Living Fossil's

[thilipsis]

On 7/13/2016 at 11:01 PM, DARRELX said:

"I am a young earth creationist. 

I do not believe that there was a gap between God creating heaven and earth and saying, "Let there be light."

Or a gap between creating the heaven and earth and the earth being formless and void. That is just wishful thinking and the arguments for a gap are unconvincing.

The idea of an old earth came from atheists, just as evolution has. The dating method for rocks has been shown to be unreliable because newly formed volcanic rock can date in the millions of years. 

So this gap idea comes from Christians who want to reconcile atheistic reasoning with scripture. 

All atheist really have for an old earth that is actually credible is light from the stars. 

I have no doubt that when God commanded the light to shine out of darkness to be for times and seasons, He made it so we can see it.

If God commands the light from any star to be seen by earth, then it will be. 

Or God could simply have stretched the light from there to here immediately. 

God created light without any source at first so He can create the Stars to shine on the earth. 

Also creationist give plenty of evidence for a young earth so why would a Christian not take that evidence seriously?

I have a little bit of a different view of this. All we know about the original creation, 'the heavens and the earth', is that it was created, 'in the beginning'. So an old earth and old cosmos fits the Biblical scenario. On the other hand I share your skepticism regarding radio metric dating, Mount St. Helen's was tested and a:

'block of dacite from high on the lava dome.. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method.'. (Radio-Dating in Rubble, AIG)

These fossil beds are dated using very similar beds and they are invariably going to give late dates. If every living thing was created 6000 years ago and mineralized in an old earth the dating would be unreliable, which is the case with fossils. 

Now as far as day four when it says God made the sun, moon and stars, the text uses a different word for 'created', 'made' and 'set'. The word translated 'created' is (Strong’s #H1254 בָּרָא bara'), it is used once for the creation of the 'heavens and the earth', a Hebrew idiom for the universe (Gen. 1:1), life in general (Gen. 1:21) and used three times to describe the creation of man (Gen. 1:27). What happened on day four did not directly effect the sun, moon and stars on day four, what God was working on was the atmosphere, called the 'firmament'.

And God made (H6213 עָשָׂה `asah), two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Gen. 1:16)

And God set (H5414 נָתַן nathan), them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth (Gen. 1:17). [source: Blue Letter Bible]

So either God created the earth and for four days there was no sun, no moon and no stars. Or, God created the entire universe including the earth, sun, moon and stars but the earth was covered with darkness and water. What we are seeing in the passage is the atmosphere, land and sea being prepared for life, this includes clearing the clouds away so that they are visible from the surface of the earth on a regular basis. This interpretation dovetails nicely with the Job and Genesis account of creation as it is described by God himself.

I have no reason to compromise with secular science or modern academics, a literal understanding of Genesis 1 makes that impossible anyway. With the genealogies we have an unbroken string of relative dates going from Adam to Christ. In Luke's Gospel account he presents the entire lineage going all the way back to Adam, who he calls, 'son of God', indicating Adam was created and had no earthly parents, thus, the first parent of humanity. According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

There is plenty of room for skepticism with regards to radiometric dating while maintaining a literal understanding of the Scriptures historical narratives that obviously include Genesis 1. The New Testament witness and a careful exposition with an exegetical treatment of the words used bears this out. Science and Scripture are not in conflict, it's Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are at the heart of the secular philosophy of natural history. 

Grace and peace,

Mark

Edited November 17, 2016 by thilipsis
wording

[Bonky]

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Quote

I agree with him/her, stop trying to score points and start trying to listen more.

1.  Appeal to Motive (Fallacy).

2.  How do you know I'm trying to 'score points', what's the 'Objective' METHOD you used to arrive @ your 'Subjective' conclusion : Crystal Ball, Dowsing Rods, Tea Leaves, ect Other...?

Thank you for proving my point.  I've seen hungry wolverines awoken from a deep slumber with a better disposition than what you exhibit here.   I'm sure there's an interesting person to get to know somewhere inside of you, I'm hoping you can stop being so defensive and hard to interact with so that we can actually see this.  That choice is up to you.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, Bonky said:

Thank you for proving my point.  

Sure.  All you can provide is 'Color Commentary' Ipse Dixits (Fallacy) Declarations never getting in the Universal Zip-Code of specificity.

 

Quote

I've seen hungry wolverines awoken from a deep slumber with a better disposition than what you exhibit here.

We can now add conjured 'Anecdotes' to "Cherry On Top" your 'Color Commentary' Ipse Dixit (Fallacy) Declarations.

 

Quote

I'm sure there's an interesting person to get to know somewhere inside of you

1.  What Objective Method did you use to arrive @ your Subjective Conclusion here so we can Validate the Veracity of your Claim...?

2.  Define Interesting...?

 

Quote

I'm hoping you can stop being so defensive

  Can you kinda VALIDATE your claim of me being 'defensive' first...?  I'm really not interested in chasing Ipse Dixit Fallacies...it's one of my Refrigerator Rules.

 

Quote

hard to interact with

I'm just 'spit-balling' here but perhaps attempting to SUPPORT what you say... may help alleviate the Contrived  ---without any Warrant Whatsoever, --- 'Hardness' of which you speak.

 

Quote

That choice is up to you.

Doesn't appear so, look up.

 

regards