Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

[canadyjd]

Of course there wasn't human civilization before 10,000 - 12,000 years ago. Man wasn't in a civilized state at that time.

Do you believe man "evolved" from a common ancestor of chimps and other apes?

peace to youraying:

 

[HankD]

He could have used anyamount of time He wished.



Nor do I, I have no problem with anyone who believes either side. I think both views have merit.





For me the question is not what God could or could not do, but what did He do.



Why was there no evening of the seveth day?

I don't know, it wasn't important enough to mention?

So you agree that the universe appears to be billions of years old? What do you see as the evidence of this appearance? Science?

Yes we are told that if the stars are millions of light years away then they must have existed for that long for the light to get here (not necessarily true if God stretched the light out).

But I thought we did know, a literal 6, 24 hour day, creation.

Yes that part we do know (and many other things) if one can accept it, most of humanity currently does not believe or accept it because the universe just seems to big (for one thing) to have been created in 6 days.

and even the things we think we know via science keeps changing because we can't figure it out.

HankD

 

[Marcia]

He could have used anyamount of time He wished.

That's not the issue. God did say, in very clear, crystal terms, that he created the universe in 6 days. He even tells us which day he created what!

 

[Marcia]

Do you believe man "evolved" from a common ancestor of chimps and other apes?

peace to youraying:

Forget the apes. Actually, now it's a ratlike creature that is supposedly the common ancestor for all mammals, including man. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Palatka51]

The same God who created the universe is the same God that gave us science and all its laws. To me the two will agree with each other eventually. The real question for me is what is true science and what is not. I think both sides try to mold scientific laws and discoveries to fit their view.

Science is the observation of the natural world. Science observed that a bird can fly. That observation eventually led to the law of aerodynamics. Science ends when law is applied. The applied law of aerodynamics lifts several tons of aircraft into the air.

Who then has observed the creation of the world and the universe?

Who, here, has seen the same?

God observed and we have not.

If the Wright Brothers had not passed their observations down and kept them secret, we would have had to wait another generation before the law of aerodynamics could have been discovered.

God also passed down the information as to how the world was made. Therefore sense the original observer said it, I believe it. The time to observe the creation event is over and all is working according to the laws of entropy and gravity that God has ordained.

We have the airplane and millions board them every day and trust that it conforms to the laws of aerodynamics. Without thinking they travel several hundreds of mile in just minutes. The airplane works because it conforms to the laws that lift it.

Our universe works because it conforms to the laws that hold it together.

 

[canadyjd]

Forget the apes. Actually, now it's a ratlike creature that is the common ancestor for all mammals, including man. :smilewinkgrin:

Well, actually, I guess every living thing has a common ancestor with some type of pre-life proteins in a chemical goo that that was struck by lightning and the proteins started working together.

Out of the "goo" came all bacteria, vegetation, animals, fish....it is just amazing.

It is the "goo" that just keeps on giving....

BTW, isn't there some sort of law in physics that something that is not alive (inorganic) cannot be made to come alive (organic)?

How can a mix of chemical "goo" that is inorganic become alive? Doesn't that violate some law of physics?

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Bob]

It is simple faith, period!!!
Genesis 1

1. 3 And God said,
2. 6 And God said,
3. 9 And God said,
4. 14 And God said,
5. 20 And God said,
6. 24 And God said,
7. 26 And God said,

I do not think that there should be any issues with what God has spoken.

And that is at best mediocre English translation. Literally in the actual Hebrew it says

"then" God
"then" God
"then" God

and so on

Not just that God did this or that, or said this or that, but in a linear construct time line God did "x", THEN did "y", THEN did "z".

 

[Grasshopper]

A day that is a billion years?


What will they think of next? A frog that is an alligator, a worm that is a snake, or a man that is a God. Wait Joseph Smith already did that last one.

Where were you educated? Hyles-Anderson college?

Is the "day" mentioned here 24 hours?

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Gill didn't think so:

in the day that the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens; meaning not any particular day, not the first day, in which the heavens and the earth were created; but referring to the whole time of the six days, in which everything in them, and relating to them, were made.

Many have believed "day" doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours:

Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours.

No Church History or alternative views taught at Hyles-Anderson?

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html

 

[Palatka51]

Try to carry on an intelligent conversation and this is what I get.

Are you saying that it is not intelligent to believe what God has said?

I think that I'd just as soon leave my intelligence and try to live by faith. Grace through faith should mean something to all believers of the God of our salvation.

 

[Grasshopper]

That's not the issue. God did say, in very clear, crystal terms, that he created the universe in 6 days. He even tells us which day he created what!

I agree, 6 days.

 

[Grasshopper]

Are you saying that it is not intelligent to believe what God has said?

I think that I'd just as soon leave my intelligence and try to live by faith. Grace through faith should mean something to all believers of the God of our salvation.

Your post was simply "God said...". That answers nothing. I agree God said.

Did God say the events of Revelation were to happen shortly? That is just as simple a statement by God as the Genesis verses are. Yet why are there not more preterist on this board? Don't they believe God's word?

 

[Palatka51]

And that is at best mediocre English translation. Literally in the actual Hebrew it says

"then" God
"then" God
"then" God

and so on

Not just that God did this or that, or said this or that, but in a linear construct time line God did "x", THEN did "y", THEN did "z".

