God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

He's only talking about young earth creationism (6,000 year old earth), not religion in general or spirituality or even old earth creationism. This is a religious forum, which means many religious views, not just 6,000 year old earth creationist religion views. There are a lot of people who accept science while maintaining a religious and/or spiritual views. There doesn't have to be a conflict between them.

I understand, and I also have an issue with non-religious atheists here, like flies on a carcass.

 

[Parsimony]

Do you not comprehend the circular nature of standing at a modern observation point--recent science--than using current conditions and empirical observations to extrapolate backwards in time, while condemning anyone who disagrees with the rubric?

We have ways of knowing what conditions were like in the past because changes in those conditions would have consequences. Any phenomenon that can cause 4.54 billion years worth of radioactive decay to happen in only 6,000 years (whether it be due to changing decay rates, external radiation, etc.) would cause the Earth to melt, for example. That's why we know such a thing didn't happen.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

We have ways of knowing what conditions were like in the past because changes in those conditions would have consequences. Any phenomenon that can cause 4.54 billion years worth of radioactive decay to happen in only 6,000 years (whether it be due to changing decay rates, external radiation, etc.) would cause the Earth to melt, for example. That's why we know such a thing didn't happen.

Also, in Genesis there is Nothing to indicate how long each ' creative day ' was, or even if each creative day was of the same length or of differing lengths of time.
At Genesis 2:4 all of the creative days are summed up by the word 'day', so the word day in Scripture has shades of meaning.
Even the word ' day ' at Genesis 1:5 is indicating only a portion of a 24-hour day. We talk of in 'grandfather's day' and we know that was Not a 24-hr. day nor a 1,000-year day.
The saying that a ' thousand years is as a day ' is just meaning how God views the passing of time. God who is Not limited by time as we are can view 1,000 years as a short time.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

He's only talking about young earth creationism (6,000 year old earth), not religion in general or spirituality or even old earth creationism. This is a religious forum, which means many religious views, not just 6,000 year old earth creationist religion views. There are a lot of people who accept science while maintaining a religious and/or spiritual views. There doesn't have to be a conflict between them.

Right, there doesn't have to be conflict.
There is Nothing in Genesis saying how long each 'creative day' was, or even if each day was of the same length or differing lengths of time - Genesis 2:4
Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18 says God can Not lie. So, it would be an outright deception, or a lie, to say God made a young earth look old.
So, No way is earth only 6,000 year old. So, there is also No conflict with scientific (CMBR ) dating of the universe and earth.
Because of the accuracy of microwaves ( Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ) such dating is truthfully accurate, and Not out of harmony with Scripture.

 

[outhouse]

I also have an issue with non-religious atheists

Yes they for the most part promote academic knowledge you flat refuse.

 

[outhouse]

I and religious persons like me are deluded

I think many people of faith will end up being an embarrassment to humanity in the future.

How you chose to participate is up to you.

and you have a passion for the truth, why are YOU here?

To make sure people that promote the opposite of the truth are exposed for what they are.

To pass on knowledge to those with less of it, and gain knowledge from those with more.

What I personally detest, are those with closed minds forcing round pegs in square holes claiming it is perfect fit.

Clearly you do not have a passion for the truth.

What are you trying to say? YOU sir are the one who fights academic knowledge and what is taught in ever credible university in every country that exist.

Are you speaking of yourself?

 

[gnostic]

Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18 says God can Not lie. So, it would be an outright deception, or a lie, to say God made a young earth look old.

God lied when he told Adam that he would die on the day he eat the fruit...Adam lived to 930 years.

Right, there doesn't have to be conflict.
There is Nothing in Genesis saying how long each 'creative day' was, or even if each day was of the same length or differing lengths of time - Genesis 2:4

Wrong.

Genesis say that each day comprise of cycle of "an evening and a morning".

It doesn't say weeks, months, years, centuries or millennia.

It is very funny how creationists are so willing to lie and twist words.

And even then, whether it 6000 years or 13,000 years, the creationists are wrong with the Young Earth creationism. Even, many Christians and Jews here (at RF) think that Genesis 1 to 3 is just allegory, not meant to be taken literally, historically, scientifically.

Those that do, often have to twist themselves into mental pretzels.

There were no Adam and Eve, 6000 years ago, and no global flood 1656 years after them being booted off Eden.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We have ways of knowing what conditions were like in the past because changes in those conditions would have consequences. Any phenomenon that can cause 4.54 billion years worth of radioactive decay to happen in only 6,000 years (whether it be due to changing decay rates, external radiation, etc.) would cause the Earth to melt, for example. That's why we know such a thing didn't happen.

