The Truth of Genesis

[Justadude]

Well then that outright should throw macro evolution out the door. There is not a shred of evidence that leads to that conclusion.

How do you know?

 

[reformed1689]

How do you know?

Because if there was evidence it would be reported on a massive scale.

 

[reformed1689]

I've seen no evidence of that.

Ok, you are clearly dishonest. You might as well not even respond I am putting you on ignore.

 

[Justadude]

Because if there was evidence it would be reported on a massive scale.

Have you ever looked to see if there's any such evidence?

Ok, you are clearly dishonest. You might as well not even respond I am putting you on ignore.

Huh? You said scientists were just as guilty as ICR at working under an anti-scientific rule. I asked you to show where that was the case. You posted no examples or cases. So as it stands, you haven't shown any evidence of scientists working under an anti-scientific rule.

So how does me pointing that out make me dishonest?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Please elaborate on this assertion.

In order for things such as radio metric dating to be accurate pre flood. It must assume things were exactly as they are today before the flood

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

if a day is indeed a 24hours then your faith might lost if you start to believe science

but isn't science the explanation of the bible...

how old is earth? according to science billions of years

and isn't God immortal he is the one who live forever and ever and a day for him is a mere 24hours? then why it was written that the end is nigh? how is near is near for God?

probably not too near for a human a human can only live for tens of years a lot of sinners preaches before they died saying "the end is nigh" they've died yet the end is still not ending

therefore a day for God is probably not a mere 24hours but billions of years and a near for God is probably thousands of years this is just an opinion nothing more

 

[reformed1689]

if a day is indeed a 24hours then your faith might lost if you start to believe science

but isn't science the explanation of the bible...

how old is earth? according to science billions of years

and isn't God immortal he is the one who live forever and ever and a day for him is a mere 24hours? then why it was written that the end is nigh? how is near is near for God?

probably not too near for a human a human can only live for tens of years a lot of sinners preaches before they died saying "the end is nigh" they've died yet the end is still not ending

therefore a day for God is probably not a mere 24hours but billions of years and a near for God is probably thousands of years this is just an opinion nothing more

It is not according to science that the earth is billions of years, the dates are all over the place.

 

[Justadude]

if a day is indeed a 24hours then your faith might lost if you start to believe science

I've seen people start to question their faith because their religious leaders tell them it's either the Bible or science.

but isn't science the explanation of the bible...

Not really, no. Science is the process of collecting data, doing tests, and drawing conclusions from that. Whether those conclusions agree with the Bible isn't relevant to science.

 

[Justadude]

It is not according to science that the earth is billions of years, the dates are all over the place.

That's not true at all. Science has agreed on an earth that's 4 billion years old for a very long time.

 

[Truth OT]

In order for things such as radio metric dating to be accurate pre flood. It must assume things were exactly as they are today before the flood

I get that you assert this. My question is why do you. Do the geologists and other scientists make this claim that "things were exactly as they are today" in the past?

 

[Truth OT]

Well then that outright should throw macro evolution out the door. There is not a shred of evidence that leads to that conclusion.

What about genetics?

 

[reformed1689]

What about genetics?

What about them?

 

[Truth OT]

What about them?

How familiar are you with how evolution and genetics go together?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I get that you assert this. My question is why do you. Do the geologists and other scientists make this claim that "things were exactly as they are today" in the past?

When they claim that radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 50000 years. Yes they do. Even if they do not outright say it. It’s the base of their argument

 

[Justadude]

When they claim that radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 50000 years. Yes they do. Even if they do not outright say it. It’s the base of their argument

Actually they don't. When it comes to C-14 there is some variability, so they account for that by calibrating against other methods and known dates.

I'll post this again (an explanation of radiometric dating from a Christian scientist): Radiometric Dating

 

[reformed1689]

How familiar are you with how evolution and genetics go together?

Just get to the point.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Actually they don't. When it comes to C-14 there is some variability, so they account for that by calibrating against other methods and known dates.

I'll post this again (an explanation of radiometric dating from a Christian scientist): Radiometric Dating

You can post it 100 times I have studied this

I can not agree with what you are saying

 

[Justadude]

You can post it 100 times I have studied this

I can not agree with what you are saying

I understand why you can't agree. I was just trying to help so you wouldn't say things that aren't accurate.

 

[Truth OT]

When they claim that radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 50000 years. Yes they do. Even if they do not outright say it. It’s the base of their argument

There are some variables. Are you aware of the ones listed.

 

[Paul Christensen]

How do you know?

About the same way that you know.