[Daniel21TX]

OneHope said:
You can't use the Bible to figure out what is figurative in the Bible. We find out what is figurative in the Bible by looking to science and things outside the Bible. Truth will never contradict truth.

Well, there is scientist that disagree with the thought of the earth being 4 billion years old. Even if it isn't the majority of scientist, which by the way, seems to be what the roman catholic Church tends to go with in these situations. They did it against Galileo, and they are doing so again with evolution. Evolution is wildly accepted by many scientist much like geocentrism was back then and the roman catholic Church stood by geocentrism and now they stand by evolution. Also, are you suggesting that what Jesus meant in Mark 10:6 was not actually from the begining, but rather from about 5 billion years give or take, after the begining? Truth will never contradict truth is absolutely correct, and I will stick with what Jesus and the bible say, rather then rely on the unreliable dating methods scientist use.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by OneHope

You can't use the Bible to figure out what is figurative in the Bible. We find out what is figurative in the Bible by looking to science and things outside the Bible. Truth will never contradict truth.

You can't possibly use science to figure out what is figurative in the Bible because to use science you must presuppose naturalism. Science crumbles if things aren't happening "naturally." If science was the test by which we decided what is and isn't figurative then ALL references to God, miracles, and the "supernatural" would have to be figurative. It is impossible to use science in the fashion you're speaking because Christianity and science operate on contradictory presuppositions.

[Crazy4Christ14]

Somebody was asking about if the dinosaurs were created as oil. I wonder how long it would take them to turn into oil if there were this big flood with trillions of tons of dirt and rock and boiling water being dumped down on them. Heat and pressure.

By the way, there is no biblical support for the earth being created with the appearance of age, it is simply a logical conclusion. At todays decay rates the rocks appear billions of years old, at least, some do. Different elements APPEAR to have decayed longer than others. The only logical conclusion I can come to from this is that God is awesome and make anything however he wants it, and that he did.

[burningtr33]

i have to agree with the ppl that says that the earth is 6k to 10k years old.

[Dark Tofu]

I think we should make a new thread for what i'm going to say but here it is.

The flood in Genesis with Noah, probably was only in the mesopotamian(sp?) area. There is no evidence to my knowledge, scientifically, of a worldwide flood. The 'world' at that time was 'flat' and only consisted of that small area of Asia. At least to the occupants knowledge.

[Crazy4Christ14]

"The flood in Genesis with Noah, probably was only in the mesopotamian(sp?) area."

So even though this a flood that covered the entire earth, you somehow thing that it only occured in noah's little place? Why would God put Noah on an ark for a year if he only flooded one part? Why would God put Noah on the ark period? Why not tell NOAH TO MOVE? He destroyed the entire earth with the flood, because EVERYONE was corrupt besides Noah. No evidence for a flood? Look around! Grande canyon? I wonder how that formed over millions of years... it couldn't have! I could post tons of verses on this, and evidence and such, but I have a terrible headache right now and tomorrow school starts, so good night and God bless everybody.

[burningtr33]

Originally Posted by Crazy4Christ14

"The flood in Genesis with Noah, probably was only in the mesopotamian(sp?) area."

So even though this a flood that covered the entire earth, you somehow thing that it only occured in noah's little place? Why would God put Noah on an ark for a year if he only flooded one part? Why would God put Noah on the ark period? Why not tell NOAH TO MOVE? He destroyed the entire earth with the flood, because EVERYONE was corrupt besides Noah. No evidence for a flood? Look around! Grande canyon? I wonder how that formed over millions of years... it couldn't have! I could post tons of verses on this, and evidence and such, but I have a terrible headache right now and tomorrow school starts, so good night and God bless everybody.

Amen!

There are some evidences i kno that support a global flooding.

On top of Mt Everest there are fossils of sea shells. How could a little sea critter go on top of the mountain unless something carried it up there.

If you leveled out the earths dry land we would be under 1 mile of water

Well thats all i can remember.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Crazy4Christ14

Somebody was asking about if the dinosaurs were created as oil. I wonder how long it would take them to turn into oil if there were this big flood with trillions of tons of dirt and rock and boiling water being dumped down on them. Heat and pressure.

By the way, there is no biblical support for the earth being created with the appearance of age, it is simply a logical conclusion. At todays decay rates the rocks appear billions of years old, at least, some do. Different elements APPEAR to have decayed longer than others. The only logical conclusion I can come to from this is that God is awesome and make anything however he wants it, and that he did.

hmm, why would God trick us like that? Why would he scatter ruins and remnants of cultures that were around prior to 4000bc all over the world?