I'll be brief--the rates of radioactive decay going back and back via extrapolation are not linear, straight mathematical calculations (I know we all tend to think so), but rather, very convoluted changes are made based on our knowledge of interfering phenomena. It takes six years to learn how to ADJUST mass spectrometry readings! THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A WHILE.

 

[BilliardsBall]

God lied when he told Adam that he would die on the day he eat the fruit...Adam lived to 930 years.

Wrong.

Genesis say that each day comprise of cycle of "an evening and a morning".

It doesn't say weeks, months, years, centuries or millennia.

It is very funny how creationists are so willing to lie and twist words.

And even then, whether it 6000 years or 13,000 years, the creationists are wrong with the Young Earth creationism. Even, many Christians and Jews here (at RF) think that Genesis 1 to 3 is just allegory, not meant to be taken literally, historically, scientifically.

Those that do, often have to twist themselves into mental pretzels.

There were no Adam and Eve, 6000 years ago, and no global flood 1656 years after them being booted off Eden.

I feel much the opposite. That we are not here to twist words. We take "day" in its simple, literal form. After all, Moses wrote that the Sabbath is a 24-hour day "for in six of them God made all." I'd love to take an Eon-long Saturday off work, like one million years, but I can't...

...As for the rest, and the post of mine at length that you ignored as did everyone else (I don't need to bother, I guess you have written off God, but I'm not quite ready to give up on you just yet)... The main problem is you say the matter is closed and you are not open-minded, but science evolves...

Science evolves. Old Earth sciences are inexact.

 

[metis]

I'll be brief--the rates of radioactive decay going back and back via extrapolation are not linear, straight mathematical calculations .

Unless there's additional sources of radiation feeding in, they are exact and linear, which is why physicists use the term "half-life".

 

[Parsimony]

I'll be brief--the rates of radioactive decay going back and back via extrapolation are not linear, straight mathematical calculations (I know we all tend to think so), but rather, very convoluted changes are made based on our knowledge of interfering phenomena.

Any phenomenon interfering to speed up the decay rate, regardless of how it works, still produces the same problem: they generate enough heat to melt the Earth. You haven't addressed that problem yet.

It takes six years to learn how to ADJUST mass spectrometry readings! THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A WHILE.

I've seen you say this before but I don't think I've ever seen you provide a source for it. You're saying that the isotope ratio numbers published in scientific papers are not what is actually present in the rock? You're basically accusing scientists of lying who publish those numbers.

 

[outhouse]

Science evolves.

Religion can be stagnant mythology perverted by those with little education, or those who refuse education.

Old Earth sciences are inexact.

Your earth pseudo sciences are ignored

 

[outhouse]

The main problem is you say the matter is closed

That is right.

The age of the earth is viewed as fact because the science behind it is so solid.


And any attempt to fight this is done so with bias and a hatred for education and knowledge, and a refusal of credible theology.

 

[gnostic]

I feel much the opposite. That we are not here to twist words. We take "day" in its simple, literal form. After all, Moses wrote that the Sabbath is a 24-hour day "for in six of them God made all." I'd love to take an Eon-long Saturday off work, like one million years, but I can't...

Genesis 1 clearly present a day in creation as a period of "an evening and a morning", not some unspecified "eon" or "era".

Six verses (1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31) are presented like the first one ("first day", 1:5):

...and it was evening and it was morning...

The Hebrew transliteration - yom - may well be unspecific period of time, but it isn't unspecific, when you take in context with the whole passage together:

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Clearly in verse 5, the yom or day, has been divided into light and darkness, day and night, and whenever each creative day is mentioned, divided into a morning and an evening.

I find that a person who ignored the red part of the passage, and trying to equate a day to a thousand years, like using a passage from 2 Peter 3:8:

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

Although, I view Genesis 1 to be an allegory and a myth, but it is very specific as to what day or yom means here, when it state that a day is "there was evening and there was morning". So a day is a literal both morning and evening together.

When I read 2 Peter 3, and I not just talking about verse 8, I see a lot of metaphors in those verses, that are never meant to be taken literally.

What I am getting at, is that where I see metaphor, a creationist would see as literal. And when I see literal, you see metaphor. And there lies one of the problems between us.

You and any creationist who think they can change the contexts of 6 passages of "morning-evening" day or yom into a millennium, million years or billion years, is twisting those passages out-of-context.

I find your interpretations to be a very dishonest one.

BilliardsBall, if someone is trying to sell me a new mobile phone, but if I can clearly see he is only holding an old shoe in his hand, then I will tell him to sod off.

(Of course, there is very remote possibility that the salesman is selling a shoe that is really a phone too, like one of Maxwell Smart's gadgets, I'd find it highly unlikely.)

