Age of the earth isn’t 4.6 Billion years

[PrincetonGuy]

Peddling Darwinian propaganda is not science and people who peddle Darwinian propaganda are not scientists. I am familiar with Atheists and I am one of the people who a number of years ago exposed their fradulent practices. I do not know of a more corrupt and dishonest religion.

You severely misrepresent the Bible and it's teaching. Your Atheist pseudoscience makes a mockery of the Bible and the Christ that it proclaims. Your "scientists" suffer so badly from an obsession to prove Atheism that has been thoroughly debunked by real science and the Bible itself that you and your Atheist overlords have lost the ability to reason.

Consequently, they are employed by anti-Christians, who are peddling the wares of Satan, and purveyors of false information.

Old Earth evolution is based on 3 assumptions:

1. God does not exist. The Bible is a collection of make-believe myths.
2. The majority is always right.
3. Radiometric dating is accurate.

Virtually anyone who believes the Bible does not agree with your assumptions.

The theory of evolution is supported by massive amounts of data—indeed, such massive amounts of data that the theory has not been challenged in recent years by anyone who is actually familiar with the theory. However, it is very frequently challenged by persons who lack so much as a high school education in biology, and by persons who have very strong but poorly grounded religious beliefs.

Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, science could not care less about the teachings of religion. However, individual evolutionists and other scientists may have religious beliefs, and among evolutionists, we find Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists, as well as persons with indigenous and ethnic beliefs. Some scientists, however, may have no religious beliefs, and a few of these scientists may be atheists—but atheism is uncommon among scientists because evidence is a major component of science, and evidence that God does on exist is seriously lacking!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

As an expert on radiometric dating, explain the fractionation problem in dating rocks.

I am not an expert on radiometric dating or anything else. I am simply a Christian who loves the Bible and the Christ that it proclaims.

 

[coffee4u]

I am not an expert on radiometric dating or anything else. I am simply a Christian who loves the Bible and the Christ that it proclaims.

Then you should stop being influenced by the world and secular men.

"Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, science could not care less about the teachings of religion."

And those of us who follow Gods word alone could not care less about science.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Then you should stop being influenced by the world and secular men.

"Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, science could not care less about the teachings of religion."

And those of us who follow Gods word alone could not care less about science.

Except when you turn on your computer, start your car, get on an airplane, go to the hospital or do almost everything else in your daily life. Then you care very much.

God gave us a universe susceptible to investigation and analysis together with minds and senses capable of performing such investigation and analysis. The match is rather uncanny. Both the OT and NT say the heavens proclaim the glory of God, and they do. We should let them speak.

It's my strong conviction that no one actually familiar with the body of scientific evidence could believe the earth or universe is less than 10,000 years old. For most it's a holier-than-thou posture or pretense bolstered by pseudoscience and a blind eye toward the actual evidence. No one familiar with the actual evidence could live in the state of cognitive dissonance of insisting the earth is thousands of years old for purely theological reasons.

It would all be less troubling if (1) anything in the Bible actually required such a belief and (2) the young earth game wasn't such an embarrassment to Christianity in the eyes of nonbelievers.

 

[Job 33:6]

Then you should stop being influenced by the world and secular men.

"Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, science could not care less about the teachings of religion."

And those of us who follow Gods word alone could not care less about science.

Creationists can try all they want, they'll never be able to explain why radiometric ages taken of samples collected worldwide, ran by various analytical machinery, in various independent laboratories, ran with varying analytical methods, all yield concordant dates. Such as in the following:

Try as they may, there's simply nothing they can do about the above.

 

[coffee4u]

Except when you turn on your computer, start your car, get on an airplane, go to the hospital or do almost everything else in your daily life. Then you care very much.

I didn't say ignore all science. I said don't let science affect what you believe about scripture. Turning on my PC, getting on an aeroplane or going to hospital in no way impacts how I read scripture.

This area is specifically on evolution and talking about things that have never been seen and can't be repeated, so when I use the word 'science' or 'secular men' I am talking only about that. These beliefs do affect very much how someone reads scripture, if it didn't there wouldn't be so many heated threads.

