Jump to content
IGNORED

I've changed my mind. I now believe the "earth" is 6k years old


Still Alive

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  118
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  2,858
  • Content Per Day:  1.24
  • Reputation:   814
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/29/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/01/1968

On April 27, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Still Alive said:

What does "in the beginning" really mean? The beginning of the story of mankind on this planet? The story of our galaxy? The story of the universe, etc.

Yup that is exactly what that is all three of those, and a bible that spans all intelligence, in the beginning God created heaven(hydrogen) and earth(helium) 

1 breath, 6 days, 14.4 billion years, 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,427
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

On 4/28/2018 at 8:35 AM, Still Alive said:

There is so much there and I have not figured out how to use this non-html-code based quoting to be able to quote segments separately so I will address them separately in follow up posts. I'm a bit like a guy that only drives a stick trying to figure out how to change gears with an automatic.

Shalom, Still Alive.

I can understand that. It's a bit of a change, but it's worth the effort to figure it out. Really, all you have to do is quote the whole thing, like you just did for this quote, and position your cursor where you want to insert your reply. Then, press ENTER a few times. If the quote doesn't "break into two," reposition your cursor a little higher up in the linefeeds you created and try again. You should be able to break the quote at that point (and remove any excess linefeeds you don't want), and type your response there. On a full-screen editor (I use a MacBook Pro), you'll see the quote in a box, and when split in two, you will see two quote boxes with a "gap" in between. At that "gap," you can type your response.

You can repeat this process as many times as you need to insert a quote at the desired spot. If you mess up (like I frequently do) and put the break in the wrong spot, simply move the quoted material between where you intended to make the break and where you actually made the break from the one quote window to the other quote window. Don't try to move the quote, though. That's a LOT more hassle!

Hope this helps.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,427
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

On 4/28/2018 at 8:37 AM, Still Alive said:

I'm not talking about evolution. I'm with you on that. We've found soft tissue in fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old. That's impossible. But they can still be a heck of a lot older than 6,000 years.

Shalom, Still Alive.

Yes, but no more than 10,000 years or so, unless you buy into the hypothesis that the earth's magnetic field "flip-flops" poles. That's because the earth's magnetic field has been decaying for as long as they've been able to measure it! The hyperbolic curve they've been able to trace from the readings would place the earth's magnetic field to that of the sun 10,000 years ago! Beyond that, we're talking about that of a neutron star!

But, it's a DECAY rate, a hyperbolic curve. Some have suggested that it is simply the lower, right quadrant of a sine wave and suggest a repeating pattern; thus, the "flip-flop" of the poles. However, it's the ONE dating method that has been measurable the longest and it's the ONE dating method the evolutionists wish to ignore or change!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,015
  • Content Per Day:  1.34
  • Reputation:   1,220
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

10 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Still Alive.

I can understand that. It's a bit of a change, but it's worth the effort to figure it out. Really, all you have to do is quote the whole thing, like you just did for this quote, and position your cursor where you want to insert your reply. Then, press ENTER a few times. If the quote doesn't "break into two," reposition your cursor a little higher up in the linefeeds you created and try again. You should be able to break the quote at that point (and remove any excess linefeeds you don't want), and type your response there. On a full-screen editor (I use a MacBook Pro), you'll see the quote in a box, and when split in two, you will see two quote boxes with a "gap" in between. At that "gap," you can type your response.

You can repeat this process as many times as you need to insert a quote at the desired spot. If you mess up (like I frequently do) and put the break in the wrong spot, simply move the quoted material between where you intended to make the break and where you actually made the break from the one quote window to the other quote window. Don't try to move the quote, though. That's a LOT more hassle!

Hope this helps.

Yes, that is very similar to the methodology I used to come up with the refinement and changes of my views. As I listen to or read someone else that is turning my beliefs on their ear, I say, "oh yeah, well what about verse x, or verse y. And when I realize that verse x and y actually support what is being taught, I change my viewpoint. When they don't, I believe what I originally believed, and with more knowledge and support of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,015
  • Content Per Day:  1.34
  • Reputation:   1,220
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Still Alive.

