Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (PDF) by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
The Dynamics of Dating

Great links, especially the first one, Kurieuo !

waynes world wrote:I have been in a church where that was the case. It was so bad there that I was told that I had compromised my faith because I couldn't believe in the YEC position.

I believe I've read your bad experience in another thread. Although I haven't experienced such a thing, I do know the attitudes that are rife. I had listened to a tape of a Creationist pastor in my earlier days who said things like: "If you don't believe the days are 24 hours, then you don't have faith." I didn't think highly of his not having faith comments, but at the same time I though he's the pastor so would know more what Scripture meant. For up until that time I had considered the days in Genesis to be "God days" from a surface-level reading of Genesis. I never really became engrained or cared much about what people thought of the days, which is way I changed quite easily to 24 hours... that is, until a few years later when understanding truth became a lot more important to me, and I saw taking them as literal periods of time appeared to be a lot more Scripturally correct.

ww wrote:Its not a salvation issue, I hope you at least see that. Its funny you would mention Strongs because it says that the word day in Genesis 1 can read symbolic. One should not read too much into the dates. Like I said there are other ways around that. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. I would suggest that when Adam disobeyed God is when the time as we know it began. Also there could have been a long time in Genesis 1:1 and the day could have started in verse 3 with the words "and God said."

You are talking to a Day-Age advocate here. I agree it isn't a salvation issue. I believe Felgar and bizzt both disagree with my creation position, but we accept each other still as brothers in Christ, and have no problems when it comes to getting along with each other to moderate this board despite our differences.

I think it is important to say something further on your reference to the Strongs definition of "day" being symbolic. It does read, "a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term)." BDB on the other hand has:

1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day's journey
1c) days, lifetime (plural)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal references
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
1f3) tomorrow

While "day" (yom) in Genesis can be taken figuratively in the sense it isn't an ordinary day, it is also important to clarify that yom as a period of time is also a literal interpretation. And this is one reason why Rich Deem can call his Day-Age article: The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account.

Kurieuo

sandy_mcd wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (PDF) by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
The Dynamics of Dating

Great links, especially the first one, Kurieuo !

Thanks. I thought so too.

Kurieuo

I have heard about a theory that says there was a second flood before the Noah version that happened in Genesis 1 verse 2. It looks like theres enough scriptures to support that. Its an updated version of the "gap" theory which I had problems with in my earlier days, but the new version looks good to me.

Kurieuo wrote: You are talking to a Day-Age advocate here. I agree it isn't a salvation issue. I believe Felgar and bizzt both disagree with my creation position, but we accept each other still as brothers in Christ, and have no problems when it comes to getting along with each other to moderate this board despite our differences.

Kurieuo

Not Entirely Kurieuo. I am quite open to the Interpretation. In the end my salvation like you and Wayne have said does not have anything to do with the Creation of the Earth. If it is Young Earth, Old Earth, or Day Age. I think Day Age is more of a Valid Theory but Young Earth does have some interesting thoughts to it. I believe if we are open to our interpretations for some of the more non-core Christian issues then there should be no reason to have a healthy relationship with our fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

In Christ

Apologies. I'm not sure where I got that you advocated a younger Earth, but I had an impression from my memories that you may have. Thanks for the clarification.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:Apologies. I'm not sure where I got that you advocated a younger Earth, but I had an impression from my memories that you may have. Thanks for the clarification.

Kurieuo

No worries. I still hold some Young Earth views as I used to be a Young Earth advocate. I guess kind of like Kmart

Now I am still awed by KMart, as he is the first person I've ever witnessed (at least that I can recall) who changed their position from one they appeared to passionately advocate, to another entirely opposite. Two is just becoming too much.

Kurieuo

You get a warm fuzzy feeling inside you Kurieuo? Don't worry, cuz it's just cancer.

It's because I wish to believe in that which is true...thought YEC was true, got wasted by you bums, and ta da.