Please do not put words in my mouth!

I never said that there are only 10,000 years of history, I said that there are many billions of years of history. I stated that the earth and universe was created in seven days, and that from that point of creation, there have only been around 10,000 years since. Everything else before then was pulled into existence by God, everything after then is normal time. Time is controllable; humans just don't have the compatibilty to control it efficiently yet. Before you put words into my mouth, look a little bit deeper into what I say.

Edit: sorry I got so upset. Please forgive me for that. I still agree with everything I said except that I was wrong for getting upset about a misunderstanding. Plus, that is only one idea, that isn't the only one.

In other words, you're saying that God made it appear that the earth had a very long history even though it doesn't? That sounds extremely deceptive to me, and I view deception as contrary to the character of God.

Especially strange seeing as you assumed God wouldn't lie about the days, Oasis.

Edited: hold on.

I think I give God credit for more power than any other Christian can. I think I am confusing you all when I say that I believe that my idea is how it happened (if I said that, I'll have to go back and look), and I'm sorry. Here is what I believe: that it is possible, and that the idea comes from the idea that God would not create the universe in a way that it could be understood. I come up with my ideas for the same reason that scientists do, to temporarily satisfy my curiosity.

Question to Oasis: Are you a solipsist by any chance? Considering that proof of something is really just a very justifiable guess, you could say that your eyes are lying to you and you are the sole existence.

Scientists also come up with ideas in order to better understand the world and so that what they learn may be practically applied. And why do you think that God wouldn't create the universe in a way that could be understood? What reason do you have?

The difference between science and faith is that if reality does not uphold your science then the theory is changed or discarded. Some examples:

Newtonian Theories were upheld for a long time; however, because of their failure in predicting the orbit of Mercury they were found to be wanting. Einstein changed Newton's Laws into the Theory of Relativity.

Atoms were once thought indivisible. Then we discovered electrons, so atoms were thought to be electrons in a "Plum Pudding." Then Bohr discovered the nucleus and thought that electrons orbited the nucleus of an atom like a little planet. Now, because of advances in science, we know that electrons exist as a field of probability around an atom in certain locations. Until we find that this theory does not sufficiently explain reality, which I fully expect to happen.

On the other hand. If I state that there is scientific evidence to prove that the earth has been around longer than 10,000 years, a young earth cult will dismiss that and affirm their theory of god without evidence.

Religion is a theory which must be upheld despite evidence.

Science is a theory which is only upheld because of evidence.



I would be interested to hear these theories. But this begs the question: If you can conceptualize how everything can exist independent of god, why do you believe in god?



Here's the problem with the Bible though. It is a very human document written with very specific political reasons in mind.

Here's a short example of the cultural and historical underpinnings of the bible that you undoubtedly did not know about. If you would like to find out more, I suggest starting with "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong.

The creation story from Genesis 2 on was written at about 1000BC and it is based off of the Enûma Eliš. However, Genesis 1 was written at about 600BC to replace the god Marduk slaying the Dragon Tiamat, who was the embodiment of Chaos, and then out of her body making the world, the firmament, dry land and people. This act was attributed to Yahweh, and is mentioned in the later chapters of Isiah (which were written by the same person. Yahweh slaying Leviathan.) This is why animals are created twice, in Genesis 1:24 and Genesis 2:19. It's quite literally two different stories that were written 400 years from each other.

In fact Yahweh is a Canaan god. And all Israelites that you have read about in the Torah and early bible, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, were all polytheists just like their polytheist contemporaries. For instance Abraham worshipped El Shaddai or God of the Mountain, which is another name of the Canaan god El Elyon. Abraham and Jacob make El Shaddai their elohim or primary god. This was something that Canaanites did to gain special favor from a god. Its usage does not make sense when there is only one god.

Note please that El Shaddai and Yahweh actually are different gods. Yahweh does not enter the story until Exodus. Yahweh is the god of war. This is why he was so bloody in the old Testament, he's pretty much the equivalent of the Greek God Aries.

This is not just supposition and speculation, we actually have archaeological evidence from 1000BC in the form of cult stands that shows that the Israelites primarily worshiped the Canaan gods El Elyon, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah.

So in conclusion, please be aware and wary of what you read in the bible. There is much more to it than what is on the surface.

I've never seen anything like that before. Why aren't such facts more knowlegable, then? Especially since there seems to be artifacts that support it.

"Why aren't these facts more well known?"

