Right Divider
Body part
Topic of this thread:
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Stop spamming the thread and get on the topic:
How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?
The point is that there were NO thorns present at Adam's creation, inside or outside the garden.
How you keep missing that is beyond me.
I'm not the one being graded!
I was asking YOU to answer it!
More straw man arguments!
No, it hasn't. there was about 13 days after God had created life that was NOT in a fallen state (if you include angels, but only 10 if you exclude them)
The first 13 days, the universe was not in a fallen state. After and until this very moment in time, the universe has been in a fallen state.
Again, you're missing the forest for the trees. How many times do I have to repeat myself until it gets beaten through your thick skull and sinks into your brain!?
The ENTIRE LAYER OF SEDIMENTS was laid down by the Flood, including ALL of the fossils within it.
It's not many layers laid down over millions of years, it's ONE layer laid down by the Flood. The WHOLE THING! ALL OF IT!!!
iouae
Well-known member
RD you are obviously confused. We have been on topic all along. Only you are spamming us with winges that have nothing to do with the topic.
This is the very first time I've ever heard anyone make the claim that thorns are unopened blooms. I very much doubt that is correct. Thorns are modified stems, not flowers as evidenced by the fact that thorny plants have thorns whether they are flowering or not, most thorny plants produce both thorns and flowers at the same time and the thorns often grow in places where there would never be a flower at all.Because God intended the world to be different than it is now.
You failed, miserably, because less than half of your post was actually in agreement with my position.
Yes. Because what you said, in trying to sound like you were agreeing with me, doesn't actually comport with my beliefs.
No, I'm disagreeing with what you said, because what you said is not what I said, nor does it align with my position.
He didn't intend for thorns and thistles to be present, nor did He intend for man to have to sweat to produce for himself and his family.
Those are the consequences of Adam's actions, not the intention behind God's creation.
He didn't. Thorns are errors in the creation, not intended design.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
You're imagining things.
It wasn't anyone's will, not even God's, that there be thorns in Creation.
You don't seem to recognize that thorns are simply blooms which fail to open, meaning they would not been around in a perfect world, since they are errors in the plant. There were no errors in God's creation. It was, in fact, "very good."
Your position is that there were thorns outside the garden.
- Thorns: The Genesis thorns demonstrate the old-earth mishandling of God's Word. Taking Moses at his word, there were no thorns until after Adam sinned. Why? Thistles, thorns (i.e., blooms which fail to open), and even weeds, are part of the curse of the ground that resulted from the Fall. That teaching provides a powerful transdisciplinary (paleontological/theological) young-earth argument. Old-earth Christians claim that various rock layers, even those containing fossilized thorns, formed a hundred million years before the age of man. So, either 1) the rock layers and fossils actually are young or 2) Genesis is wrong and thorns preceded Adam's fall. Old-earthers including Joshua don't like either option. So what did Dr. Swamidass claim on today's broadcast? That the thorns had been there all along, but they were outside the Garden of Eden, all over the earth, for a hundred million years or more. So when God said, "Because of your sin now there will be thorns", God meant only that now there would be thorns also inside the Garden of Eden.
Of course that's absurd and impossible with any sincere reading of the text. Why? Because God immediately kicked Adam out of the Garden. Yet He said that the thorns would cause Adam to sweat and toil as he works the ground. So because Man's sin corrupted the perfect creation, the thorns that God is talking about are those that would now grow in the fields all over the earth. From Genesis 3 when God said to Adam that because he had sinned...
Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread… Then... the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way...
That story cannot be understood, unless you're willing to twist it beyond recognition, to claim that thorns had been outside of the Garden all along but Adam's fall resulted in thorns only then growing also within the Garden. Christians who reject the Bible's teaching of a young earth bring violence to the text.
Thorns were not made by God.
They are simply blooms which failed to open, meaning they're no longer "very good."
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Supra.
Here's just one example of a plant producing flowers well after the thorns have been in place....
Not that you'd need an example. Everyone has seen that roses are plumb full of thorns long before they even try to produce a single bloom.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
This is the very first time I've ever heard anyone make the claim that thorns are unopened blooms. I very much doubt that is correct. Thorns are modified stems, not flowers as evidenced by the fact that thorny plants have thorns whether they are flowering or not, most thorny plants produce both thorns and flowers at the same time and the thorns often grow in places where there would never be a flower at all.
Here's just one example of a plant producing flowers well after the thorns have been in place....
Not that you'd need an example. Everyone has seen that roses are plumb full of thorns long before they even try to produce a single bloom.
The portion at the link about thorns simply makes the claim that thorns are "blooms which fail to open" but does even try to substantiate that claim.
I'm not questioning whether thorns existed before the Fall but merely the contention that thorns are blooms which fail to open. If you cut an actual bloom open, you can see the various parts of the flower in various stages of development depending on how far along the process is when you open the bloom. Thorns, on the other hand, don't present anything that suggests a semi-formed bloom. It's just a modified portion of the woody stem.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
No, you have not. Again, here is the topic:
How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?
Let me do it for him. Getting vowels to say anything worthwhile is an exercise in self-torture.
Based on uranium-lead dating, there is a tinsy-winsy little piece of zircon that is "at least" 4.4 billion years old. Because there isn't any way at all that lead could possibly find its way into zircon crystals unless it got there by way of radioactive decay of uranium, don't ya know!
There! Age of the Earth proven! Oh, the things you can learn in three minutes on YouTube!
:focal(1026x462:1027x463)/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/58/36/5836b39e-bb03-4cbb-a118-ed1bb0943687/02_24_2014_zircon2.jpg)
No kidding! That little tiny piece of crystal (0.0157 inches long) is the main reason that they say the Earth is billions of years old.
iouae
Well-known member
My brain rejects fake news, and only allows truth to sink in.
I have not seen a shred of evidence for hydrological sorting or any mechanism you have proposed supposedly able to sort fossils into Cambrian fossils at the bottom and Holocene fossils at the top. But different biomes living at different times, being destroyed by different mass extinctions explains it perfectly and easily - and most importantly - scientifically.
And it fits in with the biblical account that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth BECAME without form and void. And in 7 days, God renewed the earth.
Right Divider
Body part
What a coincidence, me too!
Liar.
Appeal to ignorance.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
It does not.
Jesus said:
But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ - Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6&version=NKJV
This DIRECT QUOTE OF THE CREATOR is the most damning to your position.
Begging the question.
False.
Right Divider
Body part
Exod 20:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:11) For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God did it all in six days. There was no "recreation" needed.
Right Divider
Body part
You have some strange ideas.
CCoburn
New member
I surely do, and you have even yet to observe the tip of the iceberg.
No, I don't think that.
What do you mean, anyway? What's strange about existence itself? I can't even imagine how it would make sense to say such a thing. Strange compared to what?