Alrighty then, loosen up that tie a bit Doc. We are not here to attack the AV. You therefore are off subject. Go to your corner and stay there and count the years one by one until you have reached Carl Sagan's best estimate of the years that it took just for the earth to form. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Ed Edwards]

4His_glory: // So now that we can question the Creation account, why not question any other part of the Scripture that we so choose? Fact is if we can deny creation, we open the door up for denial of the rest of God's Word. Which is the clear intent of many who deny a literal 6 deny creation, ... //

Unfortunately this comes from the false assumption some Bible readers make:

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT FOLLOWS:

If there is one error found in the Bible, then the whole Bible is wrong ​

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT PRECEEDS

What a stupid, irreligious, un-Biblical assumption to make - it leads to all kinds of folly (more than love of money does).

Of course, I us as a similar (but true) Axiom in my trailer/signature that follows this post -- It makes a reasonable assumption.

Please note my Axiom makes much more sense than the false statement above.

The false assumption leads to folks saying stuff like this: Oops, I can't explain that point you bring up, so I wonder if I'm really saved?

The correct Axiom leads to : "Oh, that is interesting if it is true or not (I sure don't know) I have bet my Eternal Life on this Scripture being true since 1952:

Romans 10:9-10 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, (then) you will be saved.
10 With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation.

Guess which one of these statements is 'selling' better in the American Market Place of ideas and which one of these statements is considered by the lost on the level of "Phelps of Kansas"-ism.

-Ed Edwards,
we are to be wise as serpents and innocent (harmless) as doves for the Lord;
we are NOT to be stupid as doves and slimy as snakes.

Mat 10:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Behold, I send you as sheepe in the middes of the wolues: be yee therefore wise as serpents, and innocent as doues.

 

[Amy.G]

And that is at best mediocre English translation. Literally in the actual Hebrew it says

"then" God
"then" God
"then" God

and so on

Not just that God did this or that, or said this or that, but in a linear construct time line God did "x", THEN did "y", THEN did "z".

This is a perfect example of the "intellectual snobbery" that a fellow poster said exists on this board, but whose intergrity was attacked for saying so.

 

[Amy.G]

Unfortunately this comes from the false assumption some Bible readers make:

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT FOLLOWS:

If there is one error found in the Bible, then the whole Bible is wrong ​

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT PRECEEDS

What a stupid, irreligious, un-Biblical assumption to make - it leads to all kinds of folly (more than love of money does).

Are you saying the creation account is in error?

 

[Marcia]

Well, actually, I guess every living thing has a common ancestor with some type of pre-life proteins in a chemical goo that that was struck by lightning and the proteins started working together.

Out of the "goo" came all bacteria, vegetation, animals, fish....it is just amazing.

It is the "goo" that just keeps on giving....

:laugh: And those who deny a creator God cannot explain where the goo came from (of course, I do not believe all came from the goo). They just think it was always there.

BTW, isn't there some sort of law in physics that something that is not alive (inorganic) cannot be made to come alive (organic)?

How can a mix of chemical "goo" that is inorganic become alive? Doesn't that violate some law of physics?

Maybe they think the goo was organic.

 

[Marcia]

This is a perfect example of the "intellectual snobbery" that a fellow poster said exists on this board, but whose intergrity was attacked for saying so.

Amy, I don't see how Dr. Bob's post is intellectual snobbery. Is that what you're saying? He was just giving some good points that are facts.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally Posted by Ed Edwards

Unfortunately this comes from the false assumption some Bible readers make:

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT FOLLOWS:
If there is one error found in the Bible, then the whole Bible is wrong
CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT PRECEEDS

What a stupid, irreligious, un-Biblical assumption to make - it leads to all kinds of folly (more than love of money does).

Amy.G: // Are you saying the creation account is in error? //

I am saying:

Unfortunately this comes from the false assumption some Bible readers make:

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT FOLLOWS:

If there is one error found in the Bible,
then the whole Bible is wrong
​

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT PRECEEDS

What a stupid, irreligious, un-Biblical assumption (statement) to make - it leads to all kinds of folly (more than love of money does).

I am saying that that FALSE ASSUMPTION leads to Bible understanding error. Here is what I believe is axiomatic:

Please note that my parenthetic statements tend to complicate my comments, not clarify them. So some people (this does NOT mean Amy.G) deliberately and with malice of forethought act like they don't understand what I say, so when I explain they can damn me publicly for being 'complex'. I don't like it. I really don't see what is NOT to understand about what I said.

Amy.G: // Are you saying the creation account is in error? //

No, I am saying there is a WRONG way to understand the Bible and it comes from the false assumption that I have made bold AND have clearly marked as being wrong, wrong, wrong.

In fact I am trying to show exactly the opposite.
The Creation account as in ALL BIBLES is absolutely correct, without error, not mixed with mistakes. But the Hebrew 'yom' can mean any period. Already we have seen that God's creation 'took' six yom and one (implied) yom.

I've seen a non-Christian Pharisee teach that the universe is 15.2 Billion Years old from what we call the Old Testament (OT). Science hasn't quite gotten to that yet, times vary from 6 Billion years since the creation when I first went to college (1961) and about 12 Billion years since the Big Bang (2004)

 

[canadyjd]

Maybe they think the goo was organic.

If the "goo" were organic, then it would be "life" (if I remember biology and that has been awhile).

What they are trying to explain is the origin of life, and use evolution to explain it.

But you're probably right, they'll just say the "goo" has always existed, as if that is suppose to answer the question.

peace to youraying:

 

[Palatka51]

If the "goo" were organic, then it would be "life" (if I remember biology and that has been awhile).

Or the by product of life, as in waste.