Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

I doubt it.

 

No, stop with your silly accusations. This has nothing to do with "liberal". I did not say anything derogatory about your religion. There is nothing wrong with allegory as a communication style.

You can look up the evidence yourself if you care. You can not expect someone to drag you kicking and scereaming through physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry, biology, and paleontology in a post.

And, remember that we have made progress in other areas, too. Our understanding of medicine, of women, of slavery, of government, and of other areas has progressed since Genesis was written, too.

 

Just under 5,000,000,000 years old depending on how you "define" earth. About 100,000 years after the sun was formed the metal core of the earth was formed (under present thinking) everything else came from collisions with other bodies and gravity.

If I was a religious man I'd KNOW that god's language is mathematics!

 

Yet another PUERILE response straight out of elementary school!



In other words you are utterly incapable of defending your feckless bovine excrement.

Got it!

 

That was already done in the Dover, PA court case where a CONSERVATIVE judge ruled that creationism was nonsensical theism that did not meet any of the normal scientific standards.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision3.html#p294

Note: ID refers to "Intelligent Design".

 

That is nonsensical because ch 2 directly CONTRADICTS ch 1.

Ch 1

Ch 2

1:6-7 clearly indicates by the "waters above" that there was going to be rain. Compare that to the CONTRADICTION in 2:5 where it alleges that no raid had fallen.

1:11-12 stipulates that there would be vegetation of every kind all over the dry land everywhere. Compare that to the CONTRADICTION in 2:5 where it alleges that there was no vegetation of any kind whatsoever.

Furthermore 2:1-2 alleges that this is lack of vegetation is there AFTER the original 7 days of "creation" where EVERYTHING was supposedly COMPLETED.

Furthermore ch 2 CONTRADICTS when man was formed and HOW man was formed. In ch 1 he is created in your deity's image and in ch 2 man is formed from the dust of the ground.

None of these things have anything at all to do with your deflection regarding the garden of eden. They are just OBVIOUS BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS between the first two chapters of your bible.

When you can't get your own story straight why should anyone believe any of it?

 

I have my doubts that there was any rudimentary education to begin with.

Most certainly none that involved any learning of critical thinking skills like logic and reason.

 

Yes, there is the immediatiatly obvious absurdity,
But is also oddly fascinating to consider the engineering challenges that arise when you build large ship out of wood- with primitive tools;- no experience or expertise designing or building such a ship;-limited labor force;- finding, cutting, and processing the necessary wood to build the ship;-water proofing the enormous ship perfectly, the first time;-steering such a ship. On and on... the practical challenges are stupendous. Frankly, the most reasonable way this could happen would be for god to send down a pre-made celestial ship

 

Given the alleged powers that he has he could simply have wiped out the rest of humanity while leaving only Noah and his family. That would have been the most obvious solution and by far the easiest. Note that he did exactly that with Soddom and Gomorrah.

 

...But....But....that aint nearly as perty a story fer da lil' ones onna counta den ya gits no aminals. An den da flud donna needa git done.

 

Deleted

 

Yes, and it would have been much more cinematic, like the parting of the Red Sea and the plagues in egypt

 

I've thought critically since becoming a teenager 60+ years ago. At 79 and with decades of studying Christianity, the Bible and comparing them with ancient Mesopotamian history and related studies I can tell you that I prefer the Gilgamesh story much more. Science will eventually oust religion. Science is not perfect and is ever changing and moving on but I prefer it to creationist teaching. Creationists are not averse to lying 'because sheep cannot think for themselves'. because they believe everything their high priest tells them. Of course there are 'missing links'. Some species die out altogether. Some evolve through stages without leaving a trace of the intermediate due to circumstances and conditions What would dinosaurs have evolved into if there had not been some catastrophe.

Personally reading your posts reminds me of Acts 26:24.

Critical thinking. 'The essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry to determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution. This, more than any other thing, transforms mere inference into tested inference, suggested conclusions into proof.'

I have no idea what your schools teach. I'm from the UK.

 

I'd like to address your human population growth. Population is limited by food, water scarcity, war, and disease. There is no rule which states that population will increase and it only increases when conditions improve and will only increase to levels conditions allow. It will not increase indefinitely.

 

When I lived in Yosemite we would get a massive Raccoon overpopulation every 4-6 years...as they slowly recovered from the last natural culling. After winter the population again returned to a much smaller number until the next build-up.

 

I see you are confusing "evolutionists" with geologists. Biology and geology are two different disciplines.

