Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire The new Creation Museum is awesome!

Along those lines, this is an interesting article on the origin of the biblical version of Genesis:

The History of Genesis

I've been reading both of these threads carefully for a few days:

Here's what I've observed:

1) There has been no scientific proof of a young Earth offered that was not easily shown to be based on false(or perhaps deceitful) data and/or conclusions.

2) I would be very careful when anybody is trying to sell me information about a young Earth(DVDs, donations, etc).

3) There was not one instance of a counter arguement made in proof of a young Earth after being refuted. I wonder why?

4) There are many experts here on theology. They have a great deal of biblical knowledge and I have learned much from them. I am still not sure, however, how God's word can have so many translations which change the meaning and still be God's word.

5) When difficult theological questions are asked, many times the answer is something like 'trust in God/faith'. I'm not sure yet how I feel about that answer.

6) I am supposed to have complete faith in the bible as 100% God's word, despite all the evidence that modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics provide, while it condones or accepts activities like slavery and killing women who have premaritial sex (even if its against their will, ie, rape)

You need to understand the Bible better and then you might understand some of the postings on this forumn better.

There are two prevailing doctrines in the Bible: Law and Grace. Law came as a way to show man, his need for God. Grace came as a final demonstration of God's love for His creation.

Under Grace there is no capital penalty for such as dishonor to parents or lack of chastity. Grace epitomizes Love. God is wiser than all of us put together and knew slavery would exist for a good time to come so He outlined rules for ethical treatments under it. That is not condoning or accepting.

You can argue with us all you want about these topics but unless you find yourself in a personal relationship with the Savior, Jesus Christ, you will not argue with Him before the throne. You will listen, understand all too late, and spend eternity in abject regret and torment. I don't want that for you. None of us do.

I didn't think I was argueing. Hey, I'm only a teenager trying to figure things out. I posted what I've observed.

How do you define doctrine?

I'm not sure about the condoning or accepting part. In Genesis it says that He blessed Moses with slaves?(apparently it depends on the version?)



I am thankful for your concern.

Big Thumper : Let me clear something up for you :Many who post on this forum sincerely believe that "their" bible HAS TO BE 100% ACCURATE OR THEY HAVE NO HOPE OF SALVATION .You should read their posts with that belief in mind .

Many of us do not require a 100 % accurate on all points bible .Don't let this little disagreement prevent you from learning from these good men .

At your age , life should be viewed as a cafeteria line ; Take what you can use and leave the rest .As long as you are honestly seeking God , you have already found Him .

Ask God to keep your mind open to learning about Him and His creation and in time there are many things you will "know because you know " rather than knowing because someone taught you .There is a difference !

Could be that's the difference between knowledge and wisdom .

Good point, Gene. One belief that we do not agree with of a man shouldn't discount all else that he says.

amen, sa.

No. I guess my point was that, to me, it makes no difference whether or not Augustine agreed on the literal translation of Genesis. The important thing is that a plain, honest reading of Genesis clearly states that God created the earth and all that is in it in six, consecutive, 24-hour days.

That's where I'm coming from when I say that we Christians need to take the evidence that we find and fit it with what the Bible says, rather than trying to fit the Bible to what humanists/evolutionists declare as "science".

I think many fail to realize that God is a scientist (to borrow our wholly inadequate term). God is the author of science. He knows everything there is to know about science. So, naturally, what he says goes...right? (duh!) Everything that God says is 100% true and reliable - forever.

(2 Tim. 3:16)

(2 Peter 1:20-21) (the scriptural definition of prophecy seems to be simply "a declaration of truth". I'm not sure it has to be a declaration of future truth.)

With that as a background, I would like to point out that there are nuggets of scientific truths scattered throughout the Bible. References to predicting weather, a round earth, "HE hangs the earth on nothing", creation, etc.

All of that to say that, even though "the Bible is not a science textbook", it is, none the less, scientifically accurate when it does speak on the subject.

I might have said more, but we set B-safe to shut down the internet at 10:00pm. So I'd better go. Just love the truth.

WMacD,

Perhaps I am easily ammased. But the great lengths some people go to escape the Truth of God's Word still amazes me; not just surprises me.



It would seem these folk need to read the book "In the Beginning was Information". Werner Gitt is a German and wrote in German, but a few of his works have been translated into English; including the above mentioned.

Ringman,

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what your post was trying to say. Are you saying that I am going to "great lengths" "to escape the truth of God's word", that the poster who quoted me is, both, or what? Further, what I posted was simple truth that there is a school of thought that says this. That is not a statement concerning the inspiration of or truth of the Bible at all. It says that one purpose God had in writing the book of Genesis was to record what He did in creating the world to oppose the teachings of men, both ancient and current.

If that was what you meant, why would I want to read a book that you give no information about by some man that you don't explain or give any account of when I have the Bible?

Sanlen,

Sorry for my inability to comunicate clearly. Often I tell Sue I fall short in this area. The other day at work the boss asked me a question. I answered. Durning the next forty-five minutes he asked the same question three more times. Finally I said, "I have answered that question four times. What is it you want to hear. Just tell me and that is what I will say." He didn't like that also.

The vast majority of your posts are very good. Occationally I learn from them. You are, in my opinion, way ahead of me in the education department. I should learn from you.

