Young-Earth Creationism

[Jesus_lol]

huh? oh its a band i listen to. i am a christian, but not really sure what denomination, though i agree with catholics on a couple issues. last time i was at church it was a united church, but that was mere geographical convenience, i was raised a mennonite but we left that church when i was ten(dont ask me why i dunno)

and i can tell you now before you get started, that where i am coming from has absolutely nothing to do with what churches i went to when i was young, or what music i listen to.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Jesus_lol

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='22 October 2009 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1256188960' post='1989497']
You conclude wrong. And I assume by this you take the entire Gospel of John literally as well?
[/quote]


No, C-Mother, it is you that are wrong. Simply making the statement I am incorrect with no proof is a waste of time. Plus, you just slapped God in the face no less than 350 times telling Him He doesn't have any idea what He's talking about. You ought to be ashamed.
Mentioning the gospel of John is totally irrelevent! We are talking about the usage of a word and it's consistent meaning in over 350 places! It is simply astonishing to me how with such little regard and low esteem you hold forth the very word that is going to judge you on that final day (John 12:48).

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='22 October 2009 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1256189695' post='1989505']
No, C-Mother, it is you that are wrong. Simply making the statement I am incorrect with no proof is a waste of time. Plus, you just slapped God in the face no less than 350 times telling Him He doesn't have any idea what He's talking about. You ought to be ashamed.
Mentioning the gospel of John is totally irrelevent! We are talking about the usage of a word and it's consistent meaning in over 350 places! It is simply astonishing to me how with such little regard and low esteem you hold forth the very word that is going to judge you on that final day (John 12:48).
[/quote]
"The Bible simply will not permit it, and therefore one must conclude the Lord would be quite angry with the Catholic Church's suggestion that we interpret that word to mean long ages simply to accomade the primarily atheistic theory of evolution"

If you had actually read the thread y ou would see I wasn't discussing evolution, I was discussing geology. Maybe God ought to slap you a bit.
The reference to John is simply a reference to your absolutist literal interpretation of Genesis, and your conclusion that your interpretation -devoid of scholarship on teaching stories -is the correct one, and a wondering if you interpret the Gospel of John with the same literalness. Its also astonishing to me that you are so convinced that your opinion is actually fact and the Church of 2000 years is wrong because you say so. Faithful people can have differing opinions on the scientific value of Genesis 1.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='21 October 2009 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1256183512' post='1989425']
it's ridiculous, if not next to ridiculous... that anyone would have to say 'in my opinion' on this. the young earth stuff isn't even formidable enough to mean anything other than rationalizations.
[/quote]


As ususal Dairy-G, you are high on the opinion scale, but low on the evidence. You don't interact with even one proof that SOOOOOO convinces you that the idea of a young Earth is ridiculous. There is truckloads of evidence you'd be quite surprised at and it is simply infuriating to read your "know-it-all" comment which triumphantly closes the case in the blink of an eye with one breath out of your mouth. By the way, God did it better than you, in that, "by the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the host of them by the[i] BREATH of His mouth" (Ps 33:6). [/i] Well respected scientists with more than one degree could easily turn you into dust by the breath of THEIR mouths if given a debate opportunity. Speaking of dust, did you know that when they first landed on the moon in '69, they were well prepared for the large amount of moon dust that SHOULD be there, at least 50 feet high, if the million year scenario were true. They installed special "legs" on that lunar landing vehicle in anticipation of this. But to the surprise of NASA, as well as Armstrong who took the first steps down the ladder, he was amazed that the ground was "just like powder".....evidence that the moon is not as old as you think, and consequently, neither is the earth. That's just ONE of far too many examples to list here, for which persons such as yourself are left mystified. Are you a Protestant? If so, do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days as He CLEARLY says? If not, how do you deal with the previously mentioned "350" objections?

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='21 October 2009 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1256185300' post='1989450']
He claims that evolution states that all animals have to have transformed from another animal. Thus, for there to be crocodiles and ducks, there at one point had to be a mix, i.e., crocoduck.


Of course the whole idea is ludicrous, but THAT is basically what is taught in every school in America! By definition, that is exactly what evolution is postulating, and it is a lie straight from the pit of hell. The only thing that has been found in the fossil record are FULLY FORMED creatures, which is precisely what one would expect if we were created.....since no organisim can function without the sum total of it's parts in perfect harmony, RIGHT FROM THE START.















