If God created a 12 billion year old universe 6000 years ago

I don't need "sound reasoning". I have faith. I have faith that God did it as he said he would do it. I don't need science to back up God's Word. Evidently, you do.

 

Do like I have done and put Matt in your kill file. Baptist Board instantly becomes a more civilized place.

 

I didn't realize that having simple faith was uncivilized. If my faith offends you, by all means place me in your "kill file".

 

I don't need no dang science! Look, here's a good article that I think get's at the heart of the debate here.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/a...eationism_and_evolution_are_competing_‘myths’

 

From the link:

I don't understand what there is there to poke fun at, unless one is so completely antagonistic to the idea of the Great Flood that EVERYTHING about it seems worthy of ridicule. If one accepts the possibility that it really happened, the Zovath quote is completely logical.
But the real issue is whether God intended the Genesis accounts to be taken as literal history, describing a real six-day Creation within the last 10,000 years at most, or as some kind of poetic myth.
In his book 'Thousands, Not Billions,' which is a summary of the RATE team research into radioisotope dating, Don DeYoung includes as his last chapter an analysis of the Hebrew verb forms in Genesis 1:1-2:3 as compared to other passages in the OT, clear examples of both historical prose and poetry. This analysis shows conclusively that the verb forms used in the Creation narrative are completely characteristic of historical narrative, not poetry. This passage is clearly intended to be received as a simple account of real events, exactly as they are described. As Creationists have also been noting for a long time now, the use of the words 'evening' and 'morning' plus a number for each Creation day is the clearest possible way in the Hebrew to indicate that the author is talking about literal 24 hour days. There is no wiggle room in the actual Biblical text. The only reason not to accept what it simply and clearly says is because a person has placed fallible human 'science' above the Word of the infallible, omniscient Creator.
People who reject God's Word in favor of modern human knowledge can look at the world and see something different from what is described in the Genesis account of Creation. But if you START with the assumption that God's Word can be trusted to be accurate, and THEN look at the world, a very different perception results. I look at the world and see confirmation of the Genesis account everywhere. There are still many things we don't understand, of course, because our knowledge and perception are so limited. But there are so many things that point strongly to a recent Creation, and so many problems with 'evidence' that is cited by evolutionists as contrary to it, that the ultimate determiner for each of us is not what we believe about the human science, but what we believe about GOD. We can say all we want about how God is far beyond us and can do anything He wants. But if we are not willing to accept the simple statements which, from detailed analysis of the very words which are used, clearly state that the world and Adam and Eve were literally Created recently (in geological terms), then we are ultimately rejecting God in favor of human perception. Anyone who really thinks that this honors God is engaging in a high level of self-deception. And it is only in that context that the suggestion that younger animals were taken on the ark, for example, seems like something to 'poke fun at.'

 

And where is the chapter and verse where the Bible clearly states this?

 

Genesis 1 clearly teaches that the world was created in 6 literal days. The people created on day 6 begin genealogies in later chapters and books that lead directly to later people whose historical existence is not questioned by any serious scholars. In the NT, Luke's genealogy goes backwards from Jesus all the way to Adam. There may be a few missed generations somewhere in those genealogies, but it is nonsense to try to insert millions of years in there. And Jesus Himself referred to the Genesis accounts as real history, and confirmed the reliability of the genealogies by referring to Adam's son Abel and Zechariah, one of the last prophets of the OT whose real existence is undeniable, in the same sentence as both being martyrs.
There is no one verse in the Bible that says, "The world was created recently." But if all the statements of the Bible on the subject of Creation, directly and indirectly, are accepted at face value, as the use of words in the texts clearly indicate they are supposed to be, they do tell a clear story of a recent Creation. If you want to believe that the Bible does NOT clearly say what all the textual evidence says it does because you have more faith in the opinions of particular humans than in God's Word, that's your choice. Just don't forget that one day you will stand before His throne and give account for what you believed and taught others.

 

Yet, God left us plenty of evidence of an old Earth. Why would he do that? Surely He knew how the scientific method would develop. Besides - not everything is written in the bible. Hmmmm....

This is true for everyone. Aside from Jesus, I can't think of anyone who hasn't sinned in some way - intentionally or not. Anyone who thinks that they fully understand the mind of God is not only self-deluded but in for a HUGE disappointment as well.

