Young Earth Creationists

[Powerman]

Just some random thoughts by Powerman here...

I recently started dating this wonderful young woman that I met here at LSU. She's not very religious much like myself. We were having a discussion about the young earth creationists and she actually brought up a good point that most of the young earth creationists are too stupid to bring up.

As most of you know, the earth is estimated to be about 4.55 billion years old by most scientists and young earth creationists believe it to be about 6 thousand years old. My gf had an interesting theory about an "out" they could take with regard to the argument. She said that in the bible God created Adam and Eve as adults and not children and thus in the same fashion created a mature earth. While she doesn't believe this, I believe it to be a pretty good theory that would make a lot more sense than all the junk science bullshit these people spout out.

[Nienna]

Okay! Works for me! :)

Hope everything goes well with you & your girlfriend. It's a blessing to have your lover be like-minded on important subjects. :)

[Powerman]

Thanks

Now I feel bad for cursing you out in the other thread LOL

[Hagbard Celine]

In the face of the geologic record, these yec's look pretty moronic to me.

[Powerman]

In the face of the geologic record, these yec's look pretty moronic to me.

That's because they ARE morons

[Nienna]

Thanks

Now I feel bad for cursing you out in the other thread LOL

:D

Not a problem... we all have our moments. :)

[darin]

YEAH! Let's just RIDICULE those who don't agree - Call them MORONS because, ya know? It's BETTER and junk!!

:-/

[Yurt]

YEAH! Let's just RIDICULE those who don't agree - Call them MORONS because, ya know? It's BETTER and junk!!

:-/

...and stuff...

[glockmail]

That's because they ARE morons They're not morons they're just been told they'd go to hell if they believed otherwise, by a preacher taking Genesis literally.

I heard a preacher the other day with an excellent take on this. Genesis is a literary masterpiece, full of multiple layers of complexity and stuff. If you consider a "day" to be an "age", the wole thing dovetails nicely with geologic reality.

[Hobbit]

I actually thought of this when I was about 7 or so, but didn't really devote a whole lot of thought to what I believed until I was much older. It's possible, but I believe it's unlikely.

[Lightning Waltz]

She said that in the bible God created Adam and Eve as adults and not children and thus in the same fashion created a mature earth. While she doesn't believe this, I believe it to be a pretty good theory that would make a lot more sense than all the junk science bullshit these people spout out.

Why would a "God" create the world, state that it was created in a set time period and give evidence that contradicts that same time period that "God" said it created the world in?

Seems like a twisted "God" to me...

You can claim it's a test of "faith"...I suppose. But, I think I'd prefer the simple explanation.

[Hagbard Celine]

YEAH! Let's just RIDICULE those who don't agree - Call them MORONS because, ya know? It's BETTER and junk!!

:-/

What other moniker would be more appropriate for someone who ignores physical evidence and actively pursues the goal of turning mankind's quest for knowledge backward?
http://www.9linton.com/imagesBLOGS2/JesusDino.jpg

[Hagbard Celine]

They're not morons they're just been told they'd go to hell if they believed otherwise, by a preacher taking Genesis literally.

I heard a preacher the other day with an excellent take on this. Genesis is a literary masterpiece, full of multiple layers of complexity and stuff. If you consider a "day" to be an "age", the wole thing dovetails nicely with geologic reality.

Why not just write "age" instead of "day" then?

[darin]

What other moniker would be more appropriate for someone who ignores physical evidence and actively pursues the goal of turning mankind's quest for knowledge backward?
http://www.9linton.com/imagesBLOGS2/JesusDino.jpg

You honestly cannot debate without ad hominem. You are transparent.

[Hagbard Celine]

You honestly cannot debate without ad hominem. You are transparent.

Whaaaat? :dunno: Actually, my avatar is a picture of me and I'm not transparent. You're wrong. Again.

[gabosaurus]

To quote the great Bill Hicks:

"I have a one word question to all who believe that the world is 6,000 years old -- Dinosaurs"

[Hobbit]

To quote the great Bill Hicks:

"I have a one word question to all who believe that the world is 6,000 years old -- Dinosaurs"

If you believe that an all-powerful God created the whole thing, then you can believe that that same God could put in dinosaur fossils and make them appear to be millions upon millions of years old. Why He would do this is beyond me, but then again, he's God, and I actually believe in a 4 billion year old Earth.

[glockmail]

Why not just write "age" instead of "day" then? Why do great writers and artists do anything?

[gabosaurus]

If you believe that an all-powerful God created the whole thing, then you can believe that that same God could put in dinosaur fossils and make them appear to be millions upon millions of years old. Why He would do this is beyond me, but then again, he's God, and I actually believe in a 4 billion year old Earth.

So you think God is being a prankster? God is F*CKING WITH OUR MINDS!
Hobbit, you never cease to amuse me. :laugh2:

[Lightning Waltz]

If you believe that an all-powerful God created the whole thing, then you can believe that that same God could put in dinosaur fossils and make them appear to be millions upon millions of years old. Why He would do this is beyond me, but then again, he's God, and I actually believe in a 4 billion year old Earth.

If you believe in the guy with the red and white suit that gives away presents, then you'll believe in the flying raindeer....;)

[Hobbit]

If you believe in the guy with the red and white suit that gives away presents, then you'll believe in the flying raindeer....;)

That's a little offensive, but yes, it's actually a good analogy.


