RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth.
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 5:46:38 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
That is, provided it deals with Christianity. We have four "historians".
You have four disciples. Not exactly the same, and the true authorship of the gospels has always been in question.
quote:
How many accounts of Christ do you require in order to believe that he existed?
One solid one, from a disintrested source.
quote:
Or do you think that all of these accounts with their various writing styles were made up by some neerdowells intent on flooding the world with the evils of Christianity?
Many scholars propose that the gospels come from a single source (Q) and were adapted by writers from different regions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/9/2008 6:49:39 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
That is, provided it deals with Christianity. We have four "historians".
You have four disciples. Not exactly the same, and the true authorship of the gospels has always been in question.
quote:
How many accounts of Christ do you require in order to believe that he existed?
One solid one, from a disintrested source.
quote:
Or do you think that all of these accounts with their various writing styles were made up by some neerdowells intent on flooding the world with the evils of Christianity?
Many scholars propose that the gospels come from a single source (Q) and were adapted by writers from different regions.
You want it to be from a source that is of unquestionable antiquity? The Gospel of Matthew is said to have the title "According to Matthew" Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, his authorship and the language he wrote in was agreed upon unanimously by church fathers by the close of the 2nd century, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham). You want it to be from a disinterested source. Because one of the Christ's followers would have nothing to say about the Christ?
I also don't think that your presentation of "Q", also known as the "synoptic problem" is as detrimental to the authorship of the Gospels as you make it appear. Q is a question of who wrote first and who copied who. The Greek author of Mark, with his sophomoric understanding of the language in which he was writing, was not the same as the educated and researched author of Luke. They both, according to one hypothesis, used Matthew as a reference. Today, you might call it plagiarism, since they didn't site their source. If they had, we wouldn't have the synoptic problem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 12:14:46 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 149
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
I'm a fairly lazy researcher myself.
A few minutes with Wikipedia's search provided this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
Things found in Wikipedia need corroboration, but it's a start.
I'm sure you could, if you wanted to, find the same sort of thing for the other names offered.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 12:41:03 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
I'm a fairly lazy researcher myself.
A few minutes with Wikipedia's search provided this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
Things found in Wikipedia need corroboration, but it's a start.
I'm sure you could, if you wanted to, find the same sort of thing for the other names offered.
Tacitus wrote in 116 AD. My memory is can be a little glitchy some times, but I remember hearing that Jesus died in 33 AD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 12:48:25 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 149
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
You want it to be from a source that is of unquestionable antiquity? The Gospel of Matthew is said to have the title "According to Matthew" Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, his authorship and the language he wrote in was agreed upon unanimously by church fathers by the close of the 2nd century, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham). You want it to be from a disinterested source. Because one of the Christ's followers would have nothing to say about the Christ?
Let's face it. Method is setting up a straw man. First he wants a historian. Then he wants a disinterested eyewitness. Then he discredits the four gospels. And so on and so on. Of this process there can be no end.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 12:55:18 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider3
Let's face it. Method is setting up a straw man. First he wants a historian. Then he wants a disinterested eyewitness. Then he discredits the four gospels. And so on and so on. Of this process there can be no end.
I asked for a disinterested eye witness account. You would think if someone ascended to heaven in front of hundreds that one of those people would have recorded it. Instead, all we have are questionable accounts from disciples.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 1:00:51 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 280
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
quote:
You want it to be from a source that is of unquestionable antiquity? The Gospel of Matthew is said to have the title "According to Matthew" Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, his authorship and the language he wrote in was agreed upon unanimously by church fathers by the close of the 2nd century, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham). You want it to be from a disinterested source. Because one of the Christ's followers would have nothing to say about the Christ?
Let's face it. Method is setting up a straw man. First he wants a historian. Then he wants a disinterested eyewitness. Then he discredits the four gospels. And so on and so on. Of this process there can be no end.
It's worth noting that drmark et al consistently request an eye-witness as proof for the likes of the Big Bang, and dismiss the theory for a lack of eye-witnesses.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 12:28:04 PM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
I did not read through all 8 of these pages, but I think I understand what the original questioner wanted answered, sort of like -- Could God have created the world in 6 literal days without breaking the laws of science / working within the laws of sceince (which He created) and what is the sceintific evidence of such?
DAY 1 - EVOLUTION: evolutionishts know that at one point there was nothing, and then "suddenly" there was an explostion of life. (such as lightening strking a single cell organism though -- they can't explain what created the single cell or what caused the lightening, unless ofcourse you follow Richard Dawkin's theory (God Delusion) and believe that aliens planted a "life seed" here on earth.)