God gave us a universe susceptible to investigation and analysis together with minds and senses capable of performing such investigation and analysis. The match is rather uncanny. Both the OT and NT say the heavens proclaim the glory of God, and they do. We should let them speak.

He did give us an intellect but that intellect should be tempered by his Word. He warns us across many verses about worldly wisdom.
Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

When we dabble in things that we can not possibly ever know about and then have the arrogance to say we have it all figured out? Playing with fire.

Assumption such as the initial amount of the daughter isotope, is not letting the heavens speak at all, it is mankind telling the heavens what he believes to be true. Then after he has deemed what is true he then sets up calculations and experiments based on that.

He assumes to know something about things he has never seen or experienced based upon what he sees today. Today all we have is a corrupted groaning world completely changed and altered from what God originality created.
A contaminated sample would never be used by any lab to give you your results, they would call in and say this was contaminated we need a fresh one. They know you don't start testing a contaminated substance. This happened to a friend of ours with type 1 diabetes, his sample had somehow been contaminated and they thought he had kidney failure until they realized the blood in the sample wasn't his. So they got another sample and redid the test. That is real science vs the pseudoscience of the age of the universe.

It's my strong conviction that no one actually familiar with the body of scientific evidence could believe the earth or universe is less than 10,000 years old. For most it's a holier-than-thou posture or pretense bolstered by pseudoscience and a blind eye toward the actual evidence. No one familiar with the actual evidence could live in the state of cognitive dissonance of insisting the earth is thousands of years old for purely theological reasons.

Scientific evidence about the age of the universe is based on assumptions that can never be proven to be true. The assumption are the base that the calculations are built upon. Change the base and you change the outcomes completely.
It doesn't matter how correct or good it looks, it still comes back to those assumptions the figures were based on.

It would all be less troubling if (1) anything in the Bible actually required such a belief and (2) the young earth game wasn't such an embarrassment to Christianity in the eyes of nonbelievers.

Which is what most of this really boils down to, peoples embarrassment. In the 19 century there was a brilliant sermon called 'The fear of men' by Charles Price. I think more people should listen to it.

The Bible says that sin caused death.
If evolution is true then sin did not being in death, death is simply a normal part of life going on for millions of years.
So yes the Bible actually does require a belief in no death before sin.

 

[Job 33:6]

The odds of tens of thousands of analytical samples ran by private consulting firms worldwide, aligning and yielding identical dates with microscopic precision is essentially impossible unless the earth were old.

It would be like a million people blindfolded throwing darts at the same board and everyone hitting the exact same point. We change our methods, we change our machinery, we change the samples, we change where on earth the sample was taken from, we change the chemist's in the labs, we change the geologists who collect the samples, we change every little thing about our tests and we still consistently land on the same results.

Now, some YECs argue that some samples have been analysed and have aquired radically different dates. But anyone remotely familiar with laboratory analytical knows that there are things called quality control and quality assurance methods carried out by laboratories that must be completed to ensure the removal of contamination and precision of accurate analysis. For example, we can have our labs run blank samples, and if our result is positive, we know that our machine isn't clean (machine introduced contamination). Or we can run duplicate samples, and if our results aren't identical between samples, then we know that one of our samples is contaminated. We can run matrix spikes, or analyze samples with known concentrations of what we want to measure, and if the machine is inaccurate then we know our calibration is off. Among other quality control quality assurance (QA/QC) methods.

Young earth creationists never talk about QA/QC methods. They don't want people to know how they skipped actually doing science when they came up with their discordant results.

But when we apply QA/QC methods, we see consistent concordance and synchronization of analytical data that all say the exact same thing.

That the earth is ancient.

Which is no surprise to us because James Hutton already figured this out when he observed the angular unconformity at siccar point 300 years ago.

And so, as scientists, we don't just randomly pick and choose whether our machinery is contaminated or not based on how we feel about the subject matter. Rather we determine if contamination exists by studying the quality of the samples, the quality of data, and methods used during analytical procedures.

And the next time someone says that radiometric dating doesn't work and gives discordant dates, all you have to do is as them for their QA/QC data and sit back and watch them have an intellectual meltdown.
It's the same way we investigate things such as if someone's water is contaminated by oil, or if the air you breathe has toxic gases in it.

