Age of the Earth 2

[Elisha]

Good day, Lekcit.

I've already read that article and used to defend it. I've probably read every single article from every major creationist site on this issue. Yeah, I used to be a hardcore YEC.

We understand that books such as Psalms and Revelation are not fully metaphorical because of the language. Quite simply the format of Genesis shows that it is to be taken as a historical book and therefore should be read as such. There is nothing in Genesis 3 - 50 to suggest a figurative interpretation so why attempt to apply one to that small of a percentage.

I gave scriptures from the creation account, which still value a response. All you've responded to is my evidences outside of the creation account. Also, you're yet to respond to the other valid interpretations I gave. One of them actually keeps the literal language, but says it was pointing towards a different intention of the words.

There is no need for such a "closure" for day 7. Further, the word "day" there is used in conjunction with a number so, as I pointed out before, that shows that it is a 24 hour period, even though there is no "closure." Also we don't see any of the other days throughout the rest of the Bible, but you clearly understand those days as being done. I hope that you now begin to see the inconsistency that is present here.

Every day has closure.

It refers to day 7 as a day, yet it's an open day. << That is my confusion. Every day has closure to it or else it wouldn't be a day. Day 7 doesn't. Therefore, it can't be a literal calendar day.

Edited July 25, 2004 by Elisha

[Lekcit]

It refers to day 7 as a day, yet it's an open day. << That is my confusion. Every day has closure to it or else it wouldn't be a day. Day 7 doesn't. Therefore, it can't be a literal calendar day.

Now I think you're being a little close-minded here. No where else in Scripture are the days "closed" but you don't have any problem believing that they were literal days. How about Joshua and Jericho. Look at Joshua 6:14-15. None of those days have the "closure" that you demand out of day 7 in the creation week. Yet I don't see you questioning whether they are literal and yet, as I have pointed out now three times, the usage of the word "yom" is the same in both instances and clearly means a literal day.

Let me reiterate. Everytime in Scripture that the word "yom" is used in conjunction with any of the following; the phrase "night", "evening and morning", or in association with a number it always means a literal calender day. Day 7 in Genesis 2 is used with a number so it must mean that it is a literal day. Yet you would have us go against the support of over 400 other instances just because it doesn't say that the day ended. That, in my opinion, borders on intellectual dishonesty.

In His Grip.

[Elisha]

Once again, I press with:

"I gave scriptures from the creation account, which still value a response. Also, you're yet to respond to the other valid interpretations I gave. One of them actually keeps the literal language, but says it was pointing towards a different intention of the words."

Yet I don't see you questioning whether they are literal and yet, as I have pointed out now three times, the usage of the word "yom" is the same in both instances and clearly means a literal day.

In order for it to be "clear", then you have to be fair and respond to what I typed above. This is ironic coming from someone who just gave an unjustified accusation of closed-mindedness and intellectual dishonesty... Your responses thus far amount to cherry-picking. At best.

As for your "other scripture" argument:

I think your comparison is groundless and unparallel, because you are skipping around my arguments for the Creation account not being calendar days. To me there is an obvious distinction - i.e. there's reason to believe other scripture being calendar days and reason to not believe Creation being calendar days.

I can tell you're enjoying such argumentation, though (cherry-picking which arguments of mine you want to respond to). You've picked a rather weak one from me. I'll grant you that I'm wrong just so you can respond to some of my stronger ones (sad that I have to do this).

Ciao,

Tim

Edited July 25, 2004 by Elisha

[Bread_of_Life]

Lekcit,

Can you honestly tell me that in the time span of, let's say, 100 years that there are less animals now?

Firstly, I didn't claim that there were less animals in total (although with human hunting etc, there probably are, but that's beside the point).

Rather, I claimed that there were less species today due to human interference than there were 100 years ago, and that there was no evidence that species were generating spontaneously over the period of a hundred years, or increasing in any way, which was your claim.

Now, unless you can show that species numbers (not animal numbers, but species numbers) have been increasing, then your case that Adam had very few animals to name will be null and void.

[ajesuschrist_mathetes]

Radioisotopes and the age of the earth:

http://www.icr.org/research/rate/heliumdiffusion.html

[Lekcit]

SA,

It seems locgical to me that if there were less animals 100 years ago then there would also be less species. You continue to demand proof from me that there are less and yet you have yet to provide proof that there are more.

Elisha,

I do not fully understand what you want from me. I have shown you clearly, from the language, that the days in Genesis are literal 24 hour periods and yet you seem unwilling to accept it. There are extra Biblical proofs for a young earth and I can provide them if you want but I was attempting to show you from Scripture in order to keep to a Sola Scriptura basis. Please outline for me what you want that you feel I have not provided and I will do my level best to provide it.

In His Grip.

[The Barbarian]

I do not fully understand what you want from me. I have shown you clearly, from the language, that the days in Genesis are literal 24 hour periods and yet you seem unwilling to accept it.

Nowhere does scripture say that the 'days' in Genesis were literal 24-hour ones. In fact, the text itself tells us that they cannot be, since it speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

There are extra Biblical proofs for a young earth and I can provide them if you want but I was attempting to show you from Scripture in order to keep to a Sola Scriptura basis.

I would certainly be interested in seeing the extra Biblical proofs as well. Genesis certainly rules out a literal creation week.

[The Barbarian]

BTW, a good discussion of the various holes in Humphrey's zircon diffusion argument can be found here:

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.ph...&threadid=13112

[Lekcit]

Genesis certainly rules out a literal creation week.

How so? I've shown you that based on the language they can't possibly be anything other than 24 hour days. Also you mention that they can't be "days" because the sun wasn't created until day 4. What is needed for days? Light. What is created on day one? Light. Therefore your argument falls apart.

Try this article on for size:

[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp]How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn

[Bread_of_Life]

To say that there are "various holes" is rather an underestimate. Not only are there data that Humphrey's could have collected to verify or falsify his hypothesis but didn't (namely Uranium decay chains from surrounding rock), but also his hypothesis would involve enough heat being released not only to melt the zircon crystals he examined, but actually to vaporise the earth entire.

There are various other problems with his argument, and the data he collected, but the above are real chasms.