How literally do you take the creation story?

[urroner]

Right. And I asked which is harder, making that or a fully grown Earth, with the appearance of age.

You see, I'm not saying that God changed the laws of physics. I'm saying no different than any Atheist when he references a singularity. I'm saying that God created the laws of physics, and in the beginning he created everything so it would function as he wished. And in order to do that, he had to create things that appeared to be older than they really were. As exemplified by Adam and Eve, at the end of the week, if you would have been an observer you would have thought that they were 24 or so years old. They talked, walked and did things. You wouldn't have looked at them and said, "hmm.. they look only 2 days old..." .

That is my point. Not that the laws of physics changed, but that God in his creative act made the universe to appear to have age, even though it was only days old.

Why would God ever do anything like that?

[Hughes]

I completely agree with this... but the question is why you brought it up in the first place to prove they thought the earth was a globe?

Well, I suppose I remembered it was the word "sphere" and it wasn't. I thought it was a good point at the time. I was mistaken.

[SilverKnight]

That is my point. Not that the laws of physics changed, but that God in his creative act made the universe to appear to have age, even though it was only days old.

Are you LDS?

What doctrinal source is demanding that you crush geology, time and the laws of physics into such a chaotic mess in order to protect this precious 6000 year timeframe?

LDS theology does not demand a Young Earth view of creation - at all.

Heck, most Christians don't even believe Young Earth nonsense anymore.

[Hughes]

Radiometric dating is accurate to the degree of fractions of percentage points, to claim that it could be off by billion years, and the Earth really might be 6000 years old, is simply delusional, and represents total ignorance to the physics involved.

To claim that the Earth 'could' be 6000 years old is like claiming an 80 year old human 'could' be one hour old - that is how breathtakingly wrong Young Earth Creationists are.

I say if you want to believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old, it doesn't really matter.

I don't have that kind of faith.

[Zakuska]

Radiometric dating is accurate to the degree of fractions of percentage points, to claim that it could be off by billion years, and the Earth really might be 6000 years old, is simply delusional, and represents total ignorance to the physics involved.

To claim that the Earth 'could' be 6000 years old is like claiming an 80 year old human 'could' be one hour old - that is how breathtakingly wrong Young Earth Creationists are.

I wouldn't say its off by billions of years. But from what I've been studying lately its not as accurate as you pretend it is.

Eg. 100 year old seals being dated to 2000 years old.

Not to mention that Radio Active Decay rates are anything but stable.

[Hughes]

Why would God ever do anything like that?

Create the appearance of age?

What are his options? Which would you choose if you were all powerful?

1) Create with no appearance of age, and wait billions of years for the laws of physics he's created to actually develop or "create" what he really wanted...

2) Create with the appearance of age and set things up as he wanted in the beginning, and use the 6 days of creation as an example of a work week.

It doesn't make sense to me that an all powerful God would choose the first option.

[SilverKnight]

I say if you want to believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old, it doesn't really matter.

I don't have that kind of faith.

I am curious to know why belief in a 6000 year old earth is so critical for you to maintain faith.

I honestly have not ever met an LDS Young Earth Creationist.

[Hughes]

Are you LDS?

What doctrinal source is demanding that you crush geology, time and the laws of physics into such a chaotic mess in order to protect this precious 6000 year timeframe?

LDS theology does not demand a Young Earth view of creation - at all.

Heck, most Christians don't even believe Young Earth nonsense anymore.

I'm not LDS. And I'm not out to crush anything. Only interested in the truth. If the Earth is 4.6 Billion years, then cool. I don't see the evidence for it. And I used to believe that was the case.

I am only relaying what I've learned in my short 47 years of life.

[SilverKnight]

I'm not LDS. And I'm not out to crush anything. Only interested in the truth. If the Earth is 4.6 Billion years, then cool. I don't see the evidence for it. And I used to believe that was the case.

I am only relaying what I've learned in my short 47 years of life.

You know many christians, most even, including brilliant and devout theologians, professors of divinity and christian scientists, believe in a billions year old earth - and they find no conflict with the bible in that regard.

Christians have explained to me the Bible does not demand a 6000 year old earth.

[Rob Osborn]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the creation occurred 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Shamelessly slightly changed from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The evidence hasn't been arranged. The evidence clearly shows a cataclysmic past. The evidence shows that many many layers were laid down while under water. Geologists know that pretty much every part of the earth was under water at some point. the disagreement though is "when" that happened. They look at the evidence subjectively though. they often throw out dates that don't fit their ideals and only allow certain dogmas to be both peer reviewed and printed. It's a controlled situation that they themselves control. They set up organizations, lawyers, etc. to directly refute any findings that do not fit their own personal agendas. So, after a few decades of this happening it becomes easier and easier to convince the public about their opinions.

