Young Earth Creationists vs Old Earth Creationists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will after exams in November, And put up some great artefacts.🙂
 
Then where did dinosaur bones, Neanderthal bones and diamonds come from? I mean, why do they date so old?
 
Last edited:
I would disagree the earth was fully grown, given it was created before man was created. And it continued to grow and evolve. It required correct chemistry and biology for the existence of life. We have this recorded in the stratigraphy of the earth.

As an aside, I grieve at the polarised view of evolution of the earth vs creation.

God created evolution IMHO
 
Hope diamonds and graphite share the same make up. What is in your pencil, the graphite, is exactly the same as what makes up a diamond, minus any contaminants. The only difference is a Diamond is formed in a kimberlite pipe deep underground and is subjected to intense pressure to change from graphite to diamond. Or formed by subjecting graphite to intense pressure in other ways, maybe a meteorite slamming into that graphite.

We create artificial Diamonds in industry by putting graphite into machines under tonnes of pressure.They are used in all sorts of applications in industry then
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t work. As matter rots, as it would, all blood and fluid would leach away. No fluid is going to remember what the animal looked like
 
It doesnt need to. we get that information from other information left in the DNA .
 
Hope1960 said:
Could anyone else attempt to sort it out? I’d really really like to understand.
Click to expand...
I feel that (name removed by moderator) and Inquiry have done a pretty good job, the idea that the world was made adult and completely perfect, ,like Adam and Eve and all the animals that were also put there. How beautiful. How amazing. How completely God like

Mistaken proud ‘science’ reading stuff into it that isn’t there. Btw molecular biology says no to evolution.

God is not deceptive but men can be very proud and not want to see the very very obvious.
 
Possible but my thought returns to the global flood. That book I mentioned gives an excellent back story if you like of how the flood and tremendous pressures as it virtually tore up the surface of the world led to massive and catastrophic changes in the world and immediate crushing and preservation

I’m a simple soul. I like simple and obvious explanations😊
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Nevertheless, telling me I can’t just emphasizes how different my belief is from theirs.
Click to expand...
As you see, Hope, there is nothing non Catholic about believing in an earth made in a few days. You can also believe in an earth made in a million years if you like. BUT no atheist will ever believe in a young earth simply because it proves There Is A God who can make what he likes as beautiful and perfect and instant as he likes
 
Last edited:
even origen belives that it was alegorical
Click to expand...
This seems an extremely misleading statement, especially for a history fan such as yourself. While Origen certainly had heavy emphasis on allegorical reading of Genesis, more than most Christian interpreters of antiquity or the medieval period, he most certainly saw it first and foremost as a “history,” of which allegorical readings depend. This is probably best seen in Contra Celsum I.17-20, where, while defending allegorical interpretations of Genesis against the criticism of Celsus, he calls the Pentateuch the “Mosiac History,” [Μωϋσεῖ ἱστοριῶν] which he contrasts with “Egyptian mythology,” [Αἰγύπτιοι μυθολγῶσι], and explicitly states that the “Mosaic cosmogony [ ] indicates that the world is not yet ten thousand years old but is much less than this.”
 
Frankie65 said:
Mistaken proud ‘science’ reading stuff into it that isn’t there. Btw molecular biology says no to evolution.

God is not deceptive but men can be very proud and not want to see the very very obvious.
Click to expand...
Molecular biologists are against evolution?

What’s obvious about wood, diamonds, bones, and things being young when dated billions of years old?
 
BaelorBreakwind said:
of Celsus
Click to expand...
my stament was not the the whole curch view it as alegorical , but that the athiest argument that " the genesis view being alegorical is modern invention do make the bible fit with modern science" wich i desagree

the idom of the genesis in hewbrew and aramic are poetic language

also orgien tougth that sometimes spiritual teachings could be gleaned from historical events, and sometimes the lessons could only be taught through stories that, taken literally, would "seem incapable of containing truth

but i do agree orgien and most of the cruch fathers never teach the earth is older than 10 000 years

however that does not mean a definite rejection of the position as unbiblical. It was not rejected, *per se , it simply was never considered (no by all ) beacuse of the fathers’ reliance on Greek and Latin translations of Genesis meant they read Scripture as far more narrow and precise than the text actually is. Second, the creation-week pattern for human history

So, while some components of modern young-earth creationism can indeed be traced back to the earliest days of the church (like the 10 000 years old) , the most critical ones cannot

even so we can all agree that young earth creationism has been debunked .
 
Last edited:
yeah sadly there are people who ignore , both biblical and scientific evidence

my inner paleontologist in me wants to scream and shout
 
well i have argued this before the biblical word for day, yom, has four different literal meanings: 1) the daylight portion of a day, 2) part of the daylight hours, 3) an ordinary day (now 24 hours), and 4) a longer but finite period

so "day in genesis "

there is other things in genesis like greatet ligth and lesser ligth make it much more of semi and poetic jewsih languange

so we cant say its for certian a 24 hour , heck iam surprised how “days” would exist if we take in to account that the sun was created in day 3

if we take days as literal many things in the bible fall apart

example

Zechariah 14:7, describing the Day of the Lord, contains yôm echad (translated “unique day”), which is identical to yôm echad of Genesis 1:5 (translated “one day”). The context of Zechariah 14:7-8 suggests yôm echad will be a period of time spanning longer than a 24-hour calendar day.

another example is

Hosea 6:2, He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day . if yom is literal well god dint restore israel in 2 days

The cornerstone of belief in a 6,000-year-old earth rests solely on the genealogies , which just to make it clear sometimes the jews skiped

there is also the problem that “son” ( ben ) has many “literal” meanings: son, grandson, great-grandson, great-great-grandson, or descendent.

so while , the bible never specifies the age of the earth it fits better with old earth cretinosim since if we use the young earth creatonisim argument we have not only scientific problems but biblical ones as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top