Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[[NH]Shadow]

ummm Shadow, I don't think dinossaurs lived at the same time with humans. I have a biblical encyclopedia and go check what it says about it. And regarding the earth being 6000 years old... I personally believe that it is way older than that. Although the Bible says 7 days for creation, remember that a Day in the Bible often has the meaning of "period of time" and does not necessarily mean a literal day. So the Bible can still be right about the days and conform to science. Besides, I am sure that a Day for God is much more than a day for us.

I tend to take the Bible at face value for things like this...and land animals and Man are both created on the same day (Day 6). According to the context of original text, it is believed to be a literal 7 days of creation (the 7th being for rest). And, if you can believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent God, how hard is it to believe that He spoke everything into existence in 6 literal days?

You are right that God can do it in 6 literal days, but the radiation does demonstrate that earth is older than 6000 years. Therefore, if the Bible has used the term Day in other passages, and not actually talking about 24 hours, then I suppose Genesis is using this same time of "day" that signifies thousands of years. Quote of Homestar:

The Bible frequently uses the term “day” to designate various periods of time. In some cases these periods are of an unspecified length.

If God created the laws of physics, then radiation is reliable. I guess that if he created the earth in 6 days (of unspecified length) and we have radiation to see that the earth is very old, then that means that God was talking about days not equal to 24 hours. Therefore, the Bible is accurate and still follows the laws of physics.

I wouldn't call radioactive dating a "law".

[CommanderOtto]

why not? Carbon dating is a method that is questionable, but as far as I know, not radioactive dating.

[Duel of Fates]

why not?

Because radioactive dating is not infallible.

[[NH]Shadow]

why not?

Because radioactive dating is not infallible.

^Exactly.

[CommanderOtto]

if the age of rocks and planets are wrong, then astronomy wouldn't even make the slightest sense. I mean, if we want to prove that evolutionary theory is wrong, we have to submit the Bible to the same rigorous testing and examination we put on evolution. By using science, the Bible will stand and the other not. The Cosmic Wave Backround explains why the Big Bang is possible and also proves that the earth is billions old. Therefore, when I started to read the Bible I made a choice to believe in it because I put it to the test. Once I saw that the earth was not a few thousand years old, then I was left with only one explanation: that I was wrong in interpreting the days. The original word for Days is "Yohm" in hebrew, and it does not necessarily stand for 24 hour days. In fact, the significance of the word was basically "a period of time". This is why translations aren't always accurate. In ancient hebrew a day is not the same as in English. Thus, the earth is very old and this explanation lets us understand why the Bible says the earth was created in days.

[Yanoda]

Thank you for answering the Questionnaire, Shadow.
Would anyone else like to answer them? The more the merrier!

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

if the age of rocks and planets are wrong, then astronomy wouldn't even make the slightest sense. I mean, if we want to prove that evolutionary theory is wrong, we have to submit the Bible to the same rigorous testing and examination we put on evolution. By using science, the Bible will stand and the other not. The Cosmic Wave Backround explains why the Big Bang is possible and also proves that the earth is billions old. Therefore, when I started to read the Bible I made a choice to believe in it because I put it to the test. Once I saw that the earth was not a few thousand years old, then I was left with only one explanation: that I was wrong in interpreting the days. The original word for Days is "Yohm" in hebrew, and it does not necessarily stand for 24 hour days. In fact, the significance of the word was basically "a period of time". This is why translations aren't always accurate. In ancient hebrew a day is not the same as in English. Thus, the earth is very old and this explanation lets us understand why the Bible says the earth was created in days.

Why do you believe in an old earth and yet not in evolution? They are linked of neccesity.

To suppose that you can have creationism and millions of years twists the text so badly its not even funny.

In ancient Hebrew, Yom (day) almost always means day unless the context specifies otherwise. And the context most definitely specifies a day in Genesis 1. For example, when a number appears with Yom, it always means day. There is never a "second undefined period of time." How do you have "evening and morning" of epochs? And why do you have light during an epoch and dark for the next? And why would God "rest" on the 7th millenium and then set a pattern for us to do the same? Trust me, I've listened to in depth arguments on the Hebrew, the text does not allow that kind of tampering. I know of a professor who did a rigerous statistical analysis of the text and it emphatically (and significantly) pointed to the text being narrative, and thus history.

The evidence for an old earth appears strong, but there is much that cannot be explained by an old earth. Look up arguments on the salinity of the ocean, the depth of dust on the moon, etc. As I said, they even found carbon-14 in diamonds, which are supposed to be millions of years old.

Radioactive dating is a valid technique, the problem is that scientists make invalid assumptions, namely that the rate of leaching out of the radioactive substance is relatively constant. If you believe in a global flood this is totally untrue, a flood would cause much more to be leached out, thus making things appear older than they really are. And again, the text here has been determined to be narrative, so it is also historical.

Let me recomend a book to you: Coming to Grips with Genesis (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Grips-Gene ... 0890515484). It is a very rigerous scholarly work that is written in mostly laymans language (to a degree, it's very technical still) that rigerously analyzes the text, the issues, and the theories. It's quite a read.

