Dale, how do YOU interpret, “For in six days Yahweh made heaven, earth, sea, and all that is in them.”?
As for Hawaii, how were you able to UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVE that its true age conflicts with my interpretation of Ex 20:11?
I might add that it is sort of like the poem by Robert Frost about The Road Not Taken. He is writing about a literal path, but the poem is about living your life.
2 Likes
It is a straightforward historical account from God Himself about how He created our world. Why would you not believe the one who did the creating? Why would you assume that He would lie to the ones He created it for?
Even if you believed for personal reasons that the timing is off (“day” equals billions of years or whatever), why would God lie about the ORDER in which He created (heaven on day 2, earth on day 3, sun, moon and stars on day 4, etc)?
My facts come straight from the clear and easily understandable words of scripture.
God’s truth is important on every issue He spoke about - including the age of the earth and the timing and order of His creation.
Amen.
I see. So if I understand Genesis as the straightforward historical account that it is, I automatically reject any kind of metaphorical language in the entirety of the OT? Is that the claim?
You still keep making that claim without offering any valid indication that my understanding of Gen 1 is flawed in some way.
Enough of the former, more of the latter. Thanks.
That is only one example of a zillion. You would have to refute each one individually since there are manifold dating methods and they mutually support each other. How about the girdled rocks? You haven’t addressed them.
[We go through this every time a YEC shows up here with the same routine claims. @moderators, might there be a way to streamline the process so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time?]
This is a good example of how the different dating methods reaffirm each other:
Love it – bat breath testifies to an old earth: 
Extinct radioactive atoms… this is not about radiometric dating of artifacts on or in the earth:
Radioactive Atoms — Evidence about the Age of the Earth - Ken Wolgemuth
The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology
How Do We Know The Earth Is Old
This refutes the YEC argument about the Kaibab uplift and the Grand Canyon in 11 seconds:
This could go on almost forever.
2 Likes
You’re just throwing out the word “assumption” as a magic shibboleth again. I’ve told you several times already that you can’t do that. Not if you want to communicate anything of substance.
What on earth are you talking about? The difference between soft tissue and soft tissue remnants is a very real, measurable, physical and chemical one. Semantics has nothing to do with it.
No it is not, for the simple reason that nobody had any measurements to indicate that the fossils could not be that old. On the other hand, the age that you claim was merely “claimed” was measured.
You do not challenge measurements by hand-waving that “nobody expected that.”
The clear and easily understandable words of Scripture are that you must have accurate and honest weights and measurements. Deuteronomy 25:13-16.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1-11, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution, must obey those verses. Anything that does not is not scientific, is not honest, and is not Biblical.
6 Likes
Not to mention biological and microscopical.
1 Like
Why not put this to the person who, you know, actually made the discovery, and is in a position to have some idea of what they are talking about.
We have shown that actualistic taphonomy provides mechanisms for preserving endogenous soft tissues previously considered impossible, that these mechanisms provide a means for preserving constituent molecules to the degree that they may shed light on evolutionary relationships, and that certain aspects of the immediate microenvironments of degradation can be deduced by examining the chemistry of preservation. These results confirm earlier findings, and those reported in other studies, and shed light on the possible suite of processes involved in fossilisation at the molecular level. The ability to localize structural proteins within vascular tissues and correlate these observations to chemical and structural alterations in fossil soft tissues will contribute to the development of a comprehensive model of mechanisms that contribute to vascular tissue survival from deep time.
2 Likes
How about a FAQ section on the forum? Or a wiki?
3 Likes
With the multitudinous old earth arguments and rebuttals to young earth claims, plus evidences and resources listed and the requirement they pass a multiple choice test before they can post? 
God engineered a lot of clocks into his creation for us to discover and to learn how to use. He didn’t mess with the mechanisms after they were made.
This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…
Jeremiah 33:25
(Maybe I should say “providentially engineered a lot of clocks” so I’m not mistaken for being an uppercase ‘ID’ advocate. ; - )
One thing in particular that I think would be useful would be a guide to what does or does not constitute a legitimate challenge to a scientific theory.
I wrote one myself a while ago. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome.
4 Likes
No one is asking you to do anything. People are welcome to show up and discuss what is interesting to them, even if it has been discussed before. No one is required to engage if they are already bored with the topic.
2 Likes
Are you possibly a flat-earther?
2 Likes
Given the vigor of the multiple responses, including mine, I don’t think there has been any indication of boredom. I’d be happy to reinvent the wheel and get a patent for it.
BioLogos has a Common Questions section that has gone through an editorial process and has been vetted by experts in relevant fields. The BioLogos Forum on the other hand is open to whomever would like to post here. Although there are some highly qualified people who participate here and there are some very valuable threads, not all the responses are accurate, nor claims that BioLogos the organization would support, so I don’t think there will ever be officially recommended threads. People are free to use the search function and people are free to recommend past discussions.
4 Likes
You might like to read John Walton. He points out that the Bible never uses science that is outside what the people of the ancient near East knew. So, God accommodates to the time.
When I talked with my children when they were 5, I pointed how the sun rose in the East. I didn’t explain to them that we were actually moving toward the sun.
The Bible is full of scientific inaccuracies (such as a hard sky, three tiered universe, a fixed earth), as we know them, but they are not intended to mislead, I think. Rather, as Denis Lamoureux wrote, God uses the science of the day to communicate regarding to his people.
Thanks.
2 Likes
So what does the Bible use that is outside what the people of the ancient near East knew?
Or precluded atoms from existing, depending on which of the relevant fundamental constants one changes.
1 Like