Anyone ever wonder how we can tell if water is safe to drink? We don't just make up analytical results based on how we feel.

"Oh, this water looks clean, I guess that positive arsenic result must be false, let's throw that result out".

No. That's now how it works.

You run blanks, you run trips, you run duplicates, you run matrix spikes, you run the gambit to make sure that when you run that water sample, you know very well if there truly is or is not arsenic in that water, because you know that if you mess up, someone could die.

And it's the same science we use when dating rocks.

So next time you question the age of the earth, maybe you should ask yourself if you're also drinking trichloroethylene and how it is that scientists can be confident in their analytical and geochemical nature of samples of soil, rock, air and water.

YECs don't run the gambit. They don't do the methodological science. Then they act confused when their results come out funky and they cleverly don't talk about the methods they used at all but simply baselessly claim, without providing evidence or data, that they are in fact doing science properly.

And that's why we call it "pseudoscience", because it gives a false impression of being science, however if you actually ask any scientist, what they're doing clearly is not science at all.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Bible says that sin caused death.

If evolution is true then sin did not being in death, death is simply a normal part of life going on for millions of years.

So yes the Bible actually does require a belief in no death before sin.

I do not believe baseless assumptions—I believe the Bible!

Belief that that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events permeates throughout much of the Bible. Romans 5:12-14 is one of many examples of this permeation. However, at least as early as the 3rd century, Christians were coming to grips with the fact that Genesis 1-11 is NOT an accurate account of historic events but some other kind of literature. Throughout the rest of the history of the church, very many very different interpretations of these eleven chapters have been proposed.

The question is often asked, “How did the apostle Paul interpret Genesis 1-11. A noncritical casual reading of his epistles and the epistles often attributed to him,

Rom. 5:14. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
1Cor. 15:22. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cor. 15:45. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
2Cor. 11:3. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
1Tim. 2:13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Tim. 2:14. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (ESV, 2016)​

would suggest that he interpreted them as an accurate account of historic events—but would not have Paul realized that they were not? Did he really believe that the world was a flat disk covered with a dome and that a worldwide flood had occurred only a few thousand years before his time?

Genesis 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. (NRSV)​

Genesis 7:18. The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
19. The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;
20. the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (NRSV)​

The Bible does not answer these questions, but it is likely that Paul was simply using these very much loved stories from the Bible as a teaching device much as they are used today in many churches.

 

[coffee4u]

I do not believe baseless assumptions—I believe the Bible!

Belief that that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events permeates throughout much of the Bible. Romans 5:12-14 is one of many examples of this permeation. However, at least as early as the 3rd century, Christians were coming to grips with the fact that Genesis 1-11 is NOT an accurate account of historic events but some other kind of literature. Throughout the rest of the history of the church, very many very different interpretations of these eleven chapters have been proposed.

The question is often asked, “How did the apostle Paul interpret Genesis 1-11. A noncritical casual reading of his epistles and the epistles often attributed to him,

Rom. 5:14. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
1Cor. 15:22. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cor. 15:45. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
2Cor. 11:3. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
1Tim. 2:13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Tim. 2:14. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (ESV, 2016)​

would suggest that he interpreted them as an accurate account of historic events—but would not have Paul realized that they were not? Did he really believe that the world was a flat disk covered with a dome and that a worldwide flood had occurred only a few thousand years before his time?

Genesis 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. (NRSV)​

Genesis 7:18. The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
19. The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;
20. the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (NRSV)​

The Bible does not answer these questions, but it is likely that Paul was simply using these very much loved stories from the Bible as a teaching device much as they are used today in many churches.

Mankind's sin brought in death, both spiritual and physical, This is why God said as part of the curse that we would return to dust. From dust you were made and to dust you will return. The dust isn't spiritual it is physical.

If death was just a part of life then it would not be seen as an enemy to be vanquished. You only vanquish your enemies.
God looked at creation and said it was "very good" I hardly think he was looking at a carcass of rotting flesh and called that "very good"

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
I hope we can all agree that the resurrection of the dead is physical? Or are you coming to argue this point as well?