So you think God is being a prankster? God is F*CKING WITH OUR MINDS!
Hobbit, you never cease to amuse me.

No, I think the Earth is 4 billion years old and was once populated by dinosaurs. I'm just saying that if you assume God created the world, then it isn't that much of a stretch to think that God created it with signs of age already built in...elaborate signs of age.

I, personally, believe that God is a fun-loving God (we were created in his image, right), and that he created the world and then had fun for a few eons messing around with those really cool-looking pre-historic life forms, and when he'd had enough of that, just an ice age here, a warming period there, toss in some continental drift, and presto! The Earth's now ready for the human race.

I'd also like to point out that the 6000 year timeline is also pretty unreliable, since it's based on the geneologies and the wording on the geneologies doesn't necessitate that each 'step' in the geneology be only one generation. There could be many thousands of years unaccounted for in there.

[Nuc]

Why would a "God" create the world, state that it was created in a set time period and give evidence that contradicts that same time period that "God" said it created the world in?

Seems like a twisted "God" to me...

You can claim it's a test of "faith"...I suppose. But, I think I'd prefer the simple explanation.

Yes, i have actually met Christians who claim the dinosaurs never existed, that God created fossils to confuse humans and cause them to doubt.

Do they ever stop to think that this makes Christianity look idiotic?

[glockmail]

Yes, i have actually met Christians who claim the dinosaurs never existed, that God created fossils to confuse humans and cause them to doubt.

Do they ever stop to think that this makes Christianity look idiotic? I have actually met Liberals who claim the dinosaurs never existed, that God created fossils to confuse humans and cause them to doubt.

Do they ever stop to think that this makes Liberals look idiotic?

[diuretic]

I have actually met Liberals who claim the dinosaurs never existed, that God created fossils to confuse humans and cause them to doubt.

Do they ever stop to think that this makes Liberals look idiotic?

Probably not. They probably think that no-one is dumb enough to generalise from a few nutbars to a whole population.

[Nuc]

I have actually met Liberals who claim the dinosaurs never existed, that God created fossils to confuse humans and cause them to doubt.

Do they ever stop to think that this makes Liberals look idiotic?

You are a genius. If you ever start your own message board let me know. I'll be the first person to sign up. :slap:

[glockmail]

Probably not. They probably think that no-one is dumb enough to generalise from a few nutbars to a whole population. So unlike Nuc, you understand the sarcasm behind my post.

[diuretic]

When I first saw the title of the thread, "Young Earth Creationists" I thought it was about Young Creationists, you know, like the Young wing of political parties? I thought, jeez, all these loonies with the stare, you know the stare? It's sort of like when you're walking through LAX and some nutbar tries to get you to take that "free personality test" and you KNOW it's one of those fucking lunatic Scientologist freaks and the only way you can get them to leave you alone is to tell them to fuck off or youi'll kill them?

I thought it was going to be like that.

I was wrong.

It was worse.

At the end.

[diuretic]

So unlike Nuc, you understand the sarcasm behind my post.

No. The point of sarcasm is it doesn't have to be understood, just recognised.

[glockmail]

No. The point of sarcasm is it doesn't have to be understood, just recognised. It's really not all that difficult to understand. Nuc was making a sweeping generalization, nearly phobic.

[diuretic]

It's really not all that difficult to understand. Nuc was making a sweeping generalization, nearly phobic.

I'll check, back in a minute.

[diuretic]

Yes you're right.

Jeez I hate being a "lib'rul", I'm so bloody reasonable!

[Nuc]

It's really not all that difficult to understand. Nuc was making a sweeping generalization, nearly phobic.

I stand corrected. Believing that Jesus made fossils to confuse us is actually highly intelligent.

[diuretic]

That's not the point Nuc, it's a bloody stupid idea but not everyone holds it.

[Nuc]

That's not the point Nuc, it's a bloody stupid idea but not everyone holds it.

You know, i saw John Howard on TV talking about it yesterday. He also said the thylacine never existed, Jesus just painted some stripes on a dingo so that a bunch of hippie environmentalists would have something to whine about.

[glockmail]

Yes you're right.

Jeez I hate being a "lib'rul".... So stop it! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

You know, i saw John Howard on TV talking about it yesterday. He also said the thylacine never existed, Jesus just painted some stripes on a dingo so that a bunch of hippie environmentalists would have something to whine about. If he said it, it must be true. :poke:

[diuretic]

You know, i saw John Howard on TV talking about it yesterday. He also said the thylacine never existed, Jesus just painted some stripes on a dingo so that a bunch of hippie environmentalists would have something to whine about.

Nuc, if John Howard said, "g'day" to me I'd check my watch to make sure it wasn't night.

[diuretic]

So stop it! :laugh2:

Born to it...dawg. Damn got to stop that fo schizzle my schnitzel or however it goes.

[diuretic]

You know, i saw John Howard on TV talking about it yesterday. He also said the thylacine never existed, Jesus just painted some stripes on a dingo so that a bunch of hippie environmentalists would have something to whine about.

Actually no Jesus painted some stripes on a drongo and called it Collingwood.

[gabosaurus]

God must hate Collingwood. Why else would it never come close to reaching the AFL Grand Final?

