Old Earth:why it is a lie

[The_Cursed_Phoenix]

Many things in the Bible would be pointless without the young earth theory such as the first death roughly 6000 years ago a lamb was killed by God to give Adam and Eve clothing why would it be pointless well the reason is that when Christians say the Old Earth theory is true they dont know what they are saying because they are accepting millions of horrible diseases before the fall of man now the bible clearly states that there was no death no pain and no suffering before the fall of man and also many other facts of the bible would be lies if the old earth theory is true such as the flood and the Death Christ on Calvary and creation itself the flood would not be true because God would not need to destroy the world it would have already done it itself. and for the death of Christ on Calvary it would not be nesessary because it would not be for sin the fall of man would also be for nothing nothing new would enter the world but sin. and creation would also be a lie because how could god call a world with millions of horrible disseases VERY GOOD  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Woah, you must be reading an entirely different version of the Bible from me! :O I don't recall the death of a lamb being the first death, and Adam and Eve definitely made clothes out of plants.

An old earth theory and everything happening in the Bible are not mutually exclusive. There are clearly gaps between the stories that could have occurred thousands of years from each other.

It seems that the biggest point you're trying to make is that only an old earth would have diseases, and God would not accept diseases into His perfect world.

Quote:

why would it be pointless well the reason is that when Christians say the Old Earth theory is true they dont know what they are saying because they are accepting millions of horrible diseases before the fall of man.... how could god call a world with millions of horrible disseases VERY GOOD

Really, that has nothing to do with it. For whatever reason, God saw His creation as very good. The Bible never says there was no suffering or pain in the beginning- all it says is that Adam and Eve walked with God until they sinned, at which point they became separated from Him.

Creation is not a lie. Just because I believe that we are here by an evolutionary process does not mean that Adam and Eve never existed, that Noah never built an Ark, and that Abraham was never asked to sacrifice Isaac.  

[`apple dumpling]

I pretty much agree with Fushigi. I don't think either of those ideas are mutually exclusive and I think they can coexist quite happily.

I think one of the biggest problems with popular Christianity is taking things on an all-right or all-wrong basis. The world is not as black and white as it appears so I think to say one theory, especially based on God, is all right is limiting it. We can never fully understand God which means we cannot fully understand his work.

Besides, we have a lot of scientific proof that the world is much older than the new earth theory claims. The thing here is- science is the study of the natural- ie, things we can observe and touch, like the planet. God is beyond the natural, the supernatural if you will, so science has no domain on him, but I believe it can be used to observe and better understand his work.

Though, if I may ask a question- what do you think of dinosaurs?  

[Matt Pniewski]

You can poke holes in the theory of Evolution that could sink a ship.


You can argue that carbon dating and other scientific methods are innacurrate.


But you cannot claim the world is 6000 years old, without any scientific back up PERIOD.

Heck, I don't even see Biblical evidence there.


Well,there is plenty of hear-say and conjecture, and those are KINDS of evidence.  

[Galad Aglaron]

6000 years ago? You mean the Earth began with the start of the Agricultural Revolution in the Fertile Crescent? Only figuratively.  

[promised_child]

Galad Damodred

6000 years ago? You mean the Earth began with the start of the Agricultural Revolution in the Fertile Crescent? Only figuratively.

rofl lol what about the crow magnons? (i just know i misspelled that!!)  

[The_Cursed_Phoenix]

in my defence none of you have shown me any biblical proof or sientific that the earth is truly millions of years old. if the world is millions of years old then why in the world do we have blue stars they dont survive that long they would be super novas or black holes by now. and plus i forgot to put something in my first post noahs flood would wipe out even the thought of a old earth. and i believe it was a lamb that was first killed because it said when christ died it reffered to him as the lamb of God i think the death of the first animal set the stage for the Death of Christ. and yes Adam and Eve made cloths out of plants but God made them cloths out of a lamb (i dont see why thats important here though)  

[`apple dumpling]

Curse-of-the-Phoenix

in my defence none of you have shown me any biblical proof or sientific that the earth is truly millions of years old.

Because it's pretty commonly accepted. The burden of proof falls on the believer, and you have yet to conjure up any. But if you want some, here it is. First thing to come up on google, but we could probably produce mounds of evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Quote:

if the world is millions of years old then why in the world do we have blue stars they dont survive that long they would be super novas or black holes by now.

I don't understand how blue stars are relevant? You realize a) star with even a relatively short life span live for millions of years and b) it can take thousands or millions of years for the light from a star to reach earth. It takes the light from the sun eight minutes to reach earth so stars in other solar systems or galaxies are going to take much much longer. When we see stars, we are literally looking back in time. Just because we see the light from them, doesn't mean they still exist.

http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/starlifespan
Again, a google search could provide you with more evidence.

Quote:

and plus i forgot to put something in my first post noahs flood would wipe out even the thought of a old earth.

Why? What does Noah's Flood have to do with anything. You realize almost every ancient culture has a "God(s)-floods-the-world-because-people-suck" story, right? Not to mention we have proof that there was a massive flood in the Middle East/Mediterranean that coincides dates?

Quote:

and i believe it was a lamb that was first killed because it said when christ died it reffered to him as the lamb of God i think the death of the first animal set the stage for the Death of Christ. and yes Adam and Eve made cloths out of plants but God made them cloths out of a lamb (i dont see why thats important here though)

Except there is no mention of this in the Bible anywhere (someone correct me if I'm wrong, though I don't think I am). If you're going to take the creation story and the Bible as literally as you are, you can't add things like this in there, as it directly contradicts how you interpret the Bible.

I'd really like a verse here.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Curse-of-the-Phoenix

in my defence none of you have shown me any biblical proof or sientific that the earth is truly millions of years old.

And you have yet to show any biblical or scientific evidence that it's not. confused Like freelance said, the burden of proof falls on you.  

[Priestley]

Also, I have to add: the absense of proof is not proof of absense.  

[Galad Aglaron]

Priestley

Also, I have to add: the absense of proof is not proof of absense.

But it does mean a lack of any sensible reason to believe.  

[Lazarus The Resurected]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Curse-of-the-Phoenix

in my defence none of you have shown me any biblical proof or sientific that the earth is truly millions of years old.

And you have yet to show any biblical or scientific evidence that it's not. confused Like freelance said, the burden of proof falls on you.

Curse have you done the math regarding the numbedr of years the bible covered and then adding 2009? because i think that would qualify as biblical proof.

as for proof of the earth being more than 6000 years old, carbon-dated items more than 6001 years old.  

[Galad Aglaron]

Curse-of-the-Phoenix

in my defence none of you have shown me any biblical proof or sientific that the earth is truly millions of years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html  

[Priestley]

Galad Damodred

Curse-of-the-Phoenix

in my defence none of you have shown me any biblical proof or sientific that the earth is truly millions of years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

*bookmarks* Good stuff. eek  

[Priestley]

Galad Damodred

Priestley

Also, I have to add: the absense of proof is not proof of absense.

But it does mean a lack of any sensible reason to believe.

I was referring to argument from ignorance, e.g. "The hypothesis 'God exists' must be false because it is either insufficiently explained/understood or there little to no evidence for it compared to the hypothesis 'God exists not', therefore 'God exists not' must be true."

It appears as though the fallacy occurs in this thread. I was highlighting it.