They discount creationists and ID'ers, (they are different) and blast them in court and convince judges to pass laws that are unconstitutional.

It's only in our modern day of such strict atheism that these ideals are being held onto. I mean, it gets pretty bad when even the elect saints of God start to become conviced that perhaps it's all just a myth.

[Hughes]

I am curious to know why belief in a 6000 year old earth is so critical for you to maintain faith.

I honestly have not ever met an LDS Young Earth Creationist.

Not critical at all.

When I first became a christian I didn't believe in a young earth. It wasn't until I started reading about geological non-conformities (I think that's what they are called). Such as a tree that is held vertically through supposedly 300 thousand years of layers of strata. I also learned that dating rocks often used "index fossils" which are used to indicate which "period" that strata is supposed to fit in the time scale. And here I was seeing circular reasoning at it's best. Fossils to date rocks and rocks used to date fossils. And all based on a shaky evolutionary foundation.

Long story short, I simply started at square one again. IF God exists... how did he do it?

I don't think that there's any "loss" of salvation if you don't believe in a young earth. I simply don't see that there is direct evidence for it. Sure there's lot's of things that can be interpreted as indicating an old earth, but they can also be interpreted as supporting a young earth. And for me, I'm only interested in how God did it.

[Hughes]

You know many christians, most even, including brilliant and devout theologians, professors of divinity and christian scientists, believe in a billions year old earth - and they find no conflict with the bible in that regard.

Christians have explained to me the Bible does not demand a 6000 year old earth.

And I wouldn't disagree. However, the flip side is also true. The Biblical text doesn't indicate any sort of billions or millions of years for that matter.

[Rob Osborn]

Are you LDS?

What doctrinal source is demanding that you crush geology, time and the laws of physics into such a chaotic mess in order to protect this precious 6000 year timeframe?

LDS theology does not demand a Young Earth view of creation - at all.

Heck, most Christians don't even believe Young Earth nonsense anymore.

Your staement needs some correction. LDS theology recognizes that Adam was the first man of all men and that he lived only 6,000 years ago. Before that, there was no deathin the world. LDS dtheology still supports the doctrine that death for all creations entered the earth when Adam fell.

As for how long the creation took to start and complete, we are not informed exactly- we have not been told. However, it doesn't really matter how long things were happening before Adam arrived on the scene because we are told that there was no death before his fall. God created his creations in perfect form (without death) when he first created them.

Also, it's false that most Christians do not believe in the young earth creation when plotted with darwinian evolution. Christians still over-rule evolutionists when it comes to beliefs on human origins.

[Tarski]

I say if you want to believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old, it doesn't really matter.

I don't have that kind of faith.

Since when does it take faith to believe exactly what our instruments, all our tests, well established theory, mathematics, and in some ways, even our eyes are telling us?

The Bible story is a cartoon compared with the scientific version. I guess cartoons seem more real to a mind like yours.

What do you mean "I don't have that kind of faith"? Give me a break. Why would a person who believes in talking snakes have difficulty believing anything?

By the way, using phrase "I don't have that kind of faith" when referring to some part of science that creationist don't like has become such a habit I guess some of you are saying it in situations where it doesn't even make sense. It is an embarrassing and mindless parroting of a mere speech pattern.

Stop being a parrot.

[Ceeboo]

Not critical at all.

When I first became a christian I didn't believe in a young earth. It wasn't until I started reading about geological non-conformities (I think that's what they are called). Such as a tree that is held vertically through supposedly 300 thousand years of layers of strata. I also learned that dating rocks often used "index fossils" which are used to indicate which "period" that strata is supposed to fit in the time scale. And here I was seeing circular reasoning at it's best. Fossils to date rocks and rocks used to date fossils. And all based on a shaky evolutionary foundation.

Long story short, I simply started at square one again. IF God exists... how did he do it?

I don't think that there's any "loss" of salvation if you don't believe in a young earth. I simply don't see that there is direct evidence for it. Sure there's lot's of things that can be interpreted as indicating an old earth, but they can also be interpreted as supporting a young earth. And for me, I'm only interested in how God did it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't look at both camps and/or any "evidences" that would contradict the Sacred text books in our schools!

Just stick with the theories we have read in the books!

How silly!

Oh by the way, these polystrate tree fossils (there are thousands of them all over the world) are not just going through 300,000 years but they are stretching through supposed millions of years in the gelogic column.

Science?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Zakuska]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't look at both camps and/or any "evidences" that would contradict the Sacred text books in our schools!

Just stick with the theories we have read in the books!

How silly!

Oh by the way, these polystrate tree fossils (there are thousands of them all over the world) are not just going through 300,000 years but they are stretching through supposed millions of years in the gelogic column.