Club Played Won Lost Drawn For Against % Points
1 West Coast 5 5 0 0 461 333 138.44 20
2 Port Adelaide 5 4 1 0 486 405 120.00 16
3 Sydney 5 3 2 0 410 336 122.02 12
4 Adelaide 5 3 2 0 389 342 113.74 12
5 Essendon 5 3 2 0 527 474 111.18 12
6 Brisbane Lions 5 3 2 0 439 401 109.48 12
7 Collingwood 5 3 2 0 433 419 103.34 12
8 Hawthorn 5 3 2 0 420 415 101.20 12

[glockmail]

Born to it...dawg. Damn got to stop that fo schizzle my schnitzel or however it goes.
Born into liberalism. A red diaper baby?

[eighballsidepocket]

If you believe that an all-powerful God created the whole thing, then you can believe that that same God could put in dinosaur fossils and make them appear to be millions upon millions of years old. Why He would do this is beyond me, but then again, he's God, and I actually believe in a 4 billion year old Earth.

We as Christians have been facing this debate for a long time now.

There is this inherent fear among some of us that if we accept that, those fossils are millions of years old, that this makes the bible hogwash in the face of the Genesis creation account.

There is a big old "but" here, as the Genesis account of creation can be interpretted in Hebrew as 24 hour days, epics or eras. The latter two being a period of time, not set in hours, days, or years specifically.

Now remember that Day one had no night and day so if day one is 24 hours and there's no 24 hours deliniated as of yet, then this bring us into an interesting situation. Why did God use a 24 hour type of definition of a time period if there was no basis of time before there was a night and day and a spinning earth?

When God made the light and earth rotating on it's axis, then we started to have that 24 hour period, so "day" in Genesis as used prior to the 24 hour period of time, seems to raise some strong advocacy for an era or epic of creation time.

I feel that my faith is very strong and is wholly based on scripture, yet how must I discount accurate scientific, radioactive dating of fossils? Is my answer, to be just, "I don't know or for some mysterious reason God made the fossils seem old via radioactive dating, but we don't know his reasons?"?

This radioactive dating is so accurate and so consistent with God's natural set laws of physics/Chemistry etc...

I've mentioned in previous threads that Uranium 238 isotopic dating is used for the extremely old pieces of rock found on earth, and is exclusively or more commonly used in igneous type rocks. Igneous rocks are those that are created from Magma both that which is extruded to the atmosphere on the surface of the earth and cools(lava) to hard rock and that which stays buried beneath the earth's surface for eons, and slowly cools in magma chambers(granite) beneath extinct or dormant volcanoes. Lava is the common name for magma that cools on the earths surface. Granite, and Gabbro are two main igneous rock types that are cooled deep beneath the earth's surface and then are exposed by erosion eons later.

Both examples of igneous rock start out with minute amounts of just about every known element, yet there is a great index element thats rarer than Uranium 235 called U 238. When igneous rock is formed in the bowels of a volcanoe or a magma chamber miles below earth's surface, the common element U235 is initially created. The moment U235 is created, U238 is also created in lesser amounts. Now the neat thing about U238 is that it decays at a set time rate into another element know as PB106 or Lead 106, which is a very rare isotope of more common lead. Lead 106 does not appear at the time of the creation of igneous rock, as it is only found as a result of rotting or decaying U238.

Now here's the clincher. U238's decay rate is very slow, but measurable by man's very delicate and precise instruments. By measuring U238 decay rates in lab conditions, it has been accurately determined that it will take approximately 4.5 billion years for 50% of the U38 in any given igneous rock to decay to PB106.

Now here is how this God-created timing device is used by scientists(also the way atomic clocks so acurrately work). Since there is no way to change the decay rate/speed of U238 to PB106, scientists/geologists have a way of dating the age of most igneous rocks. In other words they can date when that magma first cooled and it's internal atomic U238 clock started ticking away to ever increasing amounts/percentages of PB106 versus the ever decreasing percentages of U238.

This is the mind blower folks. By very careful measurement of U238 decay they have found the oldest igneous rocks on planet earth to be around or close to 3 billion years old. Similarly they have found this to be the case with some samples of moon rocks from the Apollo missions in the 60's and 70's. Actually the moon rocks have come out much older than the earth samples as it is believed that erosion, and weathering has probably made it difficult to locate any older existing/intact igneous examples on earth.

So Christians, what do we do? We even have the dilemma of Carbon 14 dating. When anything is burned or charred you get isotopes of Carbon. The more common Carbon 12 and the less common Carbon 14 isotope. The same principle is applied to date things found in conjuntion with charred objects found in caves and other diggings. I can't remember the half life or the decay life of Carbon 14 down to another isotope, but again we are looking at very accurate means of dating things, but now we are dealing with thousands of years versus billions of years for half life decay rates.

So some archeologists enter a cave, and find evidence of a cooking fire with some carbon deposits from firewood or burned bones, etc. They apply the same dating process with Carbon 14 as with the U238 method of decay rate-ratio of end product isotope found versus original index element.

Unfortunately for Young Earth advocates of the Christian faith, Carbon 14 dating puts the earth well past 10k-15k years.
******
Accepting an old earth concept as a Christian is not going against scripture at all. It is not embracing evolution as the mode of life's origin either.

It is looking at plain bold empirical, scientific facts that are based on natural laws put in place by God Himself. The One who is always consistent, as confirmed in scripture. "He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.". In other words except for when God intercedes and does miracles that totally go against the natural laws of nature, as is recorded so many times in scripture, God has also revealed His very consistent nature through the very natural laws of His creation. He's revealed His consistency through the very integration of Calculus to predict the very bonds of electron orbits of both large atomic structured elements versus the tiny-est being Hydrogen, with just one electron in orbit.

