Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

How Old is This Thing?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How Old is This Thing?

    Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

    But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

    Thanks!

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

  • #2
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

    But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

    Thanks!
    For a YEC position I recommend looking here. http://creation.com/
    There is a lot to go through though, everything from what the Hebrew in Genesis means, to why the consensus interpretations of the evidence aren't accepted. The key articles page under the "Topics" list is probably a good start though.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

      But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

      Thanks!
      I am not agnostic, I believe in an Old Earth, but I do not see any faith related issues of significance involved. I believe it because "all" scientific evidence points in that direction. I struggled with the issue because I could not reconcile my understanding of the Genesis creation account with all the evidence. I decided to accept both and let it go at that. Then I ran into Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe. My understanding of the creation account was based only upon what I had heard and rejected as a kid. Hugh Ross read the same creation account and interpreted it very differently. He said something to the effect that; it matched very well what he had learned as a student of science.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #4
        I always go back to the cross.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          I always go back to the cross.
          The problem is the Good News doesn't make sense unless you know the bad news first.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            The problem is the Good News doesn't make sense unless you know the bad news first.
            But I don't need to know WHEN the bad news happened, just that it did.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              But I don't need to know WHEN the bad news happened, just that it did.
              True, but much of what is being taught as fact would make it so that the bad news never happened, or wasn't nearly as bad as the NT authors depict it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                True, but much of what is being taught as fact would make it so that the bad news never happened, or wasn't nearly as bad as the NT authors depict it.
                For example?
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  For example?
                  For example it's being taught there were no Adam and Eve. It's being said by many that they were some kind of "myth". These are usually tied to evolution though.

                  Old earth views would have death before any possible date for Adam and Eve(the genealogies in Genesis can only be stretched so far). Both of these take away from what Christ taught, and what the other NT authors taught. If death is not the wages of sin, then what did Christ save us from? This is just a small sample of the kind of problems you encounter when trying to fit certain modern ideas into the Bible.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    For example it's being taught there were no Adam and Eve. It's being said by many that they were some kind of "myth". These are usually tied to evolution though.

                    Old earth views would have death before any possible date for Adam and Eve(the genealogies in Genesis can only be stretched so far). Both of these take away from what Christ taught, and what the other NT authors taught. If death is not the wages of sin, then what did Christ save us from? This is just a small sample of the kind of problems you encounter when trying to fit certain modern ideas into the Bible.
                    Ah... gotcha.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cere
                      For a YEC position I recommend looking here. http://creation.com/
                      There is a lot to go through though, everything from what the Hebrew in Genesis means, to why the consensus interpretations of the evidence aren't accepted. The key articles page under the "Topics" list is probably a good start though.
                      I'll check it out. Thanks!

                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        I am not agnostic, I believe in an Old Earth, but I do not see any faith related issues of significance involved. I believe it because "all" scientific evidence points in that direction. I struggled with the issue because I could not reconcile my understanding of the Genesis creation account with all the evidence. I decided to accept both and let it go at that. Then I ran into Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe. My understanding of the creation account was based only upon what I had heard and rejected as a kid. Hugh Ross read the same creation account and interpreted it very differently. He said something to the effect that; it matched very well what he had learned as a student of science.
                        I'll check that out as well. Thanks.

                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I always go back to the cross.
                          I try to just stay there.

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                            For example it's being taught there were no Adam and Eve. It's being said by many that they were some kind of "myth". These are usually tied to evolution though.
                            I do believe that Adam and Eve were the real first people.

                            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                            Old earth views would have death before any possible date for Adam and Eve(the genealogies in Genesis can only be stretched so far).
                            There was certainly no human death before the fall, Adam sinned so death came to all men. There is no problem with the genealogies.
                            Last edited by Jedidiah; 01-22-2014, 09:45 PM.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Full disclosure: I'm an age of the Earth agnostic - I don't think anyone knows and I'm dubious that it can be known.

                              But I like to be reasonable so I was wondering, what are the best arguments for the Y or O?

                              Thanks!
                              There is LOTS of scientific evidence for an old earth, and NO solid scientific evidence for a young earth. Here are just a few items:
                              1) the number of annual layers in lake varves puts the oldest back to about 45,000 years (and allows absolute calibration of radiocarbon dates to this age)
                              2) the thickness of coral reefs puts them back over 100,000 years.
                              3) the number of annual layers in ice puts them well over 100,000 years
                              4) the light from SN 1987A took 168,000 years to reach us. Further, its debris ring has been resolved by Hubble and the time lag for the explosion to illuminate this debris ring has been measured. This is all consistent with a 168,000 light-year distance and the present-day speed of light, evidence that the speed of light has not changed. Further yet, the decay of its light curve matched the expected radioactive decay rates, showing that the rates of radioactive decay have not changed in 168,000 years.
                              5) the ages of the line of volcanos along the Hawaiin Island and Emperor Seamount chain get progressively older the further along the chain one goes away from the hotspot under the island of Hawaii, up to about 80 million years. These ages are consistent with the rate of tectonic plate motion away from this hotspot as measured by GPS satellites.
                              6) all radioactive elements with half-lives less than about 500 million years are essentially absent from the earth's surface, UNLESS they are presently being made by cosmic rays or some other mechanism (e.g. Radiocarbon). But we DO see elements with half-lives longer than 500 million years, and we see lots more of the long-lived ones than the short-lived ones. This is consistent with a roughly 5 billion year old earth; after about 10 half lives, the isotopes are essentially gone (reduced in abundance by a factor of 1000). In fact, if we assume that U-235 and U-238 were originally the same abundance and look at their present-day abundances, we calculate that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old.
                              "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X