CREATION: When the spirit of the LORD hoovered over the waters, (elemental particles in a pervasive watery matrix) the energy of the spirit's movements caused a "cosmic furnace” as the gravitational forces became so strong even the water molecules were ripped apart. God said, Let there be light, and the resulting thermonuclear fusion (from the molecules) created heat and light waves.
Day 2 - God created atmoshperes
Day 3 - EVOLUTION -- evolutionist know there was a sudden spring of plant life that exploded.
CREATION -- All the fusion from the creation of light formed the core and mantle of the earth. The rapid radioactive decay caused heat so intense its crust became buoyant, allowing it to rise above the surface of the water at precisely the time God said, Let dry land appear.
Day 4 - EVOLUTION -- stars are billions of light years away. (assumption -- the world must be billions of years old to see the light). evolutionsits know that the universe is expanding / moving outwards, some even believe it will reach the "end" and fall back on itself (ironically comparable to the 6th seal of revelation)
CREATION: The Bible confirms evoltionists' theory that the universe is expanding -- 19 verses throughuot the Bible (not just Genesis) state this. God created the stars for light ON the earth. The stars were created above the earth, shining light on the earth, and over the last 6000 years have moved outwards, but the light was already on the earth from the beginning, so as the stars are pulled outwards they get farther away, but obviosuly the light path doesn't just dissapear -- this explains the spectrum of colors observed by sceinteists today as the light-waves are being stretched and shifted while the universe continues to expand.
DAY 5 & 6 -- EVOLUTION: Darwin theorised micro biology -- that one species can have a variety of species. Of this, sceintists have abouding proof.
CREATION -- God created the animals to "produce every sort of animal, of the same kind" / variations within species -- as "proven" by Darwin.
EVOLUTION: Darwin theorized macro biloby -- that one species can become another species. Darwin stated in his book The Origins of Species that proof of the missing link was REQUIRED. To this day, no proof has been discovered.
CREATION: God made humans separate from apes and other animals. Humans posses an esthetic nature, the ability to think abstractly, to speak articulately, to understand beauty, an ingrained desire to worship, and the freedom of choice.
Evoultionists want us to believe we are a mistake, a genetic chance mutation, and that there is no afterlife.
God wants us to believe that we are special, made in His image, for a purpose and desires us to spend eternity with Him.
(As for dinosaurs, Neandrathal man, ice age, rock layers etc, I can discuss this in another post if anyone is interested. Right now, I have to leave for my "real" job. Hope this answered some questions).
_____________________________
"Be ready always to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope within you" -- Rabbi Cephus, 63 AD
My Blog: Nightmares and Dreamscapes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 12:57:01 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
I don't think that evolutionists want us to believe that there is no afterlife. But even if some did, that wouldn't sufficiently discredit the theory of evolution. Are we going to move on to a new topic?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 1:01:58 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
DAY 1 - EVOLUTION: evolutionishts know that at one point there was nothing, and then "suddenly" there was an explostion of life.
Citation? Where is the evidence that "evolutionists know" this?
quote:
CREATION: When the spirit of the LORD hoovered over the waters, (elemental particles in a pervasive watery matrix) the energy of the spirit's movements caused a "cosmic furnace” as the gravitational forces became so strong even the water molecules were ripped apart. God said, Let there be light, and the resulting thermonuclear fusion (from the molecules) created heat and light waves.
Supporting evidence?
quote:
Day 3 - EVOLUTION -- evolutionist know there was a sudden spring of plant life that exploded.
Citation? Where is this stated in a peer-reviewed paper or scientific text?
quote:
CREATION -- All the fusion from the creation of light formed the core and mantle of the earth. The rapid radioactive decay caused heat so intense its crust became buoyant, allowing it to rise above the surface of the water at precisely the time God said, Let dry land appear.
Supporting evidence?
quote:
CREATION: The Bible confirms evoltionists' theory that the universe is expanding -- 19 verses throughuot the Bible (not just Genesis) state this.
Incorrect. No verse states this. Some people use anachronistic interpretation to make it appear that this concept is included in the bible. Apparently you are a proponent of anachronistic interpretation. Anachronistic interpretation is a violation of sound hermeneutics.
quote:
God created the stars for light ON the earth. The stars were created above the earth, shining light on the earth, and over the last 6000 years have moved outwards, but the light was already on the earth from the beginning, so as the stars are pulled outwards they get farther away, but obviosuly the light path doesn't just dissapear -- this explains the spectrum of colors observed by sceinteists today as the light-waves are being stretched and shifted while the universe continues to expand.
