Does Creation Support EITHER old/young dating?

Gaps where in genaologies? From Adam to the flood shows 1656 years from Adams creation, the dates and generation.

Now Luke gives us the genealogies from Jesus back on Mary's line.


Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God

Now compare to the Genesis Geneaology

Gen. 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.
26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

All the the way up to Shem (Sem as LK shows) in Jesus line is the same so where do you see the Holy Spirit in inspiring the genalogies as "It also clearly leaves some gaps in geneologies, etc, which would allow for a very old earth" leaving gaps in the genaological record?

 

Well Gap theory adherents need the old earth to teach that theory. Of course to teach the Gap theory one must almost always believe death occured prior to sin entering the world as most would have to hold that of an old earth also have to adhere too.

 

Theres no reason to limit the age of the earth to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Outside of the problems with the generational data, if one considers that "time" didn't begin until Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden then you can reasonably assert a substantial time from the end of creation until the Fall. Also, if you consider the Garden to be ontologically different by nature it may have existed in a different temporal plane.

 

True science is based on observation.

Remember that evolutionary tree poster they hung on the wall in grade-school? It showed an amoeba evolving into a snail, then into a lobster, then a fish, then a reptile... I am probably off there but you get the idea.

It shows that we are evolving from one single animal into the MILLIONS of animals we know today.

Has this ever been observed? Has anyone ever seen one kind evolve into another? No. In fact, the more we learn of genetics, the more impossible we know this to be.

What do we actually observe? We observe that complex creatures occured suddenly (Cambrian Explosion). We also know life is going the opposite direction of the evolutionary tree, there were many thousands, if not millions more lifeforms in the past. We do not see new forms emerging, we see extinction. We have far less life today than the past. This is because Adam sinned and introduced death into the world.

True observable science supports creation, not evolution.

 

Except you miss this Gen. 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." all the days that would be from his creation.

 

Why do you say that? The earth appears to me to be very young. Hundreds of natural processes declare this to be so.

 

There are literally thousands of examples of ancient art showing man lived with dinosaurs. There is art from Babylonia showing what we used to call a Brontosaurus, I forget the modern name. This is very likely the Behemoth described in Job with a tail like a cedar tree that drank up rivers. Job also described the Leviathan, that sounds like some tremendous sea creature. Most scholars believe Job the oldest book in the Bible because of his long lifespan (Job 42:16). It is probable Job lived well over 200 years and lived not long after the flood.

But all over the world there is ancient artwork and literature about huge dragons that once roamed the earth, many killed by man himself. There have been found the footprints of man and dinosaurs found preserved together in several different locations.

Google "Ica Stones" to see photos of thousands of ancient stones found in South America with detailed carvings of dinosaurs, even showing that some were tamed and ridden by man!

So, there is much evidence, even in the Bible that man lived with dinosaurs.

 

, Thanks Jbh28

 

Glad to see we finally agree on something.

Going further, there is what is known as an interbreeding barrier, which prevents different species from mating with one another, due to different gene placement, different number of chromosomes, etc. If you JUST look at the Chromosome factor, the idea of getting the tens of thousands of species of living things seen today becomes mathematically preposterous. In almost every case where two genetically similar creatures, with different number of chromosomes attempt to breed, it is impossible. Moreover, on the rare case that they succeed (such as in the case of a mule), they are almost always sterile (thus the line ends there). This is only ONE of the obstacles...there are dozens more.

Evolution in terms of speciation from a single ancestor is a scientifically impossible concept, that is only accepted by the secular scientific community because there is no other option (if you exclude a creator, the only possibility left is that everything made itself).

 

What does one say to that? Study of the Bible obviously does not facilitate an understanding of geology. This has to be the most absurd thing I have seen anyone post on the BB and that is saying a lot.

 

Time isn't bound to the moment of creation until now. One can posit that given time only exists in light of the finitude imparted by death brought on by sin.

Adam and Eve were created as timeless, everlasting beings placed in the midst of a Garden that showed no sign of decay. Until they were removed from the Garden time wasn't an aspect of their frame of perspective.

 

The only "scientists" who affirm this are the pseudo-scientists who affirm young earth only. There are no consistent affirmations of evidence pointing to a creation that appears to be less than 8,000 years old.

 

In the past 20 years there have several discoveries of dinosaurs with SOFT tissue. These are not fossils. This would be impossible if dinosaurs went extinct 65 millions years ago. Even pro-evolution rags like National Geographic have reported this. Baffled evolutionists have tried to explain this away saying there must be some kind of previously unknown form of preservation or mummification that occured. The one thing they won't admit is that this is strong evidence that dinosaurs lived just a few thousand, or even a few hundred years ago.

There is much on this if a person truly investigates, there have been photos of living mammoths from China and India. These are not fakes.

The evolutionists have a stranglehold on science, this is why most folks aren't aware of these facts. They do not want folks to know this.

 

It's claims like this that require peer-reviewed documentation. So let's see it.

Because when I hear this stuff I think of this:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011...m-humans-lived-dinosaurs-scientists-disagree/

I doubt the "evidence" is actually that or has a high possibility of proof.

 

Winman, if you can, please share some of these pictures of Mammoths. I would be very curious to see them.

 

Do you know who Henry Morris is? Did you know for many years he taught evolutionary science at Rice University until he after much research changed to Creation Science and founded the Institute for creation Research. He as a Professor at Rice challenged the beliefs of the Christian young folks who believed in creation. He advocates a young earth.