They are nearly universally known to those who are educated about the subject. It's not presented in church for obvious reasons. Where else would you stumble upon knowledge about the Bronze Age, if you're not studying about it or it's not presented to you?

I did a very small amount of research and found this site:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7110

It looks fairly impartial to me, and it does a good job of refuting or at least addressing some of the claims you've made, Entity.

Various history classes, from art history to history of religion, to history of those countries - never before have I heard that information, though. This is the first time I heard about it.

Edit: Thanks Hydro. That was probably the most interesting thing I've read, and I have heard stuff similar to that in the article. As far as I know, I believe that God had many names, in which I studied many of them, and when reading the article it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to split God into two people who ruled over many other Gods. It was fun to read.

Oh, yes, your first comment about people loving Jesus who aren't Creationists, I can agree with that. I should rephrase: I have full faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. (: And I guess if we didn't have any records of us evolving, the only explainable conclusion would be the existance of a greater Creator, but if that happened, we wouldn't need faith, and faith leads us to a stronger and more trusting relationship with God, which is pretty much all we need in life.
Again, these are just my opinions. (:

^ Out of all the responses that I've read, I've liked that one the best. I admire you. :)

I feel like you are saying we should not be able to trust the world and the evidence we see presented in it. The world was made by God, and from my understanding God is generally not viewed as being dissembling. This seems somewhat contradictory to me. If the Bible is 100% true, why would God create a world which lies and deceives regarding its own origins?

Oh, good, I thought I was the only one on this site who believes what I do. Hahaha. But thank you! You just made my day! :D

We can't trust the world, that's just it. Haha. The world is a gruesome, deceiving place. As for the second comment, the world WAS perfect until Adam let Satan into the garden, and Satan deceived Eve, etc.

What does the gospel of Jesus Christ have to do with creationism vs. (theistic) evolution?

I'm confused. You're saying that we should believe in literal creationism despite the clear evidence to the contrary because it will somehow strengthen our faith?

I was under the impression that humanity flawed itself. Humanity did not flaw the rest of God's creations. They were cast out because they were no longer perfect. Humans did not place fossils in the ground. Humans did not create the solar system. Humans did not create atoms. I do not see how disregarding God's creations will strengthen one's faith. The Bible was also written after Adam and Eve were cast out - is it also fundamentally flawed?

Well they said I could love Jesus without believing in Creationism, but should I be more specific, since you're getting to the technicalities? I believe in everything in the Bible, and I believe it is 100% truth.

What clear evidence to the contrary is there? There's evidence to support creationism, as well, it's just not as clear, because if it was crystal clear, then everyone would believe, and not only would we Christians have no mission on Earth, but the thing about faith I pointed out would not apply, either.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, could you rephrase that, please?

God created the world. It seems to me that creating a lie goes against God's nature. Why would God create a lie? If you are arguing that everything after the original sin is a lie due to Adam and Eve corrupting it, then how is the Bible not also flawed? Also, please tell us the evidence you have for Creationism.

What lie do you speak of that God made?
My evidence for Creationism is that nature works too perfectly to not have a creator, kind of like a painting- Every painting needs an artist. And think about it, just imagine the human eye and how much more complex it is than, let's say a professional video camera. If it has taken us since the beginning of time to create that video camera with its many pixels and all, and yet the human eye is still so much more complex and advanced, there has to be a creator to it, you know?

Indeed, I would be surprised to see any evidence of six-day creationism.

And FanOfJesus, must truth always mean scientific accuracy? The message of Genesis is not a scientific one. Neither its author nor its first audience were scientific people. What they were concerned with was the spiritual message of God's nature and relationship with humanity, not the technicalities of *how* God created the world.


This is the argument from irreducible complexity. Its flaw is that evolution theory does in fact account for even seemingly complex structures such as the human eye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&feature=channel

Here is a good video summarizing how irreducible complexity is not valid.

... Okay, you lost me. What is your point? Haha.

My point is that focusing on the scientific implications of a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation entirely misses the point of Genesis. The point is not that God created the universe in six literal days but rather that God did create the universe and the people that inhabit it, that these people sinned against God, and that God promised salvation through his son Jesus Christ.

You seem to be claiming that the world is a lie. God made the world.



Why can we not implicitly trust what God's creation tells us? I would argue that the world, being created directly by God and not having been written through human intermediaries with the capacities to sin, is an even better authority on how God would have organized things than is the Bible. It is one of God's original testaments, designed by his own hand, assuming God exists.