Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Solus Christus]

I have heard that carbon cobalt dating differs from gas form of dating that ranges and gets millions.

I reckon the Jewish Lunar Calander is closest to the real date of Earth at 5783. 
 

As for the claim that tells of earth layers took millions of years, Mt. St. Helen’s in its eruption created the same amount of tells. 

 

[JimmyB]

The Bible is a spiritual book (or series of "books").  It is not a science textbook.  I don't understand why people take Genesis 1 so literally and thereby miss the spiritual lesson.

[Retrobyter]

19 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Science is an excellent indicator of the age of the planet Earth. It does not support YEC beliefs.

Shalom, Saved.One.by.Grace.

Sorry, the "Science" (falsely so-called) doesn't have a CLUE about the true age of this planet! They're stuck on this uniformitarianism that so clouds the issues with them! They think that fossils were laid down in layers over millions of years without an understanding of sedimentary deposits from something like a WORLDWIDE FLOOD!

[JimmyB]

On 6/26/2023 at 4:19 PM, The Barbarian said:

Only the OT.   The NT is entirely Christian.

Try to keep in mind the difference between evolution and adaptation. 

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.   That can be adaptation, but sometimes it's not adaptation.

It is always that way.  Never changes.   Words mean things, and this is what those words mean.

Well, let's ask a YE creationist group...

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time... Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

They just don't want to call it evolution.  

macroevolution

 

măk″rō-ĕv″ə-loo͞′shən, -ē″və-

noun

1. Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.

Adaptation is a change in organisms to make them more fit to the environment.   Sometimes that's due to a change in alleles in a population and sometimes it's not.   The former is both adaptation and evolution and the latter is only evolution.

 No, there is no such thing.   Evolution merely means "change in alleles in a population."   The reverse, I suppose would be what biologists call "stasis" (no change).  Darwin explained how that happens. Would you like to learn about that?

No, that's wrong, too.   A new mutation in a population always increases information in that population.   Would you like to see the number for a simple case?   Perhaps you don't know how information is calculated.   How did you calculate it?

 

Apparently you're unaware that every single "book" of the Bible, with only one exception (Luke), was written by Jews.  All Jesus' disciples were Jews, as were all the apostles and all the members of the first churches.  So saying that the NT is entirely Christian is wrong.  It is a Jewish set of "books" declaring and explaining the New Covenant.

[teddyv]

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But Darwin was deceived by Satan to come up with the theory.

Since Darwin pretty much the theory based on natural selection, which more creationists accept as legitimate, how could that be satanic? 

Also, I don't understand the fixation on Darwin. Sure he postulated it, but it has developed well beyond his early formulation since he did not have access to the modern knowledge of genetics.

[FreeGrace]

9 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Since Darwin pretty much the theory based on natural selection, which more creationists accept as legitimate, how could that be satanic?

How much credit did Darwin give to God, who created the universe?  He left God completely out.  How is that not Satanic?

9 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Also, I don't understand the fixation on Darwin. Sure he postulated it, but it has developed well beyond his early formulation since he did not have access to the modern knowledge of genetics.

Who is fixated on him?  He was first to postulate evolution, and his own words have come back to bite him, since the fact of "irreducible complexity" refutes his own theory.   

[teddyv]

4 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

How much credit did Darwin give to God, who created the universe?  He left God completely out.  How is that not Satanic?

That is an interesting position. I don't credit or mention God in my geological reports I write for the exploration programs I work on. Therefore satanic? 

4 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Who is fixated on him?  He was first to postulate evolution, and his own words have come back to bite him, since the fact of "irreducible complexity" refutes his own theory.   

Almost all YEC literature will focus on Darwin, calling their opponents Darwinists, even though evolutionary theory is well beyond Darwin's work.

You continuing to complain about his "stupid theory" is not particularly useful because you are arguing against something that is has been expanded and built upon into the leading theory on the diversity of life. Also, the modern definition of evolution is "change of alleles in a population over time" is not really anything Darwin knew about. 

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

That is an interesting position. I don't credit or mention God in my geological reports I write for the exploration programs I work on. Therefore satanic?

Why would you think this is even close to a parallel?  We're talking about creation, not "geologic reports".  

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Almost all YEC literature will focus on Darwin, calling their opponents Darwinists, even though evolutionary theory is well beyond Darwin's work.

Actually, the theory has been refuted by what is called irreducible complexity.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

You continuing to complain about his "stupid theory" is not particularly useful because you are arguing against something that is has been expanded and built upon into the leading theory on the diversity of life.

This isn't about the "diversity of life".  Of course God created life with LOTS of diversity.  That isn't even the subject.  The subject is CREATION itself.  Not how diverse it is.  

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Also, the modern definition of evolution is "change of alleles in a population over time" is not really anything Darwin knew about. 

And that isn't even close to the subject.  Re-read the title of the thread.  

[teddyv]

22 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Why would you think this is even close to a parallel?  We're talking about creation, not "geologic reports".  

Darwin's book was a scientific report, not that dissimilar to a modern research paper. But it's somehow different because... ?

By your own statement, not acknowledging God is satanic. Perhaps your language requires more precision.

22 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Actually, the theory has been refuted by what is called irreducible complexity.

No, actually it has not. This is an assertion demonstrating that you are not up to date on origin of life research. The concept of irreducible complexity is a construct of the ID'ers (at least within the biological systems). And just because a satisfactory answer may not yet be known, does not mean it won't be.

22 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

This isn't about the "diversity of life".  Of course God created life with LOTS of diversity.  That isn't even the subject.  The subject is CREATION itself.  Not how diverse it is.  

I am contesting your language. You have not demonstrated any understanding here (or elsewhere) why evolution is a "stupid theory". It always just a throwaway assertion that you have refused to ever back up.

22 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

And that isn't even close to the subject.  Re-read the title of the thread.  

Threads bend and twist as issues arise. I have addressed the topic in previous posts within this thread.

[Solus Christus]

6 hours ago, JimmyB said:

The Bible is a spiritual book (or series of "books").  It is not a science textbook.  I don't understand why people take Genesis 1 so literally and thereby miss the spiritual lesson.

Well Biblical Literalists take a more literal approach until it cannot be literal. 
 

I admit while I believe it was actually seven days, there is Scripture that says:

2 Peter 3:7-8

[7] But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

[8] But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:7-8)

So by that it could have been seven thousand years, but definitely not billions. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Solus Christus