Hey! Something we can all agree on! 
2 Likes
I have a feeling that St. Augustine would agree with me if he lived today knew what I knew what I know. I donât know of course, but I agree with a lot of what he said.
As far as my scripture only refutations not having much traction, I will take Godâs word over manâs. It is much stronger evidence.
Actually, the ICR articles that I referenced discuss this.
I havenât been involved in this conversation so far, but let me just jump in and heartily say: Amen to this! God has spoken magnificently through His creation testifying to the very ancient age of the earth with many convincing evidences. I choose to believe Him rather than Ken Ham and other young earth creation theorists, especially given that the young-earth creation movement is actually a fairly recent one in the history of the Church. So yes: Godâs word will win out! Hallelujah!
Iâm glad to see we have common ground.
I hate to throw a wet blanket on your enthusiasm, but I have said throughout this post that Gen 1 makes it clear that the creation was done in 6 24hr days. I think you can be a Christian and believe otherwise, but you have to ignore the clear meaning of the text and place manâs weak ideas above Godâs clear statements. There are no good reasons to deny a 6000 year old earth.
I am aware of your opinion from skimming the posts, brother. Iâm just presenting another perspective, so you know that I, too, reject manâs word (Ken Hamâs word) in favor of Godâs word (speaking through the book of nature). I, too, reject manâs weak ideas (Ken Hamâs faulty interpretation of Scripture) in favor of Godâs clear statements (evidence from virtually every branch of science, which speaks with exquisite harmony testifying to an old earth).
It may seem snarky, and maybe it is, a little bit, but it does actually speak to what I believe is a deeper resonance between our two views: We both believe that God has spoken clearly and that we puny humans do not have the right to reinterpret what God has spoken so clearly about. We just differ as to what is obvious. 
You cannot expect articles, not reasoned out publicly by you, to have much relevance. There are thousands of articles on both sides. If you care to discuss one or more, I welcome that, since I am the one pointing out the relevance of St. Augustineâs specific criticism of apologia in which you appear to be specializing.
V[quote=âBill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748â]
The Dorchester vase f
[/quote]
This is one I had not heard of, so looked it up. To bad the artifact in question is not to be found, and the picture associated with it is of a hookah or candleholder contemporary with itâs discovery. If indeed it is not a complete fabrication, the only question is that of who left it sitting in the hill before the explosion.
The other things mentioned are well known and well explained, with much of the hype around them being misrepresentations. We do well to look at all the evidence before reaching a conclusion. So much is not well documented, and when claims are made that are doubtful or obviously false, it brings disdain and disrepute.
i donât expect you to change your mind, but do read and think about the difference between scientific research and such things.
I will have to look into it more, but the place where I saw it had testimony from the people there for the iron pot and the bell being embedded in the coal. Do you believe the people were lying? I agree the Dorchester pot looks like the one from India so they may have been mistaken about how it got where it was found in the rubble. More research needed and as you say, there may be little more evidence to be found. As far as âthe difference between scientific research and such thingsâ, if there is reliable testimony for one of these, it is a big problem for evolution.
Until you come across the really good reasons to figure they arenât literal 24-hour daysâŚ
You are avoiding the point. The point is that despite what the Bible very âclearlyâ says, very âobviouslyâ says, the âplain literal meaningâ of the Bible, you choose to believe something else, because of the scientific evidence (not because of what the Bible says). You ignore what the Bible literally says, and you believe something else, because of science. So you donât actually pay attention to the âplain literal meaningâ of the Bible.
Since the people who say this are the same kind of people who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and vote for Trump, this doesnât concern me. This simply reveals more of your lack of Bible literacy.
Yes I do, evidence such as the teleological argument (including the anthropic principle), and Bible prophecy.
That is interesting. I know I am off topic, but do you mind saying what Bible prophecies are evidence for you? I am not trying to trap you. I am just curious.