>>>I do not believe baseless assumptions—I believe the Bible!
Good then you should have no trouble getting together a list of scripture verses for me that uphold evolution in some way.
As well as verses that indicate that Genesis should be read as something other than literal as well as an indication of exactly what it does mean.
Even in this 'evolution took place and Genesis is not literal' mind set, Genesis must surely still have a purpose?
If indeed it is the Bible that taught you those two things. If its not the Bible that shaped that view then your claim crumbles because you have gone back to what some man said. We all know that scripture interprets scripture.

And for those who think creationism is just about Genesis 1 and creation, its not, its about no death before sin because sin and death are very important to the Gospel.
We believe evolution to be a direct attack on the gospel. That is why it bothers us so much, not the 6 blooming days. When we uphold creation we do so to uphold the Gospel.
But all anyone wants to look at and quote and argue over is Genesis 1, which while its all very interesting and yes we believe its literal, we only believe it's literal because of the rest of scripture.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Mankind's sin brought in death, both spiritual and physical, This is why God said as part of the curse that we would return to dust. From dust you were made and to dust you will return. The dust isn't spiritual it is physical.

If death was just a part of life then it would not be seen as an enemy to be vanquished. You only vanquish your enemies.

God looked at creation and said it was "very good" I hardly think he was looking at a carcass of rotting flesh and called that "very good"


20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Let’s discuss what the Bible says rather than assumptions about the historical accuracy of Genesis 1-11 and Scriptures that are based upon these chapters.

I hope we can all agree that the resurrection of the dead is physical? Or are you coming to argue this point as well?

The Christian doctrine of the physical resurrection of the dead is not based on Genesis 1-11 or any Scriptures based on Genesis 1-11. It is based upon what appears to be divine revelation. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has confirmed in my heart that it is indeed based upon divine revelation.

>>>I do not believe baseless assumptions—I believe the Bible!

Good then you should have no trouble getting together a list of scripture verses for me that uphold evolution in some way.

Are you able to get together a list of scripture verses for me that uphold the theory of gravity in some way?

As well as verses that indicate that Genesis should be read as something other than literal as well as an indication of exactly what it does mean.

Even in this 'evolution took place and Genesis is not literal' mind set, Genesis must surely still have a purpose?

The book of Genesis is a revelation from God to man about the nature of God and the nature of man.

If indeed it is the Bible that taught you those two things. If its not the Bible that shaped that view then your claim crumbles because you have gone back to what some man said. We all know that scripture interprets scripture.

When I read the book of Genesis as a young person, I noticed that Genesis 1-11 is written in a distinctly different genre of literature than Genesis 12-50. At that time, I did not even have a good study Bible, but I recognized the genre of literature that Genesis 1-11 is written in—the same genre of literature that epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends are written in. Years later, I bean to study the Hebrews text of Genesis with the help of commentaries on the Hebrew text and learned that I had not noticed anything new, but that others before me had noticed the same thing and had written extensively about it.

And for those who think creationism is just about Genesis 1 and creation, its not, its about no death before sin because sin and death are very important to the Gospel.

We believe evolution to be a direct attack on the gospel. That is why it bothers us so much, not the 6 blooming days. When we uphold creation we do so to uphold the Gospel.

But all anyone wants to look at and quote and argue over is Genesis 1, which while its all very interesting and yes we believe its literal, we only believe it's literal because of the rest of scripture.

Some people claim that Genesis 1-11 must be an accurate account of historic events for if not, the message of the gospel falls apart. This claim is not true for even without Genesis 1-11—and references to it in other parts of the Bible—we have the Gospel message fully intact.

Our English word “gospel’ is a translation of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον which is found in the Greek New testament 76 times—and never in the context of Genesis 1-11. The cognate verb εὐαγγελίζω is found in the Greek New testament 54 times—and never in the context of Genesis 1-11. The bad news is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (NRSV) the good news (the gospel) is that “they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (NRSV)

Young earth creationism is wholly dependent upon Genesis 1-11 (and references to it) being an accurate account of historic events—a premise that has been shown above to be incorrect. Moreover, that premise has been known for well over a century by our Jewish and Roman Catholic friends—and nearly all Protestant scholars of the Hebrew Old Testament teaching in our very best seminaries and universities—to be severely incorrect. Furthermore, every year, hundreds of thousands of young people are asked to choose between the Bible as they have been wrongly taught it and science that has been proven to be correct, and the vast majority of these young people wisely choose to believe the truth that God has manifested to them through science. But alas! That truth, as true as it is, is incapable of saving their souls from the eternal fires of hell! The solution is to teach our young people an accurate and academically defensible interpretation of the Bible, which will lead to their salvation and maturing in Christ.

