the creation story; 7 days or billions of years?

[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.

The very fact that you believe that the seven days was seven thousand years puts you right into the pocket of the evilutionists.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

There are many Eschaetological arguments that rely on the earth being young. I am one that holds to a young earth.

Our history as created beings could be drawing to a close relatively shortly and that will be because of a 7 day Creation theory and can be expounded on in Eschaetological theory with scriptural backing. However, that is not the point of the OP and will only siderail the conversation further.

The fact remains that the OP is operating from a fallicy of exclusion while making another seperate argument in support of evidence of evolution in the Bible by exclusion. His logic is faulty.

There is also another theory that states that God Created the earth with the appearance of age in 7 literal days. I don't subscribe to that theory either.

I believe God that it was 7 literal days. It's true, we do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the fall. However, we also do not know if the constraints of time were in order either. We also do not know what was going on outside of the Garden but we do know from scripture that all of the Creation is suffering and groaning under the sin of Adam because it was subjected to it when Adam fell.

We could even postulate that because there was no sin loosed in this part of the Creation that the effects of age and time really didn't matter and there are theory's for that as well.

There are many interesting arguments and theory's and they all desreve inspection. I believe though that God makes it very easy to understand, just like the Gospel, to confound and shame those whom might think they are wise.

Peace,

Dave

[kross]

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.

I'm willing to bet you're "proof" consists of dating methods applied inappropriately.

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.

Yeah I think you're getting some things mixed up here, but if you've got some specific examples I'm all ears.

Go to www.answersingenisis.com and search RATE GROUP or Carbon-14 dating or radiometric dating. There is a ton of info there and links to much more.

Here is a small sample of what can be found there. As I have stated previously, I believe the Bible and thus I am more prone to accept science that proves it, rather than science that might disagree.

"The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. Samples were taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. These coal samples were collected from major coalfields across the United States. The coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. "

There are also photos of fossilised trees that stand straight up and down though what scientists call 100 million years of layers of sediment that prove it was all depoited at the same time.

[kross]

Grace to you,

There are many Eschaetological arguments that rely on the earth being young. I am one that holds to a young earth.

Our history as created beings could be drawing to a close relatively shortly and that will be because of a 7 day Creation theory and can be expounded on in Eschaetological theory with scriptural backing. However, that is not the point of the OP and will only siderail the conversation further.

The fact remains that the OP is operating from a fallicy of exclusion while making another seperate argument in support of evidence of evolution in the Bible by exclusion. His logic is faulty.

There is also another theory that states that God Created the earth with the appearance of age in 7 literal days. I don't subscribe to that theory either.

I believe God that it was 7 literal days. It's true, we do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the fall. However, we also do not know if the constraints of time were in order either. We also do not know what was going on outside of the Garden but we do know from scripture that all of the Creation is suffering and groaning under the sin of Adam because it was subjected to it when Adam fell.

We could even postulate that because there was no sin loosed in this part of the Creation that the effects of age and time really didn't matter and there are theory's for that as well.

There are many interesting arguments and theory's and they all desreve inspection. I believe though that God makes it very easy to understand, just like the Gospel, to confound and shame those whom might think they are wise.

Peace,

Dave

One extra point to add that strengthens your point is the deterioration of the earths magnetic field which seems to be steady and would show the earth to be very young as well.

[kross]

Well I'm not that surprised the scientists involved in the RATE project got a weird result since they were using the method of radiocarbon testing incorrectly. Because of the short half life of c14 we don't use it for things with an expected age over 50,000 years because there's not going to be any of the original carbon left and we'll get a misleading result. So when you try dating coal already known to be millions of years old and try dating it I'm not sure what you'd expect to find other than a misleading result. The presence of c14 in such samples is due to contamination:

This was my point. We know that carbon dating is a good scientific process for things less than 50,000 years old. We know that carbon dating proves the coal to be less than 10,000 years old. The only reason you have given for this proof to not be valid is that you assume it to be millions of years old. That assumption there by eliminates a scientific process that proves that assumption wrong.

That is what I meant when i said we interpret science to prove what we want it to prove. We use assumptions like that one to discredit a very measurable provable fact.

Now, I believe these scientists are just as educated and knowledgable as the ones who disagree with them. Both groups have their agenda and both groups will interpret science to support their agenda. Since I believe the Bible, I will also except that science doesn't disprove the Bible and that the science that proves it is just as valid to me as the science that some feel disproves it is to you.

So there we are.

[MorningGlory]

So there we are? Not really friend, you're using a dating method improperly to reach an inaccurate result when alternate explanations for carbon contamination exist. That doesn't add up to equal footing, it adds up to shoddy science. The RATE project was a complete failure and the claims of C14 in coal as an evidence of a young earth have been destroyed by the much more plausible and observable phenomenon of carbon contamination from the environment. You are completely ignoring a very well-put explanation of this phenomenon, somehow coming in with the conclusion that it is one of several equally valid "assumptions" and, as such, apparently we're all supposed to throw up our hands and exclaim "we will never know!". Unfortunately that's simply not how science works; this isn't evidence, it's just the improper use of a very good dating method. Get some results consistent with your theory using the correct dating method and mainstream science might take you seriously, until then YEC will remain decidedly in the "pseudoscience" category.

Are you a scientist, I.L.?

[Matthitjah]

IL,

Do me a favor, no more links to sites like Talk Origns and that one is specific. It is an anti-Christian site and as it stands it is opposed to our Mission here. We do not allow links to sites such as these. There are plenty of scientific journals you could find the same info in without the anti-Christian bias. We Moderators are responsible for the content here.

