U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 11-05-2009, 04:28 PM
 
3,067 posts, read 2,292,772 times
Reputation: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
Furthermore the bible actually places number before each "yom" in Genesis "1 yom" "2 yom"
So you are telling me that there is some type of "Bible Rule" or a "Hebrew Rule" that when a number comes right before "Yom" that there is no way it can be talking about an amount of time longer than one single 24 hours period?

Is that what you are now stating as a fact?

That at no place in the bible where the word "yom" is preceded by a number that it is talking about a longer time than just a short 24 hours?



(better answer this with care....there is a minefield here for the wrong answer. Remember Im not trying to trick you, Im making an effort on your behalf)
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2009, 05:36 PM
 
63 posts, read 60,952 times
Reputation: 14
alan, what is your point? There may be times when it is preceded by a number and it refers to more than 24 hours. I can say, "I havent seen you in 6 days" ....i'm meaning 6 days.

Read the context of the genesis creation....it is clear it means 24 hour days
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 07:06 PM
 
3,067 posts, read 2,292,772 times
Reputation: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkingpinl View Post
alan, what is your point?
the point?

I dont know...something about how no matter what type of proof is listed by the supporters of a Young Earth it fails...

Even if you just stick to the text of the Bible the Young Earth arguments fail.

Perhaps another point I seek to "point" out is that terms like "day" and "Evening and morning" have a wide understanding.

And also, that things in the Bible tend to mean more than one thing at the same time.
Like I could say: "That on that day my country will rise up, and go to war, and win a great victory no matter how long it takes!"

But what "day" am I speaking of?
A Monday?
A Saturday?"
What single day do I speak of.?

Or was I correctly using the word "day" as both a singularity and a plural?

I tend to think that the story of the creation week is a classic example of the use the term "Day" in a story about a vast amount of time...

I myself might talk about the slow evolution of life on this earth and break up my story into different single days....
I might say that the first 4 million or more years where only plants were alive, were day one and two in my story...

I could tell the whole story of creation in one week of such "days"

Each Creation day would be a single day, even if the actual understanding I aim for is that there is millions and billions of years between each day of my week....(within the one week context of my story)

There is nothing in the Bible to prevent this form of story telling.

There is no rule of Hebrew grammar that keeps me from the use of the word "Yom" to mean both a very limited 24 hours in my story, while at the same time a vast unknown amount of time.
In fact many writers in the Bible make use of the word "Yom" like that....so it's Biblical!

The many anti-old earth arguments all fail.
No matter what reason they come up with to support a young earth, I can likely find a verse in the Bible that goes completely against what they just said....
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 09:19 PM
 
3,067 posts, read 2,292,772 times
Reputation: 231
so the facts are in, the earth is millions of years old or older.
The whole universe is billions of years old.
That man is a part of the earth that has come to life, as is taught in evolution too.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 09:22 PM
 
3,067 posts, read 2,292,772 times
Reputation: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkingpinl View Post
alan, what is your point?
I guess my main point is that all Young Earth arguments fail.

They not only fail with science, they fail with the Bible too.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Seward, Alaska
2,739 posts, read 5,420,888 times
Reputation: 1849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
I know that is why I am asking. If the planet is billions of years old well then the animals are just as old because how could they die if sin hadn't entered the world?

A thought:

I think the condition of sin caused by the fall of man probably doesn't apply to animals. (Animals didn't sin, man did)

I mean, T-Rex had to eat something, and I don't think it was veggies...


Bud
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 05:39 AM
 
63 posts, read 60,952 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanMolstad View Post
the point?

I dont know...something about how no matter what type of proof is listed by the supporters of a Young Earth it fails...
Ok, since you seem to be conforming Biblical text to fit scientific evidence, we should use some science to help support Young Earth. You are basically saying that the Bible is not clear either way, could be old, could be young.

Before I begin, I think we can agree on something. Irregardless if the Earth is old or young it does not change the Gospel message and the work of Jesus Christ and that we are brothers in the Lord.

Now....

1. Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This "results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth. The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; however, according to Physicist Donald B. DeYoung:
One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year.
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless of course it was designed that way from the beginning.

2. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it does seem a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.