Chemists can predict chemical reactions between various chemical mixtures mathematically as God has even made the mass or make-up of His physical creation consistent with natural laws that He set in motion back in the Genesis account. Chemists can predict how elements will bond or come apart.....etc.. It's a complex game of "clue" on a grand scale. If you have enough evidence you can predict the outcome without a doubt.

Us Christians must realize that there was a time when the people of our faith believed that the Sun orbited the earth, but who as a Christian would accept that thesis now?

Evidence demands a verdict, if that evidence is empiracally explained through objective experimentation or explanation.

Us Christians realize that there are many mysteries that won't be answered in a lifetime to scientists or to ourselves. There are so many "whys?" yet we don't have to be threatened by good science. I mean science that doesn't have an agenda or a bias, but uses deduction and not induction to arrive at results.

Old earth Christians are not trying to make Genesis say something (induction) to assuage or prove scientific data. Actually, scientific data, based on good deductive work/reasoning has continued to re-inforce the evidence of divine creation.

We are not supposed to make the bible say what we want it to say. We are supposed to let the bible tell us what it has to say, or what God has to communicate.

There are doctrinal absolutes in the bible and there are non-doctrinal disputes in the bible. I think the day's versus eras/epochs issue falls into an area of taking objective reality/observations of our creation and also considering the rather looseness of definition of "days".

Disputes of non doctrinal issues in my opinon would be

1. mode of baptism....sprinkling versus immersion
2. Communion every Sunday or once a month
3. Choir robes or suits and nice dresses
4. Types of Christian music in the area of beat......rock, old hymns, classical, etc...
5. Possibly even the tongues phenomena too.

None of these things add a "hill of beans" to ones salvation. God saves, we don't. Jesus is the means to God through His Crucified, buried, ressurrected, and ascended life.

If you want to be a young earth Christain......fine. Don't look down your nose at Old earth Christians, and vice a versa! There are more important issues than splitting hairs, and churches over these issues. We are all supposed to be "Salt and Light" to this very lost, confused, misdirected world, but if we bicker over non-doctrinal issues we destroy our personal and corporate testimonies to the world that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Light.

Mohammed before starting or initiating Islam, actually was a seeker and actually was very interested in Christianity as his possible choice of faith. Unfortunately, he was totally miffed or turned-off by all the dissension, and bickering and lack of unity that he observed in the Christian body or church. We stand indicted, and Islam was born!

Let's not let tradition or what others say dictate what God's Spirit speaks softly and gently within our deepest inner most self. Don't follow anything without following the example of the Bereans that didn't even accept Paul's teachings without going to scripture to make sure they were not being misled. Paul commended them and was not offended.

[gabosaurus]

"Is anyone else disturbed by the idea of a prankster God running around and planting dinosaur fossils in order to screw with us?"
---Bill Hicks

[eighballsidepocket]

"Is anyone else disturbed by the idea of a prankster God running around and planting dinosaur fossils in order to screw with us?"
---Bill Hicks

Well, for one thing, what you are saying is that God is being inconsistent with His revealed character in the bible, and to that point I totally agree with you.:clap:

I've yet to read in both the O.T. or N.T. where God did things to confuse us in a way that would cause us to less-esteem, venerate, love, or respect Him. Seems that this would totally erode our trust in Him, if He acted this way... planting multimillion year old fossils or things to confuse or fool us..........What would be His motive, or what would this reveal of His character to mankind?
*****
Sadly, many will try their darndest to make reasons for the dinosaur bones being so old, based on preconceived ideas of scripture and not follow some good old deductive study of scripture, and the actual definitions of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic word translations/definitions. The bible does not contradict an Old Earth, any more than it says, that the Sun revolves around the earth. Poor Copernicus was called a blasphemer by the "church" for suggesting such a possibility.

So we have these very old fossils that are obviously the remains of past living creatures. What do we do with them? Hope they will go away? We can't. Is it possible that our 6 days of Creation in the Genesis account is not a totally accurate translation of the Hebrew word for "days"?

We must remember that the Hebrew vocabulary was much smaller in actual word count, than our present day english language. Many Hebrew words therefore served more than one definition, based on their location, and context in any given sentence. Actually there were not sentences, so to speak back then. This also makes it very difficult for translators, as to determine "breaks" in this old Hebrew writing.

[glockmail]

In order to be consistent, "literalists" need to approve of lesbianism.

[Hagbard Celine]

In order to be consistent, "literalists" need to approve of lesbianism.

I approve of lesbianism.

[glockmail]

I approve of lesbianism. I have no problem with it whatsover myself.
:laugh2:

[Nuc]

We as Christians have been facing this debate for a long time now.

There is this inherent fear among some of us that if we accept that, those fossils are millions of years old, that this makes the bible hogwash in the face of the Genesis creation account.

There is a big old "but" here, as the Genesis account of creation can be interpretted in Hebrew as 24 hour days, epics or eras. The latter two being a period of time, not set in hours, days, or years specifically.


A big "but" indeed. Doesn't this indicate that the book is poorly written? I mean time IS objective. Even back then there were similar ways of measuring time. If the writers couldn't even get that right or clear, what else is innacurate or subject to exteme interpretations? I don't trust someone who doesn't know the difference between a day and an eon, or who knows but can't communicate it. Writers are word merchants, they should know how to use them.

