Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

Oh no! Did you also end up with multiple copies of Pilgrim's Progress from the annual prize givings?

It was when I realized that was the only prize they had because they never expected the same child to win multiple years in a row that I began to suspect that there was something wrong with the whole setup.

 

Then you also have the....uh....byproducts of eating. 7 people would do nothing but shovel shlt.

 

Not to mention trying not to be turned into something similar by the predators.

 

I just wonder how all those Penguins walked to the Middle East, let alone Koalas.

 

Always wondered how Noah dealt with all the wood boring insects and termites.

 

A thread on the age of the earth is not a place for contradictions or biblical authority, that thread is coming. I will answer these but please stay on topic.



There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 through 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created

The difficulty with Genesis 2:19 lies with the use of the word formed. The same style is read in the KJV.
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.
The NIV has a subtly different rendition.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them.
The NIV suggests a different way of viewing the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2does not suggest a chronology. That is why the NIV suggests using the style “the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the fields.” Therefore, the animals being brought to Adam had already been made and were not being brought to him immediately after their creation. Interestingly, Tyndale agrees with the NIV—and Tyndale’s translation predates the KJV.

The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air.
Tyndale and the NIV are correct on this verse because the verb in the sentence can be translated as pluperfect rather than perfect.

• Adam is created (Genesis 2:7)
• Garden of Eden created (Genesis 2:8–9)
• Description of river system in Eden (Genesis 2:10–14)
• Adam put in Garden and given instructions (Genesis 2:15–17)
• Adam names some of the kinds of animals (Genesis 2:18–20)
• God creates Eve (Genesis 2:21–22)
• Description of Adam, Eve, and marriage (Genesis 2:23–25)

For more in depth and order of animals

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/


IV. Scientific Inaccuracy of the Bible

You have copied a nice list of the usual's. Please pick your top 3 and i will address them. When the forum topic is biblical authority you can post the rest.

 

This is really fits better another topic but ok. First I want to ask since there is much from geology an old earth cannot exspalin, would you reject it? why if there is one single issue with creation do you reject it? seems intellectually dishonest. Let me say if you want a much better in depth response see here
https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastrophic-Past-Geology-Creation/dp/0890518742

Working of Snelling so evolutionist explain their formation based on the limey ooze on today’s ocean floor. This ooze is widespread at depths shallower than 14,775 feet (4500 m). Evolutionary geologists claim that the ooze has accumulated one grain at a time, at a rate of between 0.008 and 0.08 inches (0.2–2 mm) per year.2 The ooze consists almost entirely of the tiny shells of single-celled creatures, because fish and other large creatures get eaten or decay before they even reach the seafloor.

So it would take 100,000 to 1 million years to accumulate the 650-foot (200 m) thickness needed for the homogenous ooze to be converted into chalk.

Meanwhile, the chalk beds are not found under the ocean floor where the limey ooze is today. And today’s limey oozes are nowhere near as pure in calcium carbonate as the chalk beds formed in the past. Thus we see we have entered the faith of the evolutionist and left science.

Here are some of the fossils found within chalk layers.

sponges, corals, bryozoans (lace corals), brachiopods (lamp shells), bivalves (clams), gastropods (snails), ammonites, nautiloids, belemnites, arthropods (crabs and lobsters), and echinoderms (crinoids, starfish, and anemones). The chalk beds also contain a host of other creatures—the fossilized jaws and teeth of fish, and fossil remains of turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, marine lizards, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), and even dinosaurs, which lived on land.


The Niobrara Chalk in Kansas contains an even more impressive list of larger fossils—fish of various types up to 16 feet (5 m) long, sharks, turtles up to 13 feet (4 m) long; plesiosaurs up to 46 feet (14 m) long; mosasaurs up to 49 feet (15 m) long; pterosaurs with wingspans up to 30 feet (9 m); dinosaurs, such as ankylosaurs and hadrosaurs, up to 30 feet (9 m); and birds up to 6.5 feet (2 m) tall.

Where do we see limey ooze slowly accumulating on the continents today—and burying and fossilizing huge ocean dwellers (like the extinct plesiosaurs and mosasaurs) together with large land dwellers (like the extinct dinosaurs and pterosaurs)? Or whatabout the fossil found in the Kansas beds of the voracious predatory fish Xiphactinus audax, 13 feet (4 m) long with a nearly perfectly preserved 6-foot-long (1.8 m) fish Gillicus arcuatus inside of it?

Nowhere! We simply do not see such burial and fossilization happening today on such a massive and catastrophic scale thus the evolutionary story telling is not science but by faith alone.


