heart and consider it. afterwards, you may still belive that i am wrong.I would like to hear your thoughts. jos..11.35, 6th april 2009. Omegaman 2.0 Responds: April 10th, 2009 at 12:31 am Hi Jos, I don’t think I have anything to disagree with there, and yet my mind has not changed. How is this possible? I am an apologist, I believe in being ready always to give and answer for the hope that I have. Does my hope lie in the age of the earth, or in questions like “how could all the animals fit on the ark”? My hope lies in a risen savior. That is what I am supposed to defend. I am a young earther personally, but I find that giving answers to defend that view to be a poor investment in time. I have those answers, and answers for the animals on the ark etc. How about the existence of God? Yes, I can defend those too. I have spent hours at a time doing so many times, and in my experience, all I end up doing is convincing people that I am more knowledgeable than they first believed, and that I actually have some good points. Good for my ego, but not worthwhile. That is all well and good, if my task is to win debates, but I think it more important, to win souls. So, I may have not been clear on my comments, by not being thorough enough in my explanation. My point is, that Christians can go round and round debating the age of the earth themselves, the topic is not relevant to unbelievers from our point of view if it does not move them closer to a decision. I think that these kind of doubts, shared by believers and unbelievers alike, distract us from the real issues. If a person is curious about how I can hold a young earth view, I will make my response in as brief and yet convincing way that I can, but I am going to change the topic to the gospel as quickly as I can – the heart of what I am called to defend. What I find is, that as soon as I defend the early age of the earth, the subject will then go: “what about the animals”, I answer and the subject then goes “what about all the contradictions in the Bible”, and so on and so on and so on. Games of "what about" and "what if", are the ploys of one who seeks to win a debate, not one who wants to ponder the issues. Paul described a type of person that would exist in the last days: ” They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. – 2 Tim 3:6-7 NIV I do not want to enable anyone to remain in that category – merely always learning. I want to attempt to get them to acknowledge the truth. In as much as Jesus instructed the disciples: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.” - Matt 10:14 I take it He meant that we need to be wise, not wasting time casting our pearls before swine, but instead, moving on to greener pastures, where the sheep know they need a shepherd. Lest you still miss my point, I was not trying to say that the age of the earth is of no relevance, and certainly your point about Christians needing to have credibility is a valid one. However, most of the people that the normal Christian encounters, are not scientists, are not familiar with the research nor the scientific method. For the average Christian to try to convince the average unbeliever on the topics in early Genesis, is very difficult. After all, if that person is swayed by science, he will most likely automatically ignore the opinion of a Christian, who is not a scientist normally, and favor the opinion of an actual expert. If he is not swayed by science, then you are wasting your time anyway, as he will not listen to either one of you. Remember, even Christians disagree on the topic, so, I would rather move on to the topic all Christians agree on, the person of Jesus Christ, the center of our faith and hope. To quote you: “I like volcanoes. i know that the current interpretation of the Geological record is in error. The majority of the Geologic community disagree with me. some might even go so far as to say that i am misguided, or quite simply a religious nutter.you can imagine that someone with views like mine goes down in academic circles like a lead balloon at a party.” I believe you, and I believe the the unbelieving world get that. If you cannot convince your colleagues, I am not sure how successful you will be with those who are more willing to believe them that you. Now in the context of academic circles, I believe these topics are critically important. I am just referring to the day to day encounters of believers, who spend time in debates that cannot be won, because in those debates, it is not the truth that matters to some, the only thing that matters to them is to win, or, in some cases to not lose, and therefore remain comfortable in their unbelief. In as much as there are Christians who believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, who came and died for our sins, that we might be forgiven and have eternal life, who also believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God and who also believe in an ancient earth and a lengthy creation process, I have little desire, nor do I see much benefit, to devoting too much time to topics that do little to advance the case of Christ. The topic is not related to salvation, and that is why I give it little significance. That is all I meant by that paragraph that you so eloquently and respectfully