Supporting evidence?
quote:
DAY 5 & 6 -- EVOLUTION: Darwin theorised micro biology -- that one species can have a variety of species. Of this, sceintists have abouding proof.
EVOLUTION: Darwin theorized macro biloby -- that one species can become another species.
You are making a division that Darwin, and evolutionary biologists, do not make. You are saying that a "new species" is something different from one species diverging into a variety of species. In evolutionary biology, this difference does not exist. All modern species are modifications of their ancestral species. When different groups of a species are separated and modified in different ways, you get a variety of modified species.
quote:
Darwin stated in his book The Origins of Species that proof of the missing link was REQUIRED. To this day, no proof has been discovered.
Science deals in evidence, not proof. (Proof is for math, logic and alcohol). There is abundant evidence of transitional fossils and this is ample for science.
quote:
CREATION: God made humans separate from apes and other animals.
Supporting evidence? btw, "ape" does not refer to a species, but to a family of many species. Humans are one of the species in the ape family---a fact noted by creationists a century before the theory of evolution was proposed.
quote:
Evoultionists want us to believe we are a mistake, a genetic chance mutation, and that there is no afterlife.
Not true. Many who accept evolution also believe that we are made by God, and that "we are special, made in His image, for a purpose and [that God]desires us to spend eternity with Him."
Evolution does not require that one be an atheist or materialist or deny the reality of God or the truth of scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 1:33:51 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
I did not read through all 8 of these pages, but I think I understand what the original questioner wanted answered, sort of like -- Could God have created the world in 6 literal days without breaking the laws of science / working within the laws of sceince (which He created) and what is the sceintific evidence of such?
The question is really about the scientific evidence for a young (i.e. 6000 year old) earth. I think the part where you answer it most directly is:
quote:
CREATION: The Bible confirms evoltionists' theory that the universe is expanding -- 19 verses throughuot the Bible (not just Genesis) state this. God created the stars for light ON the earth. The stars were created above the earth, shining light on the earth, and over the last 6000 years have moved outwards, but the light was already on the earth from the beginning, so as the stars are pulled outwards they get farther away, but obviosuly the light path doesn't just dissapear -- this explains the spectrum of colors observed by sceinteists today as the light-waves are being stretched and shifted while the universe continues to expand.
If the stars moved from 'close to' the earth to their present apparent positions in 6000 years, their light would be redshifted far far more than it actually is.
But I think there would be far more difficulty getting all the stars close enough to the earth that the light could reach the earth 'naturally'. So if you're supposing that, say, all the stars were created within a light-day of earth, then it takes a day for the light to get to earth, and then the stars move away once the light reaches earth?
A light day is about 2.6 × 10^13 meters
The radius of the sun is about 7 * 10^8 meters
So if you packed the stars in like sardines, you could get at most about 10^14 sun-sized stars in there, enough for about 1000 galaxies, but there are "as many as 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe"
Not to mention the fact that it would be a trifle warm on earth.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 2:33:39 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Evolution does not require that one be an atheist or materialist or deny the reality of God or the truth of scripture.
There is no truth to scriptures when one interprets it to match one's knowledge, and this is exactly what theistic evolutionists are forced to do. Evolution is the culprit of relativity and post-modernism that has crept into well-intended Christian minds. Let God say what He needs to say.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 4:59:57 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
There is no truth to scriptures when one interprets it to match one's knowledge, and this is exactly what theistic evolutionists are forced to do.
This is exactly what Geocentrists were forced to do.
quote:
Evolution is the culprit of relativity and post-modernism that has crept into well-intended Christian minds.
I wouldn't be shaking the post-modernism stick if I were you. Modern day creationism is firmly planted in post-modernism. Their battle cry against evolution is the post-modernistic argument that all interpretations are equal, all claims are equal, and all worldviews are equal. Without post-modernism creationism crumbles as it must explain why specific interpretations are better than others.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 5:04:31 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Evolution does not require that one be an atheist or materialist or deny the reality of God or the truth of scripture.
There is no truth to scriptures when one interprets it to match one's knowledge, and this is exactly what theistic evolutionists are forced to do. Evolution is the culprit of relativity and post-modernism that has crept into well-intended Christian minds. Let God say what He needs to say.
