It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science and Biblical Creation

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nophun
6 days equals SIX days!
How can you take parts of the bible literally and not take the clear statement six days.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Because the bible clearly states that to God a day is the same as 1000 years. The 1000 years long day is accepted in many parts of the bible, especially in the area of prophecy. God told Adam that in the day that he ate of the apple he would die. Adam lived to be about 900 years old according to biblical sources, or just short of 1 day. This world, according to prophecy should end in the next 1000 years, as roughly around 2000AD we entered into the 7th, and final, 1000 year day since creation.

edit:
Note that when I say creation, I mean the creation of the currant world, not the creation of the Earth. The two are entirely different events, and there is Biblical proof that the Earth was here long before God created our currant world.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 8/16/2010 by defcon5]




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I will make this one a little short.
I see from your post that you try very hard to make the science a part of your argument. I also see that is all it is to you. A tool to try and justify and bully people into thinking the same way you do.
I also gather from your post that if someone does not agree with you then they must not be as smart as you or able to understand the complex workings of your mind.
The really funny part is that you sound like one of those religious fanatics your so scared of trying to convert people to your way of thinking.
One last thing I saw in your post is that you do not have a firm grasp of Micro Evolution. And your excuse for not going into more detail was that I might not understand. Or at least that's how it came off to me.
Stop being a puppet, if you don't believe in God then that is your opinion but at least figure out for yourself why you don't believe. Stop hiding behind science because it really does nothing to prove your case.
The one true test will come when you and I draw our final breath here on this earth.
If I have been wrong about my faith what have I lost in the end?
And if you have been wrong what have you lost? A great deal more than I.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Young earth creation is just as wrong as evolution, wrong is just wrong, one is not less wrong. In fact young earth creation scares off scientifically minded people that want to believe in God. So in a way it is worse than evolution.
Genesis 1:1 is before the 6 creative "days", it has an unspecified length, most likely billions of years. And the bible is full of symbolism, many things spoken of in the bible are not literal, if you think God tied himself to man's literal 24 hour day before man made it up himself....well your logic is flawed.
When you read the bible you find that "day" often refers to specific epochs of time which can and do vary in time.

I have seen some interesting theories that even show how each day was shorter than the previous, but we are talking in the millions of years category.
However this is just conjecture that uses science as it's biases, it is very interesting because it ties the bible to science perfectly, and still fully supports God creating everything.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
I will make this one a little short.

Thanks for that.


I see from your post that you try very hard to make the science a part of your argument. I also see that is all it is to you. A tool to try and justify and bully people into thinking the same way you do.

Actually, it was the basis of my education and, although I am not a scientist, it is an important asset to me in the way I earn a living. It is also the way I look at and try to understand the world. A very interesting, rewarding and useful way, might I add.


I also gather from your post that if someone does not agree with you then they must not be as smart as you or able to understand the complex workings of your mind.

Come along to this thread and learn different.


One last thing I saw in your post is that you do not have a firm grasp of Micro Evolution.

There is no microevolution and macroevolution. That's just creationist mumbo-jumbo. There is only evolution.


And your excuse for not going into more detail was that I might not understand. Or at least that's how it came off to me.

No, I was challenging you. Dare you learn? Can you learn?


Stop being a puppet, if you don't believe in God then that is your opinion but at least figure out for yourself why you don't believe. Stop hiding behind science because it really does nothing to prove your case.

Reading this, I suspect I am dealing with a teenager. Look in the mirror and repeat your own words to yourself. Remove 'don't' and replace 'science' with 'shibboleth'. Repeat three times. The cure will have begun.


If I have been wrong about my faith what have I lost in the end?

A lifetime of truth, beauty and wonder. The chance to become a better person (religion stunts your moral development). You will also have wasted a big chunk of time and energy taking offence, getting angry or feeling guilty about a lot of meaningless nonsense. Oh yes, and you will have spent your life living a lie.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by iterationzero
 

Unless science has become your god.