rebutted. Thank you for taking the time to read my ‘article’ and investing the time to correct me. Omegaman Omegaman 2.0 Responds: April 11th, 2009 at 3:12 am Quoteing Shawn: “In Judaism the Torah and modern science go hand in hand. Many of the great Jewish sages hundreds of years ago calculated the age of the universe to be 13 billion years old and they did this using the same bible that christians use to say the earth is only 6000 years old. ” Do you have any sources for this Shawn, that would be interesting to see. I also cannot fathom that anyone could “calculate” 13 billion years using anything in the Bible. If it was Rome that hijaaked the faith and came up with the 6000 year old calculation, why does the Jewish calendar indicate that it as been 5769 years since the creation? FresnoJoe Says: May 31st, 2009 at 4:05 am The Reason I Must Discount The Speculations Of Various White Coats And Such Is The Record Of Book Of Beginnings And All The References (OT/NT) To My LORD’s Part As Creator And The Accounting Of The Short Lineage Of The Brothers/Sisters From Jesus All The Way Back To The Sixth Day Of Creation “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” “Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,” “Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,” “Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,” “Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,” “Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,” “Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,” “Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,” “Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,” “Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,” “Which was th”e son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,” “Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,” “Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,” “Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,” “Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,” “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:23-38 If One Believes In The Resurrection (After Three Days!) Of The Uncorrupted Physical Body Of Our LORD And Our Savior And The Redemption Of Vile Hateful Sinner Man By The Holy And Pure Blood Of The Lamb Of God Then The Creation Of Life, The Universe And Everything Is Just The Finger Play Of God And Will Be Nothing Compared To The Knowledge Of The Heights Of The Love And The Amazing Grace God Offers To The Sons Of Adam To Folks Such As You And I Love, Joe andrew o'shea Says June 19th, 2009 at 7:04 am: oh the mysteries of God. all will be revealed at the gathering of the saints, children of God who believe in the Son Jesus Christ, Yeshua. people by nature like to argue, that has always been man’s problem and why we have to have wars. It is by faith we believe God, a gift He gave us. I had my experience and have never looked back, i believe God. The only thing that matters to me is that i can relate to people the love God has for them that may recieve remission of sins and eternal life, John 14 v 26 the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and bring to our rememberance all the things we have been taught.’ it really doesn’t matter to me how old the earth is rather how much time is left. a great deception of the enemy is to get us to focus on things any thing that distracts from the salvation message, eternal life. we can ask and be told how old the earth is,i did, God bless you all on your journeys, no i wont ‘measure the earth’ i wouldn’t know where to begin. searching scripture i came to approx. 6000 years, think about God’s time line, 7 is a sabbath,mmmm getting close to Jesus return. come Lord come hallelujah, repent and be save God loves us amen Linda Says July 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 pm: Here’s a way to think about the “How old is the earth” question. When God created Adam he created a man. Not baby. Not a child. Simply put…. who is to say that God did not create the earth as an “adult earth”. Why do we think it had to be created in an infant stage? Lean not to our own understanding. Omegaman 2.0 Responds: July 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm Hi Linda. I believe you are relating an argument often put forth by those who hold to an old earth theory, in answer to those who hold to the idea of an more recent creation on the basis that the universe and the earth appears old, much older than 6000 ears. The young earthers sometimes respond to the that the earth has an appearance of age, because God created it that way, mature as you put it. There answer to that would be that the earth does not just appear mature, it appears worn out. By analogy with adam, it would be like God created Adam with teeth that were worn down, were stained yellow, had cavities and perhaps few missing as well. By this analogy, Eve would be looking in the mirror at her gray hair and wrinkles on her first day, if she had been created with the appearance of age, instead of mere maturity. Many scientists and those who follow their lead, believe the earth worn, not merely mature. While my point was that the whole issue should not given more importance than it merits. That being said, I will give the response that the Old Earthers would give. They would also point