QnA Evolution

[John Chrysostom]

If that's your main evidence there have been debates about the amount of time in the genealogies since before Christ and you're claiming that it's only now that we've figured them out? Also are you using the New Testament genealogies?

Also this sounds terrible but I'm going to ask it, what about scientific evidence?

[Blitz]

Science evidence coming from a world view which requires those ideas.

[Knight Fisher]

How can you be qualified to answer these questions if you don't believe in evolution? Because clearly you have not studied all the data of what people who do believe in evolution, believe.

[Sherlock]

So can a good Christian believe that God guided an evolutionary process or are the two ideas totally incompatible?

What I mean to say, is that must a Christian accept that the earth is 6,000 years old in order to be a Christian?

[John Chrysostom]

So scientific data is only for those who believe in evolution?

Also do you have an answer for my other two questions?

[Christian A.]

So can a good Christian believe that God guided an evolutionary process or are the two ideas totally incompatible?

What I mean to say, is that must a Christian accept that the earth is 6,000 years old in order to be a Christian?

One can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but I think conquestor and I both believe that in order to do so, you have to be fairly inconsistent.

[Blitz]

Yes I have and I realize that the more I study the more ridiculous it seems. For one a cell can only come from a cell according to true science. The laws of the world cannot and will not permit a cell to come from nothing. Yet the evolutionist believe a cell came from atoms. And the atoms would destroy each other if not in a cell together. It is like blending the container of the corrosive acid in the acid.
No science evidence point to the bible just like this example

[Knight Fisher]

How can you be qualified to answer these questions if you don't believe in evolution? Because clearly you have not studied all the data of what people who do believe in evolution, believe.

Ehem.

[John Chrysostom]

How would you have to be inconsistent to believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years or that evolution occurred after creation? What you're describing is the big bang theory not evolution.

[Blitz]

I have studied it, half an hour per day for a long time about a year or so. And for your question the geoneologies continue in interupted order after creation and the bible gives an exact order but evolution give a different order of evolution entirely differing from the bible.

[John Chrysostom]

So you studied it for 178 hours, somewhat short of the Malcom Gladwell 10,000 hours.

How would you have to be inconsistent to believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years or that evolution occurred after creation?

[Blitz]

For then if evolution occurred after creation it would be mutation and natural selection which fall short of being true evolution. One way to say it is - If evolution occurred during creation it would bring death before sin. If it happened after creation but before Adam ate the fruit it would have the same affect. Then after that the Geanologies give accurate timing.

[Christian A.]

I think you're sort of misunderstanding Ayn's question, conquestor. Ayn doesn't believe in six literal days of creation like we do.

@ Ayn: I think you'd be inconsistent because the Bible gives no implication that the earth is any older than 10,000 years. Only when we come to the Bible with an evolutionist mindset do we determine that an old earth is compatible with the Bible.

[John Chrysostom]

Then after that the Geanologies give accurate timing.

Yet there has always been disagreements about the time in the genealogies among Christian scholars. And in fact the Apostles wrote cautions about getting caught up in genealogies. Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless." 1st Timothy 1:3-4 "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."

So given the disagreements about and the warnings against genealogies do you have any other evidence about the age of the earth?

Christian: Why do you say it can't be any older than 10,000 years? We've had the discussion about the genealogies before. I think young earth creationist work backward from the genealogies and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

[Christian A.]

I don't think there is any solid evidence to the contrary. If you have some I'd gladly reconsider, but I've never seen you give any proof for your evolutionary views. You've demonstrated why you don't think Genesis is a historical narrative, but that doesn't discount that we can have a young earth.

[John Chrysostom]

Well light from stars by itself would suggest an age far over 10,000. But what is wrong with modern scientific methods of determining the age of the earth?

Most of the articles I read on AIG start with the assumption that the genealogies are completely accurate and use them as the foundation for their beliefs, despite strong warnings from the Apostles not to do so, it seems to me that working from an assumption and trying to find evidence to support that assumption is bad science.

[Christian A.]

The argument for distant starlight usually goes, God created a mature man and a mature woman and mature animals and the like, so why couldn't he have created a mature-looking universe?

All of the articles on AiG start with the assumption that the Bible is totally precise and accurate in all that it says, and so it is only logical to assume that the genealogies are accurate.

As for modern scientific methods of determining the age of the earth, usually those processes are guided by bias--such as Carbon 14 dating and such. But other methods that I've told you about before, such as the magnetism of the earth, the rotation of the earth, the distance between the earth and the moon, the existence of comets; all suggest that we couldn't have an earth as old as 4.5 billion years.

[John Chrysostom]

I've heard that before but then are we saying that God set out to confuse us by making the universe appear older than it is?

They all start with the assumption that those verses should be interpreted as purely historical, as we've discussed that is a fairly recent interpretation and I've also expressed doubts about AIG interpretation specifically of the New Testament genealogies.

Well as per your suggestion I'm am reading up on the AIG articles on the topic of carbon dating specifically and will comment when I've read more.

[Blitz]

Then after that the Geanologies give accurate timing.

Yet there has always been disagreements about the time in the genealogies among Christian scholars. And in fact the Apostles wrote cautions about getting caught up in genealogies. Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless." 1st Timothy 1:3-4 "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."

Now Paul was talking here about mythological legend of the Old Testament.

I've heard that before but then are we saying that God set out to confuse us by making the universe appear older than it is?

I would like to ask you one question are you trusting fallible man which has made hundred of trillions of mistakes or infallible God who has never made one mistake?
read this AIG article- http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-of-years

[Knight Fisher]

Then after that the Geanologies give accurate timing.

Yet there has always been disagreements about the time in the genealogies among Christian scholars. And in fact the Apostles wrote cautions about getting caught up in genealogies. Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless." 1st Timothy 1:3-4 "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."

Now Paul was talking here about mythological legend of the Old Testament.

How on earth do you get that?

I've heard that before but then are we saying that God set out to confuse us by making the universe appear older than it is?

I would like to ask you one question are you trusting fallible man which has made hundred of trillions of mistakes or infallible God who has never made one mistake?
read this AIG article- http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-of-years

What? What does that have to do with the question?

You still haven't answered my previous question. How can you possibly be qualified to have a Q&A about something you think is a bunch of balony and thus do not have full knowledge, but only half the story of.