I was refering to the folks who wrote the stuff you referenced.



The above quote goes without saying. Some of the stuff was out in left field.

"1) There has been no scientific proof of a young Earth offered that was not easily shown to be based on false(or perhaps deceitful) data and/or conclusions.

3) There was not one instance of a counter arguement made in proof of a young Earth after being refuted. I wonder why?"

Because the Earth is far older than 6000 years. So the Pseudoscience used by the YEC is without depth being designed for people who are not stupid but rather uneducated in science. So there is no reason for a counter argument, as the initial trash is often not fully understood by the target audience.

WoodsWalker,

Please tell us the facts about the assumptions of radiometric dating.

There was no daughter product originally. How can we know this?

There has never been a change in the dacay rate. How can we know this?

The samples have never been cataminate. How can we know this?

No leaching has ever occured. How do we know that?

Please explain why all samples of diamond, coal and/or fossils show carbon 14 remaining.



Maybe you could tell us why there are so many Ph.D scientists who beleive the simple time line of Scripture shows the earth, and in fact the cosmos, to be only 6,000 years old. I googled and posted a list of hundreds of scientists who accept God's Word rather than men, but the list was removed. Are we to believe they are "rather uneducated in science"?

That's one opinion.

Ringman.

I have never done any of this testing. I am of the option that neither have you.

"I googled and posted a list of hundreds of scientists who accept God's Word rather than men, but the list was removed. Are we to believe they are "rather uneducated in science"?"

Huh? I think there was a list posted before and it was discredited rather fast. Whatever the case this trash is not for accredited Ph.Ds or anyone else with a background in science as a group. If it was than the science would be far better.

On the topic of the half-life and other tricky atomic stuff we seem to have a firm grasp on it. For proof of this and considering the late hour I will provide the readers with this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38

If the above proof does not conform to proper scientific methodology that�s ok because nether does yours. Even if I spend the time and do research on these tests much like the helium foolishness and the totally discredited salt in the sea stuff you will simple repost the same claims all over again or move on the the next. I don't expect any real data to support your above claims. Something that would be required if using real science to support a position.

As for this how can we know junk? Well that can be used for anything. How can we know the decay rates never changed? What are things like Carbon today somehow magically different from Carbon 5 or 5000 or gasp 5,000,000 years ago. Not that the later date maters due to the shorter half-life of C14. If we don't like the reality than "how can we know" is the ultimate fall back for ANYTHING. This is true without even knowing how to perform any of these test you question.

With the exception of a statistically insignificant number people you are correct. Looks like the path the Heaven is narrow and the road to hell is wide....

"4) There are many experts here on theology. They have a great deal of biblical knowledge and I have learned much from them. I am still not sure, however, how God's word can have so many translations which change the meaning and still be God's word."

The real beauty of how God has preserved his word is not in the translations but in the early texts to which any translation can still be compared to. It is amazing how when older texts are discovered(dead sea) they do not change the newer copies of the same books. Some of the NT books are barely 60 years removed from their author. They had a very good system in place for copying including any corrections being made being dated,signed, corrected portion left legible. I'd add that Jesus quoted from the OT as well.

I didn't say one person's opinion. I said that is one opinion. There are others.

The trash sciance, as you call it, brings up another point. It has come to the point that people are not welcome to comment on this subject unless they have a phD in some discipline, with a bunch of letters after their name. If they cannot or are not willing to take the time to research and present involved proofs involving many things that the average person does not deal with, then they have been basically shamed into keeping their mouth shut. This is not how it should be.

You are correct in one thing, niether you nor anyone else here has performed the experiments spoken of. Both sides here have simply quoted or referred to someone else's work and opinion, and that brings me to my point. Can you prove that anything listed here was "trash" science? Can anyone else here? There are references to other people's works and opinions, but that all I've seen. How can we be sure of either sides's facts?

When someone says the helium model has been debunked how many people here understand the science involved? Yet it has become commonly accepted now that it is "trash". Has it really? Oh, some can quote this person who hates creation or that person who has made it quite clear what his view point is, but the actual proof could be a recipe for chicken soup for all most here know. Yet it is acepted as truth on FAITH.

That has been my point all along.

"Can you prove that anything listed here was "trash" science? Can anyone else here?"

Yes I can. I have experience within the field of paleontology as a fossil hunter/collector. This is how I knew the cowboy boot was not as it was represented. I have some understanding about the fossil record by digging in the rock with my own two hands and learning about Geology to help me understand what I am seeing.

On the issue of using others work I think it is ok just so long as the person has a rudimentary understanding of the science involved and can respond to requests and rebuttals. Also how does someone that rebuffs ridiculous and misleading scientific claims hate Creation or God? I sure don�t hate God. This is what science does. If someone uses science to support a position and can�t back it up than the scientific community will expose the claims for what they are. Misleading lies. It is part of the scientific methodology.

If people would just stick to religion and not try to inject fake/false/fraudulent science into Creation than I would not say boo about it. All that being said I would still like to visit the Creation Museum just to see the place. If the science used were solid than it would benefit the whole field of paleontology, as multiple rational opinions are a good thing for knowledge.

WoodsWalker,

Based on your digging experience, how long would you say it takes a fossil to form? I am not interested in what you think someone else discovered or believes. Just your own digging experience.