Amen. They have abandoned God's word for the teachings of secular scientists who are ruled by Satan. And they end up contradicting the whole bible when they do that because genesis is the foundation for the rest of the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 5:36:55 PM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
I wish to make 3 quick points:
#1
From the time of the curse, when Adam and Eve both disobeyed God, He could no longer walk with them in the cool of the day. No longer could they see His face, or they would die.
One time in all of history, God the Father decided to step once more onto earth. He did this to give Moses the 10 Commandments. (Moses asked to see His face and was told he could not, lest he die.) The Israelites heard the sounds of trumpets (angels heralding God’s presence), they saw the smoke, they saw the fire, and they were deathly afraid. God commented that it was good that they were afraid, that they revered his presence so.
It was so important to God that we understand 10 particular things, that He didn’t even leave it up to Moses to write in the Torah, but He came down to earth Himself, to write it for us in His own hand: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work….for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Does this make sense: Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Me your God… beacuse after unspecified ages of time I made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and then rested for an unspecified age of time, there fore I am blessing the seventh day, and hallowing it".?
#2
In the NT, Peter warns the church that in the last days, people will scoff that Christ isn't going to return and will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6).
Peter is literally warning the church that in the last days people will "forget" that God created the world, and that the earth was destoryed by a flood.
Peter goes onto say not to give up, Christ is coming soon -- but that soon to God is different than to a man. A day is like a thousand years, a thousand years is like a day.
EVEN if Peter was saying that God created the world in 6,000 years and rested for 1,000 years, then the world is only 12,000 years old. BUT Peter is talking about the return of Christ -- that He said soon -- and 2000 years (ascension to the present day) IS soon to Christ, as though it were only 2 days. Peter's readers knew he was not adding thousands (and certainly not billions) of years to Creation, he had just stated that the world was destoryed by a flood. If one believes in a world-wide flood, proven by the evidence of it -- fossils, rock layers, etc -- there is suddenly no reason for the world needing to be billions of years old.
#3
If God DID want us to believe in a literal 6 day creation, how could he have clearly worded it so that we understood that? Would this work --There was morning and evening -- the first day?
* * *
To Gluafys: I do not keep scientific journals lying around my house, nor do I read through thier long argon, but I shall do some research and get back to you as soon as possible
To evry1needsgod: Amen!
_____________________________
"Be ready always to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope within you" -- Rabbi Cephus, 63 AD
My Blog: Nightmares and Dreamscapes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 5:40:03 PM
|
|
|
6dj8
Posts: 30
Joined: 6/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Amen. They have abandoned God's word for the teachings of secular scientists who are ruled by Satan. And they end up contradicting the whole bible when they do that because genesis is the foundation for the rest of the bible.
So, if I believe in evolution in some form, I have abandoned the word of God, and now worship Satan? And somehow I now don't believe any of the rest of it (the Bible). I think that's right. I just want to get this straight, I mean, I THOUGHT I was a Christian, but now you've got me worried. Maybe I'm not. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh maaan, this is gonna keep me up all night. It might not be all that bad though: I suppose I can vote Democratic now, use logic and reason, conserve stuff like gas and oil and electricity, and...hey! this opens up a WHOLE NEW WORLD!
You have just got to explain to me how not taking Genesis literally contradicts the rest of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 5:44:39 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
#3
If God DID want us to believe in a literal 6 day creation, how could he have clearly worded it so that we understood that? Would this work --There was morning and evening -- the first day?
This is something I hadn't thought of before, but it is a question that I would like answers for from a theistic evolutionist like you Glaudys. IF God DID indeed create the universe in 6 literal days, what would He say in Scriptures that would convince you He did indeed create in 6 literal days? Sadly, I don't believe that there is ANYTHING that God could have put in His words to convince you of 6 literal days because your brain has been washed by evolution. But, I could be wrong, and if so, please tell CrimsonMoon and I what would be necessary for God to state in His Word to convince you you are wrong. He was as plainand declarative in Genesis as He could have possibly been, and I don't see how He could be more clear than that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 6:02:29 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
And somehow I now don't believe any of the rest of it (the Bible). I think that's right. I just want to get this straight, I mean, I THOUGHT I was a Christian, but now you've got me worried. Maybe I'm not. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh maaan, this is gonna keep me up all night. It might not be all that bad though: I suppose I can vote Democratic now, use logic and reason, conserve stuff like gas and oil and electricity, and...hey! this opens up a WHOLE NEW WORLD!
I pray this was sarcasm. Am I correct?
quote:
You have just got to explain to me how not taking Genesis literally contradicts the rest of the Bible.