WM

 

Evolutionists don't use the scientific method.
They start with a hypothesis and it remains just that.
The "theory" of evolution really has no right to be called a "theory" for according to the scientific method it really hasn't reached that stage yet. It is still an unproven hypothesis. All science needs an observer. That is inherent in the very definition of science--that which can be observed. Who was there to observe the Big Bang Theory? Who was there to observe what happened "12 billion years ago"? No one but God. For God alone is eternal. Man was not there and therefore the evolutionist has entered the realm of the metaphysical where science does not belong. It has entered the realm of faith, another religion. It is not science at all. It is outside the realm of observation, outside of the scientific method. It hasn't even gotten past the stage of "hypothesis." It has miserably failed.

 

Paul states in Colossians that all things were created by Jesus Christ and by Him all things consist.

Paul was in perfect agreement with Genesis 1, where God created on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days. Days, not years.

 

God did not create light on day one, Jesus Christ is light. He was illuminating with His very being.

 

Hmmm... You argue against something that I never brought up. I never linked an old earth with evolution - that was your doing. Further, I never mentioned the Big Bang Theory. Thus your entire posting is utterly pointless.

WM

 

So then, show me the scripture verses where Paul states that he is in perfect agreement that "...God created on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days. Days, not years." Perhaps he did - perhaps he did not. But you cannot prove that statement from scripture, therefore, that is simply your personal interpretation/belief/whatever. Clearly, you are intitled to your opinion...just don't try to pass it off as fact.

WM

 

And Jesus was not created - He always existed; taking this position to its logical conclusion:

Since Jesus Christ IS light and he always existed, then light has always existed. Thus the creation story in Genesis cannot be chronologically accurate can it?

WM

 

Your quote near the beginning of the thread states:

Your recent quote states:

1. You believe in an old earth. That leads me to believe in the very least that you believe in theistic evolution, which is still evolution.
2. You believe there is too much evidence against a new earth system. If you do indeed believe that God created, then you believe in a powerless God, one who is too powerless to create in six days.
3. You haven't considered seriously the facts that evolution can't and never will mix. You must choose one or the other. There is no syncrestic system.
4. Your first quote doesn't make sense. It would make sense if:
God created a fully grown man in one day,
therefore God could have created a fully equipped universe in six days.
--Your syllogism didn't make any logical sense.
5. I pointed out to you how evolution did not follow the scientific method, because you were the one who mentioned the scientific method. However in believing Creation, a Creation of six days, we see intelligent design, the creation of a Creator throughout this world.

 

Then your belief is in error. One doesn't need to believe in evolution in order to believe that the universe is very old. Matter doesn't necessarily evolve you know.

Nope! I never said that either. That would be your statement not mine.

Not necessarily. It is only syncrestic if viewed from your position; a non-scientific one at that.

God could have done both - He is, after all, God! There you go putting God in your shallow tiny little box again.

Yet, you are the one who necessarily makes the scientific method synonomous with evolution. I never said nor implied that evolution has ever been proven by the scientific method. That's pretty weak DHK.

Well, beliving in an old earth doesn't deny that God was the Creator of all things. It only does so because it comes in conflict with your personal beliefs - a fact that seems to bother you more than a little. Personally, I don't have a problem with someone holding to the young earth belief. I just think the preponderance of scientific evidence makes that position problematic at best.

WM

 

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Moses recorded that the Earth and all that is in the Earth was created in a six day period... not over millions of years.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Here, we see that Paul believes the Creation account. He makes no argument saying that the earth took longer than a day in its creation. Had he believed in the old earth theory that many propose, he missed his opportunity to correct the Church and tell them Moses did not know what he was talking about when he said the Earth and all that is in it was created in six days.

 

Note Paul lived in a day when people thought that all matter was made up of four elements as well. He probably believed that being educated as he was in his day. There was no need for him to know about how atoms, electrons, quarks, etc... worked. Just becuase he didn't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. In his day people believed in one of two theories. 1) A singular God made the universe (cosmos) and 2) the gods made the Universe. Thus being a Jew he held to Genesis rather than the "gods" idea. There were no other theories at that time. No scientific evidence they could point to with regard to the old earth. Note Pauls words in scripture may be inerrent doesn't mean he personally was. And for all intense and purposes God did make the world and created a sabbath theology to which he is referring to. The Sabbath aspect of it. He isn't commenting on physics of which he had little understanding.

 

Nor should we allow physics to get in the way of our understanding.

The Word of God tells us that the Earth and all that is in it was created in six days. I have to believe the Word of God.

As pointed out by another poster, God made an adult man and an adult woman in one day. Though they were both adults at the time they were created, they were only one day old at the end of the day that they were created within a time period that consisted of six days.

It is the same with the Earth... created in one day within a time period that consisted of six days.