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Crazy4Christ14

"The flood in Genesis with Noah, probably was only in the mesopotamian(sp?) area."

So even though this a flood that covered the entire earth, you somehow thing that it only occured in noah's little place? Why would God put Noah on an ark for a year if he only flooded one part? Why would God put Noah on the ark period? Why not tell NOAH TO MOVE? He destroyed the entire earth with the flood, because EVERYONE was corrupt besides Noah. No evidence for a flood? Look around! Grande canyon? I wonder how that formed over millions of years... it couldn't have! I could post tons of verses on this, and evidence and such, but I have a terrible headache right now and tomorrow school starts, so good night and God bless everybody.

The grand canyon was formed from billions of years of erosion.

On top of Mt Everest there are fossils of sea shells. How could a little sea critter go on top of the mountain unless something carried it up there.

Do you have a source for that info?

[Ridley's Own]

Whooshed to science, with apologies for not doing it earlier.

[JerryLove]

Do you have a source for that info?

I can confim it. Marine life is found in the rock on Mt. Everest. Recall that Everst is formed from the up-thrusting of tectonic plates caused by the collision of India with Asia. As such, land which was once a shallow sea between India and Asia is now mountain. You can indeed find fossilized sea-life on everst.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Brettation

I myself am more of a scientific person then theological. It is hard for me to believe something if I can not taste it, touch, or smell. I do believe the process of carbon dating, however there is a problem with it. One area of material can be 5.3 million years old, another area from the same sample can be over a million years older. Elements do decay at a certian rate over time because it is at its most basic level, however it still seems fishy that scientists have to take a mean of samples to come up with a date.

Perhaps you should fact-check before you make conclusions. You've made several mistakes here.

1. Carbon dating is not used to date objects over 50,000 years old.
2. Radiodating has a margin of error, generally in proportion to the time it covers. Something whcih is used on multi-billion-year dates may indeed be off by millions.
3. Not all things are radiodatebale.

The reason that scientists will go for mean dates (or youngest dates) is because of the propensity for contamination. When new rock is formed with peices of old rick in it, you risk getting the old rock if you take only one sample.

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well a group of scientists just completed a multi year study on this. It was comprised of PHDS's nd Masters in their fields. Thier research project was known as R.A.T.E. (radioisotopes and the age of the earth) and showed why the radiometric dating methids are very flawed and that the earth is indeed much much much younger than secular science theorizes.

Appeal to conclusion (and without reference at that). Please describe the actual errors found and how they were discovered.

Originally Posted by nolidad

Here are just a few websites of many but y9u can link to specific articles writtten either in the scioentific jargon or laymens lingo as to why radioisotope dating is hopelessly flawed.

And then you can go to TalkOrigins and find out why ICR is full of poo. But if you (or anyone here) would like to discuss the problems directly, I'm game.

Originally Posted by c1rocker

Im sorry, the Gap Theory is wrong. Go to www.drdino.com . Dr. Hovine proves it wrong. Evolution cannot be proven by the Bible or through science.

Same answer. Go to TalkOrigins and you'll find responses to pretty mcuh everything on DrDino.

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

Actually, though it may seem irrelevant, in their minds and others is may not be. Some believe that Hitler was the fruit of belief in evolution.

Some people are stupid. Hitler chose the arians out of an obscure Scandinavian cult.

I like Hovind's comment about the start of evolution. Satan in the garden of Eden,"ye shall be as Gods." Atheism, "I am God." Hovind was right about Hitler though. Hitler was trying to promote the Aryan race and not let the bad genes from the Jews or Blacks get dilluted back into the population. He thought the Aryans had evolved further and therefore was trying to eliminate the inferiors.

No, Satanists believe in personal divinity, atheists don't believe in any gods. Hitler went after the Jews and the like because empoverished people need scape-goats.

BTW, the Bible says that Satan was right "for they have eaten of the tree of the knolwedge of good and evil and become like us".

Originally Posted by s0233425

God created the earth with the apperance of age. Just like he created Adam to be a fully formed man, not a baby.

A claim not found in the Bible anywhere.

Also, carbon dating is very inaccurate. (just a random statement there! But a lot of people will argue that the fossils et cetera prove that the earth is older, but they don't)

No, Carbon dating is quite accurate and I'm happy to discuss it with you... as long as you make your own argument.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

Well, there is scientist that disagree with the thought of the earth being 4 billion years old.

How many? More than 1%? Where did they get their degrees and what exactly are their presuppositions they bring to the table? If you're going to make an appeal to authority here, you will lose. Don't try it.