Not at all. Science is hardly a religion, and religion is hardly science. Save the ideological attacks and try and understand the difference between a belief system and information gathered from observable phenomenon.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
well i guess ill take a stab at answering the original questions in this thread.
i think the answers are out there and a re pretty easy to find if people would just read.

I am a Christian and i believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old for a few scientific reasons but ill just bible answers for this reply.
Exodus (the 10 commandments) puts all 7 days as being the same... 24 hour-days. i believe its more around 6k years old based on the biblical teaching.
the references i saw later in this thread point to the verses in the bible taling about how a day is like a thousand years and vice versa... id like to point out that none of those verses are referring to the creation event... and notice that both of those say "thousand" not 'million' or 'billion'... but the fact is, those verses are saying that time doesnt mean anything to God. (this is not year 2010 in heaven) God it outside of time which is all these verses are trying to convey.
so i think its very simple, God made everything in six days and rested on the 7th day for symbolic reasons but a literal event.

garden of eden and thereafter (pre-flood) people lived to be over 900 years old.. why? well there were probably different atmospheric conditions that made this possible. there are theories that really cannot be tested or observed or demonstrated physically, but they can be tested logically (on paper with mathematics or in computer simulation) so its more like a hypothesis/theory. but either way it makes sense to me.
if you would like for me to reply with these conditions, let me know... but i think that based on what we know from basic science and from what the bible says, we can figure it out pretty easily.

'sons of God' -- as far as i know these are angels. 'Son of God' is obviously Jesus. but 'sons' are angels as far as i know.

people often pick on the fact that adams sons had to marry their sisters and then cousins in order to start the population. but they often skip over the fact that Noahs family had to do something very similar in order to restart the population. Adam married his own rib... and if God can make everything in six days im sure he could allow marriage between close relatives until the bloodlines grew far enough apart to establish marriages that way. i know thats not something we do today, but in the beginning, there really isnt any other choice.

how long was adam in the garden naming animals before Eve was created?
well this answer is simple. before day 7.

how long were they in Eden before getting casted out?
well Adam was 130 when Seth was born, so its definitely before that.
i would say anytime within the first 100 years of adams life.
the bible does not give exact dates for some thing but you can come to a close conclusion based on the facts you do have.

you can use the bible to determine the age of the earth... like this:
Creation marked the beginning. Adam was 130 when Seth was born... Seth was X years old when his son was born.... and you keep going until you hit Jesus Christ. and that adds up to about 4000 BC... and its about 2000 BC right now... so thats about 6000 years altogether.

the fact that Seth was born when adam was 130, and cain/able were born before that says that adam and eve were in the garden of eden less than 130 years.

Jesus quotes Genesis a few times in the New Testament... and puts all days of creation as the same length....
Jesus wasnt in the grave for millions of years. he was in the grave for three days.

overall, i think you can come to logical conclusions when reading the bible, the answers are in there. sometimes you dont get exact answers but you get close by using limiting factors that the bible does provide.

hope this helps.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



How long was Adam in Eden before He created Eve from Adam's rib?
How long did it take Adam to name all of the animals before the creation of Eve?
How long did they live in the garden togerther before being cast out?
You see the bible does not say so we can not be sure.
But what we can say is that in the garden they did not age. They did not age until they were cast out of Eden. So we as Christians can not use the bible to say how old the earth is because it is not written how old the earth is.
We can only go back as far as Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden abot 10000 years ago.
We do not know for any certainty how long they where in the garden. It may have been a year or 70 million.


I you go by the Roman Collection of writings called the bible today you have raised a very good point...

I can't disagree with you on this...

Not sure how you arrive at the 10,000 year period though.. please explain...

[edit on 6-9-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Since Eden was "perfect" and this world is not, I think it would be hard to use the laws/rules from this imperfect world to describe events that transpired during a "perfect" existence. Who knows what could have changed? I could imagine time not flowing the same way in Eden as it does now. I know when I am having fun, or I am in a place that I love and enjoy, time tends to speed up. This may be a bad analogy, however I can only put it in terms that is relevant to me, because I have not experienced any sort of "Eden".



