ERayR Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) Some scientists take a new look at the genesis story. Maybe the science isn't so settled. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5350538925001/?#sp=show-clips Edited March 9, 2017 by ERayR Correct spelling
Ahab Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 I keep hoping that someday someone will make a movie to show how this planet was organized from existing matter and made fit for all of the kinds of living beings that were brought here to live and reproduce and pass down the story of how all of us came to be here. Right now there are some good concepts and bits and pieces in various stories but not as comprehensive as I would like to see. Somebody will do it eventually. I think.
Marmonboy Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 Making this planet out of existing matter, and making it habitable for the life that exists on it today, sounds to me just like what the scientists as well as the creationists are saying. The only difference is the time frame (billions of years vs. 6000 years.) Plus the issue of whether it was just cosmic luck or an intentional act by a divine Actor, of course. 1
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted March 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted March 9, 2017 11 hours ago, ERayR said: Some scientists take a new look at the genesis story. Maybe the science isn't so settled. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5350538925001/?#sp=show-clips There is an young-earth-creationist (YEC) movement among some evangelicals who are poorly informed on both the science and on the Bible. Those evangelicals who are better informed realize two things; (1) the Hebrew Bible does not describe six 24-hour days of creation, and (2) the science does not allow for a young Earth.. http://smithandfranklin.com/current-issues/Scandal-of-the-Evangelical-Mind-A-Biblical-and-Scientific-Critique-of-Young-Earth-Creationism/9/5/43 . 6
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 6 hours ago, Marmonboy said: Making this planet out of existing matter, and making it habitable for the life that exists on it today, sounds to me just like what the scientists as well as the creationists are saying. The only difference is the time frame (billions of years vs. 6000 years.) Plus the issue of whether it was just cosmic luck or an intentional act by a divine Actor, of course. The accretion disk. SEE 1
Alan Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: There is an young-earth-creationist (YEC) movement among some evangelicals who are poorly informed on both the science and on the Bible. Those evangelicals who are better informed realize two things; (1) the Hebrew Bible does not describe six 24-hour days of creation, and (2) the science does not allow for a young Earth.. http://smithandfranklin.com/current-issues/Scandal-of-the-Evangelical-Mind-A-Biblical-and-Scientific-Critique-of-Young-Earth-Creationism/9/5/43 . While it is true that the assumption of six 24 hour days of creation is not Biblical, the passing of around 6,000 years since the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Alan said: While it is true that the assumption of six 24 hour days of creation is not Biblical, the passing of around 6,000 years since the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is. While I am happy to find that you agree on the first premise, I wonder whether you are prepared to defend your second premise. For example, which chronological base do you apply to prove that approx 6000 years have passed since the expulsion from the Garden? Are we talking the outdated calculations of Archbishop Ussher? And, even if that is a generically correct biblical assumption, how does that account for humans having been on planet Earth for at least a million years? Indeed, how does that account for planet Earth having been in existence for around 4 1/2 billion years? 2
Alan Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: While I am happy to find that you agree on the first premise, I wonder whether you are prepared to defend your second premise. For example, which chronological base do you apply to prove that approx 6000 years have passed since the expulsion from the Garden? Are we talking the outdated calculations of Archbishop Ussher? And, even if that is a generically correct biblical assumption, how does that account for humans having been on planet Earth for at least a million years? Indeed, how does that account for planet Earth having been in existence for around 4 1/2 billion years? It doesn't. I don't believe human beings have been here for a million years.
strappinglad Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 As a young student I was told that humans existed back around 20,000 years. As I got older that date marched back to 50,000 years , then 100,000 years. The accepted age of modern man now lies around 200,000 years. Robert tells me that we are looking at 1,000,000 years. Michael Cremo in his book ' Forbidden Archeology ' claims human artifacts have been found in layers dated over 100,000,000 years. I am beginning to suspect that the Mayan idea of long age cycles of civilizations has merit. Joseph Smith suggested that this earth was created for more than one purpose, our current iteration being just the latest expression.
Ahab Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: While I am happy to find that you agree on the first premise, I wonder whether you are prepared to defend your second premise. For example, which chronological base do you apply to prove that approx 6000 years have passed since the expulsion from the Garden? Are we talking the outdated calculations of Archbishop Ussher? And, even if that is a generically correct biblical assumption, how does that account for humans having been on planet Earth for at least a million years? Indeed, how does that account for planet Earth having been in existence for around 4 1/2 billion years? This planet was created/ organized/ reorganized using already existing matter. Don't pay any attention to the guys who think every particle of matter in this planet was brand spanking new on day 1 after that creation. And we just don't know what those particles were used for prior to that creation.