 

[coffee4u]

Let’s discuss what the Bible says rather than assumptions about the historical accuracy of Genesis 1-11 and Scriptures that are based upon these chapters.

Sure. I doubt you can do so but sure.

The Christian doctrine of the physical resurrection of the dead is not based on Genesis 1-11 or any Scriptures based on Genesis 1-11. It is based upon what appears to be divine revelation. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has confirmed in my heart that it is indeed based upon divine revelation.

Did I ever say that the resurrection of the dead was based on Genesis 1? Try and find it, you won't. I can already see this is a waste of my time.

Are you able to get together a list of scripture verses for me that uphold the theory of gravity in some way?

I am not the one claiming scripture can't be read as it reads but really means something else, you are.
You made a claim that creation really took place by ways of evolution, so show it from scripture.

The book of Genesis is a revelation from God to man about the nature of God and the nature of man.

All scripture is a revelation from God.

When I read the book of Genesis as a young person, I noticed that Genesis 1-11 is written in a distinctly different genre of literature than Genesis 12-50. At that time, I did not even have a good study Bible, but I recognized the genre of literature that Genesis 1-11 is written in—the same genre of literature that epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends are written in. Years later, I bean to study the Hebrews text of Genesis with the help of commentaries on the Hebrew text and learned that I had not noticed anything new, but that others before me had noticed the same thing and had written extensively about it.

Some people claim that Genesis 1-11 must be an accurate account of historic events for if not, the message of the gospel falls apart. This claim is not true for even without Genesis 1-11—and references to it in other parts of the Bible—we have the Gospel message fully intact.

Genesis 1 does not match any form of Hebrew poetry or parable.

Again you only focus on Genesis. As I already clearly said the reason for believing that Genesis 1 is literal history doesn't come just from Genesis 1 but from scriptural support from other passages of scripture that point to it being literal.
You cannot have millions of years of death and evolution and also have no death before sin.

Our English word “gospel’ is a translation of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον which is found in the Greek New testament 76 times—and never in the context of Genesis 1-11. The cognate verb εὐαγγελίζω is found in the Greek New testament 54 times—and never in the context of Genesis 1-11. The bad news is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (NRSV) the good news (the gospel) is that “they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (NRSV)

Yet again I didn't say the word Gospel was in Genesis 1. All scripture hangs together, one part builds upon another. I said Genesis outlines a perfect creation, it then outlines the sin and the fall that brought in death. Sin is an important part of the gospel.
“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
Yes and where did that sin come from?
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
Adam. One man not some general hazy mankind, not an ape man, but a named single human being and we all know where we can find Adam. If Adam wasn't real why name him here? Sin caused death, death was not simply a part of life for million of years.

Young earth creationism is wholly dependent upon Genesis 1-11 (and references to it) being an accurate account of historic events—a premise that has been shown above to be incorrect. Moreover, that premise has been known for well over a century by our Jewish and Roman Catholic friends—and nearly all Protestant scholars of the Hebrew Old Testament teaching in our very best seminaries and universities—to be severely incorrect. Furthermore, every year, hundreds of thousands of young people are asked to choose between the Bible as they have been wrongly taught it and science that has been proven to be correct, and the vast majority of these young people wisely choose to believe the truth that God has manifested to them through science. But alas! That truth, as true as it is, is incapable of saving their souls from the eternal fires of hell! The solution is to teach our young people an accurate and academically defensible interpretation of the Bible, which will lead to their salvation and maturing in Christ.

Creationism and no death before sin (I will remind you again that this is what its really about) is not wholly dependent on Genesis.
(and references to it)
I think you mean the scriptural support. Which you have shown me none of for your allegorical reading of Genesis.
Do you think the Adam talked about in Romans is an allegory?
Paul didn't write that thinking he was talking about an allegorical man, who did some allegorical sin that led to an allegorical death. Each part is as real as the next. Real man, real sin, real death.