out, that if God created the world to look that old, when it was in fact only a few thousand years old, then that would make God a deceiver, as though He was trying to fool people into believing the young earth was ancient, when that is not the case. Personally, I find that to be one of the most powerful arguments from the Old Earth camp. Of course, like most things there are difficulties. While an old earther can state that creating an earth to look old, makes God a deceiver if it is in fact young, does not the old earther have the same dilemma, if the earth is actually old, yet God chose to say it is young in His word? I prefer to accept that the earth is young, doing my best to understand scripture, and maintain that God is not a deceiver, but that some scientists are in error in how they interpret data, and in some cases, maybe they are the deceivers. I could go into details of what I think might be solutions to why the young earth appears old, but that is not the purpose of the post. I am not putting forth an apologetic for a young earth, I am making the point that faith in what God has said, trumps evidence from modern science for believers who think like I do. Sohei Says: August 21st, 2009 at 3:48 am Wasn’t Jesus a Jewish rabbi? Then he was taught same as others, which he didn’t dispute. They say Earth is 5769 years old. I would guess you would have to argue with what Jesus was taught. Sohei, do you have any source material demonstrating that the belief among Jewish rabbis 2000 years ago, was in a young earth of the age you suggest? I don't think Jesus was a rabbi in the way we usually think of the term, but I do suspect, that He would have understood from the scripture, that the earth was fairly recent, and of course being the Creator, He actually knew for certain at some level. winsomebulldog Says March 26th, 2010 at 9:53 am: I’m not positive about how old this post is, but I just wanted to leave a quick comment none-the-less. I have read through several of your posts and find it comforting to encounter another “scientifically minded” Christian. Sometimes, those two things instigate internal battles, and some might even argue that the very notion is an oxymoron. My husband and I cannot, however, change who and what we are. We are intelligent people who respect and appreciate the sciences. We are also Christians. Our faith does, and in truth must, outweigh our intelligence. Our God gave us both the ability to learn and a hunger for learning. Hubby is an engineer and at one time was in the aeronautical engineering program at Perdu University with an eye toward NASA. He has a grasp of physics and math that I cannot even fathom at times. But even he knows that science is nothing more than an effort by finite, fallible humans to define and quantify the unfathomable. Personally, I am willing to admit that there have been times in my life that I found myself struggling to reconcile what my mind wanted to believe and what my faith demanded that I accept. It is very easy, I think, for a scientifically minded Christian to be seduced by all the scientific “evidence.” It can sound so convincing. And Lord knows that scientists these days are very fond of spouting off their theories as if they are in fact scientific laws. (One look at the pervasive THEORY of evolution is evidence of that.) Hubby and I are fond of scientific programming on television and have watched more than a few that dealt with everything from dinosaurs to the big bang theory. How anyone with a critical mind could not see the evidence of the countless suppositions that are made here is beyond us both. We have both concluded that it would be vastly easier to be Christians without a bent toward scientific, critical thinking. But God did not create us that way and so we must both strive to never let our brains override our faith. I have rambled on far longer than I intended. But I really wanted to let you know how much I have appreciated your posts. Thank you for speaking your mind without fear. And thank God for forums like this that allow Christians everywhere to connect and share. God Bless You.
  10. The following is just a concise summary of my **link removed **at my apologetics website, **name removed *** 1. Human Population Growth: Annual population growth rates exceed 1% in most of the world's countries, and at a 1% growth rate one goes from 8 people to 7 billion in just 2,071 years. Even if assuming population grew just half as fast as it does today, at a 0.50% growth rate, human civilization would still be only 4,130 years old. And if dropping down to rates just 1/5th the rates seen today, at a 0.20% growth rate, 8 individuals still grow to 7 billion in just 6,849 years. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html For an Evolutionist to argue that human population has been around millions of years they must argue that growth has been at a standstill all that time, and that human population did not begin growing substantially until the past 10,000 years. This is a strong evidence the world is younger. 