Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[URAVIP2ME]

There's nothing in the text of Revelation 4:11 about any Creator. According to English common law it was Christ....................

Yes, Jesus speaks about the Creator at Rev. 4:11
Also, Jesus stresses as to who to worship at John 4:23-24
And, Jesus taught who to direct prayer to in the model prayer 'Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be His name......' (God's name YHWH)

 

[Valjean]

Yes, agree with you that science has No interest in severing relationships with the Creator because science is Not the teacher or morality.
Science being more about how to do, whereas the Bible is more about should we do it.
Science to give us the world view, Bible to give us the biblical or God's view which is in harmony with proven science.
( Earth hangs upon nothing - Job 26:7 - for example )
It's propaganda that teaches 'what' to think instead of education which teaches 'how' to think.
Besides, the Bible is about the way to serve God, serve The Creator, His morality to be governed by aka Golden Rule and John 13:34-35.
So, it does make one wonder why such a hard push about earth's age being young and the length of the creative days when they are all summed up by the single word 'day' at Genesis 2:4, thus No proof found for a short time frame for creation in Scripture.

When confronted with contradictory claims, how do you decide between them? What tools do you use?

Science deals with objective facts, mechanisms, and functions. Religion deals with values, morality, meaning and purpose.
One describes how, the other claims who.

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Valjean]

Yes, Jesus speaks about the Creator at Rev. 4:11
Also, Jesus stresses as to who to worship at John 4:23-24
And, Jesus taught who to direct prayer to in the model prayer 'Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be His name......' (God's name YHWH)

Why do you believe this? Why do you not believe in Quetzalcoatl?
Is your belief based on objective evidence, or on familiarity and indoctrination?
Had you been born and raised in Riyadh, would you still be a Christian?

 

[Ebionite]

Yes, Jesus speaks about the Creator at Rev. 4:11

It was the elders who identified the Creator, and there's no reason to think that Jesus endorsed what they said.

The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Revelation 4:10-11

Also, Jesus stresses as to who to worship at John 4:23-24

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
John 4:23-24

He's talking about the Father. Theos probably relates to Elohim in verse 24.

And, Jesus taught who to direct prayer to in the model prayer 'Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be His name......' (God's name YHWH)

No, the Father's name is YHWH. The name of Elohim ("God") is I AM.


And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:14

 

[IndigoChild5559]

the earth does not look old at all. every river on earth excavates its drainage basin. there is simply no way that a river like the Mississippi has been dumping sediment into the gulf of Mexico for anything more than a few thousand years.

You are simply wrong. We know for example that the Grand Canyon is some 70,000 years old. We have rocks that are radiometrically dated as billions of years old.

 

[YoursTrue]

I make every effort to be logical. When the experts disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to an expert. But when the experts are in consensus, the logical thing is to trust what they say. That's what I'm doing here.

So you say you know because you believe what those you consider experts say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course He does. Read the Bible.
God is more than able to break all the laws that He created.
He is able and willing to do so.

When Christ walked on water, fed the multitudes, raised the dead, cured the sick and changed water into wine, He violated the very laws of nature.
When Christ cerated all things He violated the laws of nature.
But the laws of nature refute the Big Bang and all other evolutionists claims.

Breaking his own laws is okay, but you are also calling him a liar. Covering up one's evil deeds with false evidence is a form of lying.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was the elders who identified the Creator, and there's no reason to think that Jesus endorsed what they said.

The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Revelation 4:10-11



But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
John 4:23-24

He's talking about the Father. Theos probably relates to Elohim in verse 24.


No, the Father's name is YHWH. The name of Elohim ("God") is I AM.


And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:14

Of course Moses did not speak English.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say you know because you believe what those you consider experts say.

Actually no. We believe because the experts can show what they say is correct. That is how one gets to be an expert. One has to be ready to show the evidence that supports you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course Moses did not speak English.

True. It is hard for a fictional character to speak any language.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are simply wrong. We know for example that the Grand Canyon is some 70,000 years old. We have rocks that are radiometrically dated as billions of years old.

Where are you getting this information about the Grand Canyon?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you say you know because you believe what those you consider experts say.

1. yes because they are in consensus, so that is the logical rational to respond
2. they have earned the distinction of being called an expert by obtaining a PhD in their respective field. You and I don't have that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are simply wrong. We know for example that the Grand Canyon is some 70,000 years old. We have rocks that are radiometrically dated as billions of years old.

I have to surprisingly agree with @YoursTrue , where are you getting that information from?? Multiply by a thousand:

How old is the Grand Canyon? | The Real Age of the Grand Canyon

How old is the Grand Canyon? Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others believe only 6 million.

explorethecanyon.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Where are you getting this information about the Grand Canyon?

Well, the Grand Canyon is a hodgepodge of old and new sections, as the researchers found in a recent study published in the Nature Geoscience journal. Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others contend that the natural wonder is only between five and six million years old.