You are sidestepping, show me how you can have no sin before death and evolution together.
show me some scriptural support for why Genesis should be read as an allegory.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. I doubt you can do so but sure.



Did I ever say that the resurrection of the dead was based on Genesis 1? Try and find it, you won't. I can already see this is a waste of my time.



I am not the one claiming scripture can't be read as it reads but really means something else, you are.
You made a claim that creation really took place by ways of evolution, so show it from scripture.



All scripture is a revelation from God.



Genesis 1 does not match any form of Hebrew poetry or parable.

Again you only focus on Genesis. As I already clearly said the reason for believing that Genesis 1 is literal history doesn't come just from Genesis 1 but from scriptural support from other passages of scripture that point to it being literal.
You cannot have millions of years of death and evolution and also have no death before sin.



Yet again I didn't say the word Gospel was in Genesis 1. All scripture hangs together, one part builds upon another. I said Genesis outlines a perfect creation, it then outlines the sin and the fall that brought in death. Sin is an important part of the gospel.
“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
Yes and where did that sin come from?
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
Adam. One man not some general hazy mankind, not an ape man, but a named single human being and we all know where we can find Adam. If Adam wasn't real why name him here? Sin caused death, death was not simply a part of life for million of years.



Creationism and no death before sin (I will remind you again that this is what its really about) is not wholly dependent on Genesis.
(and references to it)
I think you mean the scriptural support. Which you have shown me none of for your allegorical reading of Genesis.
Do you think the Adam talked about in Romans is an allegory?
Paul didn't write that thinking he was talking about an allegorical man, who did some allegorical sin that led to an allegorical death. Each part is as real as the next. Real man, real sin, real death.

You are sidestepping, show me how you can have no sin before death and evolution together.
show me some scriptural support for why Genesis should be read as an allegory.

St. Thomas Aquinas actually discussed the concept death before sin, and acknowledged that such death did actually exist.

Genesis tells us that there was a tree of life in Eden which granted eternal life to those who ate of it.

Genesis 3:22-24
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

Source: Online Bible

Now obviously, death must have existed before the fall, else such a tree and it's purpose would make no sense. How could a tree grant eternal life if physical death didn't exist to begin with?

Paul references life and death quite consistently throughout his letters, but one thing is also consistently true, and that is that Paul wasn't referring to mere physical life and death in his words.

For example, the most popular verse on this topic by Paul:

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. NASB

This sounds convincing. Death came through sin. Until we actually finish reading the passage:

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. NASB

So if Paul was referring to physical death, we might anticipate that death stopped at Moses? Well that's a weird thing to say because people still die today. So Paul was clearly referring to a spiritual death prior to the revealing of the laws of Moses.

And Paul continues this same train of thought all throughout Romans:
Romans 6:8
Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him.

Paul isn't talking to the physically undead (zombies). He's speaking of people who have spiritually died with Christ.

Romans 7:9
And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died.

Paul obviously didn't physically die because he was still speaking, and yet he follows the same train of thought, alive apart from the law, sin came alive and I died.

Paul very consistently holds to this same train of thought, yet he clearly isn't talking about physical death, lest he be a zombie.

Aside from the above comments on the tree of life, Genesis isn't meant to be taken as scientifically literal truth, lest we believe in a flat earth with a dome in the sky with windows that open and close to let water in. And every single verse throughout all of the OT on the firmament supports this position, as detailed in Paul Seely's commentary on the firmament.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What's interesting about the alleged human print in or over a dinosaur print is that, ya know, I look at rocks probably a couple times a week. I've never seen anything like what was claimed. But the pictures of it that I've seen, they look like forged pictures. And of the thousands of dinosaurs we know of, oddly enough the alleged human print is inside a T-Rex print (the most widely known yet rare species). It doesn't appear to be a trackway.

It all just looks fake. And it's not like we can just go out and look at it ourselves because no information on it's location is given.

It's clearly just a forgery. Someone made some junk out of paper mache and just colored to make it look like a stone.