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
garden of eden and thereafter (pre-flood) people lived to be over 900 years old.. why? well there were probably different atmospheric conditions that made this possible. there are theories that really cannot be tested or observed or demonstrated physically, but they can be tested logically (on paper with mathematics or in computer simulation) so its more like a hypothesis/theory. but either way it makes sense to me.
if you would like for me to reply with these conditions, let me know... but i think that based on what we know from basic science and from what the bible says, we can figure it out pretty easily.


You strayed a bit from your self-imposed line of only using Biblical answers in your reply, so I'm going to hold you to science when asking for clarification on the above.

Please expound. I'm interested in hearing what atmospheric conditions would allow someone to live to be over 900 years old. This seems like something that would be incredibly easy to prove or disprove by placing someone in a closed chamber under those conditions and measuring their lifespan.

And just to be clear, are you talking about scientific theories or scientific hypotheses? The two are often, accidentally, used interchangeably when they refer to two distinct things. If you're putting this forward as a scientific hypothesis, meaning your assertion that a different atmosphere can results in a tenfold increase in lifespan, then by definition it has to be testable. If you have a scientific theory as to why this occurs, assuming that you can prove it does, that would also be of great interest.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


www.discourseanddisclosure.com...
and
www.genesispark.org...

These two test the same hypothesis.. i understand that there are other parts to the website you probably dont want to believe in and thats understandable because you cant test and observe the entire earth being put in that condition.

but i would say that its safe to theorize that if people were put under the same conditions as the plants or smaller animals (such as dr baugh's piranhas) people would life longer and probably unlock potential we dont even know about.
i know the 'potential' part is a bit of a stretch and i really dont have any evidence for that. I just base that purely off of the fact that the less oxygen you have the more mind altering it becomes (in a bad way) the more you take in the more clear things become, and i would put my faith in the statement that a biosphere, such as the one many young earth scientist believe in, would allow for the large growth and long life.
I think that this theory directly supports the growth & life of the dinosaurs perfectly as well as man living to be over 900 years.

so to conclude here: this theory is testable at a smaller level and hypothesized for other larger levels. (no on wants to stick a human in a gigantic test tube for his/her entire life just to collect supportive evidence.) i think its very logical to say that if these atmospheric conditions have an effect of XYZ on living things (plants and animals), that it would probably have the same effect on all other plants and animals on this same earth to include people.

I really dont see any issues with this theory unless you already have the preconceived idea of evolution/abiogenesis, old-universe...

i think this theory holds its ground based on the scientific evidence we see from experiments, scientific principles/laws based on the results we see.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
If you know that we use the sun to determine 24 hour day. People should know that before God created the sun. A 24 hours day did not exist.

So before God created the sun. A day would be a totally different time reference.

We also determine time by changes. Maybe God is doing the same thing.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah

but i would say that its safe to theorize that if people were put under the same conditions as the plants or smaller animals (such as dr baugh's piranhas) people would life longer and probably unlock potential we dont even know about.


I'm familiar with the effects of increased atmospheric oxygen content leading to larger organisms. This is corroborated by the fossil record. I'm not sure how you're making the leap from "bigger" to "longer lifespan". Are you suggesting that the greater the oxygen content the longer the lifespan? There were other facets to Mori's work aside from making alterations to the oxygen content, including filtering IR and UV rays and providing a nutrient-rich environment. Do you have some kind of evidence that the Earth's atmosphere was like this 10 ky ago?

I think it's safe to hypothesize it, because it's testable. I would think that someone would have done this by now and shared the results, given that it would actually lend some credence to a young earth model.


I just base that purely off of the fact that the less oxygen you have the more mind altering it becomes (in a bad way) the more you take in the more clear things become,


Are you familiar with oxygen toxicity syndrome? Further, there are organisms that can't survive in an oxygen rich environment. Making blanket statements that what's good for one set of organisms must be good for all others is a big leap that's going to require a significant body of evidence.


so to conclude here: this theory is testable at a smaller level and hypothesized for other larger levels. (no on wants to stick a human in a gigantic test tube for his/her entire life just to collect supportive evidence.) i think its very logical to say that if these atmospheric conditions have an effect of XYZ on living things (plants and animals), that it would probably have the same effect on all other plants and animals on this same earth to include people.


