The Evidence

[apothanein kerdos]

Right, because if we take the genealogies literally, they don't contradict each other at all and don't ignore the toledot method of interpretation.

To say that the earth is billions of years old, one would basicly have to throw away the entire Old Testament, and since the NT does an awful lot of quoting of the Old... you don't have anything left to believe in.

You're right...men who are Biblical believers and teach the authority of scripture and have a multitude of degrees...but I guess your argument just never occurred to them.

[apothanein kerdos]

Such as all - as in everyone.

Care to give an example?

Again, I go back to...I really don't care what Newton thinks concerning the age of the earth.

Does the Tol'doth story-line suggest the earth is billions of years old?

It confirms that only amateurs and the uneducated use genealogies to date the earth.

If you want, I can use scripture to argue for the centrality of the Earth in the solar system...using the same interpretation method you use for Genesis 1 and 2.

[apothanein kerdos]

Does the Tol'doth story-line suggest the earth is billions of years old?

It confirms that only amateurs and the uneducated use genealogies to date the earth.

You didn

[apothanein kerdos]

AK

No, it doesn't. But it does prove the world is older than 6,000 years...or at best that you can't use the genealogies to date the earth.

So when you face reality there are no verses/passages in the Bible that would force one to accept the age of the earth as being

[Guest AV1611_USER]

The existence of our scientific laws completely destroy the evolutionary hypothesis. The two can't co-exist.

Believing in evolution takes the same kind of faith as believing an explosion in a junkyard created a racecar.

Any Christian who claims to believe in evolution is openly calling God a liar; Genesis 1 says several times that every living thing reproduced after its own kind.

Edited May 26, 2007 by AV1611_USER

[ollkiller]

myco i'm with you all the way.

As per usual anyone on the creation side gives no answers or evidence only (as usual when you can't answer a question) MIS-DIRECTION.

[Ovedya]

What exactly is it that you rebut?

Whatever twisted falsehood you post.

Creationists rejected the Piltdown man hoax from the beginning because creationists reject the ape-to-man myth.

The rejected not knowing why. That's bright. If they knew what they were doing they would have figured it out.

Over the next forty years science did not questioned the authenticity of Piltdown and the silly drawings and sketches of the progression of the chimp-man dwarf to the humpbacked ape-man slobbering all over himself made their way into scientific textbooks as the

[Ovedya]

Know what, Myco? I'm not going to tolerate your condescension of other posters. Lighten up and learn to be polite to others.

This gets a pass, right?

Even you can

[Ovedya]

See that little "report" button at the lower-left of the pane?

Use it.

I will correct it when I see it.

I didn't know I got reported. Since there was an in kind post, I presumed it was selective enforcement.

You weren't reported. I noticed it.

I'm an equal opportunity post moderator.

Isn't it considered "the high road" to not respond to such thing in-kind?

[methinkshe]

I am reminded of the parable that Jesus told concerning Dives and Lazarus.

Luke 16:27-31 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

In other words, even the evidence of the eyes will not persuade one whose heart is set against God.

Re Eye-evidence and the eruption of Mount St Helen's and the Geological Column and age of the earth.

We do not believe what we see, we see what we believe.

Mt St Helen's

"Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980. Naturalists have long claimed that stratified layer such as those found in the geological column have accumulated over vast periods of time, and these laminates represent long season variations or annual changes. However, the Mt. St. Helens deposits have demonstrated that catastrophic processes are able to create these geological formations in a short period of time.

Rapid Erosion

Perhaps the most remarkable catastrophic events to have occurred at Mt. St. Helens was the rapid erosion that was accomplished by mudflows, landslides, and waves of water. On March 19, 1982 a small eruption melted the snow that had accumulated in the crater over the winter, and a resulting mud flow eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep. The deepest of the canyons pictured at right has affectionately been called the little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River, and is one-fortieth the size of its namesake. The small creek that now flows through the bottom would appear to have carved this canyon over a great length of time, but this unique event has demonstrated that rapid catastrophic processes were instead responsible for this canyon. The Grand Canyon in Arizona has also been claimed for some time to have been carved gradually by the Colorado River, but it is now becoming clear this American icon is as well the result of catastrophic erosion."

In Jesus,

Ruth

Edited May 28, 2007 by methinkshe