Yes, but no more than 10,000 years or so, unless you buy into the hypothesis that the earth's magnetic field "flip-flops" poles. That's because the earth's magnetic field has been decaying for as long as they've been able to measure it! The hyperbolic curve they've been able to trace from the readings would place the earth's magnetic field to that of the sun 10,000 years ago! Beyond that, we're talking about that of a neutron star!

But, it's a DECAY rate, a hyperbolic curve. Some have suggested that it is simply the lower, right quadrant of a sine wave and suggest a repeating pattern; thus, the "flip-flop" of the poles. However, it's the ONE dating method that has been measurable the longest and it's the ONE dating method the evolutionists wish to ignore or change!

One thing I find interesting about evolution and the geological history of our planet is that if the dinosaurs they imagine actually existed, they could not support their own weight. And once a bird becomes heavier than around 35-40 lbs, it can no longer fly because when you add a pound of bone, muscle and feather you get less than a pound of extra lift once you reach that point. So the evolutionists try to imaging "gliding monsters" that, if that is all they could do, would easily have become prey to other creatures since they were as vulnerable as a dodo bird if they could only fly. 

i.e. something changed in the meantime. Denser air, less gravity. Who really knows, but something changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  118
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  2,858
  • Content Per Day:  1.24
  • Reputation:   814
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/29/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/01/1968

19 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Still Alive.

Yes, but no more than 10,000 years or so, unless you buy into the hypothesis that the earth's magnetic field "flip-flops" poles. That's because the earth's magnetic field has been decaying for as long as they've been able to measure it! The hyperbolic curve they've been able to trace from the readings would place the earth's magnetic field to that of the sun 10,000 years ago! Beyond that, we're talking about that of a neutron star!

But, it's a DECAY rate, a hyperbolic curve. Some have suggested that it is simply the lower, right quadrant of a sine wave and suggest a repeating pattern; thus, the "flip-flop" of the poles. However, it's the ONE dating method that has been measurable the longest and it's the ONE dating method the evolutionists wish to ignore or change!

Hmm haven't heard of the hyperbolic curve but I have heard of the (large shear velocity provinces) being a cause of weakening mag field, that some say has happened before about every 1000 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,427
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

2 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

One thing I find interesting about evolution and the geological history of our planet is that if the dinosaurs they imagine actually existed, they could not support their own weight. And once a bird becomes heavier than around 35-40 lbs, it can no longer fly because when you add a pound of bone, muscle and feather you get less than a pound of extra lift once you reach that point. So the evolutionists try to imaging "gliding monsters" that, if that is all they could do, would easily have become prey to other creatures since they were as vulnerable as a dodo bird if they could only fly. 

i.e. something changed in the meantime. Denser air, less gravity. Who really knows, but something changed. 

Shalom, Still Alive.

Yes, sometimes we can only guess, excuse me, "speculate." But, I'm prone to believe that the air was more dense because of a Greenhouse Effect caused by the "waters above the sky" before the global Flood.

I believe there used to be a water vapor canopy (the "waters above the expanse" or "hamayim asher mee`al laaraaqiya`"), such that the "expanse" was later named by God as "skies" (in the dual number), "shaamaayim." (Gen. 1:7-8.) "Water vapor" is different than "clouds," which are CONDENSED water on the particles floating in the air. "Water vapor" is the third state of water, the gaseous form of the compound.

Sandwiched between the two layers of water, the atmosphere had a higher pressure than it does today, hence "denser air."

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,427
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

5 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Hmm haven't heard of the hyperbolic curve but I have heard of the (large shear velocity provinces) being a cause of weakening mag field, that some say has happened before about every 1000 years or so.

Shalom, BeyondET.

Not beyond what was actually measured! This "large shear velocity provinces" stuff, too, is a speculation! I'm talking about plotting the data with time being the x-value on the graph. It works into that of a hyperbolic (exponential with a negative exponent) curve, a DECAY curve, although some have thought it fits a LINEAR curve better (which would STILL show it to be a plot limited to a few thousand years). 

In any case, the DATA shows a young earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,427
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

On 4/28/2018 at 9:09 AM, shiloh357 said:

... 