Marmonboy Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: This planet was created/ organized/ reorganized using already existing matter. Don't pay any attention to the guys who think every particle of matter in this planet was brand spanking new on day 1 after that creation. And we just don't know what those particles were used for prior to that creation. This sounds like the old notion that all those dinosaur fossils come from whatever planet was smashed up to create this one. Here's a couple of ideas to mull over--how did those fossils and human-like artifacts survive intact after their original planet was smashed to bits and reformed into another planet, and what happened to those earlier animals/people? 1
Ahab Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Marmonboy said: This sounds like the old notion that all those dinosaur fossils come from whatever planet was smashed up to create this one. Here's a couple of ideas to mull over--how did those fossils and human-like artifacts survive intact after their original planet was smashed to bits and reformed into another planet, and what happened to those earlier animals/people? Possibilities: 1) This planet was previously occupied by dinosaurs prior to the creation, with no need to smash up every bit of the planet to remove every trace of the former inhabitants of the prior organization, thus leaving those traces for us to find as we have found them. 2) What happened to those prior inhabitants of this planet is that they died and/or those still living on the prior organization were moved to some other planet. And yes there are probably some more possibilities to mull over.
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Alan said: While it is true that the assumption of six 24 hour days of creation is not Biblical, the passing of around 6,000 years since the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is. Not so much. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: While I am happy to find that you agree on the first premise, I wonder whether you are prepared to defend your second premise. For example, which chronological base do you apply to prove that approx 6000 years have passed since the expulsion from the Garden? Are we talking the outdated calculations of Archbishop Ussher? And, even if that is a generically correct biblical assumption, how does that account for humans having been on planet Earth for at least a million years? Indeed, how does that account for planet Earth having been in existence for around 4 1/2 billion years? Humans haven't been on this planet for a million years. Our species Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been on this planet for between 200,000 and 250,000 years.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 41 minutes ago, Alan said: It doesn't. I don't believe human beings have been here for a million years. I wasn't speaking to belief, but rather to scholarship and science.
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 The physics works against the idea that bits of other planets with bones intact survived the early formation of our planet. 1
snowflake Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: (1) the Hebrew Bible does not describe six 24-hour days of creation Exodus 20:1111 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. What am I missing, seems like 6 days to me, biblically speaking.
Ahab Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: The physics works against the idea that bits of other planets with bones intact survived the early formation of our planet. Depends on how big those bits were, I think, and whether they were already together as one big mass. I'll get back to you later after I've gone through planet creation school and find out how God did it.
snowflake Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: which chronological base do you apply to prove that approx 6000 years have passed since the expulsion from the Garden? The bible of course, we do have the genealogies in Genesis 5 that give us from Adam to Noah. And Matthew and Luke the line can be followed back to Jesus, tack on 2000 years to today and there you go approx. 6000 years. There are plenty of diagrams of how they come up with the estimate.
Gray Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, snowflake said: The bible of course, we do have the genealogies in Genesis 5 that give us from Adam to Noah. And Matthew and Luke the line can be followed back to Jesus, tack on 2000 years to today and there you go approx. 6000 years. There are plenty of diagrams of how they come up with the estimate. The problem with this of course is that Adam and Noah are not verifiable figures of history. It's unlikely that either existed outside of stories. And of course the Bible is not a history in the sense that we use that word to mean today. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Ahab said: Depends on how big those bits were, I think, and whether they were already together as one big mass. I'll get back to you later after I've gone through planet creation school and find out how God did it. Any such bits coming together releases heat. More than enough heat to melt any such bits to a liquid. Ps; A science class is a lot quicker. I have no problem with God using science in his creations. Edited March 9, 2017 by thesometimesaint
snowflake Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, Gray said: The problem with this of course is that Adam and Noah are not verifiable figures of history. It's unlikely that either existed outside of stories. And of course the Bible is not a history in the sense that we use that word to mean today. OK, that's all fine and dandy. I'm just pointing out that the bible gives us a genealogy that can be traced back quite accurately pointing to the biblical creation around 4000B.C. You don't have to believe it, just saying that is what the bible indicates. Is that what it would take for you to believe it, 100%verafiable evidence for Moses and Adam?
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, snowflake said: The bible of course, we do have the genealogies in Genesis 5 that give us from Adam to Noah. And Matthew and Luke the line can be followed back to Jesus, tack on 2000 years to today and there you go approx. 6000 years. There are plenty of diagrams of how they come up with the estimate. I wonder where all the women are, because they are missing from the Bible.
thesometimesaint Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 1 minute ago, snowflake said: OK, that's all fine and dandy. I'm just pointing out that the bible gives us a genealogy that can be traced back quite accurately pointing to the biblical creation around 4000B.C. You don't have to believe it, just saying that is what the bible indicates. Is that what it would take for you to believe it, 100%verafiable evidence for Moses and Adam? The Bible claims lots of things that can't be demonstrated. Whom did Cain marry?
Recommended Posts