[eighballsidepocket]

A big "but" indeed. Doesn't this indicate that the book is poorly written? I mean time IS objective. Even back then there were similar ways of measuring time. If the writers couldn't even get that right or clear, what else is innacurate or subject to exteme interpretations? I don't trust someone who doesn't know the difference between a day and an eon, or who knows but can't communicate it. Writers are word merchants, they should know how to use them.

Just as I had written earlier, you committed the error of induction. You start with a bias, and you then look at the fuzziness of the "Day" word in Hebrew with its multiplicity of meanings, and you commit to making or inducing the bible to being inaccurate, rather than studying the context as a "whole".

[Guernicaa]

There is absolutely nothing intelligent about Genesis. It was a story made to explain things that humans did not have knowledge for.
...Curiously Greek mythology wasn't much different.

[glockmail]

There is absolutely nothing intelligent about Genesis. It was a story made to explain things that humans did not have knowledge for.
...Curiously Greek mythology wasn't much different.

Most scholars agree that it is the work of literary genius.

[diuretic]

There is absolutely nothing intelligent about Genesis. It was a story made to explain things that humans did not have knowledge for.
...Curiously Greek mythology wasn't much different.

I'm quite taken with the legends of the Adyamanthana people of the area now known as the northern Flinders Ranges and their creation myths. Good as any creation myths such as Genesis, that I've read.

[Nuc]

Just as I had written earlier, you committed the error of induction. You start with a bias, and you then look at the fuzziness of the "Day" word in Hebrew with its multiplicity of meanings, and you commit to making or inducing the bible to being inaccurate, rather than studying the context as a "whole".

Why don't you just admit that it's poor journalism? You guys are always whining about the "MSM" but if they got a date wrong by say...........billions of years, what would you think about it? Don't tell me the dudes who wrote the Judeo/Christian/Islamic creation myth were unaquainted with the concept of a "DAY". C'mon. That's equally as ridiculous as the idea that a "day" and "millions of years" are interchangeable.

[diuretic]

But....but.....they didn't have clocks in those days so how could they measure time? I bet they didn't even have computers!

[Nuc]

But....but.....they didn't have clocks in those days so how could they measure time? I bet they didn't even have computers!

Maybe when Eve told Adam, "I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today" and then sun set and rose, he figured out that was a "day" and not millions of years. :link:

[diuretic]

Maybe when Eve told Adam, "I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today" and then sun set and rose, he figured out that was a "day" and not millions of years. :link:

A Popeye fan! Mr Wimpy used to pull that all the time :lol:

[Nuc]

A Popeye fan! Mr Wimpy used to pull that all the time :lol:

Yep, hey I'm bored with this thread, I will be back in about a million years with my next post.

[Nuc]

I'm back.

Now am I qualified to write religious books?

[Nuc]

Hey I'm back, geez not much seems to have happened in the last 20 million years since I made my last post, except the creation of some fossils!

[diuretic]

So YOU planted the fossils!! :lol:

[eighballsidepocket]

But....but.....they didn't have clocks in those days so how could they measure time? I bet they didn't even have computers!

Didn't they have clocks called Sun Dials?
http://www.sundialstation.com/img/Xwh-00763.jpg

[gabosaurus]

:laugh2:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Kyrian_Zenda/pwned.jpg

[diuretic]

Didn't they have clocks called Sun Dials?
http://www.sundialstation.com/img/Xwh-00763.jpg

Yep but not in the beginning. I think before sun dials they had notched candles as well.

[LOki]

They're not morons they're just been told they'd go to hell if they believed otherwise, by a preacher taking Genesis literally.

I heard a preacher the other day with an excellent take on this. Genesis is a literary masterpiece, full of multiple layers of complexity and stuff. If you consider a "day" to be an "age", the wole thing dovetails nicely with geologic reality.

If you consider "genocide" to be "ice cream" the holocaust wasn't a horrible tragedy, but rather a tasty treat!

[glockmail]

If you consider "genocide" to be "ice cream" the holocaust wasn't a horrible tragedy, but rather a tasty treat! That's right up there with the rest of your stupid posts.

[LOki]

That's right up there with the rest of your stupid posts.
:lol: lolercaust!

[Lightning Waltz]

Most scholars agree that it is the work of literary genius.

So was the Lord of the Rings...doesn't make it any more true...

[glockmail]

So was the Lord of the Rings...doesn't make it any more true...
I don't aggree but that's not the issue the post was aimed at. It was Obama's post 50. :slap:

[Lightning Waltz]

I don't aggree but that's not the issue the post was aimed at. It was Obama's post 50. :slap:

So you believe that if a story is well written, it has a better chance of being true than one that is poorly written?

[glockmail]

So you believe that if a story is well written, it has a better chance of being true than one that is poorly written? That's a non-issue. My point was directed at Obama the idiot, who refused to recognize that Genesis is a literary masterpiece, regardless of the fact if true or not.

More of the lib crap, that anything they disagree with must be dumb.
:pee:

[-Cp]

That's a non-issue. My point was directed at Obama the idiot, who refused to recognize that Genesis is a literary masterpiece, regardless of the fact if true or not.

More of the lib crap, that anything they disagree with must be dumb.
:pee:

It's because libs like them have Impenetrable Ignorance..

[glockmail]

No kidding, Hence my sledgehammer approach lately.

[Lightning Waltz]

That's a non-issue. My point was directed at Obama the idiot, who refused to recognize that Genesis is a literary masterpiece, regardless of the fact if true or not.