How old is the Grand Canyon? | The Real Age of the Grand Canyon

How old is the Grand Canyon? Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others believe only 6 million.

explorethecanyon.com

When I first googled, my eyes focused in on the 70,000. I didn't see the part that others say it may be as little as five or six million years. However, regardless of who is more right, it is certainly much much older than 6000 years.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have to surprisingly agree with @YoursTrue , where are you getting that information from?? Multiply by a thousand:

How old is the Grand Canyon? | The Real Age of the Grand Canyon

How old is the Grand Canyon? Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others believe only 6 million.

explorethecanyon.com

I got it from How old is the Grand Canyon? | The Real Age of the Grand Canyon.

However, when I first scanned the site, my eyes focused in on the 70,000. It didn't register that other scientists think it may be only I apologize for the confusion. At any rate, the reason for the discrepancy is that the Grand Canyon is not equally old. There are parts of it that are much younger than other parts.

"
Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others contend that the natural wonder is only between five and six million years old. Both are right.

Scientists examined rocks from the Grand Canyon with the so-called thermo chronology method. With this method, the U.S. researchers were able to determine when the Earth’s interior hot rock came to the surface and cooled there. Accordingly, two middle sections, called the Hurricane segment and the Eastern Grand Canyon segment, were formed between 50 and 70 million and between 15 and 25 million years ago.

However, two other sections are much younger – they were carved out only five or six million years ago. Their creation formed a single canyon which today averages about 4,000 feet in depth. Over the past four million years ago caused the erosion caused the newly formed giant canyon to grow deeper, wider and longer."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the Grand Canyon is a hodgepodge of old and new sections, as the researchers found in a recent study published in the Nature Geoscience journal. Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others contend that the natural wonder is only between five and six million years old.

How old is the Grand Canyon? | The Real Age of the Grand Canyon

How old is the Grand Canyon? Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others believe only 6 million.

explorethecanyon.com

When I first googled, my eyes focused in on the 70,000. I didn't see the part that others say it may be as little as five or six million years. However, regardless of who is more right, it is certainly much much older than 6000 years.

It is difficult to put an exact date on it. The uplift that ultimately caused it started about 70 million years ago. Was that the beginning of the Canyon itself? That is hard to say, but it is at least five million years old. I like my picture of a tributary to the Grand Canyon that refutes the flood myth and since it is a tributary of the Colorado the formation of the Goosenecks would be at the same time as the Grand Canyon and it clearly took millions of years to form.

EDIT: And the point is that your source said 70 million and not 70 thousand. I know, it was a brain fart. I do not see a 70,000 figure there.

 

[Ebionite]

Of course Moses did not speak English.

Why are you talking about Moses?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why are you talking about Moses?

You mentioned about the names of God, didn't you? And Moses did not write, if you believe Moses wrote anything, in English letters.

 

[YoursTrue]

I got it from How old is the Grand Canyon? | The Real Age of the Grand Canyon.

However, when I first scanned the site, my eyes focused in on the 70,000. It didn't register that other scientists think it may be only I apologize for the confusion. At any rate, the reason for the discrepancy is that the Grand Canyon is not equally old. There are parts of it that are much younger than other parts.

"
Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others contend that the natural wonder is only between five and six million years old. Both are right.

Scientists examined rocks from the Grand Canyon with the so-called thermo chronology method. With this method, the U.S. researchers were able to determine when the Earth’s interior hot rock came to the surface and cooled there. Accordingly, two middle sections, called the Hurricane segment and the Eastern Grand Canyon segment, were formed between 50 and 70 million and between 15 and 25 million years ago.

However, two other sections are much younger – they were carved out only five or six million years ago. Their creation formed a single canyon which today averages about 4,000 feet in depth. Over the past four million years ago caused the erosion caused the newly formed giant canyon to grow deeper, wider and longer."

Good you checked that.

 

[YoursTrue]

I got it from How old is the Grand Canyon? | The Real Age of the Grand Canyon.

However, when I first scanned the site, my eyes focused in on the 70,000. It didn't register that other scientists think it may be only I apologize for the confusion. At any rate, the reason for the discrepancy is that the Grand Canyon is not equally old. There are parts of it that are much younger than other parts.

"
Some scientists believe that the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old. Others contend that the natural wonder is only between five and six million years old. Both are right.

Scientists examined rocks from the Grand Canyon with the so-called thermo chronology method. With this method, the U.S. researchers were able to determine when the Earth’s interior hot rock came to the surface and cooled there. Accordingly, two middle sections, called the Hurricane segment and the Eastern Grand Canyon segment, were formed between 50 and 70 million and between 15 and 25 million years ago.

However, two other sections are much younger – they were carved out only five or six million years ago. Their creation formed a single canyon which today averages about 4,000 feet in depth. Over the past four million years ago caused the erosion caused the newly formed giant canyon to grow deeper, wider and longer."

I looked at the website and wonder where you saw 70,000 that you said your eyes focused on. Maybe I missed that and it's ok.