Explanations from Young Earthers (prophet, Eve, Neanderthal, angel)

[Kele]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

That must be something really cool to look through, how awesome!

It's pretty amazing!

[yeshuasavedme]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

yeshuasavedme...that is, without question, one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen one of you Fundies make. The Olmecs (nor any other Native Amercian people) were no more aware Nebuchadnezzar than Nebuchadnezzar was aware of the Olmecs.

You know, I have no idea why so many of you people have this constant need to determine that Native American people had to have had some Old World influence (or other-worldly) to have performed the things our ancestors did or given rise to our various culture. The Mormons declare that we are really the Lost Tribes of Israel, the Von Daniken types say it was aliens, Kennewick Man is really some lost European proving white people were here first and taught us poor brownskins our ways, that NDNs are: Ainus, Polynesians, Mongols, Siberians, yes, even Europeans (heard that one)...etc, etc, etc, and of course we all had flood stories and some stones made ostensibly by some South American tribe proves your creation myth. Now some Babylonian king had dominion over Native American people? Damn!

Being Comanche (yeah, the real thing), I personally tire of you people trying to use our various nations to give credence to your religion. Believe what you will, but please stop trying to use us as part of your "proof". Just leave our nations out of it because, traditionally, we simply don't agree with you.

So I am part Cherokee, Scott, Irish, and who knows ? -so what? I have a Taiwanese son-in-law, and an Eskimo [ Y'upik] daughter-in-law, and one son is married to a native of Figi, whose parents were from India, and a very good friend of my daughter's [and she is my friend, also] is a Navaho Indian; another friend of mine is Metlakatla Indian from Alaska; and my husband is part German, part French, and part Scot -or else parts unknown. We all came from Noah through one of his three sons, and the diffusion over the face of the earth, of the 70 tribes, by separation through tongues [which continued to branch out, like trees, to the over 5000 tongues today], began at the fall of the tower of Babel; and as Jasher states, the entire world's land mass was divided in those days and men were scattered over the whole world [globe].

And FYI, It is YHWH who says He made Nebuchadnezzar the king of kings of the whole earth, in his day.
It is a fact that there was world wide trade in those days between all continents. You can read about real history, but you have to go find it for yourself, because true world history is suppressed in 'public' -and in some biased, private- schools.

[coosjoaquin]

These world wide conspiracies are a bunch of BS.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

These world wide conspiracies are a bunch of BS.

As are most of the contents the bible when it comes to anything to do with history or science of any kind.

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

As are most of the contents the bible when it comes to anything to do with history or science of any kind.

It was the:

" because true world history is suppressed in 'public' -and in some biased, private- schools"

That made me chuckle. What drives someone to declare a world wide conspiracy? What kind of people do they believe are capable of ruling the world and making us believe in a different history/reality AND having the power to cover up anything and everything no matter how big or small that's ever been done?...apart from Lizardmen of course.

[Kele]

Originally Posted by yeshuasavedme

So I am part Cherokee, Scott, Irish, and who knows ? -so what? I have a Taiwanese son-in-law, and an Eskimo [ Y'upik] daughter-in-law, and one son is married to a native of Figi, whose parents were from India, and a very good friend of my daughter's [and she is my friend, also] is a Navaho Indian; another friend of mine is Metlakatla Indian from Alaska; and my husband is part German, part French, and part Scot -or else parts unknown. We all came from Noah through one of his three sons, and the diffusion over the face of the earth, of the 70 tribes, by separation through tongues [which continued to branch out, like trees, to the over 5000 tongues today], began at the fall of the tower of Babel; and as Jasher states, the entire world's land mass was divided in those days and men were scattered over the whole world [globe].

And FYI, It is YHWH who says He made Nebuchadnezzar the king of kings of the whole earth, in his day.
It is a fact that there was world wide trade in those days between all continents. You can read about real history, but you have to go find it for yourself, because true world history is suppressed in 'public' -and in some biased, private- schools.

Oh for crying out loud. If I didn't have to go to work right now, I could have some fun with this post...so stay tuned. I have a few choice things to say about this "true world history" statement of yours.

[Roxolan]

So, er, yeshuasavedme most likely earned himself a spot in FSTDT, but as a result this debate has become a farce. I'll try and answer other posters for a change.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

If God chose the process to light things being that waves of light would hit them...why is it not possible that he'd create the waves en route? I guess to me that seems as logical as creating a man/woman that are in appearance at least teenagers.

The thing is, you have to create humans "already old", for a given definition of old. Nobody agrees on a precise point where human life begins, but it's certainly not at the teenage stage. If we assume it's at conception, you're faced with the problem of keeping a single-celled egg alive and growing it without a mother. No such problem for starlight.

Originally Posted by kdbrich

I've been told that there are a lot of dating methods that point to a young earth. The ones that you hear about are the carbon and radiometric dating methods.

Details or they don't exist.

Originally Posted by alanMolstad

The idea that God created something called 'light" en rout is the most silly teaching I have yet heard of.
It has no place within the Christian church and should be a thing only the cults push of the foolish.

Thing is, it seems the only way to reconcile litteral biblical creationism with the evidence of an old universe. God had to create it old (for some reason), including starlight en route.

Originally Posted by alanMolstad

Do you have a real bible handy?

Not a website, or some type of computer program, but a real bible written on paper?

Do you have something against online bibles? I happen not to own a paper one...

Originally Posted by alanMolstad

So, you got your bible out?
good...

Now open it up to the first part , and the story of genesis.
You there?...
good.

Now what we all want to do first is find out what the bible says is the first thing God made in the beginning and while we are at it, compare this answer to what science teaches was the first thing (or things) that were made?

