"Prophetic"7744, rejects God's origins revelation which chronicals the beginning of the heavens and earth in 6 literal days as Genesis one indicates. "Propheic" rather prefers the man made Secular Humanist view, otherwise known as Uniformitarianism. This view requires millions of years to accommodate gradual evolutionary processes. But "Prophetic" is not alone in his departure from Scripture. Many theologians have also adopted uniformitarian philosophy as if it were solid science.
Ok, Prophetic, I will continue to help you but I want to encourage you to start performing your own independent research.
Here are some suggestions to assist your search. First of all, you ought to connect with a science department or university website for an explanation of how carbon14 applies and how it is used to determine age. Wikipedia is not the preferred site for those wanting to preserve their academic credibility.
So here's CHALLENGE 1:
"Prophetic" since you think carbon14 accurately determines age. How does it do that? I will provide the answer for you tomorrow. I will be quoting a Phd university scientist. In the meantime, before l do that, I challenge you to conduct your own independent research. I want you to learn to probe deeper, get beyond the surface level of this topic. So, I repeat my challenge: How does carbon 14 determine age?
Here's CHALLENGE 2:
What scripture reference can you produce that indicates the existence of your "old earth" theory which includes decay and death prior to Adams sin and prior to day one of the 6 day creation?
CHALLENGE 3:
You should produce scientific justification (NOT UNIFORMITARIAN PHILOSOPHY) explaining the 200,000 year formation of the Grand Canyon.
I'm not asking you for something I won't do as well. I will provide scientific justification (hydrologic layering) that shows how sentiment layers resulted from active flood waters. I will be sure to resource some highly qualified Phd authorities
CHALLENGE 4:
Explain the difference between the application of the scientific method and the crafting of philosophical hypothesis. I challenge you to explain these differences because it's become obvious from your statements you do not know the difference. I want you come to grips with the fact that a clear and distinct difference between the two exists.
My goal is to challenge you to put more faith in the trustworthiness of God's Word. I hope you begin to regard man's philosophy, of which you place your trust, is not as reliable as you want to think. Human theory is subject to frequent revision, God's Word remains the same with revision.
I've discussed the truth of the 6 day creation from Genesis 1 in previous threads. I believe the truth of Genesis one is so incredibly clear that it hardly requires commentary. But others do not agree, they want to include Secular Humanist commentary to explain Genesis one. They believe God must have used evolutionary processes to create the earth in its very beginning. Still others, who shun evolution, accept evolutionary premises i.e. a millions of years old earth and universe. They also believe millions of years of death and dying took place on a prehistoric "old earth" long before Adam sinned. I object all Humanistic explanation of origins and it's evolutionary theories because they contradict the clear teaching found in Genesis one.
"Prophetic"7744, I will continue to help you but I want to encourage you to start performing your own research.
Here are some suggestions to assist your search. First of all, you ought to connect with a science department or university website for an explanation of the application of carbon14 and how it is used to determine age. Wikipedia is not the preferred site for those who want to preserve their academic credibility.
So here's CHALLENGE 1:
"Prophetic" since you think carbon14 accurately determines age. How does it do that? I will provide the answer for you tomorrow. I will be quoting a Phd university scientist. In the meantime, before l do that, I challenge you to conduct your own independent research. I want you to learn to probe deeper, get beyond the surface level of this topic or any other topic we discuss. So, I repeat my challenge: How does carbon 14 determine age?
Here's CHALLENGE 2:
What scripture reference can you produce that indicates the existence of your "old earth" along with its decay and death, prior to sin and prior to day one of the 6 day creation?
CHALLENGE 3:
Produce the scientific justification (NOT UNIFORMITARIAN PHILOSOPHY) explaining the 200,000 year formation of the Grand Canyon.
I'm not asking you for something I won't do. I will provide scientific justification (hydrologic layering) that shows how sentiment layers resulted from flood waters. I will resource some highly qualified Phd authorities
CHALLENGE 4:
Explain the difference between the application of the scientific method and crafting a philosophical hypothesis. I challenge you to explain these differences because it's become obvious from your statements you do not know the difference. I want you come to grips with the fact a clear and distinct difference between the application of the scientific method and mere philosophy exists.
My goal is to challenge you to put more faith in the trustworthiness of God's Word. Man's philosophy, of which you place your trust, is not as reliable as you want to think. Human theory is subject to frequent revision, God's Word remains the same. .
AiG has available many books and articles written by various scientists and authors who address various perspectives concerning scientific discovery. Their resources demonstrate the fidelity between the Genesis account of Creation and the findings of modern science. I have experienced a greater confidence in the reliability God's word as scientists explain origins from a Christian perspective. I also appreciate AiG's critique of secular philosophy which has dominated scientific inquiry in many of our state run academic institutions. Sadly, some theological colleges, schools and seminaries have been influenced by secular humanism's godless philosophies.
Prophetic7744, here's a challenge for you. Let's see if you can present scripture addressing the Uniformitarian concept of an "old earth". You apparently embraced the concept but haven't explained why you reject the Genesis account of a young earth. If you're like some theologians, you might attempt to advance the "yom" word fallacy. But that's ok too. Our readers might appreciate a solid rebuttal of that fallacy. Perhaps you might as well produce some SCIENTIFIC facts that clearly prove the earth is "millions of years" old. You'll notice I superimposed the term SCIENTIFIC because I'm not asking for more Uniformitarian philosophy. Many people, including some (but not all) theologians confuse the two.
Prophetic 7744, I thought you were providing me some extra errors to address from your lengthy reply. But after reviewing the last three quarters of it, I noticed you had merely ventured off topic. I assume by your aimless wonder off topic you have concluded with the acceptance of the opinions of philosophers. Apparently you have no supporting facts to bring to the table.
Once again you're eager to accept Atheistic views concerning the earth's origin when you speak about the "old earth".
Apparently you've uncritically adopted the "old earth" concept from other compromising theologians. You're not alone in rejecting the Genesis Revelation, many theologians have exchanged Holy Spirit Inspiration for evolutionary speculation. Although some of them insist they reject evolution they accept it's premises such as the "old earth" (millions years old).
Richard, I hope you resource qualified scientists and resist speculative philosophies like uniformitarianism in your quest for truth. Many scientists do not recognize old earth uniformitarian philosophy because of its obvious conflict with the facts of science.
As for the dinosaurs, some of them are mentioned in the book of Job and possibly in Genesis.
As for the Grand Canyon, it's contours and geology can be explained by the worldwide destructive force of floodwaters beneath Noah's Ark.
Prophetic 7744, I find it curious you do not accept easter because of its cultistic history, yet you accept atheistic (uniformitarian philosophy) for the earths origin. You're obviously not being consistent. As for Wikipedia definitions, your understanding is only as good as your sources. You may not be aware that Wikipedia has been criticized for its lack of precision and it's bias.
You're also unaware of carbon 14 limitations. You're right, I'm not an expert on carbon 14 dating methods, I just know enough to refer to qualified unbiased scientific sources who are unfettered by philosophic prejudices.
Once again, your errors and misunderstandings continue to mount. For example, I did not indicate light was created on any other day than day one. If you want to insist I said otherwise, perhaps you would quote me.
prophetic 7744, you owe it to yourself to read Genesis one for yourself, perhaps for the first time. Possibly you're being influenced by bad information from secular humanist articles and/or from theologians who agree with them.
You're welcome to read Genesis 1 before l complete my critique. This exercise alone should correct your faulty sun,moon and star chronology. Be especially sure to read about days 1 and 4 specifically. This should help
