Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

Do you believe man "evolved" from a common ancestor of chimps and other apes?

peace to youraying:

 

I don't know, it wasn't important enough to mention?

Yes we are told that if the stars are millions of light years away then they must have existed for that long for the light to get here (not necessarily true if God stretched the light out).

Yes that part we do know (and many other things) if one can accept it, most of humanity currently does not believe or accept it because the universe just seems to big (for one thing) to have been created in 6 days.

and even the things we think we know via science keeps changing because we can't figure it out.

HankD

 

Well, actually, I guess every living thing has a common ancestor with some type of pre-life proteins in a chemical goo that that was struck by lightning and the proteins started working together.

Out of the "goo" came all bacteria, vegetation, animals, fish....it is just amazing.

It is the "goo" that just keeps on giving....

BTW, isn't there some sort of law in physics that something that is not alive (inorganic) cannot be made to come alive (organic)?

How can a mix of chemical "goo" that is inorganic become alive? Doesn't that violate some law of physics?

peace to youraying:

 

Where were you educated? Hyles-Anderson college?

Is the "day" mentioned here 24 hours?

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Gill didn't think so:

in the day that the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens; meaning not any particular day, not the first day, in which the heavens and the earth were created; but referring to the whole time of the six days, in which everything in them, and relating to them, were made.

Many have believed "day" doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours:

Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours.

No Church History or alternative views taught at Hyles-Anderson?

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html

 

Are you saying that it is not intelligent to believe what God has said?

I think that I'd just as soon leave my intelligence and try to live by faith. Grace through faith should mean something to all believers of the God of our salvation.

 

I agree, 6 days.

 

Your post was simply "God said...". That answers nothing. I agree God said.

Did God say the events of Revelation were to happen shortly? That is just as simple a statement by God as the Genesis verses are. Yet why are there not more preterist on this board? Don't they believe God's word?

 

Alrighty then, loosen up that tie a bit Doc. We are not here to attack the AV. You therefore are off subject. Go to your corner and stay there and count the years one by one until you have reached Carl Sagan's best estimate of the years that it took just for the earth to form. :smilewinkgrin:

 

4His_glory: // So now that we can question the Creation account, why not question any other part of the Scripture that we so choose? Fact is if we can deny creation, we open the door up for denial of the rest of God's Word. Which is the clear intent of many who deny a literal 6 deny creation, ... //

Unfortunately this comes from the false assumption some Bible readers make:

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT FOLLOWS:

If there is one error found in the Bible, then the whole Bible is wrong ​

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT PRECEEDS

What a stupid, irreligious, un-Biblical assumption to make - it leads to all kinds of folly (more than love of money does).

Of course, I us as a similar (but true) Axiom in my trailer/signature that follows this post -- It makes a reasonable assumption.

Please note my Axiom makes much more sense than the false statement above.

The false assumption leads to folks saying stuff like this: Oops, I can't explain that point you bring up, so I wonder if I'm really saved?

The correct Axiom leads to : "Oh, that is interesting if it is true or not (I sure don't know) I have bet my Eternal Life on this Scripture being true since 1952:

Romans 10:9-10 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, (then) you will be saved.
10 With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation.

Guess which one of these statements is 'selling' better in the American Market Place of ideas and which one of these statements is considered by the lost on the level of "Phelps of Kansas"-ism.

-Ed Edwards,
we are to be wise as serpents and innocent (harmless) as doves for the Lord;
we are NOT to be stupid as doves and slimy as snakes.

Mat 10:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Behold, I send you as sheepe in the middes of the wolues: be yee therefore wise as serpents, and innocent as doues.

 

This is a perfect example of the "intellectual snobbery" that a fellow poster said exists on this board, but whose intergrity was attacked for saying so.

 

Are you saying the creation account is in error?

 

Originally Posted by Ed Edwards

Amy.G: // Are you saying the creation account is in error? //

I am saying:

Unfortunately this comes from the false assumption some Bible readers make:

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT FOLLOWS:

If there is one error found in the Bible,
then the whole Bible is wrong
​

CAUTION: FALSE STATEMENT PRECEEDS

What a stupid, irreligious, un-Biblical assumption (statement) to make - it leads to all kinds of folly (more than love of money does).

I am saying that that FALSE ASSUMPTION leads to Bible understanding error. Here is what I believe is axiomatic:

Please note that my parenthetic statements tend to complicate my comments, not clarify them. So some people (this does NOT mean Amy.G) deliberately and with malice of forethought act like they don't understand what I say, so when I explain they can damn me publicly for being 'complex'. I don't like it. I really don't see what is NOT to understand about what I said.

Amy.G: // Are you saying the creation account is in error? //

No, I am saying there is a WRONG way to understand the Bible and it comes from the false assumption that I have made bold AND have clearly marked as being wrong, wrong, wrong.

In fact I am trying to show exactly the opposite.
The Creation account as in ALL BIBLES is absolutely correct, without error, not mixed with mistakes. But the Hebrew 'yom' can mean any period. Already we have seen that God's creation 'took' six yom and one (implied) yom.

I've seen a non-Christian Pharisee teach that the universe is 15.2 Billion Years old from what we call the Old Testament (OT). Science hasn't quite gotten to that yet, times vary from 6 Billion years since the creation when I first went to college (1961) and about 12 Billion years since the Big Bang (2004)

 

If the "goo" were organic, then it would be "life" (if I remember biology and that has been awhile).

What they are trying to explain is the origin of life, and use evolution to explain it.

But you're probably right, they'll just say the "goo" has always existed, as if that is suppose to answer the question.

peace to youraying:

 

Or the by product of life, as in waste.