More of the lib crap, that anything they disagree with must be dumb.
:pee:

You are amusing...

[glockmail]

You are amusing...
And you are not.
:pee:

[LOki]

That's right up there with the rest of your stupid posts.The point being made, glockmail, is that if it is legitimately valid for you to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "age," then it is equally valid that someone else arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "minute."

"Day" means a 24 hour day, or the notion is meaningless to the topic at hand.

[Missileman]

The point being made, glockmail, is that if it is legitimately valid for you to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "age," then it is equally valid that someone else arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "minute."

"Day" means a 24 hour day, or the notion is meaningless to the topic at hand.

Are these "age" apologists insinuating that God isn't capable of doing it in seven days?

[glockmail]

The point being made, glockmail, is that if it is legitimately valid for you to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "age," then it is equally valid that someone else arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "minute."

......


When talking about an epic event, no.

[5stringJeff]

The point being made, glockmail, is that if it is legitimately valid for you to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "age," then it is equally valid that someone else arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "minute."

"Day" means a 24 hour day, or the notion is meaningless to the topic at hand.


Are these "age" apologists insinuating that God isn't capable of doing it in seven days?

As an old-earth creationist, I believe that the universe was created over the course of 13-14 billion years, as scientists have shown to be the case.

The Hebrew word in question is yom. Here are the definitions of the word, according to Strong's concordance:

1. day (as opposed to night)
2. day (24 hour period)
3. a working day, a day's journey
4. days, lifetime (pl.)
5. time, period (general)
6. year
7. temporal references
1. today
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow

YEC's take the word yom, which occurs in Genesis 1 several times, to mean a 24-hour day, as definition #2 says. OECs take the word to mean a longer period of time, as in definition #5. Both are valid translations; IMO, yom meaning "period of time" fits the scientific eveidence better than yom meaning "24 hours."

[5stringJeff]

Not to mention, we use the words "day" and "year" in a similarly ambiguous way in English:

Day (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day):
the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: Since there was no artificial illumination, all activities had to be carried on during the day.
2. the light of day; daylight: The owl sleeps by day and feeds by night.
3. Astronomy.
a. Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis.
b. Also called solar day. a division of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun.
c. Also called civil day. a division of time equal to 24 hours but reckoned from one midnight to the next. Compare lunar day, sidereal day.
4. an analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.
5. the portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day.
6. a day on which something occurs: the day we met.
7. (often initial capital letter) a day assigned to a particular purpose or observance: New Year's Day.
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come.
9. a day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day.
10. Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.
11. Usually, days. period of life or activity: His days are numbered.
12. period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs.
13. light1 (def. 19a).

Year (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/year):
1. a period of 365 or 366 days, in the Gregorian calendar, divided into 12 calendar months, now reckoned as beginning Jan. 1 and ending Dec. 31 (calendar year or civil year). Compare common year, leap year.
2. a period of approximately the same length in other calendars.
3. a space of 12 calendar months calculated from any point: This should have been finished a year ago.
4. Astronomy.
a. Also called lunar year. a division of time equal to 12 lunar months.
b. Also called astronomical year, equinoctial year, solar year, tropical year. a division of time equal to about 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, representing the interval between one vernal equinox and the next.
c. Also called sidereal year. a division of time equal to the equinoctial year plus 20 minutes, representing the time required for the earth to complete one revolution around the sun, measured with relation to the fixed stars. Compare anomalistic year.
5. the time in which any planet completes a revolution round the sun: the Martian year.
6. a full round of the seasons.
7. a period out of every 12 months, devoted to a certain pursuit, activity, or the like: the academic year.
8. years,
a. age.
b. old age: a man of years.
c. time; period: the years of hardship and frustration.
d. an unusually long period of time of indefinite length: I haven't spoken to them in years.
9. a group of students entering school or college, graduating, or expecting to graduate in the same year; class.

[eighballsidepocket]

Not to mention, we use the words "day" and "year" in a similarly ambiguous way in English:

Day (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day):
the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: Since there was no artificial illumination, all activities had to be carried on during the day.
2. the light of day; daylight: The owl sleeps by day and feeds by night.
3. Astronomy.
a. Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis.
b. Also called solar day. a division of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun.
c. Also called civil day. a division of time equal to 24 hours but reckoned from one midnight to the next. Compare lunar day, sidereal day.
4. an analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.
5. the portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day.
6. a day on which something occurs: the day we met.
7. (often initial capital letter) a day assigned to a particular purpose or observance: New Year's Day.
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come.
9. a day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day.
10. Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.
11. Usually, days. period of life or activity: His days are numbered.
12. period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs.
13. light1 (def. 19a).

Year (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/year):
1. a period of 365 or 366 days, in the Gregorian calendar, divided into 12 calendar months, now reckoned as beginning Jan. 1 and ending Dec. 31 (calendar year or civil year). Compare common year, leap year.
2. a period of approximately the same length in other calendars.
3. a space of 12 calendar months calculated from any point: This should have been finished a year ago.
4. Astronomy.
a. Also called lunar year. a division of time equal to 12 lunar months.
b. Also called astronomical year, equinoctial year, solar year, tropical year. a division of time equal to about 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, representing the interval between one vernal equinox and the next.
c. Also called sidereal year. a division of time equal to the equinoctial year plus 20 minutes, representing the time required for the earth to complete one revolution around the sun, measured with relation to the fixed stars. Compare anomalistic year.
5. the time in which any planet completes a revolution round the sun: the Martian year.
6. a full round of the seasons.
7. a period out of every 12 months, devoted to a certain pursuit, activity, or the like: the academic year.
8. years,
a. age.
b. old age: a man of years.
c. time; period: the years of hardship and frustration.
d. an unusually long period of time of indefinite length: I haven't spoken to them in years.
9. a group of students entering school or college, graduating, or expecting to graduate in the same year; class.