You may be right. However, there is a description of a creature in the book of Job that matches a dinosaur exactly. There are at least two possibilities. The story of Job may be from the pre-Adamic creation. Or dinosaurs really were on the ark. It is feasible. Dinosaur hatchlings would not have been overly large.

 

[Aussie Pete]

St. Thomas Aquinas actually discussed the concept death before sin, and acknowledged that such death did actually exist.

Genesis tells us that there was a tree of life in Eden which granted eternal life to those who ate of it.

Genesis 3:22-24
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

Source: Online Bible

Now obviously, death must have existed before the fall, else such a tree and it's purpose would make no sense. How could a tree grant eternal life if physical death didn't exist to begin with?

Paul references life and death quite consistently throughout his letters, but one thing is also consistently true, and that is that Paul wasn't referring to mere physical life and death in his words.

For example, the most popular verse on this topic by Paul:

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. NASB

This sounds convincing. Death came through sin. Until we actually finish reading the passage:

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. NASB

So if Paul was referring to physical death, we might anticipate that death stopped at Moses? Well that's a weird thing to say because people still die today. So Paul was clearly referring to a spiritual death prior to the revealing of the laws of Moses.

And Paul continues this same train of thought all throughout Romans:
Romans 6:8
Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him.

Paul isn't talking to the physically undead (zombies). He's speaking of people who have spiritually died with Christ.

Romans 7:9
And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died.

Paul obviously didn't physically die because he was still speaking, and yet he follows the same train of thought, alive apart from the law, sin came alive and I died.

Paul very consistently holds to this same train of thought, yet he clearly isn't talking about physical death, lest he be a zombie.

Aside from the above comments on the tree of life, Genesis isn't meant to be taken as scientifically literal truth, lest we believe in a flat earth with a dome in the sky with windows that open and close to let water in. And every single verse throughout all of the OT on the firmament supports this position, as detailed in Paul Seely's commentary on the firmament.

My take is that there was a creation prior to Adam. It was destroyed by water. Satan was a heavenly being who was cast down to the earth when he rebelled. Adam was created a living being. The part of him that died was his spirit. He could have had an eternal spirit, but he chose Satan's lie and rejected God's warning.

The part of us that is made alive is also the spirit. That is what it means to have eternal life.

There is a great deal of symbolism in the OT especially. Mountains don't skip. Rivers don't clap their hands and mountains don't sing. I also think it unnecessary to assume that the Genesis creation account is not literal.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Sure. I doubt you can do so but sure.



Did I ever say that the resurrection of the dead was based on Genesis 1? Try and find it, you won't. I can already see this is a waste of my time.



I am not the one claiming scripture can't be read as it reads but really means something else, you are.
You made a claim that creation really took place by ways of evolution, so show it from scripture.



All scripture is a revelation from God.



Genesis 1 does not match any form of Hebrew poetry or parable.

Again you only focus on Genesis. As I already clearly said the reason for believing that Genesis 1 is literal history doesn't come just from Genesis 1 but from scriptural support from other passages of scripture that point to it being literal.
You cannot have millions of years of death and evolution and also have no death before sin.



Yet again I didn't say the word Gospel was in Genesis 1. All scripture hangs together, one part builds upon another. I said Genesis outlines a perfect creation, it then outlines the sin and the fall that brought in death. Sin is an important part of the gospel.
“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
Yes and where did that sin come from?
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
Adam. One man not some general hazy mankind, not an ape man, but a named single human being and we all know where we can find Adam. If Adam wasn't real why name him here? Sin caused death, death was not simply a part of life for million of years.



Creationism and no death before sin (I will remind you again that this is what its really about) is not wholly dependent on Genesis.
(and references to it)
I think you mean the scriptural support. Which you have shown me none of for your allegorical reading of Genesis.
Do you think the Adam talked about in Romans is an allegory?
Paul didn't write that thinking he was talking about an allegorical man, who did some allegorical sin that led to an allegorical death. Each part is as real as the next. Real man, real sin, real death.

You are sidestepping, show me how you can have no sin before death and evolution together.
show me some scriptural support for why Genesis should be read as an allegory.

