Calling all old earth creationists (God, Genesis, science, fundamentalist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Very good for their purpose - very good for what God intended it.
A hammer is very good for putting nails in a wall. But you can also hit someone in the head with it.
After creation week, were mosquitos very good? How about scorpions? Poisonous snakes? Many creatures are harmful yet they are very good for what God intended them to do.
Even man was called "very good" and man sinned the first chance he got.
"very good" does not = "perfect"
"very good" = "good for God's purpose"
That also is the finding of evolution,,,that the earth brought forth life...
For once I agree with you Alan, and I even spelled your name right this time!
That's not to say that the evolution theory is completely correct, but there is evidence in the bible (in the above verses) that life was brought forth through a process, and that process may have taken a loonnnnnng time.
For once I agree with you Alan, and I even spelled your name right this time!
That's not to say that the evolution theory is completely correct, but there is evidence in the bible (in the above verses) that life was brought forth through a process, and that process may have taken a loonnnnnng time.
Evolution does not bring forth life. Life can only come from life....evolution says, life just happened and came from non life and again we have science. NO SCRIPTURE!
Very good for their purpose - very good for what God intended it.
A hammer is very good for putting nails in a wall. But you can also hit someone in the head with it.
After creation week, were mosquitos very good? How about scorpions? Poisonous snakes? Many creatures are harmful yet they are very good for what God intended them to do.
Even man was called "very good" and man sinned the first chance he got.
"very good" does not = "perfect"
"very good" = "good for God's purpose"
again opinion, no scripture
God would not have called the creation very good if there was sin in the world.
For once I agree with you Alan, and I even spelled your name right this time!
.
I'm looking forward to completing your training. In time you will call *me* master.
It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. You, like your father, are now mine.
Look the facts are that the earth is very very old,,,millions if not billions of years old.
Anyone who disagrees is in error.
I dont know who this one author is, but if he or anyone else supports a "Young Earth" idea I totally reject his teachings in total...he is clue-free....
You base this on science? You have been simply "mislead" in what is accurate.
There are SCORES of reasons the Earth simply CANNOT be millions of years old. Far too many to name here. Just in case you do not know the history behind the "millions of years", heres a summation:
Charles Lyell published the book, Priniciples of Geology in the 1830's and was the first to propose ages of millions of years. Darwin had this book with him during his travels and found it compelling evidence to substantiate his evolutionary claims, for he would NEED millions of years to make his theory plausible.
radiometric dating was not discovered until the 1950's and to this day, scientists ADMIT to disregarding nearly half the dates the receive. It is unreliable and has been proven unreliable time and time again. All uniformitarian dating methods make assumptions. The assumptions related to radiometric dating can be seen in these questions:
Initial amounts?
Was any parent amount added?
Was any daughter amount added?
Was any parent amount removed?
Was any daughter amount removed?
Has the rate changed?
If the assumptions are truly accurate, then uniformitarian dates should agree with radiometric dating across the board for the same event. However, radiometric dates often disagree with dates obtained from other uniformitarian dating methods for the age of the earth, such as the influx of salts into the ocean, the rate of decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the growth rate of human population, etc
Let's take a look at sedimentary flow. Every day rivers flow into large oceans and as the flow, they deposit sediment into the ocean. At the current known flow rate, the oceans would have been filled with sediment in 80 million years. Consequently, EVERY major river in the world has a measured sedimentary deposit of 4500 years or less, which coincides with the biblical timeline of Noah's flood.
Erosion; At current erosions rates the surface of the earth would be at sea level in 10 million years.
Earths magnetic field is getting weaker, the moon is moving away from the earth. If you reverse those trends backwards in time so much as 5 millions years, you spell catastrophe.
Also, the oldest living organism (the tree which the name escapes me) is 4,000 years old.
Records of civilizations only go back to about 4,000 years ago.
No for me, it makes more sense both Biblically and scientifically to believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, probably closer to 6,000 years old.
I'm looking forward to completing your training. In time you will call *me* master. It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. You, like your father, are now mine.
WAIT! The big bang theory? most secular scinetist don't even buy into that anymore. Now I know you are pulling my leg
I appreciate that but I have the bible to give me the truth of old earth vs young earth. I have pretty much heard every argument, many is not even biblical and doesn't answr the hard question like the one I posed in this thread.
LOL you crack me up Fundy. You go tearing into Ray Smith and you don't even know what he teaches on the matter. If you are going to attack someone's ideas and name them personally, you should at least know what their ideas are! Wouldn't that be the courteous thing to do?
Yes we should base things on the bible, but perhaps there is more than just your view of what the bible teaches out there. Just maybe, just maybe your view is not completely 100% correct on all things in the bible... is that too hard to admit?
God would not have called the creation very good if there was sin in the world.
Animals dont sin....\
Men sin, and our death is the result of man's sin.
We were created apart from all the animals with the ability to sin.
But there is nothing to connect the sins of animals with their deaths...
There is no verse in the Bible that says animans could not have been dieing for billions of years before the rise of modern man....
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
For once I agree with you Alan, and I even spelled your name right this time!
The big bang theory? most secular scinetist don't even buy into that anymore. Now I know you are pulling my leg 