Jeff: You did a lot of rigorous research there.

Thanks for doing that, and giving a very clear explanation.

[glockmail]

Jeff: You did a lot of rigorous research there.

Thanks for doing that, and giving a very clear explanation. Now we can all watch how the liberals spin it.

[Missileman]

Not to mention, we use the words "day" and "year" in a similarly ambiguous way in English:

Day (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day):
the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: Since there was no artificial illumination, all activities had to be carried on during the day.
2. the light of day; daylight: The owl sleeps by day and feeds by night.
3. Astronomy.
a. Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis.
b. Also called solar day. a division of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun.
c. Also called civil day. a division of time equal to 24 hours but reckoned from one midnight to the next. Compare lunar day, sidereal day.
4. an analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.
5. the portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day.
6. a day on which something occurs: the day we met.
7. (often initial capital letter) a day assigned to a particular purpose or observance: New Year's Day.
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come.
9. a day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day.
10. Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.
11. Usually, days. period of life or activity: His days are numbered.
12. period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs.
13. light1 (def. 19a).

Year (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/year):
1. a period of 365 or 366 days, in the Gregorian calendar, divided into 12 calendar months, now reckoned as beginning Jan. 1 and ending Dec. 31 (calendar year or civil year). Compare common year, leap year.
2. a period of approximately the same length in other calendars.
3. a space of 12 calendar months calculated from any point: This should have been finished a year ago.
4. Astronomy.
a. Also called lunar year. a division of time equal to 12 lunar months.
b. Also called astronomical year, equinoctial year, solar year, tropical year. a division of time equal to about 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, representing the interval between one vernal equinox and the next.
c. Also called sidereal year. a division of time equal to the equinoctial year plus 20 minutes, representing the time required for the earth to complete one revolution around the sun, measured with relation to the fixed stars. Compare anomalistic year.
5. the time in which any planet completes a revolution round the sun: the Martian year.
6. a full round of the seasons.
7. a period out of every 12 months, devoted to a certain pursuit, activity, or the like: the academic year.
8. years,
a. age.
b. old age: a man of years.
c. time; period: the years of hardship and frustration.
d. an unusually long period of time of indefinite length: I haven't spoken to them in years.
9. a group of students entering school or college, graduating, or expecting to graduate in the same year; class.

A couple points:

1. If yom is to be translated as some unspecified amount of time, then why refer to 7 periods of unspecified time, when a reference to one period of unspecified amount of time could account for the whole thing? They are clearly indicating an awareness of a "week".

2. If God's resting on the 7th day is how the concept of the sabbath came about, then they were clearly talking about a day, not an unspecified amount of time.

[5stringJeff]

A couple points:

1. If yom is to be translated as some unspecified amount of time, then why refer to 7 periods of unspecified time, when a reference to one period of unspecified amount of time could account for the whole thing? They are clearly indicating an awareness of a "week".

2. If God's resting on the 7th day is how the concept of the sabbath came about, then they were clearly talking about a day, not an unspecified amount of time.

Your two points are interrelated, I think. I would respond by saying that God resting from His creative work is the basis for establishing both the seven-day week and the Sabbath, and so He revealed His creative process to humans in the context of six periods of time, followed by a seventh period of rest.

[LOki]

When talking about an epic event, no.Being "epic" is irrelevent. So, then it's back to being perfectly valid (by your rule of "consideration") for someone to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "minute" just you wish to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "age."

[Doniston]

When talking about an epic event, no. You are correct, Day and age are somewhat interchangeable. day and minute are not.

[Doniston]

Now we can all watch how the liberals spin it.Why would we want to spin it. all this latest info does not change your position that is day and age are interchangable. That is your position isn't it???
e

[Doniston]

Now we can all watch how the liberals spin it.Why would we want to spin it. all this latest info does not change your position that day and age are interchangable.

That is your position isn't it??? it has nothing what-so-ever to do with lib/con differences.

[Doniston]

Being "epic" is irrelevent. So, then it's back to being perfectly valid (by your rule of "consideration") for someone to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "minute" just you wish to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "age." ???????????????? This makes as much sense as your previous "logic" absolutely ZERO.

[LOki]

???????????????? This makes as much sense as your previous "logic" absolutely ZERO.Don't blame me for glockmail's faulty premise and irrelevent argument.

Hold on...I've already forgotten: You already have your own ideas of what "sense" and "logic" are that have no relevence to reality--certainly none that you will make an effort to apply.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that you have no idea what you replied to--that you didn't follow the thread so you could take my reply to glockmail in its proper context.

You should give informing yourself a try some time--and I mean real information from the real world, rather than that which you fabricate from your various denials of reality.

[glockmail]

Being "epic" is irrelevent. So, then it's back to being perfectly valid (by your rule of "consideration") for someone to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "minute" just you wish to arbitrarily consider "day" to mean "age." So context means nothing when translating text? :pee:

[glockmail]

You are correct, Day and age are somewhat interchangeable. day and minute are not. What your heads: pigs flying again.

