I was showing the Christianity and plate tectonics aren't at odds. Regardless of how old he believed the earth to be, he believed that the continents had moved during Noah's flood. So even if he believed the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, his theory equally supports the beliefs of any Christian who accepts Noah's flood as a reality.

Agreed.

Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying this principle, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Tribospurtology has answered this question beyond refutation it shows that the earth is both 4.51113245569 billion yrs old minus leap years!!and has only had lizardillion type life occurring in "spurts" - here and there when necessary to keep the vegetation down to an acceptable amount.

long term life did not take place until the last several thousand years - this can be proven beyond a doubt because there is no litter or garbage up until that time.

Litterologist and garbologist both agree that life in abundance does not or can not be in mass till garbage starts to accumulate in mass.

Ralston Purina - a 7 thousand year old critter food mfg., also did not come out with dino-chow until about 6000 yrs AD. Without purina chows - life could not exist!!

There fore all your conclusion on this subject have become "moot" now lets move on to the next unprovable debate!!

Ok i have finished reading. man you do woffel....
1st What is your evidence that people lived longer in around 2,200 BC, the dead sea scrolls tell us that God said man (and woman) would only live from 7 days to 120 years and as it takes 7 days for the fetus to attach itself in the mothers womb and start developing and the oldest recored living person has never lived past 120 years this all sound feezable, not Fact.
2nd every biblical catastrafy can all be expland by natural phenomena. the flood, the land bridge at istanbul emtys into the black sea, Moses and the pillor, a volcanic eruption on one of the island in greece which would also explain the waters parting and then flooding back in. Hypnosis you can cure the sick even make them see again, Mesmer did it and the Church told him to stop. this doesnt meen im right or rong.
creationism doesnt mean life hasnt evolved and evelutionisim doesnt say there is no god. one is on faith the other on evidence, what you beleve, you dont have to prove to me, you just have to prove to yourself.

what do you mean it takes the fetus 7 days to attach to the womb and start developing? I mean developing starts at conception and its not a fetus for 11 weeks. Of course certain things can be explained in the Bible if they are written after the fact. (such as the flood and land bridge of which you spoke) Lots of stuff can cure sick and lasik surgery can also help the blind.(legally blind anyway)

Bones dating back 160k years
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html

Just different stuff.

Heh... religion and science are not at odds at all unless you try to surpass one with the other.

bingo

OK the egg travels down, on the 7th day the nerves system developes, ie has feelings.
fdp1177 short and sweet. good one

Which is exactly what they are attempting to do. Emphasis on attempting however. I know of modern day Christians who believe that human evolution is a miraculous concept and is simply the most likely way in which god would have gone about the development of humankind. I like that thought. It is not at odds with anyone.

You are not at odds with Plate Tectonics and the theory of Continental Drift?

Pangaea started to break up into two smaller supercontinents, called Laurasia and Gondwanaland, during the Jurassic period. By the end of the Cretaceous period, the continents were separating into land masses that look like our modern-day continents.

Wegener published this theory in his 1915 book, On the Origin of Continents and Oceans. In it he also proposed the existence of the supercontinent Pangaea, and named it (Pangaea means "all the land" in Greek).

Notice late Cretaceous, during the Jurassic. I thought you believed that the Earth was only 6000 years old? Unless of course, you are just trying to assert that the time frame is irrelevant and only a slight inconvenience.

PRIORY 101


before day one, Genesis says in the very first verse that God created heaven and earth from the beginning.

Now then, kids, at no time does God say, according to Moses' account of those that he writes of God having said , does Moses write that God made the heavens and the earth on the fist day.

It is in the susequent verses thatMoeses writes that God started declaring 'days'.

one of those 'days' is the day and night given its distinction as being between light and darkeness. Pay attention, class. Genesis 1: 3-5.

Now then. That day is not the 'day' that we call a 'day'. The hebrew uses a word for 'day' that means many things. Context must be assumed. So, let us assume, then, that the sun and the mmon are not the measure of that 'day', being as on the 'fourth day' as spoken of in Genesis 1:14-19.

Allow the teacher to digress. LOL

There are living organisms in the deepest oceans, which could conceivably have existed before the first 'day' according to Moses' account, if we can further assume that tempreature was regulated without the 'greater light to rule the day' (the sun) being required. For it does say that the "Spirit of God moved upon te face of the waters' in verse 2 prior to the 'first day'.

We know that there are many living organisms that require no warmth and raidation from the sun to survive in sub freezing weters in complete darkness, day and night, as we know it.

Why is it so difficult to grasp that whatever was, prior to the 'first day' in Genesis 1, is not excluded in that God may yet sustain those life forms by His Spirit? Genesis 1 does not preclude that from fact.

It does say, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters". Not upon a solid block of ice. See genesis 1 :2.


