Age of Earth - Thousands Not Billions

Originally posted by finnegan
Well if you read the link then you would know a number of Creationists who consider Kent Hovind a fraud. Let me save you the effort: [quote]Criticism from creationists
Hovind has been criticized by other creationists who believe that his arguments are incorrect and undermine their causes. For instance, in 2002 and 2006, [b]Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati ...[text shortened]... on this site who consider you to be fraudulent are also quite numerous. I am sure you know that.

A critical analysis of Ugh, Puke, "Dr" Hovind's "Dissertation":

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertations

RJ,

We discussed Genesis 1:5. I do not read Hebrew. I have been told by those who do that the phrase for the day in verse 1 "one day" is particular as compared to the other verses mentioning days #2 through #7.

I think IF the Hebrew makes a distinction, it should at least be considered for God is very careful.

Now I admit that any such phrase "one day" is in itself not so strong to insist on a gap of unspecified time before verse 2 and after verse 1. But I have also given you plenty of other reasons why I believe in the interval.

So for discussion's sake, let's say that "one day" is not conclusively different from the other passages. Say you think we should read there "the first day".

Notice that Jesus said that He would raise up His believers on "the last day".

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up in the last day." (John 6:39)

"For this is the will of My Father, that every one who beholds the Son and believes into Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day." (6:40)

Can you tell me by looking into the book of Revelation when this "last day" is ?

Perhaps you could consider chapter 20 where it says -

"Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." (Rev. 20:6)


1.) If Christ raises His saved ones specifically on "the last day" (John 6:39,30) will there be no days during the 1,000 years in which there is the reigning of saints on the earth?

2.) If there are days after what God calls "the last day" twice in the Gospel of John, is it unreasonable for us to believe there could have been a day or days before "one day" [or "first day" if you wish] in Genesis 1:5 ?

3.) Revelation 20:10 says that that Antichrist, the false prophet, and the Devil - "will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
If the saints are resurrected quite literally on "the last day" (John 6:39,40) how could there continue to be "day and night" afterwards in which these ones are punished?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
In quiet moments, do you ever glimpse the ridiculous nature of your own arguments?

Genuine question.

No. However, I sometimes experience inspiration from the Holy Spirit or my Near Genius. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
None of us know for sure what happened in the past, we can only weigh the evidence available to us. The weight of evidence in support of a 4+ billion year-old earth compared to that in support of a 6000 year-old earth is overwhelming. After an even reasonably impartial review, only somebody in the grip of severe paranoid delusions could rationally co ...[text shortened]... source I can, I feel, safely conclude that you are also not qualified to discuss these matters.

The tactic of attacking the messenger doesn't work with me. How about telling me what is wrong with his teachings. Try this one:

Evolutionists Date Rocks & Fossils with Circular Reasoning

YouTube

Originally posted by Suzianne
Are those our only choices? Must it all be black or white, with not a speck of grey?

Why do you find it impossible to understand a Creator creating the universe using his own natural laws?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe that could be said of all our understanding. It all depends on our faith to believe God as creator or nothing as the creator or perhaps something called evolution as the creator.

To me it takes less faith to believe an intelligent God is the creator than nothing or something with no intelligence.

Your question and my answers:

1. Are those our only choices? Yes. At least the only choices I am aware of.

2. Must it all be black or white, with not a speck of grey? No.

3. Why do you find it impossible to understand a Creator creating the universe using his own natural laws? I don't.

Originally posted by finnegan
Well if you read the link then you would know a number of Creationists who consider Kent Hovind a fraud. Let me save you the effort: [quote]Criticism from creationists
Hovind has been criticized by other creationists who believe that his arguments are incorrect and undermine their causes. For instance, in 2002 and 2006, [b]Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati ...[text shortened]... on this site who consider you to be fraudulent are also quite numerous. I am sure you know that.

I apparently have a different understanding of what is a fraud. Just because some people disagree does not make one a fraud. I disagree with Hugh Ross on the age of the earth, but I would not label him a fraud. I believe Ross really believes the earth is 4 billion years old as he claims. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The tactic of attacking the messenger doesn't work with me. How about telling me what is wrong with his teachings. Try this one:

Evolutionists Date Rocks & Fossils with Circular Reasoning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efcJEIV2RAk

You have no idea how rocks and fossils are dated, and from the evidence of this video, one can only suspect that neither does Mr Hovind.

Index fossils are a relative dating method. In order for a fossil type to be designated as an index fossil, it must first be demonstrated that said fossil is only found in rock types of a determined age. There are a range of different techniques involved in dating rocks both relative and chronometric, and without considerable evidence and agreement from multiple techniques linking a fossil type with dated sediments, status as an index fossil would not be applied. Occasionally, it does happen that an index fossil is recovered from a sediment which does not accord with it's expected date. Usually this is shown to be a consequence of redeposition. Very occasionally this forms the basis of an important paper, often one which constitutes a doctoral thesis.

