Summations Only

Nonetheless, they do give us measures of time, whether they were intended to or not. What backing can you provide for that exactly? To me it sounds like an assumption which is not justified by the texts. It's not just that there are no human fossils, it's that there are no animal fossils of any kind! There aren't even any eukaryotes known from the Archean. Are you really suggesting that humans and modern plants and animals lived back then without leaving the slightest trace? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? I dunno, honesty? I mean, do you really want to understand geology or do you just want to waste your time learning to recite a bunch of meaningless falsehoods?If your ideas about Bible-friendly geology are worthwhile, then your geology professors are exactly the people you need to be talking to. They will have the expertise needed to talk through your theories with you and iron out any faults. If your ideas are really that important, you might change their minds. Even if not, at least you would be doing something meaningful rather than parroting stuff you don't believe.On the other hand, if your take on geology is wrong - as I believe it is - then your professors will be the ideal people to help you see that. They will put your ideas to the acid test. If those ideas are mistaken, they will be able to help you see it. That's a good thing. We should never be afraid to put our ideas to the test, even if it occasionally means being forced to abandon some cherished notion. I wasn't talking about dating by erosion, I meant that your deposition based method doesn't seem to take it into account. Well don't be shy; do tell.Mutate and Survive

Well actually, what he thinks and believes really doesn't have any bearing on doing well in geology class. Rather, it is how well he knows the material and can do the work. Science is kind of funny that way.Now, of course, if he were to go on and make claims and statements that he knows from his knowledge of geology to be untrue (eg, Dr. Steve Austin while as a graduate student writing as "Stuart Nevins" making claims of slow strictly uniform laying down of sedimentary strata which any beginning geology student should know to be false), then he would be a liar. But not for not fully agreeing with the subject matter of the geology classes.Remember, it is religious teachings that are meant to compel belief, not scientific teachings.

I suppose you think of taking the bible literally differently than I do. A biblical literalist recognizes literary devices when they are obvious. It is usually the last resort. They also understand the limitations of the modern english mind when it comes to understanding what ancient hebrews meant. Their world was different than our world. What the literalist never, ever does it to jump to saying everything is a metaphor when it doesn't automatically make sense at first glance from a natural reading. The literalist is very careful not to allegorize anything if a literal interpretation is possible at all.You think I am not reading the genealogies literally. This is false. I am reading them as the ancient hebrews meant them to be understood. The fault of modern understanding is in poor english translation. If you understood the culture of the ancient hebrew you would recognize by sentence structure when a direct father son genealogy is the case and when an extended father to son genealogy is the case. This is written about extensively on the web.One web example is " A new approach to earth's history" at Earth was created, destroyed, then naturally renewed.It isn't the main article there but you should have no problem finding it.

The "Adam and Eve" story has talking snakes and magic trees. You don't think that's obvious enough?

As dwise1 points out, a non-literal reading of the words "son", "father", "begat", etc doesn't help you here. What matters are the intervals of time.You say that you're reading them "as the ancient hebrews meant them to be understood", but if you were reading them at all you'd know that they look like this: ... and so on and so forth. It doesn't matter if (for example) "the father of Kenan" doesn't literally mean the father of Kenan. What matters is that it gives Enosh's age when Kenan was born.Using this and other data we can figure out a chronology for the Bible. I've done that myself.(The excuse about "son" not meaning "son" is (IIRC) used to explain away the discrepancies between the two genealogies of Jesus.) He writes: So far from Genesis being the Word of God, this chap sees it as the written version of a muddled and inaccurate oral history.Now if you're going to give up on the accuracy of the Bible, why not go the whole hog and be right?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Except that if he said what he believes in essays and exams, presumably he'd do less well. That was my point.

All of message 1: Shall we get back in touch with the topic (and find a better place for the off-topic stuff)?Otherwise, closing this topic down soon (no less than 24 hours).Adminnemooseus

And I went on to say: At this point, doing the work involves demonstrating that he knows and understands the required material and knows how to work with it. And will doubtless continue to be that way for the rest of his undergraduate program.If he does decide to present his own ideas, then he will have to be able to support and defend them thoroughly. That would be more for graduate and post-graduate work. And hopefully by then his presentation and defense won't be screaming "I hate you!", "Fuck you!", "Go to Hell!", and other such gems.BTW, in your other message, I wasn't the one who was talking about the genealogies in Genesis.PS:
Only just now saw admin's admonishment. Edited by dwise1, : PSEdited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

My response to Son Goku's question, is that I have never met anyone who has expressed creationist views to me. (I use "creationist" in the sense that everyone else is using the word, not in the sense that iCant is using it).I grew up in the 70s and 80s in the Midlands of England, to non-religious parents, and my exposure to stories from the bible ended when I finished primary school at age 11. (Religious education continued at secondary school (11-18), but was focussed on learning about other world religions than Christianity).I have a number of friends who have a religious faith, mainly Christians, but none of them has ever expressed any creationist beliefs to me.I only became aware of the prevelance of creationist beliefs through reading the BBC News website and some newspapers. Continued reading, and some Googling eventually led me here.

You said earlier that my deck would exist in a different form.

quote:

---

since the metal and wood does exist, the deck exists in some form just not in the form you have imagined ...

---

Thus, if man was made and not created, would you say that humans always existed...as dust or as some other form of matter? Was the life within us created?(or did it too exist in someone else?)hmmmm... in Him was life, and that life was the light of the world....thus, has life eternally existed through God? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

Hello and welcome to the discussion! Personally, I find it easier to express my creationist ideas as philosophy and speculation. I may use scriptures to support that the ideas could be interpreted theologically, yet I never limit them to that.Creationism runs into trouble when the idea tries to define the science.Creationism is a valid topic for Theological philosophy. (IMHO)Edited by Phat, : clarification

If foreveryoung would like to talk about the age of the Earth, I shall start a thread. If he'd prefer it to be in GD format, that's fine by me.

Hi Phat, Yes, just as the man in Genesis 2:7 existed in another form. The only thing added was the breath of life from God. I would say the body of the man in Genesis 2:7 had existed from the beginning. But that man was not modern mankind.The man in Genesis 2:7 was made from the dust of the ground. Then God added life to that form He had formed from the dust of the ground.Modern man that was created in Genesis 1:27 was not created from any existing material. Fact: life produces life.Non life ever produced life.But we are straying from the topic if you have other questions email me, or start a thread to discuss this subject further.God Bless, Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

That is absolutely incorrect. He absolutely sees Genesis as being the word of God. It is absolutely accurate for the information that is intended to be conveyed in the genealogies. You have to understand the purpose of a passage in order to judge its accuracy. What is the purpose of the genealogies? What part of this do you not understand? When you understand the purpose of the genealogies for ancient hebrew culture, you will see that the genealogies are actually incredibly accurate. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

See message #67.