[glockmail]

Why would we want to spin it. all this latest info does not change your position that day and age are interchangable.

That is your position isn't it??? it has nothing what-so-ever to do with lib/con differences.


But you repeat yourself, old boy.

You are correct. Some libs are not atheists and some conservatives are.

[glockmail]

Don't blame me for glockmail's faulty premise and irrelevent argument.

Hold on...I've already forgotten: You already have your own ideas of what "sense" and "logic" are that have no relevence to reality--certainly none that you will make an effort to apply.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that you have no idea what you replied to--that you didn't follow the thread so you could take my reply to glockmail in its proper context.

You should give informing yourself a try some time--and I mean real information from the real world, rather than that which you fabricate from your various denials of reality.

Bullshit. Why be such an asshole?

[Doniston]

What your heads: pigs flying again. Obviously I recognize "pigs flying again, but what is with "what your heads"?? that doesen't make sense to me.

[Doniston]

But you repeat yourself, old boy.

You are correct. Some libs are not atheists and some conservatives are.

I was repeating what you said, I think, and whats' with the emboldened part, and what does it have to do with we were discussing? You get more confusing all the time.

[Doniston]

Don't blame me for glockmail's faulty premise and irrelevent argument.

Hold on...I've already forgotten: You already have your own ideas of what "sense" and "logic" are that have no relevence to reality--certainly none that you will make an effort to apply.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that you have no idea what you replied to--that you didn't follow the thread so you could take my reply to glockmail in its proper context.

You should give informing yourself a try some time--and I mean real information from the real world, rather than that which you fabricate from your various denials of reality. Are you perhaps from Star Wars? I don't think what you apply here is familiar to this world. I wasn't blaming you for what glockmail said. No blame was necessry. I agree with him.

[LOki]

Bullshit.
There's no bullshit involved, except the notions you can arbitrarily change what "day" means to suit your argument, yet others doing so is inappropriate; and that the story being "epic" is in any manner relevent to why, and how, you can arbitrarily change what "day" means, yet others can't.


Why be such an asshole?
:lol: Nice. LOLsome!

[LOki]

Are you perhaps from Star Wars? I don't think what you apply here is familiar to this world. I wasn't blaming you for what glockmail said.No? If you weren't accusing me of being senseless and illogical when I was applying glockmail's logic according to glockmail's rules, then I stand corrected.

No blame was necessry. I agree with him.That's not at all surprising, since you share that peculiar trait of just deciding for yourself what terms mean, regardless of what they really mean.

[glockmail]

Obviously I recognize "pigs flying again, but what is with "what your heads"?? that doesen't make sense to me.
Typo. Should have been "watch your heads"

[glockmail]

I was repeating what you said, I think, and whats' with the emboldened part, and what does it have to do with we were discussing? You get more confusing all the time. You said the day-age argument had noting to do with political leaning. I say that it does, to a point.

[glockmail]

There's no bullshit involved, except the notions you can arbitrarily change what "day" means to suit your argument, yet others doing so is inappropriate; and that the story being "epic" is in any manner relevent to why, and how, you can arbitrarily change what "day" means, yet others can't.


:lol: Nice. LOLsome!

You are bullshit to feign ignorance that translations are exact, or that a great literary work can be read as a technical document. You are an asshole for insulting my friend Doniston. Although he and I agree on very little, we have respect for each other. You show respect for no one.

[LOki]

You are bullshit to feign ignorance that translations are exact, or that a great literary work can be read as a technical document.Unsurpisingly, this is all made up from nothing.


You are an asshole for insulting my friend Doniston.No I'm not. I may be an asshole for other reasons, but not for insulting Doniston.


Although he and I agree on very little, we have respect for each other.And you deserve each other; congradulations.


You show respect for no one.Patently false.

[Doniston]

You are bullshit to feign ignorance that translations are exact, or that a great literary work can be read as a technical document. You are an asshole for insulting my friend Doniston. Although he and I agree on very little, we have respect for each other. You show respect for no one.

Thank you for the backup, but in reality, he hasn't insulted me. He isn't capable. from him I just consider the source. let's see now, the amalgomated ranter's club?, the Cesspool?, the nearest dunce club? No, I think one of the former is likely more likely.

[LOki]

Thank you for the backup, but in reality, he hasn't insulted me.Well look at who has checked reality! Congradulations!


He isn't capable.Oh, I wouldn't just assume that I can't insult you just because I haven't.


from him I just consider the source. let's see now, the amalgomated ranter's club?, the Cesspool?, the nearest dunce club?No, I think one of the former is likely more likely. See that glockmail? Those are insults--entirely different from what I've been engaged in.

BTW Doniston: It was wise of you change your mind about the <a href="http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doniston103fu1.jpg" target="_blank">Liar's Club</a> business. Congradulations again.

[glockmail]

Unsurpisingly, this is all made up from nothing.

No I'm not. I may be an asshole for other reasons, but not for insulting Doniston.

And you deserve each other; congradulations.

Patently false.


Unsurpisingly, this is all made up from nothing.

As well as a deflection from arguments made.

[LOki]

Unsurpisingly, this is all made up from nothing.FlatteryLOLz!:lol:


As well as a deflection from arguments made.Correction: "As well as a successful deflection of baseless accusations made."

EDIT:

you're full of shit
Could be, but I'm not manufacturing it.