the creation story; 7 days or billions of years?

[Matthitjah]

2Ti

[Matthitjah]

That's another story completely, you were disputing divinely inspired genealogies.

no, I was not. I was disputing the idea that the divinely inspired genealogies could give us the age of the earth.

P.S. I don't see any evidence anywhere that Adam and Eve tired of fellowshipping with God before the fall, maybe you could explain what you mean?

Peace,

Dave

They choose to disobey God, they decided that what they had was not enough and they went against God's command.

RG,

You actually did say that the Genealogies were written by men after the fall. Implying, in my mind, that they were somehow flawed because flawed men wrote them.

I happen to disagree with you and agree with Brother Joe preferring to agree with God and His friend with whom He had face to face contact, Moses. I find no evidence of evolutionary process in the Bible or in nature therefore Gods Word stands in my heart. Which really was the problem with Adam and Eve after all.

They chose to place their hearts desire above the heart of God and fell out of relationship by making a really bad decision and disbelieving His Word.

The OP was arguing for evolutionary process evidenced in the Bible and it appears that you agree somewhat.

Peace,

Dave

[sheya joie]

LEGS ON AN INSECT

Mammals, as we know, have four limbs. Many of them walk on all fours - cows, for example, and horses. Other mammals, though, walk on only their lower pair of limbs while using the upper pair for grasping. Humans are the prime example of this; we have two legs and two arms.

Now let's consider the praying mantis, an insect. All insects, as we know, have six limbs; that's part of the definition of an insect. But do all insects use all six limbs as legs? A praying mantis doesn't. Its front-most pair of limbs it holds up and uses for grasping, very much in the manner of arms. It walks on its other four limbs. In a similar fashion, flies will use their first pair of limbs to comb at their faces while standing on their back two pairs of limbs.

Is it not possible, then, that ancient people had a different understanding from ours as to which limbs on an insect were considered its 'legs'?

For your consideration.

[Sir Gareth]

I just wanted to say that if we start to try and pick apart the bible and cast doubt on certain parts than we really can't trust any of it.

If your willing to say that the bible is wrong about how long it took for God to create the world, it is an obvious assumption that it could be wrong about the ressurection of Christ.

I chose to believe the bible to be the true and infallable word of the one true God.

You can say this makes me small minded but I am happy to listen to anyone's arguments, unless you can show me where it is explicitly stated in scripture, however, I just don't beleive it. I still say you have a right to say it.

Finally, as far as evolution goes, show me just one example of a trsistory fossil specimen, show me an in between stage. Show me where an ape became a man, a fish became a frog or a disosaur became a bird. There are none, arecheology does not support evolution, but it does support the bible.

[Massorite]

ABSOLUTELY NOWEHERE in the bible, is the age of the earth revealed.

the evolution time of the the earths creatures is also not revealed in the bible.

it does not specifiy that creation was only seven days long, it is only the order that is given

since the first "true 24 HOUR day" had occurred on the 4th day of creation;

GENESIS 1:14 "God made two great lights" - The greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night - on the fourth day.

Evolution is supported in the bible also; as there as 4 legged insects that have evolved two additional legs;

LEVITICUS 11: 20 There are however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat; Those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

There were also obviously other creatures that evolved to have two legs from four originally, as supported in leviticus

LEVITICUS 11: 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

WELCOME

The bible is put together so that we can understand it so with that in mind I must say that just because the moon and sun were not created until the 4th day doesn't mean that there weren't 24 hour days in the mind of God. You are forgetting that light was created on the first day. You are missing the verse 5. "And God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE FIRST DAY.

Sounds like a twenty four hour day to me. The same thing goes for the second and third day. They both had a Morning and an Evening and were each called a Day by the word of God.

Skipping scripture on this web site doesn't go over very well. Just some friendly advise.

I personally am not apposed to the fact that many of the creatures that God has created do in fact evolve to suit there environment. However that is not a reason to disbelieve the biblical account of the creation of man and embrace the theory of Evolution. After all God created them to survive.

So what were these creatures that evolved from having four legs to two legs?

If it is not written in the word of God it does not exist.

[Massorite]

Lets roll back about 9 verses, basher...

Genesis 1:5 - And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. The term "day" (Hebrew yôm) is from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next, the more common use), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term). Thus was the first day...