And that is utterly ridiculous and demonstrates the fact the fact that you still don't understand what "literal" means.   When people refuse the take the Bible literally, they are simply applying an arbitrary means of reinterpreting the parts of the Bible they don't like and don't want to believe in order to justify their end run around the literal meaning of the text.

There is no rational reason to interpret a text if you are not interpreting literally.   What if we decided to interpret your posts according to an arbitrary standard that allows us to ignore the meaning YOU assign to your posts and assign our own meaning to your posts and then attempt to spar with you over something you didn't mean?   I bet you would not like that, but you seem to see no problem taking that irrational approach with the Bible.

When people reject a literal interpretation of Scripture what they are doing is asserting authority over Scripture.  It's a way of saying, "The Bible means what I say it means."     Which parts are not to be taken literally?  Where is the line drawn between what is to be taken literally?   Is that a line that is different for different people?  If so, then how does anyone actually know what the Bible says, if they are free to reject the literal meaning of any text as they see fit?

...

Shalom, shiloh357.

I have to stop you on this point, brother. We don't champion a "literal interpretation of the Bible." What we SHOULD be championing is the "grammatical, HISTORICAL interpretation of the Bible." First, it IS a historical account of the lives of the people listed in its pages. It was NEVER meant to be a tome of allegory! These were REAL people who lived and served God down through the years of history. As such, within this vein of thinking, the Bible SHOULD be interpreted LITERALLY.

But, second, you should not forget that this is a "GRAMMATICAL, historical interpretation of the Bible," and within the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek grammars of the Bible, analogies and allegories DO exist, just as they do in English. Some comparisons are MEANT to be taken as symbolic language and similes; others are MEANT to be taken as metaphors. And, a FEW are to be taken as teaching allegories. It's just that these things should NOT be judged as the overall approach that the Bible takes! The whole thing is NOT just one big ALLEGORY, as some teach!

This is, as you say, the danger in such an approach: Who decides what parts are to be taken literally and what parts are supposed to be taken figuratively? This is determined by the AUTHORS (both human and Divine) as determined by the CONTEXT of what we are reading. We simply look at what makes the best sense in the context of the portion we are analyzing.

Also, taking a paragraph from one of my books,

I must stress at this point that “the most sensible method” does NOT exclude the miracles of God. God is perfectly capable of performing miracles, and it is more sensible to see God displaying His miracle-working power than it is to say that the miracles were the results of some natural phenomena, especially when the text of the Scriptures CLAIMS that the miracles were the results of God’s power.

So, you are right UP TO A CERTAIN POINT, but don't forget the "dropping of the other shoe!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  118
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  2,858
  • Content Per Day:  1.24
  • Reputation:   814
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/29/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/01/1968

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, BeyondET.

Not beyond what was actually measured! This "large shear velocity provinces" stuff, too, is a speculation! I'm talking about plotting the data with time being the x-value on the graph. It works into that of a hyperbolic (exponential with a negative exponent) curve, a DECAY curve, although some have thought it fits a LINEAR curve better (which would STILL show it to be a plot limited to a few thousand years). 

In any case, the DATA shows a young earth.

Quite honestly I never heard any scientist talk about the hyperbolic curve and the earth's magnetic field having any coloration at all. sure it can be used for the earth's sphere dealing with the axes of the planet, but that is far different than the forces of the core of the planet, I think your using the wrong word on the topic of force field. for hyperbolic curve deals with two branches or halves of a cone. the magnetic field encompass the whole earth not just the south or north, west, east or two halves to a whole.

the earth age no one can truely know, the bible teaches God made everything in the physical from His breath singler not plural as in breaths, so I can through out 6 days, 6000 years and 4.5 billion years or what ever. why because how long it took to complete, God is the only one who knows and our earth is still changing, animals, stars, people trees etc. are still being created  go figure.

Quite honestly if you were to leave this planet and say travel to another planet just in our solar system you would have to throw all your concept of time right out the window. because is not just something of earth but it's through out the universe as well. and everything in the universe has its own time scale bubble so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...