No Stahrwe, you brought up Gentry when I cornered you on how the earth can only be dated to the first day of creation when time began. You have the universe and earth created in verse 1, and then becoming void by verse 2, and all of this taking place before time began. The implication is that your Young Earth date (6,000 years) can only go back through the bible to the first day of creation, which you can assign an age back to. But according to your apology that age, the one that can calculated by back dating to the first day of creation (6,000 years), is not the actual age of the earth. The actual age goes back to verse 1 when the earth was first created. You can not provide an age dating back to verse 1 of genesis using the bible the way that you are interpreting it with time not beginning until verse 4. So that's right when you brought Gentry in and started pasting mountains of info on him dating the earth to six thousands years old. He came into this discussion right as I cornered you on the problem of dating the earth back to verse 1! You were trying to use Gentry to show a date for the earth that leaves no Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:4 and it failed for you as well.

Now, you've pulled away from Gentry as your source of verification for a young earth that must come from an extra biblical source because the bible can not be used to provide a specific date back to Genesis 1:1 when you have time not beginning until Genesis 1:4(b)!

Genesis 1 ? > 1:2 ? > 1:3 ? > 1:4 (Time, first day, 6,000 years ago) > 2010 CE.

If the earth "became" void, that implies "time" passing by Forest. There has to be "time" in order to for something material to exist, first and foremost, and "time" passing by in order for the earth to "become" void. Without "time" there no 'movement or motion' and therefore no sub-atomic particles vibrating with energy and no atoms of motion either!

If you say ok, there was time going by and it did actually begin when the heavens and earth were created in verse 1, then you still have no way of reckoning of how much "time" went by between verse 1 and verse 4! There's no logical or reasonable way out of the hole you've dug for yourself Stahrwe. And that's why apologists have decided to go with the old earth proven by a wide body of science and suggest that the Gap of time between verse 1 and 3 or 4 was a great lenght of time making the matter of the earth just as old as science has proven.

As for Theophilus, go the provided link! You always do, why not now? Read the source material it's at the bottom of the link! The point is not that you and Dr. Ross do not have the exact same reasoning all the way through the creation account, the point here is that you and Dr. Ross share the same deceptive interpretation of Genesis 1:1. And by refuting and exposing the folly of Dr. Ross trying to have the sun, moon, and stars created in Genesis 1:1, and the folly of trying to use the Hebrew bible to confirm it when the Hebrew bible actually negates it in reality, everyone else who has constructed an apology that starts off with the sun, moon, and stars being created in Genesis 1:1 has been refuted across the entire board. Your modernized apology's all fall with a domino effect from Genesis 1:1 forward. It means that no one can start off by saying that the bible had the sun, moon, and stars created in Genesis 1:1 before they enter the narrative in Genesis 1:14-19! Not Dr. Ross and not you either!

And what has been established is that any interpretation that places the creation of the sun, moon, and stars in Genesis 1:1, no matter who's apology it is or what the details are thereafter, are the apologies that contradict what God said in Genesis 1:14-19 concerning Day 4!

Stahrwe, you have come into Christianity based on coming into it from a science based perspective. You first learned science and then became a Christian later and decided to dump evolution for creationism in the process.
At least that's the way you've introduced yourself. Because of that you have come into the modern perspective that modern science enthusiasts who wish to remain Christian have evolved for themselves! It doesn't make sense according to science to have the sun, moon, and stars coming into existence for the first time on the fourth day, after three days had supposedly passed by and after plant life. So people like Ross have sought to find a semantic way of changing the order around to seem less ridiculous to those who understand science. It's a modern semantic game that has nothing to do with the context of the original ancient creation story and how the original church fathers understood the narrative of the ancient creation story! Their apologies serve to negate the modern movement of science based apologists who are now trying to re-interpret the bible differently than it had been interpreted in antiquity. This is a trap that you've fallen into and now your getting your ass handed to you for taking up an argument that had been built up from sand foundations way before you ever got invovled with it. And so now you're going down with the ship...

No Stahrwe, you brought up Gentry when I cornered you on how the earth can only be dated to the first day of creation when time began. You have the universe and earth created in verse 1, and then becoming void by verse 2, and all of this taking place before time began. The implication is that your Young Earth date (6,000 years) can only go back through the bible to the first day of creation, which you can assign an age back to. But according to your apology that age, the one that can calculated by back dating to the first day of creation (6,000 years), is not the actual age of the earth. The actual age goes back to verse 1 when the earth was first created. You can not provide an age dating back to verse 1 of genesis using the bible the way that you are interpreting it with time not beginning until verse 4. So that's right when you brought Gentry in and started pasting mountains of info on him dating the earth to six thousands years old. He came into this discussion right as I cornered you on the problem of dating the earth back to verse 1! You were trying to use Gentry to show a date for the earth that leaves no Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:4 and it failed for you as well.

Now, you've pulled away from Gentry as your source of verification for a young earth that must come from an extra biblical source because the bible can not be used to provide a specific date back to Genesis 1:1 when you have time not beginning until Genesis 1:4(b)!

Hmmm, you maintain an interesting approach. Did you ever answer my pop quiz? Here's another. What is Gentry's premise regarding the polonium halos and the date of the earth's creation?

His premise is that according to Seventh Day Adventism, to which he belongs, the earth can only be six thousand years old. And his premise extends from there regarding the Polonium halos and the date of the earth's creation.


None of this works as a valid way of dating the earth as young. It's just people grasping at straws to try and reconcile their personal beliefs with the natural world.

Dear me. You are very good at repeating yourself but terrible at formulating arguments. I suppose that is to be expected when you are forced off script.

1) I asked you a question about Gentry's hypothesis pertaining to halos. You did not answer the question, instead you dumped in a 10 minute video about Coalified wood. EPIC FAIL. So I will repeat my question; What does Gentry's Theory of halos in granite have to do with the age of the earth? No video answer please. Perhaps tat tvam asi could read Gentry's papers and answer from that source, not someone telling tat what he should think.

2) The quote you include which purportedly discredits Gentry's theory admits, in at least one instance that tests are inconclusive. Inconclusive is not the same as wrong. Additionally, I have repeatedly made the case that Gentry's theories may not be correct, but that he is asking for experimentation to validate them.

3) I am at a loss to understand why you included the quote about 'Creationist "Omphalos" argument' it clearly is not pertinent to the halos, in fact it has nothing to do with the halos. Pop quiz #3 tat. Why does it have nothing to do with halos. You won't find a video with this answer. You will have to figure it out on your own. Are you up to it?

4) Regarding the Hebrew discussion of Genesis 1, I found some posts where I suggested that we have an indepth discussion of the Hebrew in Genesis so I will be starting that discussion. I have my Hebrew Bible but I am having a significant problem reading it. I hope to have that problem solved shortly. Please let me know when you are ready.

5) I will have more to say on the Church fathers interpretations in a future post.

Hey Chris, will do.

Those silently spiking up the page views here can move the show over to post68870.html#p68870 and start participating if they'd like. It's new, fresh, and starts off from the perpective of what early Christians taught about the creation account in Genesis 1 along with what modern Hebrew scholarship has to say about it, in contrast to what modern apologists are now claiming these days...

This thread is closed due to its size and NOT to its content. Please feel free to create new threads on this same subject.

Supplemental.

Here is answers in genesis' take on this very subject.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... een-proven

They are making an effort to discredit evolution in this page, but you can see that their literal interpretation of the bible is in accordance with Tat's assesment, and not Stahrwe's linguistic gymnastics.

Johnson, nobody but Moderators can post in this thread. Read the post above yours.