So what does the text say?

(Not what do you think it means, lets just stick with what the text says)

Bible version:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was (/became) formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Science version, as far as I can understand it:

In the beginning (or, more accurately, as far back as science can currently go), all the universe's energy was concentrated into a tiny point, and space did not exist. Then that point expanded, "exploded", and all that energy was released in the form of light. As everything cooled down, matter formed. Gravity and other forces did their magic, forming (among other things) stars, including the Sun (though it wasn't the first star by far). In the Sun, giant and complex nuclear reactions produced heat and light but also heavier elements. Those eventually attracted each other and formed planets (and other stuff), including Earth (which, again, wasn't the first planet). At this point, earth was still very volcanic. Gas produced by volcanic reactions and water vapour was enough to make an atmosphere. Around that time, Earth got hit by a giant meteor and a piece of it detached to form the Moon. Slowly, Earth cooled down until liquid water could exist. Life itself (even in the form of primitive mono-cellular organisms living underwater) did not develop until much, much later.

Wow, that's exactly the same!

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

It was the:



That made me chuckle. What drives someone to declare a world wide conspiracy? What kind of people do they believe are capable of ruling the world and making us believe in a different history/reality AND having the power to cover up anything and everything no matter how big or small that's ever been done?...apart from Lizardmen of course.

Well, of course there's the Illuminati.

[alanMolstad]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

Thing is, it seems the only way to reconcile literal biblical creationism with the evidence of an old universe. God had to create it old (for some reason), including starlight en route.
!

WHY?
There is no reason or need to support such a wacky idea!

Roxolan, I dropped out of this topic due to it being taken over by crazy people with crazy ideas.
I felt my answers worth more than to be spent attempting to reach out to people that were crazy.

However I will now rejoin this conversation in the hope that you are not crazy?

You are not crazy right?

Anyway:
There is no support in the bible for this idea some have that God created "light" before he created things to make light.

Open your bible and look at the very way the story opens.
What is the very first thing the Bible says God created in the beginning?

That is my first test question for you to answer.
------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Roxolan

Do you have something against online bibles? I happen not to own a paper !

What I have something against is this:
There are a lot of people that claim to believe in the Bible and say they are Christian, yet when you ask them a few questions it becomes very clear very fast that their ideas are not found within the Christian church, nor are their ideas found within the Text.

They get their ideas from websites that push some of the most wacky ideas and string bible verses along in a claim to support them.
Such people are not worth talking to because they don't read the bible, they read only their picked-over strings of bible verses from websites that always support their own ideas.

This is why I would suggest that if you don't own a real bible, that you should spend the dime and go get yourself one.

I dont really care what type of Bible you go get...just get one from a good christian bookstore
I will go get my own same type of yours, and then you and I can start going over the Texts from a standpoint of both of us reading the same words...

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by alanMolstad

WHY?
There is no reason or need to support such a wacky idea!

Well here's the reasoning:
- According to the Bible (as interpreted by some Christians), Earth and the universe in general are no more than +/- 6000 years old.
- There are many independent lines of evidence which indicate that the universe is much, much older. One example: we already receive the light of stars which are millions of light-years distant.

Thus there is an apparent contradiction which can be resolved in one of these three ways:

1. The Bible, or its interpretation, is wrong on this point. While this answer has my preference, it's not one that many creationists are prepared to accept, no matter the evidence.
2. There is no real evidence of an old Earth/universe. It's all a hoax, a conspiracy, and/or a huge mistake by the scientists. This is the position of the creationist kdbrich regarding radiometric dating, even though his knowledge of the science involved is very poor.
3. For some reason and without writing it in the Bible, God decided to create the universe with the appearance of age. This would involve, among other things, artificially accelerating the decay of some nuclear elements and creating light en route all the way from distant stars to Earth.

Originally Posted by alanMolstad

Roxolan, I dropped out of this topic due to it being taken over by crazy people with crazy ideas.
I felt my answers worth more than to be spent attempting to reach out to people that were crazy.

However I will now rejoin this conversation in the hope that you are not crazy?

You are not crazy right?

It is logically impossible for me to give a non-trivial answer to your question .
[quote=alanMolstad]Anyway:
There is no support in the bible for this idea some have that God created "light" before he created things to make light.

Open your bible and look at the very way the story opens.
What is the very first thing the Bible says God created in the beginning?

"Heavens" (whatever that means - it's a pretty vague word). Then the Earth, then light, then the sky, then continents and seas. (Which contradicts science's version, as shown above.)

Originally Posted by alanMolstad

There are a lot of people that claim to believe in the Bible and say they are Christian, yet when you ask them a few questions it becomes very clear very fast that their ideas are not found within the Christian church, nor are their ideas found within the Text.

They get their ideas from websites that push some of the most wacky ideas and string bible verses along in a claim to support them.
Such people are not worth talking to because they don't read the bible, they read only their picked-over strings of bible verses from websites that always support their own ideas.

Ok. Don't worry, I use BibleGateway.com as my online Bible and it contains only the text, no commentary (and in multiple versions too).

Oh, and I don't claim to be Christian either .

Originally Posted by alanMolstad

I will go get my own same type of yours, and then you and I can start going over the Texts from a standpoint of both of us reading the same words...

The one used by default by BibleGateway is the New International Version, but it offers about 20 alternatives. If you have a favourite, I can use that too. The beginning of Genesis, which I quoted above, is available here.

(EDIT: just in case it wasn't clear enough, I am not a Young-Earth Creationist, or a Creationist of any flavour.)