You have been âjust curiousâ about anything other than answering my questions, and youâve repeatedly accused me of not being a Christian. In fact youâve claimed my view of the Bible is indistinguishable from that of a non-believer, despite my belief that the Bible is inspired by God. All youâve done in this exchange is provide a clear demonstration of the lack of Bible literacy to which I referred earlier. And you seriously expect me to keep answering questions for your personal amusement?
1 Like
I am asking about physical, scientific evidence. What scientific evidence, if found, would be inconsistent with a young Earth, a recent global flood, or separately created species?[quote=âBill_Smith, post:199, topic:36748â]
In addition, the old earth arguments have holes all through them in my opinion and many of the young earth evidences sound reasonable.
[/quote]
That would be an opinion. I am more interested in facts.
Could you please cite a scientific paper where these objects are given these ages?[quote=âBill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748â]
ICR recently had a lab date grand canyon rocks and they had the date of the top rocks older than the bottom rocks.
[/quote]
The ICR misusing dating techniques does not make the dating techniques faulty.
Purposefully misapplying dating techniques in order to get the wrong answer is not a very honest move on their part.[quote=âBill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748â]
They date volcanic rock in Hawaii that is something like a hundred years old and the dating methods give 100s of millions or billions of years old(I donât remember which).
[/quote]
You are probably talking about these:
"The 1801 flow is unusual because it carries very abundant inclusions of rocks foreign to the lava. These inclusions, called xenoliths (meaning foreign rocks), consist primarily of olivine, a pale-green iron-magnesium silicate mineral. They come from deep within the mantle and were carried upward to the surface by the lava. In the field, they look like large raisins in a pudding and even occur in beds piled one on top of the other, glued together by the lava. The study by Funkhouser and Naughton (51) was on the xenoliths, not on the lava. "
Again, creationist organizations are not known for their honesty. I think you may want to take St. Augustineâs advice on this one.[quote=âBill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748â]
The flood left vast fossil graveyards covering large portions of states with fish obviously buried before they could be eaten or rot.
[/quote]
Fish donât rot and arenât eaten in the anoxic bottom of many bodies of water.[quote=âBill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748â]
They find carbon 14 on dinosaur fosssils that they can only try to explain away as contamination.
[/quote]
Why wouldnât there be contaminating 14C?[quote=âBill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748â]
It is utter nonsense to believe that things just put themselves together. If you drop a bunch of pickup sticks they do not form a log cabin on their own.
[/quote]
Have you not heard of biological reproduction? I didnât form by things just putting themselves together, and I also wasnât created supernaturally. My parents made me through very natural processes, at least the way they tell it.
Um, isnât ken ham from australia?
2 Likes
Yes he is. Iâm not sure how this is relevant to what I said.
As I have stated above, the evidence for the Bible being true,(ie. Jesusâ resurrection and certification of the scriptures) is so strong, that it trumps any theory of man about the history of the earth. The scientific evidence has to match the Bible because the Bible is true. If you think it doesnât, then you have done your science experiment wrong. There are lots of evidences left of the creation and flood and you can look them up on aigâs and icrâs websites if you are interested in them. I mentioned a few quickly in an earlier post. The fossils, problems with the dating methods, and rock layers are some of them.
One note, species are not mentioned in the Bible, just kinds.
They didnât misuse any dating techniiques. They took samples to a well respected lab and let the lab do their work and give them the answers. The lab wasnât told where the samples were from. The lab gave the old date to the rocks on top and the young date to the rocks on the bottom.
Although Christians, or anyone for that matter, can get overzealous and make claims they cannot back up to prove their point, I generally find that the people who believe that God said, âthou shall not lieâ, are more honest than those who do not believe that. I also do not think that getting a PhD. generally increases someoneâs honesty, especially when answering questions the wrong way will affect their research grants and other means of livelihood.
Biological production is just one function the âcomplex machineâ performs after it has already been built. The dna is already assembled in the cells and God has designed such a marvelous machine that it can reproduce itself. So you werenât randomly assembled. Everything was already assembled with the capability to reproduce.