The naive and simplistic approach to this subject demonstrated by Mr Hovind in the video you linked immediately tars the man as a shyster. He cannot possibly have investigated the subject he is expounding upon to any degree AND believe his own rhetoric. In order to accept Hovind's 'hypothesis', you would have to be able to cast doubt on the uniform nature of radioactive decay. The only grounds he and you have proposed for doing so is in order to force the revealed nature of reality to agree with the dating you have calculated from the bible, a dating framework that is subject to argument even by devout followers of your own religion. It is a ludicrous position in which to place yourself. You would be well advised to investigate the subject of the dating of index fossils yourself rather than allow yourself to be led by such an obvious charlatan.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You have no idea how rocks and fossils are dated, and from the evidence of this video, one can only suspect that neither does Mr Hovind.

Index fossils are a relative dating method. In order for a fossil type to be designated as an index fossil, it must first be demonstrated that said fossil is only found in rock types of a determined age. There ar ...[text shortened]... ing of index fossils yourself rather than allow yourself to be led by such an obvious charlatan.

I do not see anything that you have written that proves that Kent Hovind was wrong about circular reasoning being used to date rocks and fossils. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I apparently have a different understanding of what is a fraud. Just because some people disagree does not make one a fraud. I disagree with Hugh Ross on the age of the earth, but I would not label him a fraud. I believe Ross really believes the earth is 4 billion years old as he claims. 😏

You wrote " That is not true. I don't know of any creationists that call Kent Hovind a fraud."

My post gave some examples.

You need not agree with them but you must concede that there are creationists who have called Kent Hovind a fraud.

So what I posted was true

Originally posted by finnegan
You wrote " That is not true. I don't know of any creationists that call Kent Hovind a fraud."

My post gave some examples.

You need not agree with them but you must concede that there are creationists who have called Kent Hovind a fraud.

So what I posted was true

I do not know if the information you presented is fact or fiction. However, as I said, I do not know of any creationists that have labeled Kent Hovind a fraud because of the information he has presented on creation.

If you could provide a link to a video in which that takes place then that might be helpful to convince me of that fact.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not see anything that you have written that proves that Kent Hovind was wrong about circular reasoning being used to date rocks and fossils. 😏

I am not surprised. You seem to have comprehension issues.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I am not surprised. You seem to have comprehension issues.

See if you can comprehend this:

Radioisotope dating flaws

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
RJ,

We discussed [b]Genesis 1:5. I do not read Hebrew. I have been told by those who do that the phrase for the day in verse 1 "one day" is particular as compared to the other verses mentioning days #2 through #7.

I think IF the Hebrew makes a distinction, it should at least be considered for God is very careful.

Now I ad ...[text shortened]... w could there continue to be "day and night" afterwards in which these ones are punished?[/b]

I meant to write "verse 5" in reference to Genesis 1:5

We discussed Genesis 1:5. I do not read Hebrew. I have been told by those who do that the phrase for the day in verse 5 [edited] "one day" is particular as compared to the other verses mentioning days #2 through #7.

Originally posted by sonship
RJ,

We discussed [b]Genesis 1:5. I do not read Hebrew. I have been told by those who do that the phrase for the day in verse 1 "one day" is particular as compared to the other verses mentioning days #2 through #7.

I think IF the Hebrew makes a distinction, it should at least be considered for God is very careful.

Now I ad ...[text shortened]... w could there continue to be "day and night" afterwards in which these ones are punished?[/b]

I don't believe Jesus was making reference to the creation days when He said that He would raise up His believers on "the last day". The "last day" here must refer to His coming at the end of the age and the resurrection, which we are told that it is not for us to know the day or the hour.

The "last day" obviously refers to the end of the age when the first resurrection takes place because the second resurrection is not for another thousand years. It stands to reason that there would be a "last day" at the end of the thousand year reign too.

However, none of of these "last days" would add any days to "day one" or the "first day" of creation. It seems very clear that the creation week consisted of six normal days for the work plus a day for memorial and rest.

I don't understand why you wish to add more time for creation than is clearly indicated by the scriptures.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not know if the information you presented is fact or fiction. However, as I said, I do not know of any creationists that have labeled Kent Hovind a fraud because of the information he has presented on creation.

If you could provide a link to a video in which that takes place then that might be helpful to convince me of that fact.

Video?? Can you provide a video showing the Resurrection? What is wrong with the written word? I gave my source which, in turn, lists its own sources.