Again, you seem to be mixed up about what theories and hypotheses are. You're putting forth a testable hypothesis that the lifespan of a human being tenfold or greater simply by altering the atmospheric conditions under which they live. You haven't provided a theory as to why this occurs, only that it must because your interpretation of the Bible tells you it does. You don't have a theory, or even the start of a theory, until you've tested your hypothesis.


I really dont see any issues with this theory unless you already have the preconceived idea of evolution/abiogenesis, old-universe...


I don't have preconceived notions. I'm simply following where the evidence leads. I have yet to see a young earth model that wasn't refuted by the evidence that's been gathered so far. On the other hand, the evidence for an "old earth" is abundant and verifiable.

You've essentially ignored my requests for clarification of your meanings in earlier posts and completely side-stepped my direct responses to your points. I've treated you honestly and respectfully in this conversation and haven't been accorded the same courtesy. Let me know whether or not your interested in engaging in serious conversation on this subject. If not, I'll go back to replying to other people's posts.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by iterationzero]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


that's an assumption and a flawed one at that being that no one comes to that conclusion based the bible alone. and since Exodus puts all 6 days as being the same.
you don't think God had an order for things for a reason? you don't think he made light without light sources for a reason?

I think the root of this problem is this.... why to you need to squeeze more time into these 6 days? why is it so necessary?
please don't say 'to fit the bible into science'. because that is not what is being attempted here. science is knowledge gained by observation, testing demonstrating etc.
we know the earth has limiting factors to its age that cannot be denied even though everyone tries to ignore these fact as if the evidence pointed against these facts.

evolution is not science (with the exception of micro evolution or speciation) everything else is faith based hypothesis because it doesn't have a single demonstrable or observable example to support it.

so why do you need the gap?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
reply to post by spy66
 


that's an assumption and a flawed one at that being that no one comes to that conclusion based the bible alone. and since Exodus puts all 6 days as being the same.
you don't think God had an order for things for a reason? you don't think he made light without light sources for a reason?

I think the root of this problem is this.... why to you need to squeeze more time into these 6 days? why is it so necessary?
please don't say 'to fit the bible into science'. because that is not what is being attempted here. science is knowledge gained by observation, testing demonstrating etc.
we know the earth has limiting factors to its age that cannot be denied even though everyone tries to ignore these fact as if the evidence pointed against these facts.

evolution is not science (with the exception of micro evolution or speciation) everything else is faith based hypothesis because it doesn't have a single demonstrable or observable example to support it.

so why do you need the gap?


Well i think you should educate your self before you speak out about anything.

Because you are lost.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


So called "mircoevolution" and speciation are two separate concepts. Microevolution refers to mutations that occur between generations, whereas speciation is when enough mutations occur that the resultant offspring cannot breed with the species their ancestors were a part of, creating a new species. Creationists call this macroevolution. You have just stated that micro- and macroevolution have been observed. So, what do you feel makes evolution not true?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 




I'm familiar with the effects of increased atmospheric oxygen content leading to larger organisms. This is corroborated by the fossil record. I'm not sure how you're making the leap from "bigger" to "longer lifespan". Are you suggesting that the greater the oxygen content the longer the lifespan? There were other facets to Mori's work aside from making alterations to the oxygen content, including filtering IR and UV rays and providing a nutrient-rich environment. Do you have some kind of evidence that the Earth's atmosphere was like this 10 ky ago?

I think it's safe to hypothesize it, because it's testable. I would think that someone would have done this by now and shared the results, given that it would actually lend some credence to a young earth model.