 

All true. Plus, even Ham of the Ark Park, the guy who "debated" Bill Nye, agrees that evolution produced the species we see today. He just believes today's species came from God's original starter set that would have fit on the ark - marrying the ideas of young earth, evolution, Noah as a factual account. Of course, that still doesn't hold water.

On the other hand, washing with water (baptism, etc.) is a common theme in religion, and the story has God washing Earth. In the end, the ark story is probably substantially more meaningful if one doesn't fixate on Noah's magical cruise ship and considers this story as an allegory.

 

You posted your religious pseudoscience in the wrong subforum.

 

Exactly, and that is what happened to early humans. Life used to be very tough. Scientists think humans had a near-extinction event about 75,000 years ago when Mt. Toba in Indonesia erupted in one of the biggest volcanic events recorded and possibly created a 6-year volcanic winter. And this coincides with evidence of a human population bottleneck about the same time period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

 

Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during Creation Week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on Day Six and shows some of the events of that day.1 Let’s take a look at what happened on Day Six, according to Genesis 2, and we’ll see there is no discrepancy here.

• 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)

The particular issue that people have with Genesis 2 is that the order of the creation of man, animals, and trees seems to be contrary to the order stated in Genesis 1.

Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)
Following the creation of man, Genesis 2:9 mentions that God created trees, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9)
Then Genesis 2:19 mentions the creation of certain land animals.

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19)
At first glance this seems to be a contradiction because Genesis 1 has the animals and trees created prior to the creation of man; however, both issues can be resolved by an understanding of the original language and the translation process.2 The Hebrew word for formed in both passages is yatsar. The New King James Version (quoted above) translates the verb in its perfect form.

However, this Hebrew word may also be translated in its pluperfect form. In this case, it would read that God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it (e.g. ESV, NIV, etc.) For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states:

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. (emphasis mine)
This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week. This would mean that the plants (Genesis 2:9) and the animals (Genesis 2:19) had already been formed by God earlier in Creation Week. William Tyndale was the first to translate an English Bible directly from the original languages,3 and He also translated the verb in its pluperfect form.

And after that the Lord God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names. (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19)

 

Well we are not concerned with what you prefer, i prefer islam personally, i like 4 wives and 70 when i get to haven. I would rather the bible not be true, all those you shall not, dont look at a woman lustfully etc but we are rather concerned with what is true.


I believe you have misunderstood me, i want science to oust religious faith in evolution, in fact it has many times, but the faithful will not see it. And if science is at odds with creation teaching dammit oust creation. But of course this will not happen.


You have claimed creationist lie, that might be as all are sinners, but we know evolutionist lie it is my next topic but some can be seen already on my fossil record thread. Further if you have any examples of missing links you would like to discus feel free to bring them up.

Biblical Creation vs Evolution- The Fossil Record
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...eation-vs-evolution-the-fossil-record.538071/



Thanks for the post. By the way, im glad Croatia beat the brits, they were my team.

 

Holy carp something on topic, bless your soul lol. Yes of course all those effect population growth. Can you give an observed example when population did not grow? also did they not have more land and resources avalibel through history compared to today? are we not said to be overpopulated? but in fact i actually agree with you somewhat. The world population stats assume uniformitarnism [as does radiometric dating] and my op is to show that these assumptions contradict themselves and are outside of observation.

 

I understand why an evolutionist would call observable science [from my op using peer reviewed evolutionist sources] "pseudoscience" but i do hope one day evolutionist will be willing to put science above their faith, that is why i am here.

 

Thanks for those who have posted on topic recently. I just wanted to say allot has been said and claimed in regards to Noah's ark and flood or other creation vs evolution topics. This is awesome and i am glad to see the interests. I believe just like the age of the earth and the fossil record, noahs flood and ark deserve their own thread as do many other subjects that have been brought up. I will be doing threads on those topics as well. Because of time I will only be able to respond on this thread to anything related to the age of the earth.

Thanks and stay around for future threads.

 

We have only had accurate population statistics for the past 100 years and populations before then are merely estimates so there may have been periods of population growth and restriction that we didn't know about. Populations started growing seriously about 4,000 years ago as civilizations developed and technological growth picked up and this coincides with the development of farming about 12,000 years ago. Before then humans were hunter-gatherers and their populations were restricted by how many animals were around and most tribes needed dozens of square miles to feed themselves. They had lots of land but because they had primitive technology they didn't get a lot out of that land, mostly roots, berries, and game. For example, the peak number of aboriginese is estimated at 750,000 people and that was all Australia could really support for hundreds of thousands of years. We have seen bacteria populations will grow until they run out of resources and their populations stabilize.