Peace,

Dave

[MorningGlory]

So there we are? Not really friend, you're using a dating method improperly to reach an inaccurate result when alternate explanations for carbon contamination exist. That doesn't add up to equal footing, it adds up to shoddy science. The RATE project was a complete failure and the claims of C14 in coal as an evidence of a young earth have been destroyed by the much more plausible and observable phenomenon of carbon contamination from the environment. You are completely ignoring a very well-put explanation of this phenomenon, somehow coming in with the conclusion that it is one of several equally valid "assumptions" and, as such, apparently we're all supposed to throw up our hands and exclaim "we will never know!". Unfortunately that's simply not how science works; this isn't evidence, it's just the improper use of a very good dating method. Get some results consistent with your theory using the correct dating method and mainstream science might take you seriously, until then YEC will remain decidedly in the "pseudoscience" category.

Are you a scientist, I.L.?

Just a humble science teacher I'm afraid.

Nothing humble about being a teacher; it's one of the most important professions. It would seem then that you probably know more science facts and theories than the average person.

[kross]

Well I'm not that surprised the scientists involved in the RATE project got a weird result since they were using the method of radiocarbon testing incorrectly. Because of the short half life of c14 we don't use it for things with an expected age over 50,000 years because there's not going to be any of the original carbon left and we'll get a misleading result. So when you try dating coal already known to be millions of years old and try dating it I'm not sure what you'd expect to find other than a misleading result. The presence of c14 in such samples is due to contamination:

This was my point. We know that carbon dating is a good scientific process for things less than 50,000 years old. We know that carbon dating proves the coal to be less than 10,000 years old. The only reason you have given for this proof to not be valid is that you assume it to be millions of years old. That assumption there by eliminates a scientific process that proves that assumption wrong.

That is what I meant when i said we interpret science to prove what we want it to prove. We use assumptions like that one to discredit a very measurable provable fact.

Now, I believe these scientists are just as educated and knowledgable as the ones who disagree with them. Both groups have their agenda and both groups will interpret science to support their agenda. Since I believe the Bible, I will also except that science doesn't disprove the Bible and that the science that proves it is just as valid to me as the science that some feel disproves it is to you.

So there we are.

So there we are? Not really friend, you're using a dating method improperly to reach an inaccurate result when alternate explanations for carbon contamination exist. That doesn't add up to equal footing, it adds up to shoddy science. The RATE project was a complete failure and the claims of C14 in coal as an evidence of a young earth have been destroyed by the much more plausible and observable phenomenon of carbon contamination from the environment. You are completely ignoring a very well-put explanation of this phenomenon, somehow coming in with the conclusion that it is one of several equally valid "assumptions" and, as such, apparently we're all supposed to throw up our hands and exclaim "we will never know!". Unfortunately that's simply not how science works; this isn't evidence, it's just the improper use of a very good dating method. Get some results consistent with your theory using the correct dating method and mainstream science might take you seriously, until then YEC will remain decidedly in the "pseudoscience" category.

You choose to believe the scientist who tell you what you have decided is the truth. I choose to believe the scientists who tell me what I choose to believe. You have decided that your scientists are more scientific than the scientists I believe. You choose to believe their explainations based on what you have come to accept as science. I choose to believe that the scientists I believe have started from assumptions that I believe.

It is your decision to believe whom you believe. I doubt that they are any more capable than the scientists I listen to. It is your choice to accept what they are telling you just as it is my choice to accept what others tell me. You say yours are smarter and do a better job, I say they make up explainations in order to contradict good science.

We can continue back and forth forever. But the bottom line is, you have chosen to believe your science and I have chosen to believe mine. You have found books and writers that tell you and explain to you, I have the same thing.

Admittedly, I am more ignorant than you on this subject. Maybe you have actually gone out into the field and done these test yourself and are not just taking someone elses word for it. But I am just trusting in those scientist who come at things from the point of view that the Bible is accurate and science proves it. That is my choice.

And, once again, the thread is written with both sides of the issue out there for all to read. They can draw their own conclusion.

And there we are.

[Guest shiloh357]

Billions of years. There are too many problems with trying to interpret the Creation story as a literal time period.

Well, there is "literal" and there is "face value." The two often get confused. To take the creation account literally means we believe it actually happened.

There are those who take the reference to "day" at face-value as a 24 hour time-period. Whether it was 24 hours long or not is really neither here nor there. The opposite could also be true, maybe they were shorter than 24 hours. It doesn't really matter because that is not the point the author is trying to make.

Time is really not an issue and is not the focus of the Creation account. The problem is that people are too focused on what is not really important and are missing the larger picture. The Bible is not a book of science and does not pretend to be. The Bible was not designed to be read as a science book. Criticizing the Bible on that basis would be like criticizing a hammer because it can't cut down a tree. It wasn't designed or created to perform that task and neither was the Bible designed to answer scientific questions.

The point behind the Creation account is to answer the questions pertaining to why man is here in the first place, how he got here and what his purpose is. The Bible, among other things, is about man's relationship with God and God's desire to commune with each of us, friend to friend. The Creation account explains why man is not just some accident that occurred in an impersonal process, but is here because of the providence and purpose of a loving Creator who made man, custom designed man in fact, to love God and to receive God's love.

The earth and all that was in it was created for man to enjoy as a gift from God. Obsessing over how long the creation account actually is like being given a gift and being so obsessed with how the gift was made that you fail to appreciate the giver.