Science?

Peace,

Ceeboo

Gelologic column is a false doctrine!

Study how these formations are formed (thanks Hughes for directing me too those videos) and you'll see where the errors are. Geological formations grow just as human bones do. Just as stalagmites/salagtites. Just as tree rings.

[Tarski]

Your staement needs some correction. LDS theology recognizes that Adam was the first man of all men and that he lived only 6,000 years ago. Before that, there was no deathin the world. LDS dtheology still supports the doctrine that death for all creations entered the earth when Adam fell.

As for how long the creation took to start and complete, we are not informed exactly- we have not been told. However, it doesn't really matter how long things were happening before Adam arrived on the scene because we are told that there was no death before his fall. God created his creations in perfect form (without death) when he first created them.

Also, it's false that most Christians do not believe in the young earth creation when plotted with darwinian evolution. Christians still over-rule evolutionists when it comes to beliefs on human origins.

How does an animal become a 100 million year old fossil without dying before Adam? What did the Dinosaurs eat?

[Zakuska]

How does an animal become a 100 million year old fossil without dying before Adam? What did the Dinosaurs eat?

How do they know its 100 Million years old in the first place? Our dating mechanisms are only "supposedly" accurate to about 50000 years ago. and even then I have my doubts.

[SilverKnight]

We've been through all this before.

LDS theology recognizes that Adam was the first man of all men

Yes, this is definitely the official LDS position.

and that he lived only 6,000 years ago.

No, and if you taught this in church you would likely get more then a few raised eyebrows.

Before that, there was no death in the world.

No, and if you taught this in church you would likely be laughed out of the room.

[SilverKnight]

How does an animal become a 100 million year old fossil without dying before Adam? What did the Dinosaurs eat?

Feel free to pick up the reins on this mind-numbing carousel Tarski.

I have lost too many brain cells trying to convince the flat-earthers.

[Ceeboo]

No, and if you taught this in church you would likely be laughed out of the room.

Then maybe he could enter the room of the other 99 plus % of Christians who would agree/believe it.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[SilverKnight]

Then maybe he could enter the room of the other 99 plus % of Christians who would agree/believe it.

Wait-

99% of Christians believe in a 6000 year old earth?

By the way Ceeboo, did you know that 58% of Catholics believe Evolution is the best explanation for Human Life on Earth?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-religion-evolution

[Ceeboo]

Wait-

99% of Christians believe in a 6000 year old earth?

By the way Ceeboo, did you know that 58% of Catholics believe Evolution is the best explanation for Human Life on Earth?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-religion-evolution

No, they believe that there was no sin/death before Adam (thousands vs billions is interesting indeed though)

I have seen many mnay who believe in evolution and Biblical accounts of creation.

I have rarely seen a God believeing creator who would also believe in macro evolution (humans were evolved from a simple one cell life form billions of years ago)

BTW, I have noticed that you label "young earthers" as ignorant, etc, etc. Have you looked into their claims and even slightly paused to consider the mere possibility?

Although I am agnostic concerning the age of the earth, I find both camps to have VERY interesting stances (Neither would old Ceebs call ignorant. Your WIKI articles considered)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

I remember somewhere where the Pope said that evolution is the best explanation. Albeit with Gods' help.

[SilverKnight]

No, they believe that there was no sin/death before Adam (thousands vs billions is interesting indeed though)

I have seen many mnay who believe in evolution and Biblical accounts of creation.

I have rarely seen a God believeing creator who would also believe in macro evolution (humans were evolved from a simple one cell life form billions of years ago)

According to the Pew study, more than half of Catholics believe Evolution is the best explanation for human life.

This is starkly at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

If 50% of Christians (again, going by the Pew Study) don't even believe the Biblical Creation Story, I think a much smaller % would believe in a Young Earth.

BTW, I have noticed that you label "young earthers" as ignorant,

Because they are, by definition, ignorant (willfully even) to dating methods used to calculate the age of the earth, and certainly do not grasp the certitude they provide.

It's akin to looking at a scale weighing an adult human male that reads 190lbs. and claiming it is heavy by 189lbs.

etc, etc. Have you looked into their claims

Yes.

There may be plausibility to the claims that the Radiometric dating might be off within a few percentage points (millions of years).

But to claim they might be off by +/- 4.49 billion years, and that a 6000 year old earth is the true age - it's not ignorance, it's lunacy.

and even slightly paused to consider the mere possibility?

No.

Although I am agnostic concerning the age of the earth, I find both camps to have VERY interesting stances (Neither would old Ceebs call ignorant. Your WIKI articles considered)

I don't consider Ceeboo to be in the ingnorant camp - he has a solid grasp on reality (most of the time).