I'm sure there have been threads on this subject. If not, perhaps I should start one? The reason it is so important is simple. There is absolutely no indication throughout Genesis that would lead one to believe it is NOT literal. When one tells you "my dog died" what is the first thought you have? You think about that person's dog being dead, because that is what he said. Genesis is written as a historical account (not just the creation account, but the ENTIRE book. Why would one single chapter be myth/allegory/parable and not the rest?) and nowhere does it sound like a mythical/allegorical parable.
So, here's the problem. If one can claims GENESIS is not literal, then one can rightfully claim the same for ANY passage in Scriptures. Who's to know the Gospels aren't literal? Do you think Luke sat around one day and wrote fairy tales? He was a historian, not William Shakespeare. You simply can not pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not according to your knowledge of science. When God speaks, He does not speak in riddles and confusing language. He is not the author of confusion, and if Genesis is NOT literal, He is the MOST confusing individual I have ever met. When one tells me "such and such happened" I don't sit for hours on end, pondering that persons statement to see if there is any hidden messages. No, if "such and such happened" then "such and such happened." It's as simple as that. God is simple, don't make Him out to be confusing. Just admit that you have given evolution the right of arbiter to interpret God's Word and there will be no need to debate this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 6:20:20 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
To elaborate on your reply, once people claim that God created the world billions of years ago, he then changes;
1) The establishment of the 7 day week
2) The purpose for God's creation
3) The account of Adam and Eve because if the word is 4.5 billion years old, that would make Adam who was created on the 6th day, millions of years old at the time of the fall. that changes our descendants
4) Or one has to throw out Adam and Eve altogether thus throwing out original sin and Christ's reason for redemption
5) The reason that our bodies decay back into dust
So changing Genesis, indeed changes the whole bible. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 6:27:34 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
To elaborate on your reply, once people claim that God created the world billions of years ago, he then changes;
1) The establishment of the 7 day week
2) The purpose for God's creation
3) The account of Adam and Eve because if the word is 4.5 billion years old, that would make Adam who was created on the 6th day, millions of years old at the time of the fall. that changes our descendants
4) Or one has to throw out Adam and Eve altogether thus throwing out original sin and Christ's reason for redemption
5) The reason that our bodies decay back into dust
So changing Genesis, indeed changes the whole bible.
None of this changes the evidence which points to a 4.5 billion year old Earth and a 13.7 billion year old universe. Does a 7 day week require galaxies billions of light years away? Does the existence of Adam and Eve require specific ratios of nuclides in meteors? Does the purpose of God's Creation include faked evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 6:44:26 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
None of this changes the evidence which points to a 4.5 billion year old Earth and a 13.7 billion year old universe. Does a 7 day week require galaxies billions of light years away? Does the existence of Adam and Eve require specific ratios of nuclides in meteors? Does the purpose of God's Creation include faked evidence?
What would you care? You're not a Christian, so posting something like this is pointless. You don't believe that a supernatural event could change your perceived reality, but others do (including many of your fellow evolutionists...why don't you yell at them?), so this post is meaningless...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 6:48:02 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Does the purpose of God's Creation include faked evidence?
BTW, there is no faked evidence. The evidence is found is Scriptures. God clearly tells you how you came about in Genesis 1. He hasn't created fake evidence, you just simply choose to reject facts laid down by God, and because of this, YOU have created fake evidence. God isn't faking you, you're faking yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 6:53:01 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
BTW, there is no faked evidence. The evidence is found is Scriptures.
Does scripture tell us why all meteors have nuclide ratios consistent with 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay? Why there are galaxies billions of light years away? Does it describe the cosmic microwave background?
quote:
He hasn't created fake evidence, you just simply choose to reject facts laid down by God, and because of this, YOU have created fake evidence. God isn't faking you, you're faking yourself.
Did God lay down the speed of light, the strong and weak forces which control radioactive decay, the cosmic microwave background, etc.?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 6:57:51 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Does scripture tell us why all meteors have nuclide ratios consistent with 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay? Why there are galaxies billions of light years away? Does it describe the cosmic microwave background?
Sure does! In Genesis 1 it says "In the beginning, God created..." Boy, whoda thunk it?! God actually DOES talk about these things! What an amazing God we have!
quote:
Did God lay down the speed of light, the strong and weak forces which control radioactive decay, the cosmic microwave background, etc.?
Already covered this. Quite a simple answer. See above...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/10/2008 7:32:25 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
3
If God DID want us to believe in a literal 6 day creation, how could he have clearly worded it so that we understood that?
He would make the evidence of creation agree with a literal reading of the scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
