Age Correlations and an Old Earth

quote:

---

Originally posted by WT

​

According to the best scholarship there are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

​

The same scholarship translates 1:2, "and the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation".

​

Notice God said REplenish and not PLENISH.

---

Just for general information and that the above does not stand as granted, I have some seriously devastating reasons as to why you (and whomever) are mistaken about these translations.It would be off topic to pursue it here. So you can either let it ride as not granted. Or you can start a new thread where we can discuss it. Your choice.Amlodhi

You start the topic.I have too many irons in the fire presently.Be also warned that my posting ability will be censored soon as per the threats of Admin.Seems like I must accept opponents evidence as fact but my evidence is not evidence when it is seen to prove my claims.Edit:Loudmouth:I am not ignoring you.I just can't respond to that right now and here.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-07-2004 06:29 PM

How does keeping science to scientific principles exclude "every" other avenue? Does keeping math so that 2 + 2 = 4 somehow make other truths less available?My belief is that what can be known can only be known by rational methods. That is the wrapping paper of Deism. There are other things that cannot be known, and for those things whether you keep to rational methods or not does not make knowledge any more or less accessible.The option is to believe every single other little dream myth and insane vision. Not a very viable plan.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

topic is age correlations not your problems with the world

Right, stop it!

The problem is that you don't supply evidence. If I'm wrong about this how about pointing out a few places where you've done something other than assert or quote other people's unsupported assertions.I'd like you to do that in Suggestions rather than here. This isn't the place. Thanks.If you don't want to bother with that then it is probably best that you don't post here any more. You haven't been able to stick to this topic much at all anyway.

Doesn't this say it all? Willow has all the rationalisation to reject anything that threatens his personal fantasies. Who needs an alternative explanation for correlations of dating methodologies when you have this intellectual defence available?

For the first time ever I agree with Wj.

Do you also agree that it is an intellectually dishonest defense?

content deleted.I responded to the wrong postThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-08-2004 06:14 PM

Who's defense are you asking about ?Because you are a straight shooter I will answer what I think you mean.Wj's comment Message 247 assumes theistic truth to be non-intellectual.But the portion of his quote that I cited can be taken either way depending on your worldview.The correlation of dating methodologies is only relevant to me when an evo slips the bias of his worldview into the meaning of the said evidence.If part of the meaning and interpretation is to suggest Genesis is somehow wrong then the theological truth of God-sense removal applies.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-08-2004 09:29 PM

So a bias that the correlation of actual factual annual layers on top of annual layers on top of annual layers with climate with various radiometric dating methods with orbital decay of the earth and slowing down of the rate of rotation such that each piece of information from such a wide variety of sources, methods and causes all come together showing a consistent pattern of age and methodological validity is okay?Just curious.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yep, another satire-challenged creationist.

WJ in message 247: Although I wouldn't have worded it this strongly, I do agree that you take this position at times. That is, even if the evidence is objectively testable and supports a certain scientific theory (and I stress scientific) you are able to claim it isn't true because of the theological basis of your argument. Your argument is that the Bible is true and anything that opposes your interpretation of the Bible has to be false. The inability for other people not to understand the "truth" you see is because they do not believe. From my observations, your worldview clouds everything that you put forth to the point of rejecting objective data because it does not agree with your subjective worldview. You seem to claim is that scientific truth is theistic, and scientific evidence must first pass a theistic test before it is accepted. If it doesn't meet the conclusions of your worldview then it is rejected.Perhaps it is the pot calling the kettle black, but I hardly see how agreement of age between dating methodologies can objectively be shown to be wrong. These types of correlations were predicted and are expected if dating methodologies are accurate. However, I don't see how this has any bearing on the truthfulness of Genesis. It only has bearing on the literalness of Genesis and it's effectiveness as a book of science.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 10-11-2004 03:03 PM

According to my source, Richard Milton, your above blue box is a "database of self-fulfilling predictions." Milton is not a creo which makes his criticism very objective.But my only real interest is how and why evolutionists interpret evidence to disprove Genesis.