2. Dinosaur Soft Tissue Multiple instances have now been documented of dinosaur soft tissue including flexible blood vessels and preserved dinosaur skin. Even large numbers of dinosaur eggs with the soft eggshells preserved by massive amounts of sediment after being flooded out of their nests were discovered. While iron has been shown to be capable of preserving soft tissue for 2 years, it does not explain how the organic material could have been preserved for tens of millions, contrary to all predictions of evolution. Examples: A) 2005 discovery of T-Rex soft tissue. B) 2009 discovery of hadrosaur soft tissue. C) 2013 discovery of hadrosaur soft tissue. D) 2013 lufengosaurus egg soft tissue. 3. Transitional Forms Darwin's falsifiable prediction that the fossil record would produce the required transitions between core types of life has been utterly proven false. Thus his original model of phyletic gradualism was largely abandoned after 1972 when Gould and Eldredge created a new theory, Punctuated Equilibrium, proposing evolution just sped up too fast for the transitions to appear in the fossil record - a convenient way of denying the fossil record's evidence to move the goalposts. Evolution: Library: Punctuated Equilibrium http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_3/j11_3_292-298.pdf Transitions listed today in Wikipedia's list of transitional forms are the same types of life seen today, ancient snails and nautiloids (e.g. Ammonoidea, Nautiloidea) which are similar to snails and nautiloids seen today. Ancient octopi (e.g. Palaeoctopus, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa) which are strikingly similar to octopi seen today. There are ancient cockroaches (Aphthoroblattina), butterflies (Archaeolepis), spiders (Attercopus, Eoplectreurys), bees (Melittosphex), ants (Sphecomyrma), and leaf insects (Eophyllium), similar to insects today. There are ancient pangolins (Eomanis). There are ancient deer (Heteroprox), camels (Protylopus), and antelope (Eotragus). Etc. However, what is generally lacking are the transitions between these core types of life. Microevolution is compatible with the Genesis 1 account where species were told to speciate after their kinds, and does not infer a common ancestor. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A number of bipedal fossils have been discovered in recent years, and the oldest hominids in humanity's family tree are all now recognized to have walked upright and had unusual complexity similar to modern man, such as advanced faces. Orrorin tugenensis walked upright and was in an advanced stage of evolution. Sahelanthropus tchadensis discovered walked upright and had the face of a hominid half its age. Ardipithecus ramidus walked upright and was so advanced it disproved the popular apes to humans theory. Footprints discovered in 2009 showed Erectus walked upright. And Lucy, aka Afarensis, walked upright per a new study in 2011. * Ardipithecus: Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found * Orrorin: BBC News | SCI/TECH | 'Oldest' ape-man fossils unearthed * Sahelanthropus: Palaeoanthropology: Hominid revelations from Chad : Article : Nature Facelift seals standing of oldest hominid : Nature News Oldest member of human family found : Nature News * Erectus: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/science/27foot.html * Afarensis: "Lucy" Was No Swinger, Walked Like Us, Fossil Suggests On top of this a large number of alleged missing links have been discovered to have coexisted so that their evolving from one another as had been claimed is highly unlikedly. Most notably Afarensis and Ramidus coexisted, Neanderthals and Humans coexisted, and Habilis and Erectus coexisted. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Finds test human origins theory A New Discovery in Human Evolution - Newsweek and The Daily Beast Skull May Alter Experts' View Of Human Descent's Branches - NYTimes.com Fossils paint messy picture of human origins - Technology & science - Science | NBC News Oldest <i>Homo Sapiens</i> Fossils Found, Experts Say 4. Microevolutionary Rates Microevolutionary rates today are consistent with a young earth, rather than millions or billions of years. Rapid Evolution Examples include Australia's cane toads which evolved longer legs and heat tolerance within a few decades, Italian wall lizards which evolved larger heads and new gut structures within a few decades, flowering plants, and rodents. That they can adapt so quickly suggests Earth is far younger, and that a common ancestor is false or we should be able to see the transitions between core types of life occur. Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island PLOS Biology: Rapid Evolution of Enormous, Multichromosomal Genomes in Flowering Plant Mitochondria with Exceptionally High Mutation Rates PLOS ONE: Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents
  11. “Feathered Dinosaur” Featured Long Tail Plumage, Evolutionists Say I do not endorse anything these people say, nor do I reject what they say. I am an agnostic in this area, but I thought the article was interesting, and I thought some of you might as well. Comment: I believe I have opined before, that I think this section should be Faith & Science, not Faith VS. Science, it does not always have to be one against the other. I think I have as much faith in God and the Bible as anyone, but I like science, it is not the enemy. Faulty conclusions, are another matter. anyway, click the title to view the article.