Even if it isn't the majority of scientist, which by the way, seems to be what the roman catholic Church tends to go with in these situations. They did it against Galileo, and they are doing so again with evolution. Evolution is wildly accepted by many scientist much like geocentrism was back then

No. Heliocentrism was accepted by the natural philosophers ever since Copernicus and Galileo. The Roman Catholic church did not accept heliocentrism widely until Isaac Newton's time. There were no "scientists" back then.

Also, how many protestants supported heliocentrism? Well, let's look at what certain prominent ones had to say about the subject...

This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.
—Martin Luther

Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?' Do not Scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and not the earth to stand still? That the sun runs from one end of the heavens to the other?
—John Calvin

You are simply ignorant if you think that the Roman Catholic church was alone in placing the scriptures over science regarding heliocentrism. And you are ignorant if you think creationists are not doing the exact same thing the anti-heliocentrist Christians did regarding evolution.

Truth will never contradict truth is absolutely correct, and I will stick with what Jesus and the bible say, rather then rely on the unreliable dating methods scientist use.

You will? Then why are you not a geocentrist like Calvin and Luther? After all, the Bible says:

Gen 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.’ 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. God called the dome Sky.

And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.

The Bible says in plain Hebrew that there is a solid dome (heb. raqia, which literally means "that which is hammered out") that covers the earth. God set the sun, moon, planets and stars in this dome and called it "Sky." There is water above this solid dome as well. Of course, unreliable science contradicts this--let's see if you'll stick with what the Bible says.

Job 9
he who removes mountains, and they do not know it, when he overturns them in his anger; who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble; who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals up the stars; who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the Sea;

Do you believe the earth has pillars? The Bible says it does, Daniel. Science contradicts it, but who really trusts science?

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;

Do you believe the earth is a "circle," Daniel? Note that the Hebrew word is circle, not sphere or ball. Note also that God stretches out the heavens like a tent--the same raqia which divides the earth below from the waters that Gen 1 says lurk above the sky. Of course, science says the earth is not really flat. But why trust science over God's word, Daniel?

So much for believing what the Bible says about the world. Now if anyone would actually like to mount a scientific critique of evolution, or the age of the world (two separate issues), bring it on. If, on the other hand, you would like to continue to assert that the literal Bible trumps science, please address why you do not believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, like the Bible says it does.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Crazy4Christ14

"The flood in Genesis with Noah, probably was only in the mesopotamian(sp?) area."

So even though this a flood that covered the entire earth, you somehow thing that it only occured in noah's little place? Why would God put Noah on an ark for a year if he only flooded one part? Why would God put Noah on the ark period? Why not tell NOAH TO MOVE? He destroyed the entire earth with the flood, because EVERYONE was corrupt besides Noah. No evidence for a flood? Look around! Grande canyon? I wonder how that formed over millions of years... it couldn't have! I could post tons of verses on this, and evidence and such, but I have a terrible headache right now and tomorrow school starts, so good night and God bless everybody.

There is absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood.

There is plenty of evidence that the flood in the Bible is derived from a Mesopotamian flood tradition. The epic of Gilgamesh and the epic of Atrahasis, both written many centuries before the Bible, both describe a flood with many of the same details as the one in Gen 6-8. We have an ark, which is more like a submarine (it has a roof and is sealed with pitch); we have a lone wise/holy man selected by a deity to survive the flood, who brings in animals and releases a bird after the rains abate to find land. In Atrahasis, like in Genesis, we have the man pleasing the gods with a sacrifice after the flood, and we have the deities creating the flood in the first place to erase a thoroughly contaminated and annoying earth and start over from scratch; the deities in Atrahahasis and the deity in the Bible both regret making the flood and create new controls (new laws) so that it will not have to happen again.

Now. If you want to take the flood legend in the Bible seriously (this is now in Science, after all), why don't you start by telling us where all this water above the dome of the sky is, per Gen 1:6 (see my previous post). This is where the floodwaters come from, right? We know that there must still be water up above the sky, becuase God has to close the windows of the sky to make the rain abate:

Gen 8:2
and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

So before we even get into how Noah could fit all the animals in the ark, how he could physically collect all the animals, how freshwater fish and plants could survive, etc., let's keep the focus on cosmology. I want to know where these waters above the sky are. After all, the Bible says that's where the flood came from, right?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well it does not take a long time like the evolutionists say to take carbon remains and turn them into oil. Stanford Univeristy took a ton of garbage- and with high pressure and twenty minutes turned it into a barrel of low grade crude.

Cite it. Cite your other study too, Noli! I google searched both, found nothing, suspect that you are making stuff up out of thin air. Note that I'm not actually wanting to discuss this with you (I vowed no more discussions with Noli), I just want to see you put your money where your mouth is.