As far as your "evolutionary hypothesis:"

So much for your earth shattering revelations...welcome to Worthy

lets not go back before the first actual day and...

lets stick to the argument and consider genesis 1:14, it is only with the creation of the sun when the first actual day could had occurred.

before that there was only darkness as far as the physical world is concerned. lets us remember that

for a full day to occur requires one full rotation of the planet (one day and one night)

also the Leviticus verses proves that grasshoppers and locusts have evolved from those early times and have grown two additional legs.

this is clear proof that the bible supports evolution because today insects have six legs, not four as they did back then.

it is important to acknowledge that the bible is not a book of history of the universe,

it is solely a spiritual book that is oftened taken out of context by Christian fundamentalists who

compromise fact and truth for a right-winged politically correct, but false indoctrination of scripture.

and why are you calling me basher?

you should be referring to me as "bashed" if anything.....

thats not very Christian like of you is it?

perhaps its indicative of your denial to accept the truth?

taking the bible literally like you did in an attempt to explain the first physical day of the earth is to deny scientific fact

Unfortunately your argument is assuming, tainted by your belief in science over the belief in the biblical account of creation, and fails to take into account the whole of the account of the creation of the earth,man, and everything else that God created in those first seven days. Having a discussion like you want to have is about like discussing where the apple comes from with out talking about the apple tree or the seed that made the apple tree.

[Massorite]

I just wanted to say that if we start to try and pick apart the bible and cast doubt on certain parts than we really can't trust any of it.

If your willing to say that the bible is wrong about how long it took for God to create the world, it is an obvious assumption that it could be wrong about the ressurection of Christ.

I chose to believe the bible to be the true and infallable word of the one true God.

You can say this makes me small minded but I am happy to listen to anyone's arguments, unless you can show me where it is explicitly stated in scripture, however, I just don't beleive it. I still say you have a right to say it.

Finally, as far as evolution goes, show me just one example of a trsistory fossil specimen, show me an in between stage. Show me where an ape became a man, a fish became a frog or a disosaur became a bird. There are none, arecheology does not support evolution, but it does support the bible.

You Go Sir Gareth. I agree. It is all or none when it comes to the word of God.

[kross]

We sometimes infer tone from the type of text people use. You are correct that science and the Bible can work together. If it is good science. The idea that these scriptures somehow prove evolution seems lost to me. I can not see anything of evolution in this.Maybe you could explain.

Then you can answer me one question;

If carbon-14 dating proves the earth to be no more than 30,000 years old, (10,000 to be truthful) how does any of the science you speak of disagree with the Bible?

this is a false statement - carbon 14 dating does not prove the age of the earth to be young at all. in fact it has proven the age of the earth is much older, 100's millions of years -

we have dinosuar fossils aged at 100's millions of years old and it is the sedimentary rock the fossil is in that is dated also

this does not disagree with the bible - the bible is a spiritual book of truth, not one of fundamental literatural correctness - this truth is revealed only to christian moderates and religious fundamentalists claiming to be christians remain blind.

The other winged 4 legged creatures would be bats or perhaps extinct dinosaurs of the time.

suggestion - read leviticus as quoted - you will learn that their were four legged insects (crickets, grasshoppers and locusts with four legs) in those days, now we have six legged insects...

You clearly do not know the science of carbon-14 dating. Let me give you some understanding.

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5700 years. after about 7 of these cycles, carbon-14 is not measurable. that come to 40,000 years. The fact that carbon-14 is still in measureable quantities in diferent things that are said to be 100 milion years old, proves they are not that old. In addition carbon-14 should, by vertue of good science, have reached a stage referrred to as "equalibrium" this point is the point where as much is lost as is produced and, again, should occur within 40,000 years of creation. At this point, we lose 16 pounds of 14C every day and 18 Pounds is created. Thus, thewe have not reached this point of equalibrium.

Carbon dating methods are also based on the erronious idea that the level of 14C in the air would be the same 100 million years ago as it is today. Since we know that the amount of 14c in the air today is more than it was when the process was first started being used, we know this assumption is false. If there was less 14C in the air the farther you go back in history, than that means that the amount being read today means that the earth is even younger than if you assume the constant.

Thus, 14c proves the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (this is also proved by the oil and coal deposits around the world that date to less than 10,000 years)

As far as your insects, maybe they evolved, maybe thay are just different insects, or maybe because locust tend to use there front legs as hands, they were considered to only have four legs. If they evolved, this is an evolution over a very short period of time within a species. There are few who would disagree that inter species evolution takes place. Whoever, you sound as if you believe this proves that single celled organisms became one species and then another species and then another species until they had created a series of different species. There is no logic and no proof of this taking place in any historic or Biblical or scientific evidence.

The one thing you will never have proof of is evolution. That is why Darwin rejected his own theory of evolution. The fossil evidence would not support what his first theory stated.

[kross]

How could you prove the age of the earth to be billions of years with C-14 when it's only accurate to about 12,000 years? See here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KnynjL44p...9&ct=result

I think someone's mixing up c-14 dating with radiometric dating.