I am aware of Mori's work and based on that one experiment alone very logical to speculate that the same things can happen to other organisms.
his tomato plants outlived a normal tomato plants by far. hyper-barric treatments are being used all over the world to cure certain diseases (which suggests to me that if hyper-barric conditions existed in our normal world, these diseases would never arise) hence the reason why adams sons were able to marry their sisters for the first generation and branch of further down the family tree. also the canopy theory supports exactly what Mori did with his plant. filters harmful IR/UV. canopy of water would do this all day long.

the only evidence i have for this is the tests being done on the plants and animals. its a obvious to me that the earths atmosphere had to be different based on the fossils we find in the dirt. you can see by the bones in the dirt that it lived and that how big it grew to be.

I know that pure oxygen isnt good for any organism. as a aviation student i learned this back in high school. but there are many samples of petrified amber found in your geologic column that indicated earlier atmospheric conditions contained greater oxygen content.
and i would predict based off of your statement that some organisms cannot survive in oxygen rich environments... that yes. I agree... there probably are some and it wouldnt surprise me at all there are some now... being that a few thousand years have passed since that atmosphere existed im sure the lack of such a rich environment would cause modifications that make life different for organisms today. makes perfect sense to me that all of todays world couldnt survive in pre-flood conditions. but that doenst make it the theory obsolete and there are still some organisms out there that could benefit from a pre-flood biosphere.


as for your other comments, i think i have provided enough logic and reference to your questions. i really dont know how i can make this any simpler. i didnt mean to side-step any thing, I do admit to get side-tracked and i do apologize.

also evidence like this is often ignored and claimed to have been thrown out even though the substitute has flaws that are also ignored.
creation.com...

evolutionists claim that this cannot limit the age of the earth because first off - we know the age of the earth is greater than what this theory suggests and second -- we theorize that the earth is losing magnetic strength through a series of reversals even though there is no evidence or even a good scientific theory to support it. plus Faraday's law of induction kind of puts a damper of that whole idea of reversals...

I fear that the evolutionists are afraid of single points of failure. kind of like have an entire equation with awesome numbers only to multiply it by zero and get nothing. thats what it seems like.

im not here to make enemies, im here to find absolute truth.. why? because i know its out there and i know it can be found.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
evolution is not science (with the exception of micro evolution or speciation)


Originally, the concept of micro and macroevolution were used to describe small changes occurring over a few generations at the species level and larger changes in a population at the species level, respectively. What scientists have come to understand since these terms were popularized in the late 20's is macroevolution is, stated in a simplified way, just aggregated microevolution i.e. enough small changes over time equate to big change. Creationists try to turn this into a false duality by continuing to claim that they are two separate processes. According to them, all observable evolution today is "just" microevolution and, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, they claim that macroevolution doesn't really occur. So call it what you want - genetic flow, genetic drift, microevolution, alleles doing the Foxtrot or Charleston or Lambada or whatever - you're still talking about evolution.


everything else is faith based hypothesis because it doesn't have a single demonstrable or observable example to support it.


So you're claiming that there is not a single observed example of evolution? Really? So the ability of strains of Pseudomonas to create a new enzyme, via mutation, capable of utilizing nylon oligomers as a food source doesn't count? And that's not even getting into vestigial and atavistic forms, transitional forms, morphological alterations...



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


what im saying is that everything we observe/test/demonstrate supports exactly what the bible says.
the bible said that the creatures and beasts, and fowl, and creatures and creep around the earth (bugs) will bring forth after their kind and that is all we have ever observed. and that is all you are bringing to the table as well. events that actually support the bible.
they do support one small part of darwinian evolution but not the whole thing.
and what makes you think that micro can turn into macro evolution? you think millions of years will make it happen.

check out this video pls and really open your mind.


[edit on 7-9-2010 by Methuselah]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
and what makes you think that micro can turn into macro evolution? you think millions of years will make it happen.


1. Microevolution doesn't turn into macroevolution.

2. No, it doesn't take millions of years to make it happen. What you're referring to as macroevolution (i.e. speciation) is observable today.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Another example of observable evolution where you claim there are none.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Well, we know for a fact humans and the animals claimed to have been from the start in the bible weren't there from the start. Which kinda proves the whole genesis thing is total hogwash.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join