Is God real?

So the earth took 6,000 years to get to a state where humans exist?

 

Already got replies to that, but thanks

Possibly more

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 13, 2017, Original Post Date: Jul 13, 2017 ---

This literally disproves your previous statement, so why don't you believe in the bible, might I ask.

 

...Possibly more? You're a creationist?

 

Yes and no
Edit: On the subject of the long day theory, I personally don't believe in it, I have a friend (irl) who I have debated about it, so I know about the theory.

 

No, the bible said 6 days, metronome said for god a day is a thousand years, so if the bible was correct or at least consistent then the world would be 6000 years old. We factually no the earth is older than 6000 years.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 13, 2017, Original Post Date: Jul 13, 2017 ---

good answer.

 

The date of creation according to Christian creationism is 23 October 4004 BC.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 13, 2017, Original Post Date: Jul 13, 2017 ---

Huh?

 

Edited my post

 

Yes, but even in the edit, what are you trying to say? From what I can tell, and I might be mistaking it since it's somewhat vague to me, you believe in creationism but not the long day theory? Thus that means you believe in creationism in six literal days, or is there some other theory which you subscribe to?

 

I know and christian creationism is a demonstrably false worldview.

K, how long do you think it took for god to create the earth, how long do you think it took for humans to come onto the earth, and how old do you think the earth is?

 

I believe im answering your question by answering this one:

6 days in creation, although I'm not opposed to the long day theory, I'm kinda just exploring the different theories as of now, I'm only 14.


Humans came onto earth (6th I think day) says in the bible

The theory of 6,000 years was developed by some guy (forget his name) who simply added up the genealogies in the book of Numbers, of course not all genealogies were listed in this book, and there could be massive gaps of thousands of years in between.
Secondly there's still the Garden of Eden, and I don't know how long that lasted for, bur that could have been a long time too.


Evolution DID occur, tigers from the Ice Age are not the tigers we have today, nor are the mammoths, they have evolved (for whatever reason) into elephants.
Humans no longer need that one organ (or two) and you can survive with only one kidney


Sorry if this is confusing, I'm on my phone.

 

Look, find a position and defend it. I would love to debate "long day theory" but when I did you said this:

If you are going to use the long day theory, tell me what in the bible makes you think its not talking about a 24 hour day. If you don't believe in it, then this statement:

discredits the bible.

 

I was stating what the long day theory IS @metr0n0me seems to have a much better stance on it than I do

 

So you think humans came onto the earth after 6 days (24 hour days) right?

 

But how can you believe in something that wasn't even taken literally until very recently in Christian thought? It was only in the 19th century that a literal reading of Genesis was advocated, as opposed to over 1700 years of taking Genesis allegorically. One of the numerous examples of this lies in Augustine, a 5th-century Christian philosopher, who felt that Genesis should not be taken literally if it contradicts what is currently known to us by logic and science.

Furthermore, creationism quite literally relies on discarding a gargantuan amount of scientific research which has served to prove evolution, the age of the Earth and universe, etc., to us. How can we justify that? By proclaiming the Bible as a source of more important truth, which reigns supreme as more reliable than science. This is the logic that justifies creationism, but the Bible has proven not to be a historically reputable source. Sure, it's more inerrant than, say, those in Mormonism, but it is not historically reliable in any way, especially considering the fact that there is no proof other than the Bible itself that backs up what occurred in Genesis.

Perhaps a minor aspect, but can you explain why, in the first chapter of Genesis, animals are created before humans, but in the second, it is the other way around? The Bible can't even agree with itself, let alone align with what we know as the truth from palaeontology.

In addition, I would like to discuss your labeling of the second kidney in humans as a vestigial structure, when it is in fact quite useful; when one of your kidneys fails, you will be glad to have it. Indeed, having two kidneys allows for easier and more rapid turnover of body fluids. Lastly, it is our characteristic as a chordate to show bilateral symmetry.

You seem to have contradicted yourself by saying that you believed in only microevolution, but in this post you proved that you support macroevolution as well. Tigers from the Ice Age (I'm going to assume you're referring to sabre-toothed cats, like Smilodon, and other megafauna of Felidae as well) did not evolve into modern tigers. They are two separate species, which shared a common ancestor, and somewhere along the line their ancestor diverged into the different species. That is about as close to macroevolution as you're going to get.

Lastly, I am not going to begin about the Garden of Eden; in a debate, for all intents and purposes, it is as good as proclaiming that unicorns once roamed the world. I look forward to seeing what you have to say next and responding to that as well.

 

Well no, but the passage from 2 Peter wasn't literally meant as 1 day = 1000 years; it was just saying that since God is eternal, the passage of time doesn't mean the same thing to God as it does to us. So maybe to God, one "day" (defined as an arbitrary unit of time, not 24 hours or the time it takes Earth to rotate) is 1000 years, or one billion years, or anything in between.

 

Although I get your intention to point at the bible as silly, I do dislike the way you are approaching it because I feel it's fundamentally flawed and I mean that in the nicest way.

Making this argument inherently reveals and ignorance regarding this topic. If you approach it as an Athiest of some sort you also have to recognize what the Bible was in reality. You are reading the literature from the point of a modern human being ignoring the fact that people simply did not write literature that way in the era all these ancient documents were written. This way of literature really only came to prevalence in the middle ages through aristotelian scholasticism - the concept which our education is essentially based from.

The old testament was written in ancient Hebrew which is no longer even being spoken then translated into ancient greek then to latin until it finally reached old English, which by itself is very very different than the English we speak today. The new testament was originally written in ancient greek and took the same route as OT. Even ignoring this fact for a moment we still have the issue that the people then did not write in a way that relied on factual chronological accountings of events and time to tell the story. The story was always being told with the "moral of the story". For example the Epic of Gilgamesh, in no way did the story portray a factual chronological accounting of the events but the moral of the story has always been true - Death is inevitable.

The thing is, the people of these times that read and spoke their stories knew this and they did not take it literally.

So why would we?

 

No, it came when certain particles mixed, accidentally creating life. We just evolved from those accidentally mixed particles.

 

Exactly, thank you for the post. This is exactly why, as I mentioned to another poster, Christians did not take Genesis literally (instead holding the belief that it is allegorical and not a factual interpretation of how everything came to be) until the late nineteenth century. See Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc., all earlier Christian philosophers who shared that view. It's a large knock against creationism, in the bigger picture.

But, to answer your post, this is the context of what he said, and he said so because he was speaking to someone who does take Genesis literally. See this exchange:

 

Oh absolutely, but it just doesn't make sense to rebut one literal interpretation with another.

That being said, I absolutely agree with MeepLord's point - the notion of earth being created in a literal 6 days is nonsense.

 

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't go down the line of reasoning I chose, but judging from some of cooeys (When I asked him if the earth was 6000 years old he said "possibly more) posts it seemed like he could be taking the bible literally, or at least wasn't fully onboard with science.