Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And the Earth is only 7-10,000 years old.
And it was created in less than a week.
Fascinating physics there.
Oh, & the need to burn witches, conquer
the heathen to steal their land, assassinate
abortion clinic staff, spend tithing on private
jets & mansions. Yes...that is the inerrant
There are two Genesis accounts that can't even be reconciled together, so good luck.
So I take it you read a lot of creationist material that is nothing but disinformation about science, because your statements here are wrong.
Do you think other members are so ignorant of science that they will believe your false claims above? Would you be surprised to learn you are dead wrong in what you say here?
Why are you bringing up JW's? It's irrelevant.Actually Jehovah's Witnesses are not creationists and reject that term. But here is a good start:
Was wondering if you were going to come back with that. Actually I made a thread that dealt with that here:
The Genesis Account
Here is a copy and paste of it:
So what about the Genesis Account? Can it be reconciled with science?
I wish to author this thread to explain not only that it can, but when observed from the correct viewpoint it becomes obvious that a nomadic wanderer some 3,500 years ago could not have written what he did without supernatural revelation.
The Genesis Account
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."-Genesis 1:1.
So starts the Genesis account of creation and the very first 10 words of the Bible. Is the statement scientifically sound?
Scientists tend to agree that the universe is expanding from what they term an explosion that started the universe known as the Big Bang. Most scientists agree that the universe had a start. And there is verifiable evidence by looking at the universe that it did.
So yes, the universe had a beginning. If cosmologists are correct it was some 13.8 billion years ago. Does the Bible account specify how long ago the universe and then later on the earth were formed? No it does not. But it does state correctly that the universe, in the sometime distant past, had a beginning.
The rest of the Genesis account is not referring to the creation of the already existing heaven and earth from verse 1. Rather it is the account of how God started to prepare the already existing earth in the already existing universe according to verse 1 for life.
There is one more thing to be mentioned here before continuing to understand the Genesis account. And it has to do with the word day. In Hebrew the word can connotate a number of things, and it is obvious that in the context it is referring to long unspecified periods of times, and not a literal 24 hour period of time.
For example in chapter 2 of Genesis we are told:
"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."-Genesis 2:4.
Here Genesis uses the word day to encompass all the preceding days in chapter 1. In the day God made heaven and earth. Obviously this is not referring to a literal 24 hour period of time.
Let us look on from the perspective of someone on earth as he was given the Genesis account.
"Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.
If you notice we start out with the earth already existing in the already existing universe. The universe is now untold billions of years old, and perhaps the earth too. At this point in earth's history it is completely covered with water. And the atmosphere is completely shrouded in cloud. That is, on the earth's surface the atmosphere was so thick, the light from the existing sun could not penetrate to the watery surface.
"Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so."-Genesis 1:6, 7.
The water vapor in the thick atmosphere lifted from between the waters on the earth and a division was made between the clouds in the sky and on the surface. Notice that while the sun and moon and stars have already been in existence for billions of years from the viewpoint of a person on earth at this point in its history they were not visible yet.
"Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so."-Genesis 1:9-11.
During this eon of time God had dry land appear on earth. That is when he called the waters Seas and the dry ground Earth.
"Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.”-Genesis 1:14, 15.
During this period of time the earth's atmosphere was cleared up enough so that the sun and moon became visible from its surface.
"Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."-Genesis 1:21, 22.
During this epoch God created living creates in the sea and the birds of the heaven.
"Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds."-Genesis 1:24, 25.
During this last day of creation God finally creates animals on dry land, both domestic and wild. This would include the dinosaurs that lived for a time and eventually passed off the world scene.
And finally as his last work of creation on earth God created the the man and woman.
Looking at the fossil record, the appearance of sea creatures, winged creatures, the animals on land, and finally humans all concur with how it appears in the Genesis account. And they did not just gradually appear over long periods of times. But they appeared suddenly in the fossil record.
Is the Genesis account a scientific account of how the universe came to be and life on earth? No. of course not. Is it scientifically sound and reliable? Totally. Could Moses have really known all of this 3,500 years ago? Or was he given divine revelation in simple but understandable terms about our origin?[/QUOTE]
The Bible as a science text.
Yeah, Genesis is wrong about the the earth being formed in the beginning. The earth wasn't formed in the beginning of the universe, it's only about 5 billion years old. The universe is about 13.8 billion years old. So from the first ten words the Bible is wrong.Don't be afraid go ahead and read what I wrote.
They may not specifically be young earth creationists but they sure appear to be creationists because they believe that each kind was made by an intervention from God.Actually Jehovah's Witnesses are not creationists and reject that term. But here is a good start:
The funny thing is that even the various Christian Bible literalists can't agree upon a single view. They disagree on a 6000 year old planet or a 5 billion year old planet. Kind of a significant detail.They may not specifically be young earth creationists but they sure appear to be creationists because they believe that each kind was made by an intervention from God.
In other words if the shoe fits, whether they reject the term or not is irrelevant.
In my opinion.
So now, for many years it was broadly accepted that fossilized bones put together were the remains of an early human. Although not everyone accepted it, yet it was widely accepted as indicative of an early human. The hoax was finally verified in 1953. Seems that in 1912, a man named Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. Finally found out to be a fraud even though accepted by many for decades.
Interesting, I just had a very intriguing bizzare zoom meeting with a man in Florida this morning, and he was making odd comments about the shape of Florida.Whatever else those evolutionists say, they can't explain how the fabled Florida Man came to be, so I reject their hogwash theories.
You are home schooled, aren't you?Actually all the findings in support of evolution have turned out to be negative over the years. They get a lot of press in the beginning, and when they have to revert their findings, its usually a small blip in the back of the paper. There was a recent thread I saw on this website that said there is proof of evolution everywhere, when there is really no real proof. In fact the more scientists discover, the more they realize how wrong their theories, especially Darwinian evolution, are. None of it holds up under scientific scrutiny.
A simple example is the fine-tuning of our universe. There are such impossible odds of it having coming to arrive as it has, all 4 fundamental laws of the universe tuned to just the right degree, that they come up with the theory of multiverse. An infinite amount of universes until the one we exist in arrives. This is metaphysical hocus pocus and is real science. Superstitious mumbo jumbo with no foundation in the real world.
Imagine the greats of science such as Stephen Hawking resort to this hocus pocus in statements such as: "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
Does that make any sense? Gravity is something. It is not nothing. So the fact that gravity exists is not proof that the universe came from nothing. These intellectuals of the world that champion materialism that the people look up to resort to magical blind faith statements that have no basis in reality to uphold the tenants of their beliefs.
Maybe the pre historic man just looked different to todays homo sapiense so when they find remains "older than time" it just means that we humans looked different then?So now, for many years it was broadly accepted that fossilized bones put together were the remains of an early human. Although not everyone accepted it, yet it was widely accepted as indicative of an early human. The hoax was finally verified in 1953. Seems that in 1912, a man named Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. Finally found out to be a fraud even though accepted by many for decades.
You missed the boat, this came up last week.
But let me guess the motive of this thread, a Christian extremist who doesn't know science, but rejects it, wants to discuss an old story as if this will somehow taint the reputation and reliability of science. This of course aims to avoid talking about how these Christian extremists don't know science and have adopted an obsolete and false religious alternative to evolution, which gets exposed in these debates.