Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

[_SteelHead]

God killed everyone and everything on the planet saving for what was in the ark then magic'ed it all up so it looks like it never happened.

Disprove that thesis.

[_Franktalk]

God killed everyone and everything on the planet saving for what was in the ark then magic'ed it all up so it looks like it never happened.

Disprove that thesis.

I will be happy to do so as soon as you bring me a bucket of dark matter. You see we all have things we believe that we have not seen. You have yours and I have mine. It is very foolish to cast stones while one stands in a glass house.

[_SteelHead]

The difference is that dark matter is a theory driven by the evidence while the flood is a myth requiring the suppression of reason.

As a theory it does not claim to be true, just an explaination for the observable phenomenon. Where as the flood claims as evidence the inerrancy of a 5k year old myth particular to only a subset of the world.

[_subgenius]

Actually the dating methods have been proven over and over again as accurate, and we can use different methods to confirm the accuracy of other methods.

this is not an accurate statement, they have only been "proven" by way of assumption...and the other methods used to "verify" are rather incestuous and require the same assumptions. One can not prove that an inch exists by showing a 2 rulers and a tape measure.

This really is just a weak attempt by young earth groups. I suggest you go to the actual sciences and learn about dating methods. Now you bring up the idea of a global flood at an earlier date, and I have given you any time during which modern man like Noah could have been roaming the earth. Another one that bcspace didn't bring up is dating in genetics. The biblical story really doesn't have much more then the 4-10k years ago to occur, but I did give you a lot more time then that. Good luck.

i have looked at the actual science, and unlike you, i have looked at the science that does not always agree with me...i suggest you try it on this issue.
But hey, show me anything that is actual "proof" that something, anything, existed 10 million years ago, with no assumptions nor "a probably" involved.

[_Franktalk]

I use the Septuagint for a time line so I set the date around 5800 BC for the Creation. But by creation I mean this new earth made from an old one. In reading Genesis I see God making this earth for this dispensation but I see nothing that indicates it was made from nothing. The entire universe could have existed for a long time and it was just refashioned. This was done during the flood and the world that was perished. But we know that the world did not cease to exist but it was changed. In Revelation we read that the earth will have earthquakes in magnitude like the ones that occurred before man was on the earth. This to me says that before Genesis the earth of old did have earthquakes and man was not here. That of course leaves a wide door open for speculation as to exactly what was here before the earth was refashioned. Science may say they know but they refuse to consider miracles. So I doubt they have it right.

[_SteelHead]

Actually the dating methods have been proven over and over again as accurate, and we can use different methods to confirm the accuracy of other methods.

this is not an accurate statement, they have only been "proven" by way of assumption...and the other methods used to "verify" are rather incestuous and require the same assumptions. One can not prove that an inch exists by showing a 2 rulers and a tape measure.

This really is just a weak attempt by young earth groups. I suggest you go to the actual sciences and learn about dating methods. Now you bring up the idea of a global flood at an earlier date, and I have given you any time during which modern man like Noah could have been roaming the earth. Another one that bcspace didn't bring up is dating in genetics. The biblical story really doesn't have much more then the 4-10k years ago to occur, but I did give you a lot more time then that. Good luck.

i have looked at the actual science, and unlike you, i have looked at the science that does not always agree with me...i suggest you try it on this issue.
But hey, show me anything that is actual "proof" that something, anything, existed 10 million years ago, with no assumptions nor "a probably" involved.

I'll bring you a lump of u-238.....

[_jo1952]

Jo, I just had to commend you for those comments! I sincerely think these are the wisest comments I have yet seen on this forum! This is the "baby" that must not be thrown out with the bathwater!

Gunnar

Wow, Gunnar. You have humbled me to tears. I cannot take credit for the comments, though. I am a joy-filled messenger.

Love and blessings to you!

jo

[_subgenius]

The difference is that dark matter is a theory driven by the evidence while the flood is a myth requiring the suppression of reason.

nice anecdote, but its not actually proof of anything and it is not an accurate characterization...and the presumption of "evidence" does not validate the theory, your logic here is like Schrödinger's cat.
There are several examples through science where the "evidence" mislead the experts, with revelation often coming by faith or happenstance.

i believe the scientific resolution you desire is found in Counterfactual definiteness versus Superdeterminism

As a theory it does not claim to be true, just an explaination for the observable phenomenon. Where as the flood claims as evidence the inerrancy of a 5k year old myth particular to only a subset of the world.

you, like many others, still insist on using apples to prove oranges.

[_SteelHead]

I never claimed proof in terms of dark matter.

I said it was a theory.

[_Franktalk]

you, like many others, still insist on using apples to prove oranges.

I am not so sure that Steelhead is that close. Maybe apples to prove tuna.