Posted on 04/04/2009 10:51:32 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
Does the Earth orbit the Sun?
A number of years ago, I read the beginning of Genesis, but made in my own mind a TINY change. The bible we read has been through several languages and translation changes so I thought to myself...
What if, instead of the word DAY, the bible read “PERIOD OF TIME”?
I have watched many TV shows on the origins of the Universe and our earth, and the physical events seem to closely follow science, or science seems to follow the physical event outlined in the bible. Light from darkness, parting the waters from the land, the beginning of life STARTING with animals and ENDING when “He created MAN in HIS own image”.
Every time I’ve reread those first passages, I mentally insert the phrase “PERIOD OF TIME”.
I am only one person, but I can see where SCIENCE upholds biblical events, and I can see where the bible upholds the theories of science. It depends on whether the proper read is “DAY” or the phrase “PERIOD OF TIME”.
ONLY my thoughts.
Eh. I am a devout Baptist, and a member of a very Biblically-based church. I believe the Bible is the true Word of God.
But — the Bible is not a comprehensive guide to the creation of the Universe. It is an abridged “need-to-know” guide to the Creation. There are a LOT of irrelevant details that are left out of Genesis — and there are a lot of Christians that seem to get distracted with bickering about these irrelevant details. Ironic — since nobody has all the answers.
Science is a good way of filling in some of the gaps. But, science will never prove how creation occurred ... its all theories. The theory of evolution, even if accepted wholecloth, doesn’t even pretend to explain “creation” ... it is a human attempt to explain the process immediately after creation.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, it is ultimately a trivial argument.
SnakeDoc
There seems to be no Biblical evidence that Adam & Eve actually had a childhood.
One might surmise from that that the Creator decided to start a world where things were already fully grown in the beginning.
Actually "creationism" science has nothing to do with "bible lessons" or religion at all, it's only numskull Evo's who think it does.
Science is science, that's all it is.
Science provides more "young earth" proofs while "evolution" theories are sadly lacking any at all.
Do you get a commission from that site for each book they sell?
Satan put those fossils there, knowing that men would find them. Then, he made it so that the fossils could be accurately dated via radioactive decay. All of this was to deceive people and make them doubt the Bible, so that they would lose salvation!
How dare you post facts!
>>As usual those who disagree do not bring their evidence, they attack the scholars and others who have proof of their findings. Just like they do to those who disagree with the global warming hysteria.
Did you set fire to a chickenwire cage as well?
That has been debunked so many times, it is unbelievable. The apparent similarity of a carved icon to a dinosaur is hardly “proof.” It probably resembles a small animal from the area. There have been carvings of dragons, unicorns, elves and the like. Does that mean they lived contemporaneous with man?
Strawmen can be fun to watch as the flame up.
At least respect your reading audience enough to not post urban myths. I have a very specific challenge out there. Provide me a list of at least 10,000 life scientists (the minimum value for “many” of the millions of practicing life scientists in the world) who have stated they think TToE is not correct.
Do not post nonsense, do not attempt to shunt the discussion. Put up or shut up.
Also, please post the alternate SCIENTIFIC theory to replace it.
1. These are all life scientists?
2. You are about 9,987 short.
I can get 10 scientists to say that astrology is how they should live their lives. It is a numbers game.
You need a significant sample.
>>How dare you post facts!
Yeah — I get it every time I do.
;)
Appears so; doesn't it? what's that got to do with young/vs old earth theory?
Anybody can subjectively change any word or phrase in the Bible in an attempt to alter its meaning.
But the "science" of translation is a fairly exacting one based on manuscripts that are sometimes thousands of years old. We have many, many more manuscipts of biblical text that of any other classical literature, say "Gallic Wars" or the works of Herodotus for example.
The words in the Bible are surprisingly accurate if using textual analysis because of the extreme care of scribes used throughout the centuries. Thus, especially if you want to be "scientific" you must not subsitute whatever you will for what is written there, especially if based on a whim.
From you lips to God’s ears!
Because a large portion of those who believe the Earth to be 10,000 years old also believe that everything in the know universe orbits around us.
That it would require most of the universe to moving millions of times faster than the speed of light doesn’t appear to bother them.
>>Actually “creationism” science has nothing to do with “bible lessons” or religion at all, it’s only numskull Evo’s who think it does.
There is no such thing as “creation science.” Maybe you don’t know what science is? Insults, such as “numskull,” although they give you a childlike thrill, don’t do much to help your argument.
>>Science is science, that’s all it is.
Yes, and you clearly don’t know what it is, how it works, its tolls nor its uses. You probably STILL don’t know what a “scientific theory” is, although you have been told more than a few times.
>>Science provides more “young earth” proofs while “evolution” theories are sadly lacking any at all.
Waiting for that first scientific proof. Using proper science tools, not conjecture and philosophy.
You can start with galaxies observed to be billions of light years away and formations to be billions of years old.
AFTER you provide the rest of the scientists’ names AND their life science qualifications.
That isn’t an answer.
Can’t you read? I said it was a partial list.
Go look it up for yourself, or are you still “evolving” your internet skills and don’t yet know how?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html
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.