"The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements."

Geologic Time: Age of the Earth

Such techniques give the consistent result of an earth roughly 4.5 billion years old

"As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples."

***********

Finally, it's important to note that virtually all scientists accept this age of the earth not out of anti-creationist prejudice, but because of the strength of the evidence.

"A fundamental reason why these ancient ages are so widely accepted by the scientific community is that they are derived from several independent lines of evidence accumulated by independent and often competing teams of researchers. Each method involves different measurements and the application of different physical principles to derive ages from those measurements. The physical principles include the same thoroughly-proven principles that underlie the technology that runs the modern world. Hence the fact that the independent methods all yield similar ages reinforces confidence that the methods are sound and accurate despite their complexity and do not contain major fundamental flaws.

A second reason why these ages are so widely accepted is that for scientific results to be published in research journals, they must be critically reviewed by other scientists who are experts in the same research area. This process is called peer review and is employed in nearly all research journals in the physical and biological sciences and in the humanities and social sciences. Often the reviewers are competitors of the author and thus are especially keen to find flaws in the proposed publications. As a consequence of such review, nearly every paper must be revised and improved before it is published, and some papers are rejected because the review exposes flaws in the measurements or in their analysis and interpretation.

A third reason why these ages, and other scientific paradigms such as Einstein's theory of relativity, are so widely accepted is that by the nature of its acquisition--through independent lines of evidence and always subject to scrutiny--scientific evidence is built up only very slowly, one step at a time. Only when a very large and diverse body of evidence has been accumulated is a broad conclusion accepted. Even then, a broad conclusion remains subject to inspection, as further evidence may reinforce or refine it, or in rare cases, overthrow it. "

IPS Official Statement on the Ancient Age of the Earth and Universe

Radiometric dating systems (other than Carbon-14) start with a couple of assumption that if they are not true, will result in false dating. Also, these processes have been proved to be unreliable by testing known recent events and getting dates that equal earnier events.

However, since carbon-14 has a short half life, and since it can be found in measurable quantities in fossils and in coal and oil, Carbon-14 dating proves the young age of the earth. If the earth was not young, than Carbon-14 would not be in these fossils. Plus, if you read my previous post, you will see how carbon-14 proves the earth to be young while other radiometric dating processes are questionable.

Two different views of the "science" based in assumptions that are based on a preconcieved idealism. We all use the science to prove what we want it to prove., The problem is, the things we know as absolute truth (CArbon-14 being one of the most accurate and measurable sciences) prove more consistantly and accurately the date of the earth. That being less than 10,000 years.

The choice to ignor a scientific method that is the most pure and concise and consistant in order to use the other methods that are more prone to disagree with each other and are based in unprovable assumptions and presumptions is something that comes from a starting point that the earth is millions of years old and thus these assumptions and presumptions must be true. If these assumptions and presumptions are altered, based on a young earth theory, than they prove a young earth. The only constant is Carbon-14 dating that also proves a young earth.

So, I understand you believe in the data from these other radiometric dating processes. Do you than choose to not believe the Carbon-14 dating method because it disagrees with the rest?

By the way, my understanding is that none of these radiometric dating processes takes into account that radio active decay rates can chnge with heat or cold. Meteors are burned at very hot temps. Massive impact will also cause massive radioactive release (that is how we get atom bombs). Plus, how do they know the level of these radioactive ingredients in the beginning? And do they take into account that the byproducts of this radioactive decay can exist in quantity outside of being a byproduct of rqadioactive decay? If this is ture, than that knocks a couple billion years of the guess of their age.

[Massorite]

You actually did say that the Genealogies were written by men after the fall. Implying, in my mind, that they were somehow flawed because flawed men wrote them.

that was not what I was saying, I said they started with after the fall, meaning that they dont tell us the age of the earth as they dont address anything prior to the fall.

I happen to disagree with you and agree with Brother Joe preferring to agree with God and His friend with whom He had face to face contact, Moses. I find no evidence of evolutionary process in the Bible or in nature therefore Gods Word stands in my heart. Which really was the problem with Adam and Eve after all.

where have I said anything in support of evolution? just becase I dont think the days of creation were 24 hour days does not mean I support evolution, the two have nothing to do with each other.

The OP was arguing for evolutionary process evidenced in the Bible and it appears that you agree somewhat.

Peace,

Dave

I have said nothing to support the OP, I even pointed out to him where he went wrong. All I was pointing out to you is that the genealogies dont give us the age of the earth

It is very complicated but we can count back to the approx. creation of Adam. We just need to start with the flood and Noah because we know that Noah was 500 years old when the flood got here.