So the question is How could so many large ocean-dwelling and land-dwelling creatures get buried together in ooze on the ocean floor in the past, when this is not happening today?To fossilize such large creatures, ginormous amounts of sediments had to bury them instantly before the creatures had time to escape. Fish are known to decompose quickly unless they are completely buried within a few days. Yet the fish found fossilized in the chalk beds show no signs of decay. So the claim that the chalk beds accumulated slowly—one grain at a time falling to the bottom of a placid sea—is demolished by the evidence of all these catastrophically buried fossils.
Now also remember that these chalk beds stretch around the globe. These chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents. So a global distribution of the chalk beds required a global Flood cataclysm, just as the Bible describes

 

had he he would be able to answer half at least. His list is from an atheist site online.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/...JrnlFNVKVxTfuVALqARNEs/preview?hl=en_US&pli=1

 

Interesting show me scientifically this is true. I will show your faith and inability to think critically about any claim you here and believe without question.

 

Wow your really good. You just disproved noahs flood [upcoming thread]. I really hope you dont bring your great arguments on that thread, how could this ever be responded to? what a great argument. You will force me to see the light and truth.

 

another great one. You know so much. Never heard that before. Once more i hope you dont post on my upcoming thread on the flood. Crap know im in deep trouble.

 

Why should I trust YOUR scientist's conclusions?

Your OP states basically that scientists are slaves to the inaccuracies of past science. Your hypothesis is that scientists are flawed individuals with pre-existing bias toward their work. Yet you then go on to claim that a certain group of scientists are immune to this flaw - those that agree with your bias.

And the hypocrisy of your logic completely escapes you. Wow. Congratulations.

 

So you are well practiced with doing the theist double duck and dive two step evasion?

How can you have a thread on the age of the Earth if you can't accurately pin down WHEN your imaginary creation event occurred? According to your bible it was supposed to take 6 days so please provide these ACTUAL DATES as they pertain to our current Gregorian calendar.

Furthermore since you are blindly assuming that the bible is infallible as your basis for the age of the earth then the FACT that it is riddled with scientific INACCURACIES and CONTRADICTIONS makes it a really bad source to rely on. Even more so since you are REFUSING to address any of these issues.

That puts your credibility in serious jeopardy since you chose to start this thread in the SCIENCE forum thereby tacitly accepting that your bogus claims will be put through scientific rigor.

You MUST resolve ALL of the scientific inaccuracies in your bible for your own sake otherwise you are effectively abandoning your own OP as a hopeless failure.

But that is your problem, not mine!

 

Unless you are willing and capable of understanding geology, sea level changes, large time frames, sedimentary formation and quite a few other things (and you clearly are not) any in depth discussion is the futile waste of time I have already indicated. That said....I will provide a synopsis for you to ignore and dismiss:
https://www.dovermuseum.co.uk/Information-Resources/Articles--Factsheets/White-Cliffs-of-Dover.aspx

By the way....you cannot watch a fossil be formed.

 

Science is self correcting whereas theism is stuck on being wrong forever.

 

tiny muzzles?

 

I think you misunderstood. All are bias, the question is witch bias is correct? There you must do what evolutionist dont want, test and challenge everything. This thread is on the age of the earth, so test what has been said see who is true or correct, whos bias is right?

 

Sorry thought it was clear or posters would learn of the position they wish to post against. Biblical creation is 10,000 year earth creation over 6 days.

Furthermore since you are blindly assuming that the bible is false and an old earth is true as your basis for the age of the earth then the FACT that it is riddled with scientific INACCURACIES and CONTRADICTIONS makes it a really bad source to rely on. Even more so since you are REFUSING to address any of these issues given in my op.

That puts your credibility in serious jeopardy since you chose to start this thread in the SCIENCE forum thereby tacitly accepting that your bogus claims will be put through scientific rigor.

You MUST resolve ALL of the scientific inaccuracies in old earth beliefs for your own sake otherwise you are effectively abandoning your beliefs as a hopeless failure.

But that is your problem, not mine!





But as for your contradictions, they are easily answered you could google and find a response to each one. It is not my duty to fix people who believe everything they are told and who refuse to post specific one because they know they will be answered. However as stated, a thread will be coming for you to do so, this is on the age of the earth. Since the bible is not true and scientifically inaccurate as you assume, show it, show the earth is old scientifically and the bible wrong. That is your challenge on this thread. But it still holds, any 3 i will answer for you pick your best 3.

 

So in other words you give up and link the first googled thread that has nothing to do with arguing your position. I agree we did not watch those fossils form and are thus outside of observation. But we do observe the ocean today and see the evolutionist faith is unfounded in their old earth claims about chalk formation. Good day.

 

Science is self correcting whereas evolution is stuck on being wrong forever.

 

Wrong!

Evolution is science which means that it is self correcting.

But thanks for tacitly conceding that theism is stuck on being wrong forever.

 

Nice, but you make it to easy to apply to you. Rely less on emotion and support your claims.

 

Wrong!

Scince is science which means that it is self correcting.

But thanks for tacitly conceding that materialistic naturalism is stuck on being wrong forever