Actually, pioneer geologist Charles Lyell might be a better answer.
Posted on 02/17/2009 8:25:37 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Where did the idea of “millions of years” come from?
All of our media outlets push evolution and “millions of years” ideas on the public. Even children’s cartoons reflect evolutionary philosophy! In an episode of the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants, entitled “SpongeBob B.C.,” the narrator begins: “Ah, dawn breaks over the primordial sea. It is here that millions of years ago, life began taking its first clumsy steps out of the darkness, opening its newly formed eyeballs to stare into the blinding light of intelligence.” Unfortunately, large segments of the church have swallowed the millions-of-years evolutionary history hook, line, and sinker. But it was not always this way. In this chapter, we will discover where the idea of millions of years came from and why the church went along with it. We will see that science does not require it, but rather it is a necessity of uniformitarian geology and evolutionary theory...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
1. Context of Exodus 20:11
2. Each day in the creation week is numbered
3. The creation happened during the "day", and the evening and the morning (of the next day) were the first "day", or 24 hour period.
Yes, "yom" can mean age, period, aeon, etc., but there is no example of that in the OT when it is coupled with an number (as in the Third Day) or when coupled with a reference to astronomical event, (e.g. evening and morning).
In addition, that means that God created the plants on Day 3, and waited aeons of time to create the Sun, Moon and Stars on Day 4. When laid side by side, the sequence of events in Genesis do not mach the sequence supposed by the Big Bang and Bacteria to Man evolutionary theory. You must also do away with original sin and that all death (animal and man) was brought by the sin of Adam. Also, we must explain how God could call his creation "good" and "very good" when it required the deaths of billions of life forms to generate the ones that could adapt and survive.
Really. This is a thread where Young Earth creationism is trying to make a scientific case against old earth geological positions. My posts have been well-document statements of fact to counter those claims, and rebuttals of those who try to explain away the geological and fossil record by saying it was created in situ by God.
So you basically think the GOP can gain more voters by dabbling in bad science? I sincerely doubt that. If anything, those who promote bad science hurt the GOP.
This line of reasoning is the same one used by Rudolf Bultmann to basically dismiss almost all of the NT as "...a piece of narrative, a dominical saying or a parable. In the process we learn to distinguish secondary additions and forms, and these in turn lead to important results for the history of the tradition."
This in turn has led to the search for the "hisorical Jesus" which in turn discredits almost all of the NT miracles and sayings of Jesus into inventions of the NT writers, and ultimately to deny the very Resurrection and Divinity of Christ!
Slippery slope, that!
Wow, you are absolutely correct. Saul Alinsky would be proud of you.
I see since you can't debate this scientifically, you are resorting to name-calling. Typical. You may have the last word, for what little it is worth.
I doubt that any one on this thread that claims to be a Christian hangs their faith on this slender thread.
Christians have only Christ as their hope, and that without reservation.
Yup, I meant it for you. Comment #29 showed a photo of sedimentary layers. The author of that comment invited scientific analysis of it. I thought maybe you could provide some.
I guess I’d be considered a “fundamentalist type of Christian,” as I believe in Christ as the foundation of my faith. I also highly value science as a way to understand the physical world around me.
No, I stand by my original statement. You do nothing but offend, those you hope to persuade to think like you do. You are the Genius, everyone that doesn't agree with your every statement is delusional or stupid.
Explain how that brings a single vote into the Republican party?
You are mostly an arrogant @ss.
This is a thread about efforts to fit the geological record into a Young Earth viewpoint. Given that I was studying to be a professional geologist, and have both upper-division college credit, work experience and field experience in the subject, I do have some expertise here.
So far, I see very poor science used by the Young Earth side. And I see the likes of you resorting to personal attacks to counter the lack of scientific analysis on the Young Earth side.
Explain how that brings a single vote into the Republican party?
Maybe by showing there are folks who are not vehemently anti-science who are still practicing Republicans and conservatives?
You are mostly an arrogant @ss.
And you are proving my point yet again that your side is intellectually bankrupt and, when finally cornered by the lack of evidence, resorts to personal attacks. Tell me how THAT will do anything but alienate folks from the GOP?
You and I have these things in common.
Yet again you prove my point. This is not an intellectual argument, but a Religious argument, in which you seem to take great delight in belittling Christians, because they choose to take the Bible literally.
You claim to be here only to bring enlightenment, but instead you generate animosity, to what end?
Comma problem: you mean to say “great delight in belittling Christians who choose to take the Bible literally.”
Most Christians are not in fact locked into literalist interpretations of the KJV translation of Genesis; don’t try to make this an issue of the World vs. the Church.
Sorry, but once Young Earthers try to theorize geological processes to try and fit the geological record into the Young Earth model, it crosses the line into scientific debate. Which is rigorous.
I don't chase this argument into the Religion forum. But if it is posted out here in the News forum, and scientific issues are being discussed, I will debate them from a scientific, not religious viewpoint.
BTW, I don't have a serious problem with ID - it is not in and of itself an affront to the geological record. My issue is with the horribly bad science of the Young Earthers - that is an affront to the science I have studied for years.
You claim to be here only to bring enlightenment, but instead you generate animosity, to what end?
The animosity I see is from your name-calling on this thread. If you want to post in an echo chamber, the FR News forum is not the place to accompish such.
I am not an astronomer and my data may not be up to date, but it seems that some quasars are 28 billion light years from here.
I take no such delight. I am belittling bad science. If you want to believe the world was created 6,000 years ago, that's your business. Just don't engage in pseudo-science in the process and then belittle those who take science seriously, to the point of studying it in the field and in labs for decades.
Oh, and quite a few Christians have chimed in on this thread saying they have no problem with an old earth model for creating the world. So you are the one trying to make this into belittlement.
Actually, pioneer geologist Charles Lyell might be a better answer.
From Satan.
If God created the Earth complete with evidence that it is billions of years old, that would imply that God wants us to believe that the earth is billions of years old. In that case anyone who refuses to believe the earth is billions of years old would be deliberately defying the will of God.
If someone old enough to be reading this forum is asking that question they need to go back and repeat elementary school because they weren’t paying attention but somehow managed to graduate.
“I am not an astronomer and my data may not be up to date, but it seems that some quasars are 28 billion light years from here.”
Yes, but they weren’t 28 billion light years away when the light we see from them was emitted. The estimate of their curren distance includes taking the red shift of their spectra into account.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.