Trying to date Creation

@vivify said
You don't seem to get it.

Even if we assume Genesis is true and that creationism true, there are still features of earth and the universe that make no sense, if creationism is true.

Answer this question and don't dodge it: if you dodge and don't give a direct answer, you've lost this one.

Question: would it make sense to create Adam to look like an old man who app ...[text shortened]... o? If no, does it make any sense to make the old look billions of years old instead of 6,000 years?

I get it, you are just too caught up in your beliefs to be able to see what I am saying. You demand that God conform to your beliefs. You believe that God is not able to create a consistant Universe. A fossil record built into the earth is not possible by your beliefs.

@eladar said
I get it, you are just too caught up in your beliefs to be able to see what I am saying. You demand that God conform to your beliefs. You believe that God is not able to create a consistant Universe. A fossil record built into the earth is not possible by your beliefs.

"if you dodge and don't give a direct answer, you've lost this one."---Vivify

I thought so.

Since you've lost, it's worth pointing out that YOU were the one started thread trying to defend the Bible with logic. When your logic is shown to be faulty, you then resort attack me for expecting creationism to conform logical arguments.

You lose, kiddo.

@vivify said
"if you dodge and don't give a direct answer, you've lost this one."---Vivify

I thought so.

Since you've lost, it's worth pointing out that YOU were the one started thread trying to defend the Bible with logic. When your logic is shown to be faulty, you then resort attack me for expecting creationism to conform logical arguments.

You lose, kiddo.

Since I have lost? You are delusional.

@eladar said
Since I have lost? You are delusional.

Says the guy afraid to answer a simple question.

@vivify

I answered your question. You must not like the answer.

@vivify said
The problem with this line of thought is that there is information contained within the earth and the rest of the universe that shows age far older than the creationist model.

For example, let's say you wanted to claim a building was created five minutes ago, but the building is run-down, rusty and dilapidated. A simple investigation of the building would refute your cla ...[text shortened]... just one of may reasons why creationism fails and why the 6,000 year creationist model doesn't work.

There is absolutely irrefutable evidence for evolution beginning billions of years ago and continuing since then, built into DNA, into the fossil record, and so on. When people were trying to make sense of the world a couple of thousand years ago they had no access to this knowledge, so they invented a 'once upon a time' story. Now we have the evidence and the understanding, which is increasing all the time, the only way that the 'once upon a time' story can be justified is by saying 'god made it look like that'. It's complete infantile nonsense, of course, but there are still people who believe it, and no amount of rational argument is going to change that.

@Indonesia-Phil

Nice to know your opinion on the matter. Having said that, the truth of the statement is not changed by your low opinion. It just means you disagree with it.

Are you, like others in this thread, of the opinion that your opinion is absolute truth?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Duchess64 has a sense of humour ... A good one at that.
Tell him the truth. She said his reasoning and ability to carry on a discussion on creation is not exciting enough for her. So no date.

@Rajk999

So far all I see around here are people who want to hold on to a closed minded point of view.

Nobody has a reason as to why what I said could not be true, so all they can do is belittle. Then all the people who want to close their eyes support each other.

Typical for this site. No real discussions, only personal opinion as if it were fact.

@eladar said
@Rajk999

So far all I see around here are people who want to hold on to a closed minded point of view.

Nobody has a reason as to why what I said could not be true, so all they can do is belittle. Then all the people who want to close their eyes support each other.

Typical for this site. No real discussions, only personal opinion as if it were fact.

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

You are a poor communicator. It isn't everyone else that is the problem; it's you.

@bigdoggproblem said
Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

You are a poor communicator. It isn't everyone else that is the problem; it's you.

I have stated the idea well enough. People around here simply refuse to believe the truth and would rather put their head in the ground.

Your definition of poor communicator means unwilling to discuss opinion as fact. Sorry, homey don't play that game.

I'll try and advance the discussion as best I can.

If we look at Genesis 1:1 we are told that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." So there is no time frame for this process, it's a bit like "how long is a piece of string".

So even if we can nail how long each day is, we can not calculate the length of the entire process.

Defining the days or steps 1) Formation of night and day 2) Division of the waters 3) Introduction of vegetation 4) Positioning of the solar system 5) Population of the seas and air 6) Population of the mainland 7) God's rest.

Now let's have a stab at the length of a day. Raj has already offered a position, that the duration of steps 1-6 = 6000 years, and I would think (because we haven't discussed this as far as I'm aware) that his thoughts on this are based on 2 Peter 3:8

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. "

So far so good. Now this is where my ramblings go slightly out of focus, because I'm heading into barely familiar territory that somebody else might be able to help with it.

There are groups out there (just google "Calculation of creative day = 7,000 years) that maintain that a creative day is 7,000 years, and although I have tried to follow the logic it's a bridge too far for me, I can't get my head around it. Having said that it has been calculated that from the time of the creation Adam to 1975 was 6,001 years detailed at this web address

http://sickleoftruth.com/1st6000years/6000P1.html

That suggests to me that maybe there is something in this idea of a 7,000 year creative day.

Sorry that I can't do better than that

@medullah

The point that I was trying to raise is that the physcial universe cannot be used to calculate the time from creation. How long a Yom actually is does noting to change the basic fact that since nobody was there, we cannot know the initial condition of anything.

All we have are faulty assumptions to fill in the gaps. Of course some would like to believe their assumptions are facts, those people are true believers.

@eladar said
Back at you?

What claim am I making in this thread that is back at you?

"I cannot help it if you are so blinded by your beliefs you cannot understand a different perspective. You have simply demonstrated yourself to be a closed minded true believer.

That's ok."

I quoted your post for a reason.