My point in that little analogy is that I don't find you to be honest person, because you like to twist logic around. In fact, since I have been here, about ten years now, I find that many of the creationists share a common trait, a dishonesty to take anything out of context, whether it be from the scriptures or from science textbooks and articles.

With my humanistic side, I would like to give you a benefit of doubt, BilliardsBall, but my times spent here have made me more of a realist and a cynic; I can no longer any word from creationists at face value.

You really want me to respect your view then stop twisting words. And if you are going to make a claim, then if someone ask for it, provide sources or evidences from non-pseudoscience sources to back up your claim. Be honest, and not evade.

Personally, I would prefer a honest person who would admit he doesn't the answer, than someone who would try to evade, lie or flatter me.

 

[leibowde84]

He's only talking about young earth creationism (6,000 year old earth), not religion in general or spirituality or even old earth creationism. This is a religious forum, which means many religious views, not just 6,000 year old earth creationist religion views. There are a lot of people who accept science while maintaining a religious and/or spiritual views. There doesn't have to be a conflict between them.

Not to mention that this forum is in no way limited to theists or even subjects relating to religious belief. The name is just a name. It doesn't limit the forum in any way.

 

[gnostic]

Not to mention that this forum is in no way limited to theists or even subjects relating to religious belief. The name is just a name. It doesn't limit the forum in any way.

There are also theist evolutionists, who accept evolution and believe in the existence of god; and at the same time these same theists also reject the young earth creationism and intelligent design.

And not all theists accept Genesis creation (including the Eden episode and the Flood) as a historical event. They view them as "allegory", in which the real values come from moral messages, not its historicity.

All I am saying is that, not all theists view their scriptures in the same way.

But the real tragic blunder is when theists, more specifically creationists view the Genesis creation as scientific or historical events.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

If God recreated the universe to make it look only 6000 years old, that would make the universe a lie and God a lier. If nothing else, God is Truth.

 

[Shad]

Also, in Genesis there is Nothing to indicate how long each ' creative day ' was, or even if each creative day was of the same length or of differing lengths of time.
At Genesis 2:4 all of the creative days are summed up by the word 'day', so the word day in Scripture has shades of meaning.
Even the word ' day ' at Genesis 1:5 is indicating only a portion of a 24-hour day. We talk of in 'grandfather's day' and we know that was Not a 24-hr. day nor a 1,000-year day.
The saying that a ' thousand years is as a day ' is just meaning how God views the passing of time. God who is Not limited by time as we are can view 1,000 years as a short time.

All this does is allow post hoc rationalization. Science finds a number, you fit this number into "days"

 

[URAVIP2ME]

All this does is allow post hoc rationalization. Science finds a number, you fit this number into "days"

Science has CMBR ( cosmic microwave background radiation dating ) which is accurate rational dating because of the accuracy of microwaves.

Even in English rationally we fit numbers into ' days '. We speak of grandfather's ' day ' and we know that is Not a 24-hr. day.
So, Noah's day ( Matthew 24:37 ) was also Not a 24-hr. day.
So, as Genesis 2:4 sums up all of the ' creative days ' by the use of the rational singular word ' day ' does Not make all of the creative days created in one 24-hr. day.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God lied when he told Adam that he would die on the day he eat the fruit...Adam lived to 930 years.
Wrong.
Genesis say that each day comprise of cycle of "an evening and a morning".
It doesn't say weeks, months, years, centuries or millennia.
It is very funny how creationists are so willing to lie and twist words.
And even then, whether it 6000 years or 13,000 years, the creationists are wrong with the Young Earth creationism. Even, many Christians and Jews here (at RF) think that Genesis 1 to 3 is just allegory, not meant to be taken literally, historically, scientifically.
Those that do, often have to twist themselves into mental pretzels.
There were no Adam and Eve, 6000 years ago, and no global flood 1656 years after them being booted off Eden.

The use of the word ' day ' in Scripture has more than one meaning. See Genesis 2:4 because all of the creative days are summed up by the word ' day '.
A thousand years is as a ' day ' in God's viewpoint. Adam died within that ' thousand year ' day.
How old was the oldest person mentioned in Scripture - Genesis 5:27 ?_________ Please notice No one lived past 1,000 year of age, or outlived a thousand-year day.

People who think Genesis 1 to 3 is just allegory are Not ' wheat ' Christians because genuine Christians believe Luke 3:38.
Genuine Christians believe the Jewish ancestral list which begins at 1 Chronicles 1:1 naming Adam as a real person.
Who even in the 1st century wrote that those historic Jewish temple records were allegory, etc. ?