3. The Oldest Living Thing:
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood.


4. Helium in the Atmosphere:
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earth's surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earth's crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is in the atmosphere.
If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make (i.e.: no initial daughter/byproduct -- in this case helium -- in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium), then the earth's atmosphere is at most 1.76 million years old. Other estimates say it is much less (or a maximum of only 175,000 years).

5. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on the earth.

6. Direct Dating of Dragon Bones:
By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras. According to the geological time chart such creatures (i.e. dinosaurs) died out between 65 and 220 million years ago. What is not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of evolution -- which requires extremely long periods of time. When evolution-biased scientists say that they "know" such things, they not telling the truth. And while they may, in fact, believe such things; however, if they were honest they would admit that such "dates" assigned to these eras are highly questionable.
So how can we date dragon bones?
One piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not per mineralized (i.e. turned into stone). This means they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way a mammoth or Neanderthal bone is dated. This has also been done at least 30 times, by various laboratories in the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from 9,800 -- 50,000 years ago. This author discussed this with Paul LeBlond, Professor of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia. Dr. LeBlond said that any C14 date over 5,000 years is highly questionable. Therefore, despite what popular publications may report, we can establish that all mammoths, Neanderthals, or other bones "dated" over 5,000 years by the C14 method are likewise "highly questionable." If we accept any, then we must accept them all (including the dinosaur dates) -- which are incompatible with evolution-based "ages" associated with the Geological Time Chart.
However, the very fact that many thousands of dinosaur/dragon bones contain organic material at all is a strong indication that these creatures became extinct in the recent past.

7. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones:
A 1987 article in the Journal of Paleontology begins as follows:
"Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska."
What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they "lack any significant degree of permineralization." In fact, the people who discovered them didn't report it for 20 years because they thought they were bison bones. Because these bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy silt," and because every year the snow melts, this means that every year these bones were likely subject to the elements for two to three months. These bones call in question the whole evolutionary-based ages of the dinosaurs, and the Geological Time Chart itself.

8. Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere
Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old.

9. Population Growth:
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.

Last edited by lkingpinl; 11-06-2009 at 05:44 AM.. Reason: typos
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 05:45 AM
 
3,067 posts, read 2,292,772 times
Reputation: 231
reading to me now?...
I dont believe I ever read to people.
I know I dont read stuff that is just copied and pasted from some place else.

However Im here to talk about why Evolution works hand in hand with Genesis, I will leave it up to science to see if evolution is true or not.

Science is a totally different field of study, the Bible is where I have my training.

If you have a Bible question about how it can walk hand in hand with Evolution?...just ask...I want you to learn if you are interested...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 05:50 AM
 
3,067 posts, read 2,292,772 times
Reputation: 231
Oh by the way...I have a story about digging up old stuff.

The other day we were digging at work down about 27 feet deep.
All of the sudden we dug up a tree limb with a section of bark on it.

I called the university and talked to the head of the geological section and he told me that based on the depth and the virgin gray clay it was found in, that the wood is between 8,000 and 18,000 years old!

I had send the wood to a guy to dry it for me and I plan to try to turn it into a knife handle..

This would make it a knife with a handle older that the pyramids or all of recorded human history
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2009, 06:01 AM
 
3,067 posts, read 2,292,772 times
Reputation: 231
by the way...the stuff you posted seem a bit hard to believe..

Like the part about the sun getting smaller by 5 feet per hour!?...LOL


I believe this idea came from a now totally discredited book called "Its a young world after all" by Ackerman.

What the truth is, is that science has updated and changed the technique used to measure the sun, and now that we have more true numbers they differ ever so slightly with the older numbers using a less correct system of measurements.

The sun has stayed the same size, but because the numbers on paper have changed, old Ackerman came out and tried to cling to the idea that the change means the sun is shrinking?

This is a foolish way to think if you ask me..

It's like the speed of light issue.
Over the last 100 years we have gotten better and better at measuring the speed of light.
100 years ago we did not have very good ways to measure the speed of light and the numbers they came up with had a built-in margin of error.

But with more modern means to measure the sped of light we are getting ever better numbers.
However some crazy Young Earth writers just look at the numbers put out by sicence 100 years ago, then compare it to the numbers we get now and try to claim, "The speed of light changed!!!!"

But the truth is that the speed of light has never changed at all.
We are just getting better at measuring it thats all


So to review:

#1 - The sun is not getting smaller
#2 - The speed of light is always the same
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top