Creationist view of radiometric dating
But again, a guy who’s not with it enough to tell that he’s naked doesn’t really inspire confidence that he’s capable of grasping complicated abstract ideas. Only, this is a little confusing, since — according to the story — neither Adam nor Eve actually died the day they ate from the tree of knowledge.When God dropped a supposedly foreign concept like death on him, I’m pretty sure the dude would have had some questions. We don’t know exactly how old Eve was when she shuffled off this mortal coil, but Adam lived to the ripe old age of .What happened was that we died , because our decision to sin severed us from our spiritual source of life — God.Faith in Christ is our one hope of restoring that connection, and restoring that connection is our one hope of eternal life, because our spirit — not our physical bodies — is the only part of us that can live forever. Can you name any other piece of literature in which the existence of a talking snake and trees with magical powers would suggest to you that it was meant to be taken literally?
Some may respond to this that 1 Corinthians 15 is just about people, not animals, and I agree, of course.
Because, obviously, causing the death of every living thing for all time is a perfectly fair and reasonable punishment for a single act of disobedience. Because, again, God didn’t mulch it at the end of the story.
As far as most young-earther proponents are concerned, this is a dispute between science on one side and the Bible on the other, and the Bible will always trump science. Unfortunately for them, this neat little picture is complicated by the fact that there are people who hold the Bible in extremely high regard, and who have no problem with the fact of evolution or the ancient age of the earth. And we happen to think the Bible does not support the young-earth creationist view nearly as well as its teachers think it does. According to them, neither humans nor animals were capable of death, pain or suffering until after Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden.
This one is funny, because when you start discussing the proper interpretation of Genesis with young-earth creationists, they tend to refer to contextual clues other Old Testament uses of the word.
Somehow, in this author’s detailed analysis of the use of ordinal numbers in conjunction with “yom,” he managed to miss out on a couple of fairly significant contextual clues, like, I dunno, the Some young-earthers have responded to this with the story of Balaam’s donkey, but unlike in Genesis 3, the donkey’s ability to talk is explicitly described as a miraculous act of God. I have a much more detailed post on this issue here, so I’ll be brief.