[/quote]

Edited October 22, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Jesus_lol]

wow, you have almost everything entirely wrong(you did sort of spell/abbreviate Cmoms name right, ill give you that)

evolution has pretty much nothing to do with cross breeding of animals. it has to do with the the ones being born with the best traits(big brains, strong arms, defense mechanism, whatever) being morelikely to breed, thus the genetic make up is steadily refined as it adapts to its environment.

you can see evolution happening by looking at older bones of many animals, because they have changed since then.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='22 October 2009 - 02:18 AM' timestamp='1256174330' post='1989332']
Well the flood may have put all the dinosaur bones under layers of ground, making it appear as if they had beeen millions of years ago. Plus, God is not subject to time.
[/quote]


[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1256176479' post='1989360']
down vote if you want but in this society it is true.

sure a flood could deposit stuff deep underground(maybe? kinda doubtful to me) but it wouldn't then rearrange all the pulled up earth into clear geological layers or strata in such a way as to perfectly mesh with existing ones and fit with the geological activity of the earth. Geology is one of the better understood sciences, by scientists and me(you should take some courses in it, quite fascinating) and it is quite easy to look at the earth and see the ravages and the wonders time has wrought upon it, a beautiful process.
also a Flood would not turn Bones into stone. unless you happen to believe there were 8 ton, stone boned T-Rexs' roaming the land in the past 6 thousand years.
[/quote]
I'm not a geologist, but archaeologists know a thing or two about stratification as well. And I will second what Jesus_lol said in that a world-wide flood could bury all dinosaur bones, but would not result in the clear stratification that we have. It is very obvious when stratification is disturbed by a flood or other natural disaster. Or when people dig a hole all the way through an ancient city and destroy all the upper layers in order to "prove" a false assumption *cough*Schliemann*cough*

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='22 October 2009 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1256190322' post='1989511']
"The Bible simply will not permit it, and therefore one must conclude the Lord would be quite angry with the Catholic Church's suggestion that we interpret that word to mean long ages simply to accomade the primarily atheistic theory of evolution"

If you had actually read the thread y ou would see I wasn't discussing evolution, I was discussing geology. Maybe God ought to slap you a bit.
The reference to John is simply a reference to your absolutist literal interpretation of Genesis, and your conclusion that your interpretation -devoid of scholarship on teaching stories -is the correct one, and a wondering if you interpret the Gospel of John with the same literalness. Its also astonishing to me that you are so convinced that your opinion is actually fact and the Church of 2000 years is wrong because you say so. Faithful people can have differing opinions on the scientific value of Genesis 1.
[/quote]


You don't mention WHAT part of John you are talking about so I can't answer. Christ spoke figuratively quite a few times in that book and throughout his "career" as the O.T. foretold and as He Himself said He would do. We should ALL try to understand Jesus literally except when there is evidence that He was not! And again, you are unclear when you ask if I am in disagreement with "the church of 2,000" years"----do you mean only on what they have said on matters of science (because they certainly botched it up with Galileo)---or with their general claim of hierarchial subordination, which is nowhere made more clear than at Vatican 1, where one is consigned to hell if we don't bow our knee to the Pope! [i]That[/i] is a false gospel and you'd better believe I say they are wrong (and I'm in good company to the tune of millions of others) who will tell you that salvation is to be found in Christ ALONE.

[goldenchild17]

and in short... While I believe in a young-earth and while I believe evolution is a crock of... well you know, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to hell because of it. I might be going to hell for other things, but not this, and certainly not for having half of a brain stem or whatever it is one must be missing for disregarding a modern scientific theory.

Honestly, I don't think this debate is high enough on God's list of concerns for Him to go around slapping people

the end

Edited October 22, 2009 by goldenchild17

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='22 October 2009 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1256193921' post='1989549']
and in short... While I believe in a young-earth and while I believe evolution is a crock of... well you know, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to hell because of it. I might be going to hell for other things, but not this, and certainly not for having half of a brain stem or whatever it is one must be missing for disregarding a modern scientific theory.