  12. Evolution = blind faith

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckfrn5-86xU
  13. I recently made a claim in another topic; "There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry." [The topic was locked before I had a chance to respond. I think this specific topic is worthy of discussion so I decided to post my response here. I considered the arguments in the initial post to be somewhat typical, so I included them for context (i.e. not to personally attack the poster - so I sincerely hope no offense is taken, as none is intended). And if anyone knows how to let the poster know about this topic, I would be greatful if you could - as a right of reply is deserved. In response to my original statement (quoted above), the poster replied; “There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are” It is a pity then that you could not find any words to express a single specific example of my supposed copious error. Unsupported Assertions and Innuendo are common strategies used to support the secular models, but they are logical fallacies; rendering such strategies to be technically irrational. “I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies” I also have “personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab” specifically dealing with bacterial genetics. Anyone who researches bacteria should be aware that they are prokaryotic cells which engage in lateral gene transfer. It is this trait which makes them so useful in experiments pertaining to genetic manipulations. And it is this trait which logically disqualifies them from being used to support genetic-inheritance-based models such as Common Ancestry. “I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution” Until you provide an argument I can examine, your claim here simply represents another Unsupported Assertion. It doesn’t actually contribute anything to the discussion. In order to properly respond, I would also have to know how you are defining “evolution”. Do you mean the General Theory of Evolution (that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors), or do you mean the suite of concepts that tend to find themselves under the general umbrella of "evolution" (i.e. Natural Selection, genetic mutations, speciation etc., as well as Common Ancestry), or do you just mean any heritable change in a population? Of all these options I, as a creationists, reserve my right under the scientific method, to scrutinize the claim that Common Ancestry is the only valid interpretation of the evidence. That is, I only dispute evolution when it is defined to mean the Common Ancestry of all life on earth (including its associated time frames). And this is why my claim was specific to Common Ancestry. I encourage the use of specific terminology rather than the vague term “evolution” – because “evolution” is so equivocal that it muddies the debate. For example, people providing evidence of Natural Selection as evidence of evolution – not realising they have contributed nothing to the debate (since I have no issue with Natural Selection, and since the concept of environmental selection existed in the scientific literature before Darwin incorporated it into his hypothesis – so contrary to what is implied, there is no secular 'ownership' of Natural Selection). If evolution equals Natural Selection, then I, as a Biblical creationist, am also an evolutionist - so you see how such use of terminology could contribute to a confusing debate. “Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine.” This statement doesn’t really make sense. There is no argument linking the premise to the conclusion. Why would the belief that “evolution [or more correctly, Common Ancestry] has nothing to do with medicine” produce the conclusion that I “don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle”? I would consider the opposite to be true. Since the science is not reliant upon secular assumptions, I can trust that the medical advice stems from objective scientific investigation.
  14. The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism Think Man Think http://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k
  15. Evidence for God

    The problem with debating with scientism from a Christian, creationist, or intelligent design perspective is, they always try to reduce our arguments to faith, psychological/physiological. They say we can't prove God through scientific method, so He doesn't exists. Who said He wants to be proven by scientific method Faith is substantive. I come to see it as a spiritual law that God has set, like the laws of physics. I say this because during the time before I rejected God, I also was introduced to ouija boards and they WORK! But, these occult tools didn't work for the person with us who was atheist. Hmm. Now 25 years later, I've come to realize the one thing that Christians and people who at least believe in the spiritual realm, is that belief (yes, yes, I know that they unknowingly are tapping into fallen angels who pose as gods). When you factor in all religions and spiritual realm tappers, we outnumber atheists, reducing them to a fraction of the world's population. In this war against scientism, which is out to label all religious/spiritual people as having delusional experience - we need to bring to light that it's these very experiences that prove the existence of the spiritual realm and God! The 1-2 billion Christians in the world, are having innumerable answers to prayers and many other types of experiences, that prove God exists. Time for scientism to take it seriously.
  16. “Three monkeys hitting keys at random on typewriters for an infinite amount of time will almost surely produce Hamlet." -- Infinite Monkey Theorem. From this thread:
  17. Vestigial Organs

    Hi Viole "My favorite is the tail. True, we do not have a tail anymore, but the genes to create the tail are still there and sometimes babies are born with one tail. These genes are just silenced by another gene that disables them. What is the use of the tail-generating genes, if we do not need a tail, anymore?" Do you know if other apes show this atavism?
×