Now class, it stands consistent with the ambiguity of the length of 'day' in this account that all flora and fauna, as we know it, was manifest by God's Word on the 'fifth and sixth day'. Genesis 1: 20-31.



How about working with what the account of Creation says, as given by Moses, according to what it says, and not according to what we want it to say?


prehistoric life is not precluded from being present prior to the 'fist day' as given in scripture. Nor is it excluded.

There is a priory to scripture.


Read it for it what it says, kids.

It says, prior to the first day, the earth and the heaven is already.

It also says that the waters already exist before the 'first day', God n=merely divided the waters above and below from the firmament to give name to Heaven, not to say that the waters were created on the 'second day' with the firmament being named 'heaven'. Genesis 1:6-9, at the beginning of the 'third day' God called the land 'earth'. these are prior constructs being named. The word given for 'called' means to accost, to name, it does not mean to speak into existence that which already is. got that?
==================================================
I have spoken of priory- a few times throughout different threads at different times, and no one has asked me what I mean by the term.


Some of you know that I interpret scripture to conclude that Jesus Christ is that "priory", meaning that he is the means by which all things that are, in creation, are spoken into existence.

As it is written of Jesus having said to those with him in the beginning of His earthly minstry, "before Abraham, I am".

He is declaring that he is the "priory", the lesser house, if you will, not necessitating that the greater house is superceded or diminished, at all, by that revelatiun of himself as pre-existent.

How do we infer that upon him? Based on his own words and testimony of God, being pre-existent himself, he tells us that he does nothing apart from the Father, and that those things which the Father says, he does.

That is a sticking point to most, but neverthless, so in scripture.

So, if it is so, in scripture, let us not seperate the scriptures so as to disallow this distinction.

Therefore, priory has been established in scripture, so let us investigate scripture with the contexts of the priory given.



carry on, kids.

So it is or is not okay too assume then that there is not specific time frame prior the first "day", and that life could possibly have been there, just not in the listed forms given in Genesis?

That seems somewhat contradictory to me...

it is to my understanding that the first acount of genusis was writen incorperating numerology, when translated "in the beginning" back to its original, The book of genusis starts with the letter B which would mean there is a hole book that is prior to genusis.. God as a child maybe.

why?

christians hold men are not monkeys.

men are men and monkeys are monkeys.

beyond that, who cares what else is going on?

evolution is barking up the wrong tree for the origins of man and looking at the evidence from the wrong perspective.

That is what we hold to be true.

No one has found otherwise.

but why believe that the Holy Bible says something else when it says what it says?

the argument against God speaking this present world into existence is why, in light of what?

that which was and is not?

Was Moses that clever in carefully accounting for fossilized remains?

More questions

Wow teach, thats quite a stretch - dontcha

seperating the first verse from all the following? hmm - aint buying it


secondly if your god is dictating to moses what to write - why is it written differently than when god gave moses the 10 sugestions? there he states "i am the lord thy god" - in genisis it's written in the vernacular of moses describing what god did, not god stating what "he" did!
it's childish BS, stories for the masses.

i think marx stated it best when he said religion is the opiate for the masses. so take a dose of spirit and shoot up wouldee and enjoy yourself, you have turned me off of god more than the book actually has, or ever could, go pray to your god wouldee, you need to !

yup

you don't get it O deluded one.

read it as it is, clown,

you have had weeks to share it.

you and the other clowns spouting about genesis 1 to your content without nary a word from me.


shall all here take your pontifivcat arrogance to heart as truth, tribolator?

sit down aND BE STILL CLOWN.

YOU ARE EMBARRASSING YOURSELF.

tHERE ARE TOO MANY HOLY BIBLES IN THE WORLD FOR YOU TO TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THEM ALL AND KEEP OTHERS FOR READING FOR THEMSELVES.

YOU ARE DAFT.

Wouldee,

Do you have visions of teaching a creationism class? Tell me, will atheists and scientists be allowed to attend and ask questions or are only true believers going to be allowed to come?

JB

tribo says,


i think marx stated it best when he said religion is the opiate for the masses. so take a dose of spirit and shoot up wouldee and enjoy yourself, you have turned me off of god more than the book actually has, or ever could, go pray to your god wouldee, you need to !


communists hate God, and you quote a hater?

only haters hate, tribo.

yor true colors come out tonight.

so, did you think you could endlessly spout your hatred and lies from your comfortable armchair and coddle the children as big daddy with the badge?

I told you before, tribo.

I don't like you.

you show others why with this type of nonsense.

you tried.

you failed in your spin.

they can read for themselves what it says in genesis.

you know what it says.

what a pretzel.

sit down before you fall down, young buck.

You know where I think the story of the flood came from? Men found fossils of sea shells on the hills of mountains, fossils of fish, etc... It makes sense that they would have come to the conclusion that the earth was covered in water at some point in time because they did not realize that the terrain got pushed up from the ocean bottom or that their once was an ocean at that location.