[CommanderOtto]

if the age of rocks and planets are wrong, then astronomy wouldn't even make the slightest sense. I mean, if we want to prove that evolutionary theory is wrong, we have to submit the Bible to the same rigorous testing and examination we put on evolution. By using science, the Bible will stand and the other not. The Cosmic Wave Backround explains why the Big Bang is possible and also proves that the earth is billions old. Therefore, when I started to read the Bible I made a choice to believe in it because I put it to the test. Once I saw that the earth was not a few thousand years old, then I was left with only one explanation: that I was wrong in interpreting the days. The original word for Days is "Yohm" in hebrew, and it does not necessarily stand for 24 hour days. In fact, the significance of the word was basically "a period of time". This is why translations aren't always accurate. In ancient hebrew a day is not the same as in English. Thus, the earth is very old and this explanation lets us understand why the Bible says the earth was created in days.

Why do you believe in an old earth and yet not in evolution? They are linked of neccesity.

To suppose that you can have creationism and millions of years twists the text so badly its not even funny.

In ancient Hebrew, Yom (day) almost always means day unless the context specifies otherwise. And the context most definitely specifies a day in Genesis 1. For example, when a number appears with Yom, it always means day. There is never a "second undefined period of time." How do you have "evening and morning" of epochs? And why do you have light during an epoch and dark for the next? And why would God "rest" on the 7th millenium and then set a pattern for us to do the same? Trust me, I've listened to in depth arguments on the Hebrew, the text does not allow that kind of tampering. I know of a professor who did a rigerous statistical analysis of the text and it emphatically (and significantly) pointed to the text being narrative, and thus history.

The evidence for an old earth appears strong, but there is much that cannot be explained by an old earth. Look up arguments on the salinity of the ocean, the depth of dust on the moon, etc. As I said, they even found carbon-14 in diamonds, which are supposed to be millions of years old.

Radioactive dating is a valid technique, the problem is that scientists make invalid assumptions, namely that the rate of leaching out of the radioactive substance is relatively constant. If you believe in a global flood this is totally untrue, a flood would cause much more to be leached out, thus making things appear older than they really are. And again, the text here has been determined to be narrative, so it is also historical.

Let me recomend a book to you: Coming to Grips with Genesis (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Grips-Gene ... 0890515484). It is a very rigerous scholarly work that is written in mostly laymans language (to a degree, it's very technical still) that rigerously analyzes the text, the issues, and the theories. It's quite a read.

planets take billions of years to form. It's a fact. Radioactive testing is not the only method as far as i know. Regarding the translation explanation, it is not twisted. The hebrew language is very short in comparison to english so sometimes words have multiple meanings. What makes sense in one language doesn't always makes sense in another language. I know because I also speak other languages and some things just don't mean the same, no er how you translate it. Besides, God is infinite and created the Sun. Thus, one day for him is not one day for us. And notice that days aren't the same between planets. In one planet a day could take several months. Why would I believe that God's day is 24 hours? There is nothing in the Bible that confirms the exact duration of one day from His perspective.

I'm saying this because it is the only explanation for why the earth is old and at the same time the Bible can mention days. If the universe is old then the Bible is lying (and I know that is not the case), so I found another explanation. Denying the earth's age is only going to make me an object of mockery if I told that to an astronomer.

[[NH]Shadow]

planets take billions of years to form. It's a fact.

Not if you happen to have an omnitient, omnipotent God who is infinite and can bring anything into existence with just a thought

[[JOG]WorldFear]

Are these well established sciences? (That there is enough evidence to support/validate the points below)
Kinetics of Matter (movement of gases & solids) yes
Nature of Matter (composition of er) yes
Radioactive Decay (where an unstable atom loses energy by emitting particles) yes
General Relativity (gravity as a geometric property of space and time) yes
The Big Bang (cosmological model for the early Universe) yes
Plate Tectonics (describes the large-scale motions of Earth's crust) yes
Genetics (Genes, heredity/inheritance and variation in organisms) yes
Thermodynamics (Entropy, Enthalpy & free energy) yes
Half-Life (decay of radioactive atoms) yes
Cells (structure, functions & properties) yes
Radiometric Dating (technique to date rocks using radioactive isotopes) yes
Germs & Diseases (diseases are caused by micro-organisms) yes
Creationism nope
Evolution yep

Would you say these Bibical-events or statements are true?
Adam & Eve existed (First Humans, their creation and subsequent expulsion from Eden) no
Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time. No (come on, really?)
Noah's Flood Global (Water covered the entire Earth where every land based creature not in the Ark has died) no
Noah's Flood Regional (Flood only occured within the region and not globally, water only covered the area) it's possible that some sort of large flood covered the biblical area at some point in human history, but no ark
All modern Humans are descendants of Noah and his family no, that would involve much incest and if I'm not mistaken, that's frowned on in Christianity
Earth is about 10,000 - 6,000 years old. No way
Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. "Oh yeah!" -The Kool-Aid Man
Organisms (animals & humans) do not undergo changes in anyway. Nope, even during the time this discussion has been actually going on with enough science to back things up, evolution has happened in front of our eyes. For example, in Australia, there's a non-native species of frog that is making it's was across the continent. The frogs in front have longer legs and a higher chance of having a certain restlessness gene while the frogs in back don't have as much chance of having the gene and have shorter legs. Yet it's genetically the same species of frog (besides the legs and gene). This is in the January 2013 issue of natl geographic, if I'm not mistaken. It's about our need to explore
Is God omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent etc.? None of the above, he's a figment of the imagination accepted by millions, billions?