I have very clearly said in this thread and other threads that Genesis 1-11is written in the same genre of literature as epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. I have never said that Genesis 1-11 should be read as poetry or an allegory. It is true that epic tales and sagas are often written in poetry rather than prose, but that is not true of myths and legends. Genesis 1-11 is written in the same genre of literature that epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends have in common. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence anywhere that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events, but there are vast volumes of scientific evidence that Genesis 1-11 could not possibly an accurate account of historic events. However, there is no shortage of people who believe what they want to believe and who dismiss as “the wisdom of this world” every fact that is contrary to their beliefs. With such persons, it is impossible to reason.

 

[coffee4u]

I have very clearly said in this thread and other threads that Genesis 1-11is written in the same genre of literature as epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. I have never said that Genesis 1-11 should be read as poetry or an allegory. It is true that epic tales and sagas are often written in poetry rather than prose, but that is not true of myths and legends. Genesis 1-11 is written in the same genre of literature that epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends have in common. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence anywhere that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events, but there are vast volumes of scientific evidence that Genesis 1-11 could not possibly an accurate account of historic events. However, there is no shortage of people who believe what they want to believe and who dismiss as “the wisdom of this world” every fact that is contrary to their beliefs. With such persons, it is impossible to reason.

You already said that evolution is truth and that Genesis is not literal.

If you are not saying that Genesis should be read as an allegory what are you saying it should be read as?

Sounds like you are playing word games now.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You already said that evolution is truth and that Genesis is not literal.

I have never said that evolution is “truth” or that the theory of evolution is correct. I have, however, affirmed that the evidence in support of the theory is massive Moreover, I have never said that the first eleven chapter of Genesis are not to be understood literally—indeed, I believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the teaching that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were intended to be understood literally—and consistently so! The “dome” in Genesis 1:6-8 is to be understood as a real, solid dome that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. Furthermore, the windows in the dome were intended to be understood as real windows that God opened and closed at His pleasure. Indeed, if the windows were not real windows but rather poetic imagery or figurative language, the waters were not real waters, and the whole story of the flood is nothing but imaginative fiction. But—and this is a VERY big but, the windows were real! They were real windows in a real, solid dome and the whole story of the flood is a magnificently written epic tale given to us through divine inspiration.

Sounds like you are playing word games now.

I choose my words very carefully for accuracy, clarity, and consistency. However, they are not always read very carefully.

 

[coffee4u]

I have never said that evolution is “truth” or that the theory of evolution is correct. I have, however, affirmed that the evidence in support of the theory is massive Moreover, I have never said that the first eleven chapter of Genesis are not to be understood literally—indeed, I believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the teaching that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were intended to be understood literally—and consistently so! The “dome” in Genesis 1:6-8 is to be understood as a real, solid dome that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. Furthermore, the windows in the dome were intended to be understood as real windows that God opened and closed at His pleasure. Indeed, if the windows were not real windows but rather poetic imagery or figurative language, the waters were not real waters, and the whole story of the flood is nothing but imaginative fiction. But—and this is a VERY big but, the windows were real! They were real windows in a real, solid dome and the whole story of the flood is a magnificently written epic tale given to us through divine inspiration.

I choose my words very carefully for accuracy, clarity, and consistency. However, they are not always read very carefully.

Your posts have no clarity over your beliefs what so ever. Now you are saying you don't believe in evolution when belief in evolution is the only thing I have ever seen you post on in here.

Do you believe in 6 day creation with Adam and Eve being in harmony with God, who fell and sinned corrupting mankind and all the world?
That the global flood was global and also a real event?

 

[Job 33:6]

Your posts have no clarity over your beliefs what so ever. Now you are saying you don't believe in evolution when belief in evolution is the only thing I have ever seen you post on in here.

Do you believe in 6 day creation with Adam and Eve being in harmony with God, who fell and sinned corrupting mankind and all the world?
That the global flood was global and also a real event?

His statements make perfect sense and are very clear.

It's important to understand the original intent of the authors when reading Genesis. It's difficult to understand Genesis otherwise.

 

[prodromos]

Just as Israel took possession of a land that was already cultivated and landscaped with towns and cities ready to occupy, I believe God created a mature universe, with all its cycles and processes already in play, for Adam and Eve to take possession of.