Honestly, I don't think this debate is high enough on God's list of concerns for Him to go around slapping people

the end


[/quote]
I reach brother, I really do. +1

You are not Herbert.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='22 October 2009 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1256194189' post='1989553']You are not Herbert.
[/quote]

That sir, is quite possibly the highest praise one can receive.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='dentarthurdent95' date='21 October 2009 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1256174405' post='1989333']
Oh and Stormstopper, you never mentioned my point about there being no way of knowing how long adam and eve were in the garden. Their age could have been considered by when people actually aged. In the garden of Eden, there was no death, so possibly no age.
[/quote]


D-95,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying it is unknown how long they were in the garden, so when they sinned and [i]then [/i]began to age, from that point on, we know Adam lived to be 800 (Gen 5:4). I agree there must be only 2 possibilites. There would be nothing biblically objectionable by my asserting that Adam lived a strict 800 from the time he was created and simply didn't age at all; then in his 799th year he could have committed the crime--- began to age---and hence died in the 800th. Or it might be true that there was some amount of time they [i]were[/i] in the Garden and it was only when he fell that he began to age and from that point on, lasted 800 more years. So we should try to base our conclusions on other more sturdy criteria. Nevertheless, I would argue that the statement by the Creator Himself in Mark 10:6, wherein He quotes Genesis 1:27, makes it quite clear that A & E were created "at the [u]beginning[/u] of the creation"----just six days in fact, after the beginning, and not after the earth had already existed for millions of years.
As a side not to those persons on this thread who agree with the Catholic Church's weak-kneed stand on giving lip service to evolution, they ought to consider that after the creation of Adam, there was the [i]subsequent[/i] formation of Eve out of a bone taken from his side (confirmed by Paul in 1 Tim 2:13). Obviously, this is not an act of evolution in any sense of the term. If God could create an army of men out of some dry bones right before the eyes of Ezekiel, He could do the same with Adam's bone, which He of course, DID do, to create Eve.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='22 October 2009 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1256194594' post='1989554']
That sir, is quite possibly the highest praise one can receive.
[/quote]

truly. glad to see someone calm on this thread, though i wish it had been me (my half brainstem thing was probably too far, i actually wasnt saying that you had one,but that the old earth thing is so stuck in my head i would have to only have that much left to change my mind. i shouldnt have even bothered with that, pretty much insulting no matter how you look at it.)

no matter what i think of you though, Storm stopper continues to drain my IQ with each post.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Jesus_lol

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1256194875' post='1989559']
truly. glad to see someone calm on this thread, though i wish it had been me (my half brainstem thing was probably too far, i actually wasnt saying that you had one,but that the old earth thing is so stuck in my head i would have to only have that much left to change my mind. i shouldnt have even bothered with that, pretty much insulting no matter how you look at it.)

no matter what i think of you though, Storm stopper continues to drain my IQ with each post.
[/quote]

not a problem What with being on here for like 6 years and with all the colleges I've attended now I have heard far worse than that. And really, even though I'm sure I OWN a full brain, I'm quite certain I don't use more than a small fraction of it. So the assertion wouldn't be that far off anyways.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 October 2009 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1256191817' post='1989532']
wow, you have almost everything entirely wrong(you did sort of spell/abbreviate Cmoms name right, ill give you that)

evolution has pretty much nothing to do with cross breeding of animals. it has to do with the the ones being born with the best traits(big brains, strong arms, defense mechanism, whatever) being morelikely to breed, thus the genetic make up is steadily refined as it adapts to its environment.

you can see evolution happening by looking at older bones of many animals, because they have changed since then.
[/quote]


Excuse me, but I was NOT advocating that evolution has anything to do with CROSS BREEDING. A crock and a duck cannot mate as God specifically said that He created each one "according to it's kind". I was referring to the FIRST part of the sentence, namely

"He claims that evolution states that all animals have to have transformed from another animal. Thus, for there to be crocodiles and ducks, there at one point had to be a mix, i.e., crocoduck."
__________________________________________________

And what I meant is that the fossil record does not in any way demonstrate any [i]transitional [/i] forms whatsoever---in that we might see the slow "migration" of one animal into another, or the increasing complexity of another. A lion, for example, has always been a lion. I am familiar with the paltry proofs some submit for "looking at bones and seeing how evolution has changed them" as you say. If you are talking about variation in species, that is not an argument because, for example, there are many types of dogs. If you are referring to something else where evolution has supposedly worked its magic, then give us an example.